5 ms·

> If you want $200,000, $400,000, whatever, just say so. BEFORE you start any interviews. Unless the number you give is significantly higher than any of your p

by pdonis 3y ago

> If you want $200,000, $400,000, whatever, just say so. BEFORE you start any interviews. Unless the number you give is significantly higher than any of your potential employers are ever going to offer you, you are shortchanging yourself by giving that number--it means that you have now foreclosed potential higher offers that otherwise might have come your way. That is the basis of the advice given in the article. I get what you're saying about knowing what you're worth, but that in itself doesn't give you very much help in knowing what potential offers might come your way. Unless you have detailed inside information about all of your potential employers (hint: if you do, you should already be leveraging that information to get a job offer without having to go through all the drudgery of interviewing like everyone else), you can't possibly know how the number you give compares to what they could potentially offer you. So you shouldn't give a number at all. In fact, the more you know what you are worth, the less inclined you should be to give a number instead of just waiting for an actual offer. What knowing what you are worth should do is help you to decide, on your own (i.e, without asking recruiters who have conflicts of interest), which potential employers are worth your time to even look at in the first place. Don't even bother talking to companies that you know can't compensate you enough. But you don't need to, and shouldn't, tell recruiters what your threshold is for "enough". Just tell them company X doesn't look like it would be a good fit. Nuff sed. > If recruiters are talking to you, they want to place you at the highest comp package they can. They want to place you at the highest comp package they can as long as it doesn't risk not placing you at all. They never want to walk away altogether. But you might. So your interests and theirs are not quite aligned.

