I looked for resources a few years ago and found a post by a software engineer talking about "Fearless Salary Negotiation" [1]. The engineer said: "it's a small book, cost me around 40 bucks which were immediately compensated by the fact that I managed to negotiate a higher salary".
I wanted to ask for a raise: I had been working in that startup for 4 years and had never had a raise. I thought "if that book helps me get a raise of a few bucks per month, that will pay for it".
It didn't go as planned: I followed the instructions in the book, my boss spent an hour bullshitting me and I didn't get a raise. So I sent my resignation the next day. The boss called me back, and I got a substantial raise and a bonus (to compensate for the shitty salary I had been having before, it was not a miracle).
All that to say that this book did not make me a pro negotiator. But it made me understand how salary negotiation works (reading it, I felt like a child: it only says common sense stuff, but I had been doing everything wrong my whole life). And it gave me the confidence to actually ask for a raise.
> reading it, I felt like a child: it only says common sense stuff, but I had been doing everything wrong my whole life
Negotiation is a grammar. The rules of the grammar, when laid out on the page, sound incredibly basic. But like any grammar, anyone used to "hearing" the grammar, it becomes immediately apparently who has command of the grammar and who is making grammatical mistakes.
But the point of the grammar is not to learn the grammar, the point of the grammar is to make beautiful sentences. How far you choose to go down the path is up to your own avocation but learning the grammar allows you to understand and communicate the beautiful sentences of negotiation.
One lesson is that you have to be willing to walk away. Doesn't mean you can't negotiate at all otherwise. But you're in the strongest position when you legitimately can go "take it or leave it" if it comes to that.
And you also don't want to throw away a great opportunity because you didn't wring every last dollar out of it.
> One lesson is that you have to be willing to walk away.
That's probably because I did not explain it well enough. I can tell you the lesson, because it is impact it had on me :-).
I was already willing to walk away and was about to. I found the book by chance, in something like a random HN discussion. Without the book I would have resigned without asking for a raise, I know it.
Then I got a few lessons about the way I should prepare for asking for the raise, and the big mistakes I should not make ("don't say this", which seems obvious when you read it, but which I would have done wrong).
Finally it helped me talk about salaries when I was interviewing for other jobs. Again, difficult to say if I would have ended up with a lower salary without the book, but it most definitely gave me the confidence to talk about compensation, and I think it's worth more than the $40 of the book.
Just understanding how negotiations work removes the frustration.
I read a book about negotiating. It had the usual breakdown of strategies, tactics and scenarios, and a lot of filler, but it was entertaining to read. Today I'm still not a good negotiator. Normally I just don't want to waste my time and just want to get something, or I don't want to "squeeze" the other side for little profit.
But I know that on big key deals, like buying a house, a car, or getting a job, there it is well worth to apply some pressure. And if I don't get to my goal, or if a deal fails, now I understand why and don't feel so much frustration as before.
I've found that it's a good idea to practice such skills when buying things in $100 and above range, especially if you are directly talking to the seller. It almost never hurts to ask "hey, I see the price is X, I like your product, would you be able to squeeze in some discount?" with a smile on your face. Even if for a 2% discount.
> or I don't want to "squeeze" the other side for little profit.
That's exactly how I feel! That's why I believe it is important to understand the process. When you negotiate with a company, you're not squeezing the other side for profit. They just won't accept anything unreasonable. But in case they want to squeeze you (which is likely), then you should defend yourself.
Haha, I love it. It's incredible how tables turn once you submit your resignation. I was being outsourced and my boss declined even the smallest raise, saying that his client would have to raise the payment as well, and I cannot skip him as the middleman. So I resigned and found another job. The next day client reached out to me and asked if I want to skip the middleman, because suddenly it's fine and there are no contractual problems. That would probably mean like a 40% raise at the time. I was tempted, but it was too late.
Josh Doody, the author, runs a consulting service that helps candidates negotiate. Multiple people in my network have used his services to great advantage.
I'd say in almost all companies, no other approach works except this. Every other approach is basically wasting each other's time and energy.
In fact for most people, don't even bother, just find a new job.
If you super like the work at your current company, the way I'd roll is:
- work hard in a way that also builds new skills, and get recognized for your performance, widely (and add everyone to LinkedIn, you never know who might be moving on next to somewhere that needs more hires)
- At 2 years absolute limit: "I think I'm senior now" or whatever is next level, or "my salary isn't aligned with market" - at least give them opportunity
- They blah blah. Don't protest, politely nod and let the meeting end.
- You then, depending on your bank balance and risk appetite, either say the next day "ok I need to move on to pursue other opportunities" and resign, or start reaching out to your network for a new job the very same day they do their blah blah
(Goes without saying that saving up a big bank balance is the most important negotiating tool, but catch-22 and all that)
NB: I might add one other technique that can get overlooked: timing. The best time to ultimatum is when the counterparty is least capable of dealing with it. So if you wait until the person who has to decide if you'll get what you want is having an absolutely shit month, e.g. several other people have left recently, or they are bogged down in some other pain, they're far more likely to give in. And due to the ebbs and flows of business, those ebbs will always show up from time to time.
While that has worked for me too, I find that negotiating by resignation isn't going to address other issues such as those that bolster the unfair salary. Yes. You got what you wanted, but now they know you played a wildcard and they want you gone on their terms. Or they want to extract the maximum work from you.
> Or they want to extract the maximum work from you
I think that if this strategy works and salary is increased, then the job is burned anyway and I'd be looking for a new one no matter what they say, while pocketing the extra cash for a few months. If management starts to ask for documenting processes or training someone, that's a dead giveway and, ethics aside, the best course of action is (unfortunately) to do bare minimum and focus on job search.
Just to be clear: my point is not that the book taught me to negotiate by resignation :-). The book gave me confidence to negotiate, and I did not even mention resigning as part of the negotiation. Only after the negotiation (a few days later), I chose to resign because of the result of the negotiation (which was therefore a failure).
What the book brought to me confidence: I would have resigned without asking for a raise, saying "well it's time for me to move on" and not "I'm leaving because of the salary". Hence my boss would not have made an offer.
The book also helped me understand how salary negotiation works, and how it is "normal": the recruiter does it all the time, they are used to it, and you may actually look more professional if you know how to talk about compensation than if you just accept whatever they say like a junior.
> but now they know you played a wildcard and they want you gone on their terms. Or they want to extract the maximum work from you.
One of the sentences at the very start caught my eye:
> I thought to myself: why is there so little actionable advice out there about negotiation?
