4 ms·

If that is the case, then shouldn't a large part of the post focus on creating more options? Because if you have five interviews, I bet it is easier to be bold

If that is the case, then shouldn't a large part of the post focus on creating more options? Because if you have five interviews, I bet it is easier to be bold in negotiation than when you have one. Any other advice for the timid(than getting more options) is just beating around the bush imo.

mechanical_fish 15y ago
While it's theoretically great to be able to play offers off against each other, in practice it's difficult to get the timing right. Inevitably, the offers arrive out of order and you're going to have to negotiate on behalf of the other employers who will be making you offers. Moreover, even if there are no other explicit offers on the table at the moment it is in your best interests to teach yourself to imagine them, because opportunity cost is real. So I think it's a good exercise to get comfortable with negotiating one offer at a time. You need to learn to take a deep breath and realize that there are always more options. Other jobs are out there! Moreover, as patio11 points out, if the other side offers X and you ask for X + Y and they say no, rare is the negotiation that can't be salvaged by falling back to X.
- forza 15y ago
  Most of the time you already have an offer i.e. your current employment.
- badclient 15y ago
  Moreover, as patio11 points out, if the other side offers X and you ask for X + Y and they say no, rare is the negotiation that can't be salvaged by falling back to X. Yeah sure but already you are in a defensive position the moment you ask for more than they just proposed. It's a universally agreed negotiation tactic to make the first offer.
  - mechanical_fish 15y ago
    It's a universally agreed negotiation tactic to make the first offer Well, your argument was going better before you went this far, because now I'm going to have to ask you to take it up with Roger Dawson, author of the fairly-well-rated Secrets of Power Negotiating, from whom I learned the tactic of never naming the first number. And, while Dawson is probably exaggerating his status as one of the best negotiators on the planet - because he's got to be prepared in case you negotiate him down ;) - forgive me for betting on him against you. (Dawson's logic, by the way, is pretty clear: All else being equal, the default pattern of a negotiation is that one side names a number, the other side names a different number, and you compromise somewhere in the middle. And you're the second person you obviously have a big influence on exactly where the "middle" will be. If you want to end up at $125k, and your partner goes first and offers $120k, you know to ask for $130k or $135k, and now things go smoothly... but if you're asked to go first and you name $130k and your partner flinches and then says in a quavering voice that the budget will only stand $70k "but maybe we can make a one-time exception", now the "compromise" point is anchored around $100k and you're going to have to negotiate much more skillfully to claim your remaining $25k.) Does anyone have a negotiating book to recommend that offers fundamentally different advice from this?
    - badclient 15y ago
      Why would a partner give a $70K counter in one case(when he goes second) and offer you $125K in the other case(when he goes first)? It seems contrary to my experience. In my experience, you are lowballed when you don't take control and set your price. Also, if you want $125K, you can either ask for $150K or not budge on $125K(and make it clear that it is non-negotiable beyond $5K) ... the no-budging works great if you have other similar offers. That is how I got my present salary anyway. You are talking about resetting anchors. While it can happen, generally the first number is a stronger anchor than the second.
      - run4yourlives 15y ago