quickthrower2 3y ago
It might be different in the US but in Australia the way it works is: 60% of jobs will tell you a salary range either on the ad or via the recruiter. The rest wont play the “you tell me first” game and just pass on you. Since more offers is more leverage it might be better to play their game individually to have a better overall position (more offers)
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- pdonis 3y ago
  > 60% of jobs will tell you a salary range either on the ad or via the recruiter. This is common in the US as well and makes your filtering job easier when it happens. > The rest wont play the “you tell me first” game and just pass on you. Are those employers you would want to work for? My heuristic is, probably not. In which case it costs you nothing to pass on them as well. But see further comment below. > more offers is more leverage Not necessarily. They're only leverage if you are actually interested in them. Otherwise they're not an actual alternative. If there is an employer you really want to work for who literally won't give you an offer unless you tell them a number first, then you're in a buyer's market. But for anyone who has good tech skills it is rarely a buyer's market; you are a scarce resource and should value yourself accordingly.
  - pempem 3y ago
    Leverage is not defined as something you're interested in. That would be more like a BATNA. Leverage is what someone else believes you're interested in. In the US many jobs post a salary range, which can be not accurate or updated and apply to several levels of roles, "based on your experience" which puts you back at the negotiation table. I've always found it odd american culture does not always embrace negotiating despite many of our core actions being based on it. Jobs, home purchases, following "rules" and "policies" are in many cases left to the personal discretion of the enforcer. Yet we dont teach people how to effectively negotiate. In the midwest especially the cultural coding is to view it as distasteful. The disservice is usually to the person with the lease leverage and the least information aka the little guy.
    - pdonis 3y ago
      > Leverage is what someone else believes you're interested in. If you're good enough at dissimulation to make a recruiter (who has a lot more experience at this than you do) believe you're interested in another offer when you're actually not, you probably don't need any of the advice in either the article or this discussion thread. But if you're not that good at dissimulation, attempting it is shooting yourself in the foot. You're much better off being honest and only talking about other offers you have if you actually are interested in them. > In the US many jobs post a salary range, which can be not accurate or updated and apply to several levels of roles, "based on your experience" which puts you back at the negotiation table. Yes, posted salary ranges should not be taken as absolute. But they give you an idea of whether a company is worth your time to look at. > I've always found it odd american culture does not always embrace negotiating despite many of our core actions being based on it. I don't think it's "American culture" in general that doesn't embrace negotiating. It's more a certain segment of American middle class culture. I agree that it's both odd and a disadvantage to those who grow up in that culture.
avereveard 3y ago
> Unless the number you give is significantly higher than any of your potential employers are ever going to offer you, you are shortchanging yourself by giving that number Then do better research before going into the meeting instead of playing games after multiple interviews rounds. Also companies don't have a lot of incentive to pay too much under market rate anyway, especially for higher end jobs where they provide some training, or churn from people getting pushed constantly for a dollar more will kill their business.
- pdonis 3y ago
  > do better research before going into the meeting Research in the sense of information you can find without having detailed inside information about the company will tell you general salary ranges, which, as I said, will tell you whether it's worth your while to be talking to this company at all. But it won't give you a solid enough number that it's worth risking shooting yourself in the foot by giving it. > companies don't have a lot of incentive to pay too much under market rate anyway This means you are likely to get an offer that's at least market rate (so, as above, you know whether it's worth your while to talk to this company at all). It doesn't mean you should tell them first what you think "market rate" is, instead of them telling you what they are willing to pay in the form of an offer.
  - avereveard 3y ago
    if you don't know your worth, you're entering the job market in a position of relative weakness, and no amount of third grade negotiation tricks like "not telling the first number" will make up for it. what do you think, that by witholding that number, they'll start negotiating from the upper half of their budget range? that's wishful thinking, at best. no, they will offer whatever they think they'll get away with, and it will pin your salary discussion to a number they decided I have no idea how people think that that is a good outcome.
- saagarjha 3y ago
  People who work for lower rates typically do not interview around a lot. Many of them will work for very low pay for years on end.
pandaman 3y ago
You argument is essentially hanging on the assertion that the first number an employer would offer is also the maximum number it could offer. I know exactly one company that operated like that: they'd make the maximum offer and if you did not like it there was no further negotiation. Most companies don't do that (neither does that one any more, the CEO who had this policy had retired a while ago). What I've observed in my experience is that most companies will try the minimum offer regardless if you tell them your requirements or not, which makes sense since they do research too and unlike yourself their HR has much more experience and data for that. If you were asking less than the minimum they were willing to pay they will likely still pay the minimum as the sibling suggests, there is no point to save and get to hire again for the same position in a couple of months. I think it's an illusion people get when they ask for a number and get it without much fuss. It makes them think they asked too little but in reality the hiring manager had the range like 200-250 and you asked for 210. Why would he bother to try to push you down to 200? On the other hand, why would he offer anything other than 200 if you did not ask?
- saagarjha 3y ago
  Why wouldn’t he offer you 225 or 230 if he thought you were an important hire?
  - pandaman 3y ago
    Because if you were an important hire you'd be impressed more when the comp was eventually pushed all the way to 250 from 200 than to 250 from 230. There is no advantage in offering you 225 or 230 at all.
    - saagarjha 3y ago
      If I was an important hire I probably have a handful of 230s in my hand already. It’s easy for me to not bother with a company who may or may not push from 200 to 250.
      - pandaman 3y ago
pcthrowaway 3y ago
Just give a wide range that sets the floor and gives room for growth. When I was interviewing last time I told people I was hoping for somewhere in the range of 100K-200K (I'm not in the U.S.) The lowest offer I got was 115K which I then negotiated up to 135K (the most they could pay). Several companies bowed out because they weren't even able to offer 100K, and I was glad to have saved us both the time. If you want 240K, say you want 200K-400K. If you're looking beyond 300K, say your range is between 300K-600K. I realize that, yes, you're putting an upper limit on that range and in theory you might get offered less (but you can mitigate this by adjusting that upper bound to be the top of the range for the next level beyond the position you're interviewing for) E.g. when I interviewed at facebook I told them 150K - 300K
nunez 3y ago
> Unless the number you give is significantly higher than any of your potential employers are ever going to offer you, you are shortchanging yourself by giving that number--it means that you have now foreclosed potential higher offers that otherwise might have come your way. That is the basis of the advice given in the article. That's why I said to give the number you _want_ up front. This way, you don't have to worry about haggling up to get to a number you're happy with or getting FOMO over offers for more that might have been. Otherwise, you're going to enter a negotiation with a recruiter who has way more information and access than you do, and you'll still feel FOMO anyway at the end result _while_ potentially losing out on getting what you wanted (which might have been achievable, had you stated your asking up front). > What knowing what you are worth should do is help you to decide, on your own (i.e, without asking recruiters who have conflicts of interest), which potential employers are worth your time to even look at in the first place. I've interviewed, and have worked at, several places whose comp ranges really surprised me. I've also worked at Google, which is where I got paid the _least_ in my career thus far. (Note to readers: unless you really really really don't care about the money, don't EVER take a pay cut at face value!) You really can't judge a book by its cover, and, again, recruiters know more than you about what their clients can (or would be willing to) afford. Also, at the end of the day, recruiters are salespeople. If they think a candidate is a perfect fit for a client's needs, they (the good ones, at least) will absolutely go to bat to negotiate with the hiring managers for the highest comp package they can. Of course, it would be way more efficient to have a direct connection with the hiring manager, but that's not always possible.