There's a wealth of actionable negotiation advice if you know where to look, like Harvard Business Review and Harvard Law, First Round Review, among others.
One of the big pieces on negotiation I got from Harvard[0], from their Program on Negotiation. I did not attend Harvard, but reading two or three of their articles a week goes a long way.
For a company I've interviewed with, I've been asked twice a salary range and declined both times. I was even transparent for the 2nd time (which happened months later) and answered that it's not in my interest to give a number first.
Well, I received an offer from them and I would have undercut myself by 30%.
This is perhaps—or perhaps not—an extreme example, but I only applied what I was told in the negotiation articles and books I've read.
When you read a book, you're going to think "It's just fantasy; no way this is going to happen to me" but if you actually apply that knowledge it can truly work in your favor.
I also declined an offer 2 months beforehand because the salary was ridiculously low, despite being unemployed at the time.
I am a bit confused by not talking about the salary right away, I have seen advice like yours and in this article about not giving the number fisrt but the opposite in other articles saying to leverage the anchoring bias by giving a high number first. That would help raising the following offers. Both approaches seem to make sense so I am not sure what to choose.
I’m also ambivalent because you risk investing in a time consuming interview process only to find out they’re offering .5 of what you deemed the minimum you’d take.
are you a vc level with visibility of salaries in all the company orgs? if not, just stay silent or you will undercut yourself. working class never knows their value, by design.
> Rule #5 of negotiation: don’t be the decision-maker. Even if you don’t particularly care what your friends/family/husband/mother thinks, by mentioning them, you’re no longer the only person the recruiter needs to win over. There’s no point in them trying to bully and intimidate you; the “true decision-maker” is beyond their reach.
It's a very old thing in general, not just in job-hunting.
And sometimes "I have to discuss it with my spouse" is literally for real.
But if someone says it, but the listener doesn't think it's for real, then the speaker sounds like either:
* from a culture in which it's mutually understood as a nicety, not to be taken literally; or
* a bullshitter.
The former is very Californian stereotype, incidentally.
I don't know why a listener wouldn't think it's for real?
A new job can involve relocation, or if it's in the same city, prevent the spouse from a desired relocation.
Not to mention people do tend to evaluate major life decisions with trusted friends etc. Discuss whether to job-hop now or wait to see if something better shows up in six months.
I'm intrigued by your perspective that someone would assume this was non-literal or a bullshitter?
I mean yes, it might be buying time, but as a recruiter why would you even care? The person wants extra time, they've given a valid reason for it, so you give it to them within reason unless it's an emergency and the position needs someone in the chair on Monday and there's another candidate who can take it. I don't think they would bother to think about it any more deeply than that.
Of course most married people considering a job offer would discuss it, but that doesn't mean the person making the claim isn't actually just using a delaying tactic.
(For example, maybe they already discussed it with their spouse. Or they're going to discuss it in the next hour, but they are saying this when their goal is to effectively delay for a week.)
That's just one example of commonplace lying.
A lot of people will openly lie, and think that's normal. Even most of these advice articles for job-hunting are full of habitual corporate-standard lying.
But not all people are like that, and don't want to hire corporate-standard liars.
That's interesting, I'd never thought of it from the perspective of lying. Thanks.
It's funny, because I don't really consider making statements about what I plan to do in the future lies.
Like, if I promise someone I'll do something for them or do something important to them and I know I won't, that's a lie.
But if I'm just sharing a plan or a personal need... I don't see that as a lie. My plans and needs change by minute. I can decide to discuss something with my spouse, then change my mind. To me, it falls under the category of personal autonomy. Frankly it's not even a company's business why I need more time, and if they want a reason to give it to me, and I give them a reason about needing to discuss it, I'm free to change my mind immediately afterwards without telling them. And that being the case, it makes no difference what my reason for needing time actually was.
Also, remember that they're the ones telling you they have a 48h deadline in the first place. Isn't that a lie, too? But you're not going to judge them for extending that for you, because it's in your interest. Same way they won't judge you for your reason for needing more time, because they want to hire you.
I don't know. I just think it's hard to call these things lies when they're merely stating intent, which is constantly changing. But I appreciate your perspective! It comes from a different moral worldview, which is important to recognize.
> Of course most married people considering a job offer would discuss it, but that doesn't mean the person making the claim isn't actually just using a delaying tactic.
I'm a very bad negotiator, but perhaps because of this I understand that it often doesn't matter what they believe. What truly matter is whether your excuse is plausible enough. If they can make it seem like you are a bullshitter then they will win. To counter this tactic you need to find a way to make it impossible for them to dismiss your need for time.
Think of legitimate reasons to discuss their offer with your friends or your spouse beforehand, and prepare the strong arguments. This way you will make it clear that it is not a "cultural thing, not to be taken literally", and how could you sound as a bullshitter if you genuinely intend discuss it with your spouse or friends?
They can still believe that you are just buying time, but it doesn't matter if they have no polite way to challenge you.
> A lot of people will openly lie, and think that's normal.
I do not lie. I hate to lie. But I can bend the truth a little. For instance, if it is me who making a decision and I plan advice from my friends, I still can decide that I will not accept any offer without discussing it with them. It is a true decision and I do not lie when stating it openly. I just need to be careful with wording to avoid revealing the full truth. Moreover if I need to I can disclose the truth, and explain then that I did mistakes in the past by not taking time to think. Now I strictly adhere to the rule of discussing significant decisions with friends before making them. I can even share a true story about a poor decision I made.
If I have no such a story, I can refer to a book on negotiation, explain that I agree that big decisions need to be weighted carefully, and assert that I won't make any decisions without talking with my friends first. Just stress it, and if it comes to it, be ready to politely decline their offer because you need time to think.
I'll reiterate: it doesn't matter do they believe you, what is matter if they have no polite way to pressure you while sticking to the rules of polite conversation. I hate to lie, so I imposing one more constraint: I must believe what I'm saying. But that's all.
> But not all people are like that, and don't want to hire corporate-standard liars.
Perhaps. I hadn't considered that. However they are likely a minority, and it will be hard to find some of them and to impress them by your anti-corporate-politics stance in a way that leads to immediate hiring. I suspect that even if you do find some, they will take full advantage of your refusal to engage in corporate negotiation tactics. It is sad, I know. The world is unfair.
> it will be hard to find some of them and to impress them by your anti-corporate-politics stance in a way that leads to immediate hiring.
I think this might get at a cultural/values difference.
For some, an important goal is to be honest, and/or to be known as honest.
