12 ms·

Like many others in the comments, I disagree with the whole "Don't be the first to state a number" strategy. Being weaselly about your number is a very noob th

• joezydeco 15y ago
  I'm curious how this should all work when working with a recruiter. I've come across a number of interesting positions that are available only through these guys. But we never get 15 minutes into a conversation before they're asking about salary history. The implied message is that the number you give is going to decide if your resume gets passed onward or not. So going too high, say 2X, would certainly kill your chances. I've tried the "let's get to a fit before negotiating salary" and I actually had one recruiter say "sorry, this is how we roll". I dumped that guy, but it keeps coming up. I know the OP's advice was to avoid this route and get to the hiring manager. Just curious what to do about these people.
  • mechanical_fish 15y ago
    Go "too high". Why dump the recruiter when you can just price yourself out of the recruiter's league? Believe me, if your salary seems impossible to achieve the recruiter will tell you, probably pretty bluntly. And if it is possible to achieve and the recruiter helps you get there she'll be thrilled. Recruiters get a cut of that number! (Though, remember, take recruiter advice with a grain of salt: Their tendency will probably be to talk you down. As with buyer-brokers in real estate, the recruiter's incentive is to make the deal go forward, not to hold out for the best possible price for you. Alas, in the end, the responsibility for holding out for a good price is almost impossible to delegate: The buck stops with you.) Of course, the take-home lesson is that if you aren't comfortable setting a high anchor point for your salary you shouldn't deal through recruiters. Which probably helps to explain why companies seem to love using recruiters.
    • lrobb 15y ago
      While some recruiters get a cut of the salary, others operate on a fixed contract. I know of one company that pays a recruiting firm $110-$150 per hour, and the recruiting firm only pays $50-$60 per hour.
  • sethg 15y ago
    I don’t know specifically how to manage this procedure with recruiters, because in my most recent job search I found a position without using recruiters entirely. But my general attitude regarding salary negotiations in the early stage is this: For any job that I apply for, I can go to salary.com, fill in the appropriate information, and get a range of expected compensation levels. Any recruiter or HR flapper can do the same thing. So I tell them that I expect to be compensated according to the market rate for engineers of my skill and experience level. If they’re not satisfied with that answer, then they shouldn’t be representing my interests, because either they’re stupid or they think I’m stupid.
    • deleted 15y ago
      [deleted]
  • bhousel 15y ago
    You don't really negotiate with a recruiter, in that sense. When they are asking you your salary information, it's not negotiation, it's fishing for information -- they want to know whether continuing the conversation is a waste of time or not. Recruiters can be useful because they should know the upper salary bound for the position that they are trying to fill. Just ask them directly how high the client can go, and they'll probably volunteer this information. Act underwhelmed and ask for a little more (or end the conversation there if it's seems like a waste of time). The recruiter will go back to whatever HR manager and either get a "yes there's some flexibility" or "no it's set in stone". Most recruiters are the "putting warm bodies in front of desks" kind. This kind of recruiter doesn't really give a crap about you or the client, they just want to make the deal, but a high salary for you works out well for them also. Filling positions this way can be a sign that the client is desperate. There is another kind of recruiter that doesn't work this way. They're rare and they only do talent search for hard-to-fill executive and consulting positions. They are more about building networks and relationships.
    • joezydeco 15y ago
      What really threw up the red flag for me was that he didn't want to only know what I earned at my current position, but the 3-4 previous positions before that, including my reasons for leaving each job. I can understand he wants to find A-type winners that are on a rising arc instead of slumming for a job, but that took a lot of balls to ask.
      • rdouble 15y ago
        What's he recruiting for? Banks and jobs that require security clearance often require this sort of background info.
        • joezydeco 15y ago
          High-frequency trading firm. I didn't think that needed bank-level clearance either, but maybe the hiring firm stayed on the cautious side of background checks.
      • 15y ago
  • deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
    • deleted 15y ago
      [deleted]
  • mkramlich 15y ago
    I've learned that, as a rule of thumb, recruiters are damage and should be avoided. They are almost always more hassle than they're worth, and the chance of any recruiter ping/interaction leading to a good, paying gig is much less than if you can deal directly with a potential client, directly with a potential hirer and decision-maker. They suffer from middle-man effects, and they look for proxy signals rather than the actual substantive things they should want. They also want a big cut. And they are almost always very technically ignorant and incapable of judging what things are important, whether a person is qualified, etc. And they can "fish you", and by that I mean they tell you they have something, but it's really just to get your resume and other facts about you, put into their database, and then nothing ever happens except maybe a series of future contact attempts about gigs that just happen to have a few buzzwords in them, but you otherwise very clearly would not be interested in or available for. Again, this is my rule of thumb based on experience with most of them. I also think their profession, at least in the software industry, is going to die out, due to all the cheaper, better, smarter alternatives to sourcing and vetting.