        >While it can happen, generally the first number is a stronger anchor than the second. Not so, because the second anchor sets another number the moment it is uttered: the middle ground. Employers may lowball you if you are forcing them to give a number, so what. If the number is insulting, you suggest that perhaps the interview is a waste of time and leave. Nothing lost. If the number is low but not crazy, you suggest that it is low - and won't be the final number - and carry on, taking this into account when you counter with your "high" number. If you are asking for $150 and "making it clear that $125 is the minimum" you've effectively lost out on the fact that the employer may have given you >$125, but only as a last resort to losing you completely. Setting the first anchor is generally a bad idea.
  - run4yourlives 15y ago
    Example: Your max buy price: $10000 Their min sell price: $4500 Used Car Value - Worth probably around $4000. You: I'll give you $10,000 for that car. Salesman: Deal. Translation: You got screwed. You: I'll give you $5000 for that car. Salesman: $5000 is a little low, but lets talk about all the other stuff first. <later> Salesman: $7000, and is really the best I can do. You: done. Translation: you got screwed. You: I'll give you $2000 for the car. Salesman: You aren't serious. The car is easily worth $10000. Walks away... You: Ok, $4000. Salesman: $7000 is the best I can do. You: done. Translation: You got screwed. In every case where you present the first number, the salesman can use that to frame the debate. Even if you really lowball the number, you allow the salesman to name his price by providing the top number that you can work from. The more outrageous your lowball, the more outrageous his top number. Point being though that you're working towards the number in his best interest, not yours. Same holds true in salary negotiations. Never, ever say your number first, unless you are perfectly happy conceding on it for some other point.
    - badclient 15y ago
      Your examples are flawed because you are coming up with a number out of your ass. The idea is to gauge the used car value and then make an offer lower than that. In the first case, you wouldn't offer $10,000, you'd offer $3,800. Funny enough, this is the method my Dad uses to buy cars and it works almost every time. But it requires that you understand the lowest number the guy can go without taking a hit. Once you know that number, go a little lower and tell him that the day he can sell at that number, he has your business. After my dad has done the research, he explicitly tells them they do not need to sell him the car as a salesman - he knows what he wants and for how much. The day the salesman is ready to sell for the amount specified, he should call my dad. They do. Every single time.
      - run4yourlives 15y ago
        >But it requires that you understand the lowest number the guy can go without taking a hit. I don't give a damn if he takes a hit or not. His profitability is his problem, not mine. Ideally, he takes a loss on the car he sells me because that sale pushes him over some target that actually works for him. Only he knows his position explicitly. I can never know this. Assuming I can is putting me in a loser's position. Generally, if a car salesman isn't pissed off at you following the sale, you are getting ripped off. I hate to tell you this, but it is true. If the car salesman is "happy" to sell to your dad, it's probably because he's an easy sell. That's not negotiation. The first case is only an example, but your $3800 offer is pretty close to my example where you offer $2000. The error you're making is that $4500 is some sort of set in stone value. It isn't. The car might in fact be worth more than $10K to you, and less than $1K to the dealership. The art of negotiation is the act of getting the car for the lowest possible price, regardless of its worth to you or the seller.
sethg 15y ago
I was once in a situation where two companies were interested in hiring me, and when the hiring manager for one of them found out I had nibbles from elsewhere, he said he didn’t want to make me an offer until I was absolutely sure that his company was the place I really wanted to work for. Translation: “I don’t want to get caught in a bidding war for you.” I went with the other company, which was, in fact, the place I really wanted to work for.