Maybe for its own sake, maybe for a more complicated reason (like they want to promote honesty by example so they can trust others, or want to avoid small dishonesty turning into big dishonesty).
But some others trying to fit that to immediate goals, will be, like: . o O ( OK, self, I can make this counterparty think I'm honest, for cost X, but how much will that advance my objective of getting them to take action Y, which is the goal, of course )
The elite schools and top-paying tech employers that encourage truth-bending and theatre, in getting in and then advancing, are promoting the latter kind of thinking about honesty.
We can debate which thinking is better, but we can inform that by understanding the other groups better.
When negotiating with a startup, especially a founder, always ask for two offers: one with a higher equity offer and another with a higher cash offer.
This allows the other party to still feel in control of the negotiation process but tells you two important pieces of information: the first is what the “top” number is for both equity and cash. The second is how much they really are valuing the equity portion.
Depending on the response, you can argue for both higher cash or equity, or both. I often ask what is preventing from giving both higher cash and higher equity? Often times I’ve gotten both.
This is good advice. As a technical founder I have been through many offer ceremonies and I would always make 2 versions of an offer, one equity weighted and the other base salary weighted. The math should be easy if you’ve already had a priced round and you should be telling the candidate the price and fma of your equity anyway. I would say 90% took the higher base. And I wouldn’t up both unless they were a truly great candidate.
It helped quite a lot of people - especially women, who had a mindset that they should accept they should accept the offer. A thought that one can (and should) negotiate was a game-changer. Sometimes they were shocked that an ask for 25% more was accepted with no questions.
Also, Never Split The Difference is basically a negotiation-oriented, machismo-tinted version of Nonviolent Communication by Dr. Marshall Rosenberg. I highly recommend both books.
I bounced on that book pretty quickly, so maybe I need to give it another attempt. It started off so generic and, "Here are my expert qualifications and anecdotes".
Yeah I rolled my eyes at that, but publishers basically require the front 10% of non-fiction be like that. It's for the people walking through book stores and picking up books to browse.
Having worked in investment banking (a job where your only true value add is your network and ability to negotiate) I would like to say two things:
1. I second everything in the article.
2. You would be surprised to learn how important rule #7 is. We would build entire presentations that we would provide to the other side of the table in negotiations just to reinforce our points. Basically putting ourselves in the position of “hey we’re on your side, but look at the numbers; our hands are tied!”. Having a non-confrontational attitude and providing specific reasons for why you are asking for things makes a big difference in negotiations.
(Definitely don’t need to be building presentations for potential employers though… unless it’s for contracts large enough that you’d need a lawyer and wouldn’t need OP’s advice anyways!)
I wish I could take this advice, but my imposter syndrome is just too strong and you cant just turn it off with logical explanations.
By the time I get an offer, I already feel like I’m already uncomfortable about all the bragging I’ve had to do to hype myself up. Asking for more in a negotiation is just a recipe for even worse guilt during the onboarding process (which is already a fraught time for feeling like an idiot).
The simple thing I tell people to do who are uncomfortable with more complex negotiation is, just before you're about to accept the offer, just ask if they can increase it any. Just straight up say "Is there any room to increase this offer?" If they say no, just accept it. If not, let them increase it, then accept that increased offer. I've gotten an increase at a significant majority of companies doing this and it's essentially zero cost.
Imagine meeting co-workers on your first day: "This is parpfish, a rock star who is making twice what all of you make. He is one of those 10x engineers you all hear about. Just stay out of his way while he re-architects all our systems!" I think I should have taken the lower offer?
The hope would be to get an intro like “This is parish, a normal 1x coder that makes a normal amount of money so please be forgiving when he doesn’t understand something”.
The information landscape has changed a bit - several large states now require posting clear salary bands, which many companies comply with in good faith. Some like Netflix post something useless (eg: "The range for this role is $100,000 - $720,000").
Netflix is a weird case, in that they let new hires pick the mix of stock vs. cash in their total compensation. Since the CA law requires posting the cash salary in the job offer, it really can be that wide of a range.
It's not about the basic math but negotiating if they can do better, also saying that they shouldn't even bother proposing you something in the lower part of the range.
I deal with non-US shops as well, it is surprising how many of them can and do pay US rates when asked.
Sorry, that was a confusing choice of term by me, when the article already used the term "rule". I mean the courtship dynamics.
When it's a buyer's market -- or the buyers think it is -- some of the candidate tactics are going to play differently.
Even the old advice that, once the company decides they want you, that changes the dynamics, and now opens up negotiation. The dynamics maybe don't change as much as they used to. If candidate A doesn't take the offer, B, C, D, etc., are lined up and waiting, and probably not going anywhere.
I suspect that a lot of techbros who only know/remember the sellers market of a few years ago are going to be hit by the pendulum swing, when a lot of employers will be similarly cocky and fickle.
Midwest, not Silicon Valley, but that's my current experience. I've already got a job and just got an offer which would be a small pay cut. So, I told them I'm excited about the work, etc but I just can't take a pay cut.
They remained firm that they couldn't budge on salary even a little. Then remained firm as I asked for a signing bonus (denied) and reduced hours (denied). This company doesn't do stock at all and they've already got unlimited PTO so no room to negotiate there.
Meanwhile, their interview feedback indicated I did very well. They unanimously wanted me, and I slightly exceeded their technical expectations for the role.
Seems tougher than I remember from before covid.
(Throwaway since I don't want this tied to my name for my current or future employer to find.)
Some years ago there were job posts left and right, salaries were high and hiring was smooth - now there are comparatively fewer jobs posted, salaries are almost half of what it was before, and many don't even write back.
Many companies are even turning away from remote work. It used to be very doable to find a job in the US from Europe, now everyone is demanding you have work authorization and can be in the US.
This was also my observation. Everyone is talking about "outsourcing" but what I am seeing is work-authorization required everywhere. I wonder if this is a legal change that restricts them because it works against their negotiation power.
I just went through the job hunting (labour selling!) process for a tech role in a HCOL city in US and every point in the article matched with my experience. As another commenter mentioned, the difference is these days you have bands on job listings and then levels.fyi and blind (for larger tech companies) balances out some of the information asymmetry.
I've always asked for better non-monetary things in writing: title, spot on the org chart, automatic promotion soon, which parts of the product and stack I will work on, even as trivial as whether my desk will have a window. I state with constant certainty that those things are more important to me than a bigger paycheck. Most of the time I was offered far more money (in one case, 2 years pay signing bonus) in return for my agreeing to accept an offer with none of those things in writing.