by pdonis 3y ago

quickthrower2 3y ago

It might be different in the US but in Australia the way it works is: 60% of jobs will tell you a salary range either on the ad or via the recruiter. The rest wont play the “you tell me first” game and just pass on you. Since more offers is more leverage it might be better to play their game individually to have a better overall position (more offers)

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
pdonis 3y ago
> 60% of jobs will tell you a salary range either on the ad or via the recruiter. This is common in the US as well and makes your filtering job easier when it happens. > The rest wont play the “you tell me first” game and just pass on you. Are those employers you would want to work for? My heuristic is, probably not. In which case it costs you nothing to pass on them as well. But see further comment below. > more offers is more leverage Not necessarily. They're only leverage if you are actually interested in them. Otherwise they're not an actual alternative. If there is an employer you really want to work for who literally won't give you an offer unless you tell them a number first, then you're in a buyer's market. But for anyone who has good tech skills it is rarely a buyer's market; you are a scarce resource and should value yourself accordingly.
- pempem 3y ago
  Leverage is not defined as something you're interested in. That would be more like a BATNA. Leverage is what someone else believes you're interested in. In the US many jobs post a salary range, which can be not accurate or updated and apply to several levels of roles, "based on your experience" which puts you back at the negotiation table. I've always found it odd american culture does not always embrace negotiating despite many of our core actions being based on it. Jobs, home purchases, following "rules" and "policies" are in many cases left to the personal discretion of the enforcer. Yet we dont teach people how to effectively negotiate. In the midwest especially the cultural coding is to view it as distasteful. The disservice is usually to the person with the lease leverage and the least information aka the little guy.
  - pdonis 3y ago
    > Leverage is what someone else believes you're interested in. If you're good enough at dissimulation to make a recruiter (who has a lot more experience at this than you do) believe you're interested in another offer when you're actually not, you probably don't need any of the advice in either the article or this discussion thread. But if you're not that good at dissimulation, attempting it is shooting yourself in the foot. You're much better off being honest and only talking about other offers you have if you actually are interested in them. > In the US many jobs post a salary range, which can be not accurate or updated and apply to several levels of roles, "based on your experience" which puts you back at the negotiation table. Yes, posted salary ranges should not be taken as absolute. But they give you an idea of whether a company is worth your time to look at. > I've always found it odd american culture does not always embrace negotiating despite many of our core actions being based on it. I don't think it's "American culture" in general that doesn't embrace negotiating. It's more a certain segment of American middle class culture. I agree that it's both odd and a disadvantage to those who grow up in that culture.

avereveard 3y ago

> Unless the number you give is significantly higher than any of your potential employers are ever going to offer you, you are shortchanging yourself by giving that number Then do better research before going into the meeting instead of playing games after multiple interviews rounds. Also companies don't have a lot of incentive to pay too much under market rate anyway, especially for higher end jobs where they provide some training, or churn from people getting pushed constantly for a dollar more will kill their business.

