8 ms·

Should Tech Firms Ban Salary Negotiations?

7 points by SunTzu55 12y ago

Nadya 12y ago
So instead of empowering women to negotiate better - they drag everyone else down (including the women who CAN negotiate!) The way to equality should be lifting everyone to the same platform. Not dragging everyone into the mud.
- mycroft-holmes 12y ago
  Unfortunately this is what's considered "equality" today.
  - proksoup 12y ago
    If we take women out of the equation entirely ... As a male I find "no negotiate" to be more equatable ... I don't understand why someone would want to work for someone that asked them to negotiate for the salary they deserve? I don't understand why someone would hire someone who thinks they are worth more than what they can afford/offered?
    - mycroft-holmes 12y ago
      I've never been asked to negotiate my salary. But I have been contacted about a position while I had a job. They kept pressing for me to leave and join them. Once they gave me an offer, I said it wasn't enough to leave so I negotiated a higher one.
- proksoup 12y ago
  I have not negotiated my salary or equity ever. I find difficulty building healthy relationships with the people, men and women, that do negotiate. I would rather work with other people who want to work somewhere where negotiation for salary is not assumed to be done. Like, we both got the same offer. They negotiated for a higher salary ... why didn't the employer offer more to start if they thought I was worth more? If it's too low, say no. If it's enough, say yes. Why do you want to hire people who negotiate?
  - Nadya 12y ago
    Negotiation shows that you believe you are worth more than the company believes you are worth. Your job is to convince them to make a transaction that, until you prove your worth, is a bad transaction for them. The ability to successfully negotiate that is similar to a sales pitch. The product you are selling is yourself. Business is about selling an idea, product, or service. If you are incapable of selling yourself - you are not as good an asset for business. Even if hiring into a technical field - what if you make your way to management? What if you end up having to deal with clients directly? The person who shows they can negotiate is better equipped for those scenarios. They are a better company asset. They are worth more to the company because they offer a skill that is useful for business: negotiation skills.
    - proksoup 12y ago
      I think I did an okay job selling myself if we get to the offer stage. I don't understand why overselling oneself, or convincing the business to make a bad business decision is a valuable trait. I don't want to work with Alec Baldwin, coffee is for closers, dude seems like a difficult person to work with.
      - Nadya 12y ago
        If you get to the offer stage - you met the bare minimum requirements. Depending on the field and other number of applicants - that could mean you have "5 years experience" and not much else. It doesn't always mean you sold yourself best in your resume & cover letter. It's a bad business decision from their starting perspective. The ability to change their minds and onboard them to invest their time/money into your business is good for your business (or your employers' business). Therefore, companies look for people who are good at negotiation. It's a large part of how business/companies operate. Ever try giving an elevator pitch? A person who can successfully onboard someone in under two minutes is a very, very valuable employee to have because they will be good at winning your business more business. Overselling yourself or convincing a business to make a bad decision happens sometimes. Not necessarily on purpose! But if a salesman/marketer does this often enough, people stop doing business with them. People prefer to do business when it is mutually beneficial. Given a choice between two employees of equal merit - the one who can negotiate will always be the more valuable asset to the company. (But then that isn't really equal merit... is it?)
geebee 12y ago
I don't see anything wrong with this at all. I certainly don't think we're dragging anyone down, considering that it's just one company's policy and people who don't like it are free to work elsewhere. It's hardly coercive, like there's some legislation banning the practice of negotiating salaries. This is a choice made by the CEO of a company. It may turn out to be a competitive advantage, it may turn out to be the opposite. Perhaps people are responding to this in the context of gender equity. That makes sense, especially considering that this is the context Ms Pao chose to use to present the policy. But consider this http://www.salary.com/why-women-don-t-negotiate/ http://www.salary.com/why-women-don-t-negotiate/ Now, that's just a link on the web, I do need to dig into this more. But here's the quote: "Forty-six percent of men always negotiate salary following a job offer, compared to just 30% of women. And while 39% of men are apprehensive about negotiating, that number jumps to 55% for women." So a small minority of men sometimes accept an offer without negotiating, a slightly larger minority of women do the same. Similarly, a narrow majority of women are nervous about negotiating, whereas a very large minority of men are. There is a huge amount of overlap here. Things like this really shouldn't be presented as "men do this, women do that", but they almost always are. Truth is, there are probably a lot of men who would be attracted to a company policy like the one Ms Pao has proposed, and there are probably a lot of women who wouldn't be. It may turn out that there is a large pool of highly talented people who aren't good at negotiating salary but don't like getting paid less than their comparably talented coworkers, and that Ms Pao will get them to work for her. Other companies will get the people who are talented at getting paid more than their coworkers. Or not. It's up to her to decide if this is worth a try.
marssaxman 12y ago
Seems like a great idea. Why should people be paid more just because they have and are willing to use a skill (negotiation) unrelated to the skills they are being hired to use (engineering)? Letting engineers who feel like negotiating get higher salaries makes about as much sense as letting engineers who happen to have paddled to work on a sea-kayak get a higher salary.