He's not a perfect figure but I always really valued Haseebs perspective and energy. I used to have access to an old lecture of his explaining memory management through whiteboard sketches of original mario that I really loved in addition to dozens of energetic insightful lectures on foundational computer science concepts that he basically did for free before his AirBnB position.
I think he played a big role for a lot of pre-pandemic bootcamp imposters like me.
But seeing this pop back up on HN I'm wondering how radically the tech world / job market has changed. I've been hiding in kushy underpaid remote jobs basically since the pandemic so I have no real idea whats going on out there.
How applicable is this perspective to the present day market for software engineers? How much have things fundamentally changed?
> A company’s goal is to hire someone who will become an effective employee and produce more value than their cost.
This isn't true. They have no clue how to measure your value output. A company's goal is to make sure it has the staff to get its work done so it can sell its thing. A hiring manager's goal is to find someone to do the thing they don't have time/staff for. They will pay somewhere in the realm of whatever the market pays, depending on the "philosophy" of the hiring manager, engineering director, finance people, etc.
I recently interviewed for two jobs in different locations. Both remote, both companies in mid-tier locations in terms of salary. Same type of job, same kind & size of company, same tech, same problems to solve. One was offering 40K more than the other. I wasn't going to produce 40K more value for one than the other. Hiring and salary is just not a very smart process. They have the budget they have, and the market is what it is.
Yes! I wrote my own response, but your post made me realize the most important piece of missing advice: if you want a great offer, interview at a company with lots and lots of money
Generally speaking, yes, companies with more money can pay more. But there's plenty of companies with lots of money, yet their teams have no budget. And it depends if you came in through a recruiter or not, or are a contractor or not, or if it's a startup throwing around cash or being thrifty. Start by applying to the ones that list a high range, and then the companies with lots of money, and then the rest.
I've found that if they're a startup based out of a high-income city, they're most likely to throw money at you. Larger companies based out of high-income cities have to be more stingy and will limit based on your location, but you can push for more. A corporate hiring structure will often enforce salary caps based on title, so if you ask for too much, they may have to invent a new title for you and get it justified to their executive leadership, which is politically fraught. So if you get to the top of the salary band, don't push hard, or they will be in a corner and have to choose between you (a near-impossible candidate) and a candidate they can actually hire.
With most tech career advice on the internet, I would check to see if it was written before 2022. If so, I'd take it with a grain of salt. I wrote tech advice in the ZIRP times. It was a very different market. Negotiation is still a valid tactic but there's a lot more to lose and a lot fewer offers than in 2021.
Depends on your position. I was employed but the company was going down the tubes when I got my last job through a connection. I didn't really negotiate and the one thing I would have liked to have negotiated (paid time off) was made clear was not on the table even before I said anything. And the offer was not FAANG levels but was incredibly good relative to what I was making.
>oh, a company wants to give me a job! What a relief!” As though having a job were in itself some special privilege for which a company is the gatekeeper.
A global recession is happening. Let's see if this advice will withstand the times or will age like milk. I predict the latter; the Great Depression wasn't fake news.
This is all great advice especially at the 101 level. At the 201 level, you can start to skip a lot of these formalities by straightening out the information asymmetry and really having a crisp position on the value exchange.
- Your #1 goal should actually be knowing the top of the range of what this role is worth in the market. Once you figure that out, the whole "don't say the first number" rule is BS. Set expectations at the high water mark and then your job isn't to negotiate on salary; it's to negotiate if you're worth it
- Now that you know the maximum price this role (or product, or service -- it's all the same!) can be set to, you need to convince the other side that you deliver the requisite amount of value to justify the price. Like the article said, talk about your impact. Your BATNA. Your opportunity cost. All of these things are real and support why you are worth it
Once you transition from negotiating on price alone to negotiating ROI, everything changes. Try your best to solve the asymmetry, set the price and move on, find your leverage, and then make a compelling case. That's how you win
> And yet, when people talk about the labor market, they think “oh, a company wants to give me a job! What a relief!” As though having a job were in itself some special privilege for which a company is the gatekeeper.
>
> Dispel yourself of this mindset.
>
> A job is just a deal. It is a deal between you and a company to exchange labor for money (and other things you value).
>
> Negotiating is a natural and expected part of the process of trying to make a deal. It’s also a signal of competence and seriousness. Companies generally respect candidates who negotiate, and most highly attractive candidates negotiate (if for no other reason, because they often have too many options to choose from).
I'm far from a great negotiator, but there are definitely lots of good lessons from here that I've learned the hard way over time and through experience.
One of the greatest gems I got from a blog post once posted back in HN (I can't find it anymore, unfortunately) was about a guy getting a job at Google (or ex-Googler), and he dropped the following (I'm paraphrasing, of course):
> Treat yourself as a business and every job offer as a business deal. Every job offer is a deal, a business deal that must remain carefully balanced win-win. If you let it slip, by getting too much work and not the required promotion or salary bump, it will become a win-lose deal (you on the losing end).
It was a short post, but that piece of advice has been with me for more than 10 years now.
> Companies generally respect candidates who negotiate
Is this really the case? If a company is giving you an offer, presumably they want to hire you. At that point, does the recruiter, your hiring manager, your skip level, the CTO, the CEO even care at that point? Does this respect ever come into play in future performance reviews? I personally don’t think so, but I’ve only ever worked for larger companies.
I’ve always thought you should negotiate because you’re potentially leaving money on the table, since companies will often try to lowball your offer.
I can't say that this is a blanket truth; of course size of org matters, too.
But I think there's an effect like a "bet" that now favors the candidate that negotiated. When you negotiate and the hiring manager or company accepts, it's like they're placing a bet that you were absolutely the best candidate in that pool.
Imagine you're the one doing the hiring. What kind of candidate would you extend extra compensation to? Only one that you believe would truly improve your organization and in doing so, you -- on the hiring side -- are placing a bet.
Maybe this is a blind spot for me, but my inclination is to think it doesn’t matter?
Only because the company has already made you an offer in the first place, ergo they see your value and are already making a bet on you. Has there ever been an instance where an offer has been rescinded because a prospective employee didn’t negotiate?
> Has there ever been an instance where an offer has been rescinded because a prospective employee didn’t negotiate?
You're looking at it as a one-sided outcome where the company rescinds an offer.
How about the other side? Where the company sees you as an even more desirable candidate and increases the offer? Signing bonus, increased salary, other perks?
Author's whole point is "You always win if you negotiate the right way."