pdonis 3y ago
> do better research before going into the meeting Research in the sense of information you can find without having detailed inside information about the company will tell you general salary ranges, which, as I said, will tell you whether it's worth your while to be talking to this company at all. But it won't give you a solid enough number that it's worth risking shooting yourself in the foot by giving it. > companies don't have a lot of incentive to pay too much under market rate anyway This means you are likely to get an offer that's at least market rate (so, as above, you know whether it's worth your while to talk to this company at all). It doesn't mean you should tell them first what you think "market rate" is, instead of them telling you what they are willing to pay in the form of an offer.
- avereveard 3y ago
  if you don't know your worth, you're entering the job market in a position of relative weakness, and no amount of third grade negotiation tricks like "not telling the first number" will make up for it. what do you think, that by witholding that number, they'll start negotiating from the upper half of their budget range? that's wishful thinking, at best. no, they will offer whatever they think they'll get away with, and it will pin your salary discussion to a number they decided I have no idea how people think that that is a good outcome.
saagarjha 3y ago
People who work for lower rates typically do not interview around a lot. Many of them will work for very low pay for years on end.

pandaman 3y ago

You argument is essentially hanging on the assertion that the first number an employer would offer is also the maximum number it could offer. I know exactly one company that operated like that: they'd make the maximum offer and if you did not like it there was no further negotiation. Most companies don't do that (neither does that one any more, the CEO who had this policy had retired a while ago). What I've observed in my experience is that most companies will try the minimum offer regardless if you tell them your requirements or not, which makes sense since they do research too and unlike yourself their HR has much more experience and data for that. If you were asking less than the minimum they were willing to pay they will likely still pay the minimum as the sibling suggests, there is no point to save and get to hire again for the same position in a couple of months. I think it's an illusion people get when they ask for a number and get it without much fuss. It makes them think they asked too little but in reality the hiring manager had the range like 200-250 and you asked for 210. Why would he bother to try to push you down to 200? On the other hand, why would he offer anything other than 200 if you did not ask?

saagarjha 3y ago
Why wouldn’t he offer you 225 or 230 if he thought you were an important hire?
- pandaman 3y ago
  Because if you were an important hire you'd be impressed more when the comp was eventually pushed all the way to 250 from 200 than to 250 from 230. There is no advantage in offering you 225 or 230 at all.
  - saagarjha 3y ago
    If I was an important hire I probably have a handful of 230s in my hand already. It’s easy for me to not bother with a company who may or may not push from 200 to 250.
    - pandaman 3y ago

pcthrowaway 3y ago

Just give a wide range that sets the floor and gives room for growth. When I was interviewing last time I told people I was hoping for somewhere in the range of 100K-200K (I'm not in the U.S.) The lowest offer I got was 115K which I then negotiated up to 135K (the most they could pay). Several companies bowed out because they weren't even able to offer 100K, and I was glad to have saved us both the time. If you want 240K, say you want 200K-400K. If you're looking beyond 300K, say your range is between 300K-600K. I realize that, yes, you're putting an upper limit on that range and in theory you might get offered less (but you can mitigate this by adjusting that upper bound to be the top of the range for the next level beyond the position you're interviewing for) E.g. when I interviewed at facebook I told them 150K - 300K

nunez 3y ago

> Unless the number you give is significantly higher than any of your potential employers are ever going to offer you, you are shortchanging yourself by giving that number--it means that you have now foreclosed potential higher offers that otherwise might have come your way. That is the basis of the advice given in the article. That's why I said to give the number you _want_ up front. This way, you don't have to worry about haggling up to get to a number you're happy with or getting FOMO over offers for more that might have been. Otherwise, you're going to enter a negotiation with a recruiter who has way more information and access than you do, and you'll still feel FOMO anyway at the end result _while_ potentially losing out on getting what you wanted (which might have been achievable, had you stated your asking up front). > What knowing what you are worth should do is help you to decide, on your own (i.e, without asking recruiters who have conflicts of interest), which potential employers are worth your time to even look at in the first place. I've interviewed, and have worked at, several places whose comp ranges really surprised me. I've also worked at Google, which is where I got paid the _least_ in my career thus far. (Note to readers: unless you really really really don't care about the money, don't EVER take a pay cut at face value!) You really can't judge a book by its cover, and, again, recruiters know more than you about what their clients can (or would be willing to) afford. Also, at the end of the day, recruiters are salespeople. If they think a candidate is a perfect fit for a client's needs, they (the good ones, at least) will absolutely go to bat to negotiate with the hiring managers for the highest comp package they can. Of course, it would be way more efficient to have a direct connection with the hiring manager, but that's not always possible.