7 points by SunTzu55 12y ago

Nadya 12y ago

So instead of empowering women to negotiate better - they drag everyone else down (including the women who CAN negotiate!) The way to equality should be lifting everyone to the same platform. Not dragging everyone into the mud.

mycroft-holmes 12y ago
Unfortunately this is what's considered "equality" today.
- proksoup 12y ago
  If we take women out of the equation entirely ... As a male I find "no negotiate" to be more equatable ... I don't understand why someone would want to work for someone that asked them to negotiate for the salary they deserve? I don't understand why someone would hire someone who thinks they are worth more than what they can afford/offered?
  - mycroft-holmes 12y ago
    I've never been asked to negotiate my salary. But I have been contacted about a position while I had a job. They kept pressing for me to leave and join them. Once they gave me an offer, I said it wasn't enough to leave so I negotiated a higher one.
proksoup 12y ago
I have not negotiated my salary or equity ever. I find difficulty building healthy relationships with the people, men and women, that do negotiate. I would rather work with other people who want to work somewhere where negotiation for salary is not assumed to be done. Like, we both got the same offer. They negotiated for a higher salary ... why didn't the employer offer more to start if they thought I was worth more? If it's too low, say no. If it's enough, say yes. Why do you want to hire people who negotiate?
- Nadya 12y ago
  Negotiation shows that you believe you are worth more than the company believes you are worth. Your job is to convince them to make a transaction that, until you prove your worth, is a bad transaction for them. The ability to successfully negotiate that is similar to a sales pitch. The product you are selling is yourself. Business is about selling an idea, product, or service. If you are incapable of selling yourself - you are not as good an asset for business. Even if hiring into a technical field - what if you make your way to management? What if you end up having to deal with clients directly? The person who shows they can negotiate is better equipped for those scenarios. They are a better company asset. They are worth more to the company because they offer a skill that is useful for business: negotiation skills.
  - proksoup 12y ago
    I think I did an okay job selling myself if we get to the offer stage. I don't understand why overselling oneself, or convincing the business to make a bad business decision is a valuable trait. I don't want to work with Alec Baldwin, coffee is for closers, dude seems like a difficult person to work with.
    - Nadya 12y ago
      If you get to the offer stage - you met the bare minimum requirements. Depending on the field and other number of applicants - that could mean you have "5 years experience" and not much else. It doesn't always mean you sold yourself best in your resume & cover letter. It's a bad business decision from their starting perspective. The ability to change their minds and onboard them to invest their time/money into your business is good for your business (or your employers' business). Therefore, companies look for people who are good at negotiation. It's a large part of how business/companies operate. Ever try giving an elevator pitch? A person who can successfully onboard someone in under two minutes is a very, very valuable employee to have because they will be good at winning your business more business. Overselling yourself or convincing a business to make a bad decision happens sometimes. Not necessarily on purpose! But if a salesman/marketer does this often enough, people stop doing business with them. People prefer to do business when it is mutually beneficial. Given a choice between two employees of equal merit - the one who can negotiate will always be the more valuable asset to the company. (But then that isn't really equal merit... is it?)

geebee 12y ago

I don't see anything wrong with this at all. I certainly don't think we're dragging anyone down, considering that it's just one company's policy and people who don't like it are free to work elsewhere. It's hardly coercive, like there's some legislation banning the practice of negotiating salaries. This is a choice made by the CEO of a company. It may turn out to be a competitive advantage, it may turn out to be the opposite. Perhaps people are responding to this in the context of gender equity. That makes sense, especially considering that this is the context Ms Pao chose to use to present the policy. But consider this http://www.salary.com/why-women-don-t-negotiate/ http://www.salary.com/why-women-don-t-negotiate/ Now, that's just a link on the web, I do need to dig into this more. But here's the quote: "Forty-six percent of men always negotiate salary following a job offer, compared to just 30% of women. And while 39% of men are apprehensive about negotiating, that number jumps to 55% for women." So a small minority of men sometimes accept an offer without negotiating, a slightly larger minority of women do the same. Similarly, a narrow majority of women are nervous about negotiating, whereas a very large minority of men are. There is a huge amount of overlap here. Things like this really shouldn't be presented as "men do this, women do that", but they almost always are. Truth is, there are probably a lot of men who would be attracted to a company policy like the one Ms Pao has proposed, and there are probably a lot of women who wouldn't be. It may turn out that there is a large pool of highly talented people who aren't good at negotiating salary but don't like getting paid less than their comparably talented coworkers, and that Ms Pao will get them to work for her. Other companies will get the people who are talented at getting paid more than their coworkers. Or not. It's up to her to decide if this is worth a try.

marssaxman 12y ago

Seems like a great idea. Why should people be paid more just because they have and are willing to use a skill (negotiation) unrelated to the skills they are being hired to use (engineering)? Letting engineers who feel like negotiating get higher salaries makes about as much sense as letting engineers who happen to have paddled to work on a sea-kayak get a higher salary.