The author's point isn't that you aren't going to get the job by not negotiating, the author's point is that you're leaving money on the table by not negotiating. Potentially a lot of money by thinking that the other side is fair and transparent in their offer to you or doing you "a favor" by giving you a job rather than seeing that there is, unfortunately, a game that has to be played once you get to the offer stage.
in my 25+ year career I yearly-negotiated my salary… with every employer… just as if I was just then getting hired… never looked at it as “performance review” - more like “is my compensation matching my contributions.” I think every person should approach it this way (and of course leave if the company is not willing to fully re-negotiate compensation yearly
I found this article at a time where I had the opportunity to accept two job offers, so I had nothing to lose by pushing for more salary. The negotiation went well and got a substantial increase in the final offer on company A. On the other hand, company B dropped their offer. So watch out, if company B had been my only option I would have lost my opportunity.
I was clear from the beginning that I had another offer at hand, to use as leverage.
This was written in 2016. The job market in 2016 was basically "you can throw a stone and find somebody looking for a developer". These days, the market is so different that I'm not sure if the same advice is still relevant.
In addition, some of this kind of advice has always struck me as particularly US-centric and I doubt it all applies equally well in e.g. Europe. You don't get very far here by not sharing your initial salary expectations early on, I think.
I've negotiated hundreds of salaries for developers and tech people.
The key to negotiating is to get to a deal that both parties feel happy with - if you “win” a negotiation through power then you will likely find later you lost when you get paid back for winning through strength.
Here is what I know about negotiating:
1: know in advance the salary that you want
2: aim for a salary that is not at the high end, not at the low end
3: your target salary should be one that you will feel satisfied with if you get the job - you do not want to get the job and then be unhappy and feeling like you undersold yourself an looking over your shoulder for the next job.
4: it is a good idea to ask for a salary range - typically $5K to $10K. you can say "I'm looking for $150K to $160K but it depends on what the role is" - this gives you some room to negotiate and helps avoid overpricing yourself.
5: if you feel that your salary target is fair, then stick to that - when the time comes that they ask you how much you want - state what you want and explain why you think it is fair.
6: if you get negotiated down, explain again that you think your target number is fair and explain why. explain that given that the number is a fair market rate then you're not moving down.
7: be willing to accept that you do not get the job as an outcome of asking for a fair salary - at that point shrug and move on.
8: if you are the start of your career then money should not matter at all - find a job that will allow you to hone your craft and learn key skills - this is the attitude you should have for your first five years. After that, you will be able to negotiate on the strength of your skills and experience.
Remember negotiation of salary should not be about a win/lose attitude - if either party feels that someone won and someone lost, then that will be a bad start to the relationship. Negotiating salary is about finding a salary that both employer and employee feel happy at.
If you are an employer, remember that every dollar you pay ABOVE the requested salary buys you good will and enthusiasm. Every dollar you offer BELOW the requested salary does the inverse. Also avoid the "If you do well we will pay you more in 3 months" - just pay straight up front that amount.
I’ll defer to your experience on this but I am under the impression that giving a range was a bad idea because a company can always lowball you: “oh, you said you were okay with 150K, why are you trying to renegotiate with us now?!”
“Just to clarify, I said in an email that I’m looking for $150k to $160k depending on the role. Now that we’ve talked about the job I feel like the $160k is the right amount given my skills and experience.”
That’s how to handle it, with the caveat that you should not be using that as a ploy to get the higher rate, never having had the willingness to take the lower rate. If you give a range, you should expect to be offered at the lower end and you should be happy to accept that offer. If you’re not happy with the lower end then you put forward the wrong numbers.
> if you “win” a negotiation through power then you will likely find later you lost when you get paid back for winning through strength.
Could you please provide an example of said scenario?
> if either party feels that someone won and someone lost, then that will be a bad start to the relationship. Negotiating salary is about finding a salary that both employer and employee feel happy at.
Yes, I second this. It once happened to me that I "won" by getting an over-budgeted salary, but had to quit 3 days later because one of the bosses leaked in a meeting that they intended to overwork me since they felt hustled by me during the salary negotiation.
Said and done, they assigned me more work than initially scoped, as to adjust the "bang for the buck" balance (and had to quit shortly after that).
As someone on the hiring side, I strongly agree with GP.
I can think of a specific example where someone with experience and strong qualifications pushed for a higher salary - which I agreed to - then struggled with the role and ended up not sticking around. In another instance, someone had lower qualifications and experience, but also negotiated hardest out of their hiring cohort - same outcome, plus they weren't a great fit personality wise.
Meanwhile, I can think of several other people who cross-trained from their initial non-technical careers at the local community college, came in with low experience, didn't negotiate aggressively (although did stand up for themselves)... They've done great work (and grown substantially and been good to work with) over the long term, and seem to enjoy working for me enough that a few who left for other jobs were interested in being hired again later on.
Negotiating employment terms is the first task you complete at a new job. It is a good predictor. If it leaves a bad taste in the mouth for either side, it's not a good sign of things to come...
I read some advice that suggested asking the salary band during salary negotiations and that many HR departments won't hesitate to share.
I tried this while interviewing for my current job and sure enough they shared. Lesson learned: you can ask and the worst they will probably do is say no, but it's very valuable knowledge if they share.
Important questions most reasonable people can answer: Can you share the salary range? Are you targeting the mid-point? Are you able to make an offer at the top of the range if you want to?
Here is my negotiation tactic:
“I see on levels.fyi that people of my level make X dollars, I want the top of that range”
And magically I got 25% more TC. Only works for big enough companies with salary datapoints online.
It is kind of crazy how there is a bifurcation of TC between those who bothered to negotiate and those who didn’t. Being on the inside I know there are ranges for positions and if you push you can pretty much always get to the max for your range, obviously the recruiters will not give you a max TC offer right away.
"I feel like I am contributing at least $X value to the company. If I am then it makes sense to pay me that, and if not I'd like to know how we can get there."
It starts a discussion and it's more honest: if I am not worth that much then tell me how I can be more valuable.
I have had a pay rise every year from this conversation but my company is very flexible and successful, so mileage may vary.
I find all other approaches to me gimmicky and tricks, and somewhat dishonest in some way.
It’s funny, I switched from engineering to management a few years ago, and as part of learning to be a manager I really had to learn to negotiate (Avery Pennarun, founder of Tailscale, describes Eng managers as professional negotiators, which I think is at least partly true). I loved this article.