    • salemh 15y ago
      Sometimes we are helpful as middle-men, being the "bad" guy for the negotiations (upping the salary in negotiation based on X, Y, Z). ~20% avg fee for $80,000 vs $102,000 is a difference of $4,400 to the company, and an extra (lets say 15% commission) $660 to the recruiter. However, that is way too high of a spread at that point of the negotiation to be a feasible discussion (the candidate should have been submitted at $90-$105, or $95-$110,000). If the company is sold on the candidate, it is feasible for the recruiter to negotiate another $10,000. If the company has other options or isn't clamoring, you may lose the offer. But, most recruiters are bunk, and the difference between $80,000 and $95,000 can be a breakdown in the offer being pulled, ergo the "real estate" example of closing the deal at a lower price (salary) and cost of losing it all together. The cost of losing it isn't worth the extra $3,000 / company and $450 / recruiter. With a recruiter, if you let them know your top-end range, they will typically be blunt with "that is too far out of the range of the position." Recommended the above comment: Of course, the take-home lesson is that if you aren't comfortable setting a high anchor point for your salary you shouldn't deal through recruiters. Which probably helps to explain why companies seem to love using recruiters. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3501730 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3501730 Companies can sway this the other way, with using the recruiting firm as the "bad guy" of "well, he/she was submitted at $85,000, why are they pushing back for another $5 (or $10),000. This happens as well (incorrectly "getting a candidate in, and we'll renegotiate up, you don't want to price yourself out!" or, submitting too high, resulting in an immediate dequal. Ug. Edit: many companies don't necessarily have a sense of fairness, hence asking for salary history, to offer you the lowest possible (or even lateral) salary.
• brown9-2 15y ago
  Being weaselly about your number is a very noob thing to do in a negotiation. A skilled negotiator will seize on this and anchor the negotiations in at a very low rate. You need to know your number ahead of time, and drop it on them like it's the most natural thing in the world. I don't think anyone is saying to not have an idea in mind ahead of time of what your goal number is. The point Patrick is making is to just not be the first one to state a number. Just because they've attempted to anchor the discussion at a low rate doesn't mean that you don't already have another mental anchor known only to you of your goal number. But the argument is that if you are the one to give your number first, you could lose out on money you could have gotten because you had no idea that they were willing to offer even more. It's hard to state you want $X/year and then ask for $1.1X a few minutes later. If you are the first to state a number and you ask for $100k/year and they were willing to offer $150k/year, you will never find out about that extra $50k/year.
  • badclient 15y ago
    If you are the first to state a number and you ask for $100k/year and they were willing to offer $150k/year, you will never find out about that extra $50k/year. That looks good in paper but doesn't happen much. Vast majority of the time you will be low balled.
    • Aylw 15y ago
      You're always low-balled at first, but if their low ball is in your acceptable range, you know you can ask for more.
  • publicus 15y ago
    The key is to give out the number first at 200k/year then settle for 180k/year
• drblast 15y ago
  You anchor the range. If you as an applicant state a number first you set the top of the range. You say: "I want $100,000." They say: "Oh, well, we were thinking more like 60,000" You say: "Ok, how about 80,000?" They say: "Done." If they were willing to pay 100k, you've just lost 20k. They know what they are willing to pay, you don't. You're at a disadvantage and need to gain more info. The one who speaks first loses. Instead: You say: "I really am impressed with this company and I'm sure you will offer me a very competitive salary." They say: "60k" You say: "That's great! I was thinking anywhere from 60k up to 130k." Now you've set the range and the negotiation will more likely end up where you want. You won't lose money doing this. BUT you might gain money if they say, "90k" right off the bat and you didn't expect them to offer that much. Then you can offer the 90k-120k range and even if you only gain 5k after that, you're much better off than if you spoke first. On edmunds.com there was a fantastic undercover used-car salesman expose where they talked about this. The salesman would always ask people what they wanted to spend each month on a car. No matter what they said, (say, $300) the salesman would then counter with the question, "up to?..." Inevitably people would be embarassed or confused and offer a higher number. The article said the tactic worked so well that the salesmen would jokingly greet each other in the hall by saying "up to?.." So think about the range.
  • funkah 15y ago
    Parts of this seem unrealistic to me. How would anyone say with a straight face "That's great! I was thinking anywhere from 60k up to 130k"? Sixty to a buck thirty? Nobody has that kind of range. In the first example, if the company was willing to pay 100, why would they say 60? As the article mentions, typically the person on the other side of the table is much less invested in your salary than you are. If that's the case, I can't see them going from 100 to 60. I dunno. I think there are a lot of ways to approach this and the main thing is not getting caught doing the dumb stuff patio11 talks about, like shying away from the entire process. But these smaller issues like mentioning the number first could more likely go either way.
    • tnorthcutt 15y ago
      In the first example, if the company was willing to pay 100, why would they say 60? Because you've told them you want 100k, and they think by offering 60k, they might be able to (easily) get you down to 80k. If they were willing to pay 100k, this is a win for them.