mechanical_fish 15y ago

While it's theoretically great to be able to play offers off against each other, in practice it's difficult to get the timing right. Inevitably, the offers arrive out of order and you're going to have to negotiate on behalf of the other employers who will be making you offers. Moreover, even if there are no other explicit offers on the table at the moment it is in your best interests to teach yourself to imagine them, because opportunity cost is real. So I think it's a good exercise to get comfortable with negotiating one offer at a time. You need to learn to take a deep breath and realize that there are always more options. Other jobs are out there! Moreover, as patio11 points out, if the other side offers X and you ask for X + Y and they say no, rare is the negotiation that can't be salvaged by falling back to X.

forza 15y ago
Most of the time you already have an offer i.e. your current employment.
badclient 15y ago
Moreover, as patio11 points out, if the other side offers X and you ask for X + Y and they say no, rare is the negotiation that can't be salvaged by falling back to X. Yeah sure but already you are in a defensive position the moment you ask for more than they just proposed. It's a universally agreed negotiation tactic to make the first offer.
- mechanical_fish 15y ago
  It's a universally agreed negotiation tactic to make the first offer Well, your argument was going better before you went this far, because now I'm going to have to ask you to take it up with Roger Dawson, author of the fairly-well-rated Secrets of Power Negotiating, from whom I learned the tactic of never naming the first number. And, while Dawson is probably exaggerating his status as one of the best negotiators on the planet - because he's got to be prepared in case you negotiate him down ;) - forgive me for betting on him against you. (Dawson's logic, by the way, is pretty clear: All else being equal, the default pattern of a negotiation is that one side names a number, the other side names a different number, and you compromise somewhere in the middle. And you're the second person you obviously have a big influence on exactly where the "middle" will be. If you want to end up at $125k, and your partner goes first and offers $120k, you know to ask for $130k or $135k, and now things go smoothly... but if you're asked to go first and you name $130k and your partner flinches and then says in a quavering voice that the budget will only stand $70k "but maybe we can make a one-time exception", now the "compromise" point is anchored around $100k and you're going to have to negotiate much more skillfully to claim your remaining $25k.) Does anyone have a negotiating book to recommend that offers fundamentally different advice from this?
  - badclient 15y ago
    Why would a partner give a $70K counter in one case(when he goes second) and offer you $125K in the other case(when he goes first)? It seems contrary to my experience. In my experience, you are lowballed when you don't take control and set your price. Also, if you want $125K, you can either ask for $150K or not budge on $125K(and make it clear that it is non-negotiable beyond $5K) ... the no-budging works great if you have other similar offers. That is how I got my present salary anyway. You are talking about resetting anchors. While it can happen, generally the first number is a stronger anchor than the second.
    - run4yourlives 15y ago
      >While it can happen, generally the first number is a stronger anchor than the second. Not so, because the second anchor sets another number the moment it is uttered: the middle ground. Employers may lowball you if you are forcing them to give a number, so what. If the number is insulting, you suggest that perhaps the interview is a waste of time and leave. Nothing lost. If the number is low but not crazy, you suggest that it is low - and won't be the final number - and carry on, taking this into account when you counter with your "high" number. If you are asking for $150 and "making it clear that $125 is the minimum" you've effectively lost out on the fact that the employer may have given you >$125, but only as a last resort to losing you completely. Setting the first anchor is generally a bad idea.
- run4yourlives 15y ago
  Example: Your max buy price: $10000 Their min sell price: $4500 Used Car Value - Worth probably around $4000. You: I'll give you $10,000 for that car. Salesman: Deal. Translation: You got screwed. You: I'll give you $5000 for that car. Salesman: $5000 is a little low, but lets talk about all the other stuff first. <later> Salesman: $7000, and is really the best I can do. You: done. Translation: you got screwed. You: I'll give you $2000 for the car. Salesman: You aren't serious. The car is easily worth $10000. Walks away... You: Ok, $4000. Salesman: $7000 is the best I can do. You: done. Translation: You got screwed. In every case where you present the first number, the salesman can use that to frame the debate. Even if you really lowball the number, you allow the salesman to name his price by providing the top number that you can work from. The more outrageous your lowball, the more outrageous his top number. Point being though that you're working towards the number in his best interest, not yours. Same holds true in salary negotiations. Never, ever say your number first, unless you are perfectly happy conceding on it for some other point.
  - badclient 15y ago
    Your examples are flawed because you are coming up with a number out of your ass. The idea is to gauge the used car value and then make an offer lower than that. In the first case, you wouldn't offer $10,000, you'd offer $3,800. Funny enough, this is the method my Dad uses to buy cars and it works almost every time. But it requires that you understand the lowest number the guy can go without taking a hit. Once you know that number, go a little lower and tell him that the day he can sell at that number, he has your business. After my dad has done the research, he explicitly tells them they do not need to sell him the car as a salesman - he knows what he wants and for how much. The day the salesman is ready to sell for the amount specified, he should call my dad. They do. Every single time.
    - run4yourlives 15y ago
      >But it requires that you understand the lowest number the guy can go without taking a hit. I don't give a damn if he takes a hit or not. His profitability is his problem, not mine. Ideally, he takes a loss on the car he sells me because that sale pushes him over some target that actually works for him. Only he knows his position explicitly. I can never know this. Assuming I can is putting me in a loser's position. Generally, if a car salesman isn't pissed off at you following the sale, you are getting ripped off. I hate to tell you this, but it is true. If the car salesman is "happy" to sell to your dad, it's probably because he's an easy sell. That's not negotiation. The first case is only an example, but your $3800 offer is pretty close to my example where you offer $2000. The error you're making is that $4500 is some sort of set in stone value. It isn't. The car might in fact be worth more than $10K to you, and less than $1K to the dealership. The art of negotiation is the act of getting the car for the lowest possible price, regardless of its worth to you or the seller.

sethg 15y ago

I was once in a situation where two companies were interested in hiring me, and when the hiring manager for one of them found out I had nibbles from elsewhere, he said he didn’t want to make me an offer until I was absolutely sure that his company was the place I really wanted to work for. Translation: “I don’t want to get caught in a bidding war for you.” I went with the other company, which was, in fact, the place I really wanted to work for.