There’s a book on negotiation called “Getting to Yes” that uses a different framework, which became my preferred way to think about negotiation: The goal of a negotiation is to strike an agreement that both parties are happy about. The stereotypical negotiation, “I won’t go a cent below $10,” “well I won’t go a cent above $8” is bad negotiation because even if they meet at $9, neither is happy about it. Instead, the effective negotiator thinks creatively about what would make them happy and asks if it’s available.
As much as I basically agree with it, I would cast the advice in this article differently. Here’s my take, for what it’s worth:
- Re. all the author’s advice about withholding information: you may not be happy if one day you find out that you’re being paid 30% below market (though maybe you won’t care—know what you care about! It will help you negotiate more effectively). The ideal solution here, though, is to know about the market! Consult levels.fyi, talk to your friends, maybe interview from time to time before you’re really looking.
- Re. Don’t be the decision-maker: this is a useful rhetorical tactic, often also called “bad cop,” and it’s not really negotiation-specific but you can bring it into a negotiation if it helps you (at one startup, our co-founder would say on sales calls, “let me check with my sales team” when he was definitely the whole sales team). Honestly, IMO it’s only really useful if you’re trying to placate someone, which you hopefully shouldn’t be when you’re weighing their offer, but you’re welcome to use it if you have social anxiety about pissing off the recruiter (you probably won’t, but I understand the worry)
- Re. stay positive: …yes? The goal is to get to a deal you’re both happy with. If you’re already not happy, then the negotiation is already over. The effective negotiator walks away before getting mad—why burn a bridge over one deal not panning out?
- Have alternatives: honestly this is the main thing. I don’t know how much there is to say but anyone will understand you not being happy with a deal that’s already not your best option.
Companies should offer the best offer in the first place. If the candidates still negotiates, either he is not a fit or you will not make him/her happy/loyal either, the best option is pass.
If the people spent half as much time building skills as they spent creating, reading and following random "rules" then the climate change, homelessness, tech employment crisis etc would all be solved problems.
We’re talking about spending a couple of hours learning the basics of negotiation for a likely 10-20% increase in salary/equity. That’s certainly not making the difference in solving the world’s problems.
If you’re speaking more broadly than just salary negotiation - I’d just say that humans aren’t perfect machines. We care about solving problems but we also have desire for money, power, status and following random rules.
For startups, I'm pretty upfront about the fact that I don't negotiate but if they go under my activation price I will simply decline. It's a one and done deal and we can revisit months later. The range of cost I'll accept is quite large (though this part I don't communicate). I don't mind working for $200k annualized on things I really enjoy and I don't mind working on things I enjoy less for $800k annualized and so on. I have an internal sliding scale and I'm quite clear that I don't really need to work on any specific thing. Then I just take the gig if it meets my internal criteria.
In my experience, it isn't about making a $20k more now or whatever. It's about making a million more because you're invested in something worthwhile etc. etc.
Yea, I kind of think a lot of these "Just negotiate, bro" posts are from people who are extremely strong candidates already, like they invented the entire field that the company plays in. Or their PhD thesis was on the exact thing the company is trying to do. For the rest of us, companies can take us or leave us--they aren't going to get into some bidding war for some generic, but strong senior skilled candidate.
That’s scarcity mindset and it decimates your potential for negotiation. If you really truly believe you are a commodity and have nothing at all to offer compared to any other candidate, it’s worth either learning something new to get out of that commodity category and/or look at your experience + knowledge outside your core specialty and market that better.
It sounds cliché but there is nobody like you. We all have unique experiences (life + professional), hobbies, knowledge no one else has or at least not in that particular combination. That’s your « unfair advantage » as some call it and you absolutely can use it to your advantage.
I have things like Haskell, Lean and Prolog on my CV - definitely not things that everyone else has had experience with. Recruiters/HMs generally aren't interested in these kinds of things. Oh but you have worked with Kafka before? Now that puts you ahead, even though so many others have.
The one time I tried to negotiate for a director position they responded along the lines of "Oh we're sorry if we implied that this was a negotiation. You can accept or decline the offer by the end of the week."
I’m an average software engineer and I can’t remember a time where I took a job I didn’t negotiate the salary on. Companies that refused to negotiate were the last offers I’d consider and I end up not taking their offers. I was often better paid than my peers. And my professional accomplishments are far from exceptional, I’ve never worked for any companies you’d know, I have gaps in my CV.
What? No. If my team has gone to the effort of a full interview loop with you, and we think you’re a good candidate, we’re not going to start over to save $10k. This isn’t one of those periods when companies are having trouble hitting their hiring quotas; if you got that far then they must be serious.
(Note that if is one of those crazy periods, they still won’t quibble over the salary, but for an entirely different reason!)
For my second real job I did not feel I was an "extremely strong candidate", just a mildly above-average one. I crushed the coding portion of the interview, but that balanced against my unspectacular CV and lack of experience in the company's field. I read the linked article, applied the principles as best I could: I got £10k more than what they offered first.
Mind you, this was during peak ZIRP so I was probably playing on easy mode and didn't know it.
> Companies will ask about your current compensation at different stages in the process
This is not legal in many states, 44% of the US population lives in states where companies asking your salary is not legl.
Also, the exploding offer advice is terrible. It won't work. The company will just drop the offer. The actual advice is to decide quickly.
I also think that gaining some chump change during the negotiation is somewhat pointless as companies will just equalize salary bands over time.
Let's say you win $5-10k additional salary during negotiation. Great, now your second year's salary increase is only going to be 2% instead of 5%.
I think the real advice in the age of states having salary transparency laws is to not apply to jobs that don't have a salary range listed in the job description.
The equalization thing may be theoretically true, but in a cumulative 25 years of managing at big companies, I’ve never seen anyone get equalized down, just get slower raises. You’re definitely better off getting overpaid at the beginning. If the offer is 25% high, it might take five years to equalize. And the present-value premium of money isn’t zero anymore!
I've had a company actually halt the recruiting process because I wouldn't share my current salary. They asked (as they all do), and I did a standard polite "I'd rather not share my current compensation, please make an offer you feel is a good starting point." They then said, well we'd rather not make an offer without knowing this baseline. And that was that. Sure, I guess I could have just made up a fake (high) number, but I wasn't too thrilled about what I saw about the company during the interviews, so it didn't bother me at all. If a company is being shitty during the interview process, they're probably going to be shitty to work for.
Just a data point: I once avoided giving the first number, and when pushed into it, gave a ridiculously high number for a job I really wanted. The HR guy said, "no that's too high". Well duh, idiot. You make a big story about how you can't possibly move forward until I tell you something, I'm going to tell you something, and you're not going to like it.