• krschultz 15y ago
  It is very situational dependent. I make a good salary. I very know quite well what a top level salary for my position in my area is because I have a large network of friends doing the same thing and it is a clearly defined role (as most technical jobs are). I would want to put my number out there first because we're going to be negotiating in a very specific range. I still want to hold off until after they've decided they want to hire me (that helps my leverage), but when push comes to shove I want my number out there first. My friend works in marketing. Definining her salary is much more difficult. Marketing titles can really vary - what is an associate? What is a specialist? What is a product manager? What is a brand manager? There are some brand managers making six figures and some making $25k. In her case, she wants to change jobs because she is horribly underpaid. Almost any salary would be an improvement. Her throwing out a number first could only be detrimental and so she will wait until she hears the number on the table. As a side note, always compare total compensation not just salary. In the two examples above, we both want to get MBAs. Having our next company pay for the MBA would be worth a lot of money. I would take 10,000+ a year less for a place that will pay for an MBA over one that doesn't. Don't forget about bonus, healthcare, 401k matching amount & vesting, overtime, vacation, flexibility, etc etc etc. And negotiate it all at once.
  • robotresearcher 15y ago
    | Her throwing out a number first could only be detrimental That's a strong statement. How do you know this to be true?
    • salemh 15y ago
      Definining her salary is much more difficult. Marketing titles can really vary - what is an associate? What is a specialist? What is a product manager? What is a brand manager? There are some brand managers making six figures and some making $25k. Pricing herself out, or under. He just defined the problem; the discussion on finding out relevant / points of reference for the salary negotiations. However, in marketing (as some below have noted points of "pain" in relation to "increased X sales %, saved $ with cost savings streamlining X" etc., may be more definable with her previous experience. More information would be helpful though, as the fields fascinating (marketing).
• _dps 15y ago
  Agreed re:being weaselly about your number. Given that someone has to say a number first (absent weird note-trading schemes), not saying a number first is (game theoretically) tantamount to saying "I'm hoping you'll unwittingly make an offer better than what I believe I could credibly demand". In complex multi-dimensional negotiations this can be totally reasonable (when there are 20 different key terms to negotiate, saying "I think you'll make an anchoring mistake first" is not at all unreasonable). Salary negotiations are usually not multidimensional since the position/title is usually fixed and the official story is that you'll work at some fixed level of output commensurate with that title and not connected to pay (so you can't say "I'll accept $X but I'll probably slack a lot"). From the employer's position the "I think you're likely to botch it" bet is not a bad one: employees don't know the employer's value function for the work, but the employer can have a pretty decent model of the employee's value function for steady income (tip: eliminate your short-term need for steady income and many negotiations become a lot easier). For the employee, hoping for an accidental or poorly-informed over-offer is rarely justified. Employers usually have many past negotiation experiences and many sources of information for what other employers are paying, whereas employees usually have few. Similarly, the employer's side of the exchange is primarily liquid and easily quantified (cash+benefits) whereas the employee's side is poorly quantified and illiquid (the employer usually can't directly "sell out" your past labor and partially recoup if he decides it was worth less than he expected). Expecting employers to err on the side of overpaying with any sort of frequency seems theoretically hard to justify, and that is certainly not in line with my experience. Unless you know the employer wants you specifically (as opposed to any instance of the class you represent), I think it's almost always better for employees to open with what they consider a high number and let the employers try to talk them down.
• D_Alex 15y ago
  I would go even further than this... If you are given an opportunity to state a number first, go for the ridiculously high, especially in the context on "we simply must have a number to get the ball rolling". Patrick suggests that you say "Okay, lets fill in $1.00 and then come back to it later" - Wrong! "Lets fill in $1,000,000... etc" is the way to go. The reasons are best explained here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchoring http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchoring
• furyofantares 15y ago
  They are already anchored at the maximum salary they'll pay you, and you are anchored at the minimum salary you'll accept, but neither of you knows each other's numbers. They want to hit somewhere above your minimum. They don't want to hit your minimum (since it may be volatile) and they really, really don't want to hit below your minimum. And they are okay with hitting their maximum. In my location it costs 15-20k to find a senior engineer you want to hire. Once that happens, you really, really don't want to lose them in salary negotiations, or to another offer. So you don't lowball them. If they give you a number they can lowball themselves, but if they don't, then you offer something near your maximum. Your advice is that you give them a number so high that you're sure it's above their anchor and that it gives them no information about your anchor. But that doesn't change their anchor, and not giving a number at all is pretty close to that, while being nearly risk-free to you. Of course, once they've asked for a number, you've refused, and they've pushed on it, it may not be risk-free to fight anymore. At that point, I'd agree: Aim for the sky.
• smh 15y ago
  Re the "Don't be the first to state a number" strategy, what happens in the real world when two competent negotiators meet?
  • bwldrbst 15y ago
    After about a week we broke down the office door. People on the floor below were starting to complain about the smell.