I waited a day to cool off and think hard, and called the guy back to say, "Your colleagues have selected me, I've proven I'll be able to do this job, and they told you they want me to. I told you, make me an offer. You instead required me to make an offer, and look where it got us? Now do as I asked, make me an offer, and we'll see. I won't be offended, this is a hard post to fill, and we both want this to work, so just try, will you?"
Hardest phone call I ever made, but worth it. I saved my colleagues from having to go find another candidate, and got myself a job I wanted for the right price.
This is all very interesting, but is complete fiction for most readers. 99% of job seekers aren’t going to receive competing offers from multiple companies conveniently at the same time.
> Turns out, it doesn’t matter that much where your first offer is from, or even how much they’re offering you. Just having an offer in hand will get the engine running.
> If you’re already in the pipeline with other companies (which you should be if you’re doing it right), you should proactively reach out and let them know that you’ve just received an offer. Try to build a sense of urgency. Regardless of whether you know the expiration date, all offers expire at some point, so take advantage of that.
Anecdotally, I have seen this work many times to great effect.
Me too. It was utterly bizarre. Spent 6 month looking for a job, with I don’t know how many failed interviews, then I got one offer for a 6 month contract, and suddenly the next two companies I interviewed with were falling over themselves to give me a permanent one.
I just do not see how that works. There’s no logical reason for it.
It is at least in part because of how recruiting works, especially in large tech companies. Companies have many candidates for each role, and can't easily review all of them. Between bureaucracy, how busy the hiring manager is, etc. many candidates get lost in the process.
This is why 1) it really helps to have a referral and 2) tell the recruiter when you have competing roles. Neither will change much about getting or not a role, but they will really help the prioritization and avoid you getting lost.
Paradoxically, that effect is bigger nowadays when the market is not as hot as it used to be, because recruiting is more stretched. Even some FAANG are very understaffed on the recruiting side
This is the same logic as dealing with VC investors. Nobody feels confident saying yes so they drag the process out. Then someone else does say Yes and they assume this other unknown party has figured out something they haven’t. Now they have a sense of urgency over losing out on something. Even if they don’t know what quality the entity offering the first Yes even saw.
In addition to your (presumably positive-enough) interview performance that the later company has themselves, they also have a "hire" recommendation from an entire other interview loop at a different company.
That's a strong signal, and probably puts you ahead of most people interviewing at the later company, who only have the one set of positive feedback.
That’s theoretically true, but the only proof they have of that is the 5 or so words I uttered saying “I have a different offer”. Why should those 5 words make all the difference. You could say them without any offer at all and suddenly get the job?
Surprisingly, most people are not in fact lying most of the time.
(Also, in practice, there's supporting evidence like being able to spout off credible minor details that yes, are still easy to bullshit but again, most people usually aren't lying.)
Why would someone not then just tell every recruiter/company they are interviewing with that they already have offers are are in the pipeline at other companies even if they don't.
We've heard nowadays how hard it is to even get to the interview for many companies so theres probably plenty of candidates who do not have many other offers prepared or even close to prepared.
Another issue is timing. Theres been times when I've started the interview process with two companies but one is on a much shorter timeline than the other so now I have an offer for one whereas I am still waiting on an interview that isn't for even a couple weeks for another, if not longer.
Not gonna lie, last time I went through the interview process I just told them I have other offers already even when I didn't. It worked in my favor I believe but feels like to get the best outcome you just have to be okay with basically lying out your ass - and that goes both ways, as the employer and the employee since it seems like even the companies feel fine with dragging their asses on concrete unless you have other stuff going on.
Presumably there’s a karmic payoff for this, or someone at X company knows someone at Y who can tell them whether or not you’re actually in the pipeline or have received an offer. Perhaps there’s an element of bluffing or calling bluffs in all of this.
I like karma, but wouldn't checking have the appearance of illegal collusion between the companies? For example, would it look like they were price-fixing?
"Oh, your honor, I was only checking whether they had an offer. We totally weren't discussing how we'd not raise our offers, with the goal of suppressing wages."
iirc there’s already an app for that in some sense, and a good amount of plausible deniability and backroom politics that can make up for any potential lawsuit. Similar issue to “proving” any kind of discrimination: a smooth corporate operator can CYA well enough to create a fake paper trail to justify any sort of decision making.
I mean, that sounds like a level of due dilegence that a lot of companies are unlikely to follow. I suspect that most don't even check the references that you give them.
I’d file that under the karmic payout thing. I personally hire and fire people but don’t have The Blacklist handy, and I’m not really sure that it exists outside of Roko’s basilisk-esque sense, in which it could be really bad if it really did.
I have also experienced this and subsequently bluffed it.
I told a startup that I “was talking to Meta”, and they were like ok we cant compete with that. I hadnt even done leetcode yet I was just doing emails with Meta’s recruiter. I told the startup that its okay because I will be stuck in team matching for 6 months, and the startup bumped my salary 30%.
Perhaps having the 6mo contract in hand increased your confidence and changed the way you were carrying yourself and interviewing (subtly to you, but meaningfully).
Literally nothing involving human behaviour is entirely logical. Coincidentally, as a hiring manager, hearing people describe “illogical” human behaviour with any sort of surprise is an inexperience indicator for me.
Agreed. In my last job search I went months with no offer, then 4 within a week. Precisely because I leveraged the first one to speed the others along.
As a hiring manager, this might help negotiate pay up if I already wanted to hire you, but if I was on the fence, knowing someone I'm not thrilled with has an offer does basically nothing for me.
As a hiring manager, if I was on the fence, knowing someone I'm not thrilled with has an offer makes me try to figure out what I/we missed and I would reexamine potential gaps in our recruiting processes with the candidate, which are always wrought with biases. And luck is such a big factor (on both the company- and candidate-side) in getting a positive signal.
As a hiring manager with over two decades experience I tend not to think this way unless I know who the other hiring manager is, have reason to believe that they are strong at hiring, and that the role they are hiring for is similar enough to mine for it to mean something.
That's not to say I don't think about where I might have blind spots for a candidate—as you say, all processes are biased—but I've seen too many bozos in this industry (especially as the money started to become its own draw) to take a random offer as signal for anything. More context is necessary or it's just garbage in garbage out.
If you’re good at running your interview process you will have 3-4 at a time. That’s usually where I’m at, I’m interviewing with 12 and get it necked down to 3 or 4 getting to the offer point. I try to stretch out the fast movers and speed up the slow ones but just be honest with recruiters. You’re in the pipeline with other companies and you’re not ready to respond yet.
Edit: I saw other comments. I am both “old” and I have a mechanical engineering degree (not CS) and I do just fine interviewing with startups. I worked really hard at the practice of interviewing, this has more rewards and lower risk than basically any other skills you can learn so invest it.
Not the OP but I tell everyone on the market that one of the highest ROI things you can do is just go through your own past career history with a fine toothed comb and simply remember all the different things you did and be able to tell the story of each concisely and informatively (if possible, recall actual numbers and quantifiable impacts etc.).
When in an interview, when you're asked a question about your past experiences, the larger the library you have to draw on, the more likely you are to find an example that's relevant and persuasive. Even questions of the form "How would you deal with [hypothetical scenario]", I encourage applicants, if possible, to answer it in the form of "Oh yeah, that's interesting, we had to deal with a very similar case at [one of my previous jobs], here was my approach towards it".
After each interview, do a "l'esprit de l'escalier" retro, write down all the questions asked, what your answer was at the time and what you would have ideally answered now given the fullness of time to think about it. If there's a significant delta, that's a sign to go back and prepare more until your "real time" performance approaches your retroactive performance.
As terrible as the Amazon interview process is, they’re very up front in telling candidates exactly this: Here are the LPs, come up with stories for each one and make sure it’s STAR format.
And even if you receive two or more offers at once, many organizations don't bother negotiating. One time I received two offers at once, and neither organization was willing to change anything substantive about their offers.
In this case, one organization had an onerous IP policy and that other did not. I asked for some carve-outs, and the first organization came back with a single line added to the IP policy that did not change anything meaningful. I told them that I could not accept that offer as written and wanted more changes, but they refused further negotiation and told me to take it or leave it. I waited a few days, rejected their offer, and accepted the other offer.
(I think that they were willing to add the single meaningless line to make it appear they were willing to change things without actually changing anything substantive.)
The morale of my story is that you may not be able to negotiate a better offer, but at least you have a choice when you have multiple offers.
Yeah well at least you tried, sometimes that’s just how it plays out. You might be surprised by how many people don’t even realize you CAN negotiate a job offer. I think it’s a little more well known among tech workers maybe?
I was lucky enough to have 3 companies that all gave me offers (a couple years back when the market for tech was at its peak). It played out like this article recommends. After an offer was on the table, the other 2 kept throwing better and better offers at me.
However, interviewing at 3 companies, over the span of 2 weeks, with an existing (remote) full time job was hard work. Likely impossible if I hadn't already checked out at the FT job. It was also mentally exhausting, with how companies like to do multiple rounds.
I agree with you within the scope of top tech jobs. The tech interviews process is fairly uniquely grueling because it's both very high paid (so a costly mistake to hire poorly) while lacking much professional certification.
In many other careers the interview process is, if not shorter, at least more behavioral and less mentally draining because you're already pre-screened by licensure or rigid advancement structure of some sort.
Assume that X% of companies are interested in you and you pursue Y leads to result in X% * Y offers. A large number of people will receive 0 offers and they'll be long term on the job market until they make a change to either X (job hunting strategy) or Y (pool of roles considered).
A large number of people will receive >1 offers because they're competitive in the marketplace. Only some tiny number of people will receive exactly one offer unless Y is very small.
That many people only receive one offer is more of a sign that they're not strategic in their job hunting approach (which is upstream of them not being strategic in their negotiations) and this is a fixable problem.
I’m job searching right now, and it’s definitely not the doom and gloom that I’m hearing about.
I think it’s a challenging environment for developers who are either inexperienced or who have skills that are out of date. I have found that companies are a bit more picky than i remember about knowing the exact tech stack they use, but they are still making offers and those offers are pretty good.
Note that I’m applying mostly to mid-sized non-public companies. I’m not sure what it’s like applying to MAANG-types right now.
I'm in loops at multiple FAANGs right now and it's not even that bad. Feels similar to when I did this last time? But I do get the impression that they're all just throwing out any resumes that don't already have a FAANG on them. If you're already in the club then it's ok, but I think it's harder than ever to join the club so to speak.
When the FAANGs stocks were soaring and they handed out options like candy, even low level devs at those tech companies were making the kind of money usually reserved for medical doctors and attorneys. There was a huge gulf between SV pay and pretty much everywhere else.
Now, those companies have mostly lost the luster they used to have, and the comp differences aren't as large.
For me, it was. Couldn't find anything for 4 months, and suddenly I had 3 offers. It often works out like that. It's as if companies suddenly smell you've become desirable or something.
This article must've been written in Spring 2022. Tech hiring is now like 2008 or post-dotcom.
The question is whether it will return to what it once was.
The big tech companies are monopolies, no longer afraid that they have to employ "all the engineers" to prevent competition. ZIRP isn't there to give rise to startups, or to give the tech companies unlimited leeway in development.
If interest rates drop or big tech is broken up, we might see a sharp rise in salaries. But now there's also more competition from overseas, both in terms of great talent and competition from large international players.
edit: the article was from 2016, and can confirm. I was making bank then and getting free at-work massages, boba, and towel service.
your whole problem is that you want to work at big tech. I still get a whole lot of perks (not massages :) ) working for small private companies making MUCH more money now than 2016… big tech bubble is killing a whole lot of careers these days, tech hiring now is actually pretty good, I get emails from companies and recruiters (even though I virtually do not exist publicly, e.g. linkedin etc…) weekly or less
In a 25 year career, I've never really managed to significantly negotiate compensation upwards, either at the job offer phase or for raises once I'm in. It's always a "take it or leave it" offer and yea, I've chosen to leave it a few times.
Recruiter: "Here's your offer for $X compensation."
You: "I was actually looking for something paying $X+Y."
Recruiter: "Well our offer is $X."
You: "This data shows that comparable jobs with the work I'm taking on are paying $X+Y."
Recruiter: "Our offer is $X. Do you want the job or not?"
You: "Well, I'm not willing to join for less than $X+(Y/2)."
Recruiter: "OK, well, bye. We have 35 other candidates lined up to talk to. Good luck."
Not sure how it's different when you have multiple offers. The company offering a lower comp will just say "Well, their offer is higher. Have fun at Company B. Thanks for interviewing!" Reading stories of these Captains Of Industry just asking for more and getting it, or getting companies into a bidding war over them is... kind of wild. It's like we're living in different universes.
Not an expert, but my impression is that many companies (maybe especially startups) don't say "we offer $X". They will try to ask you how much you expect as early as possible: if that's way too high, they won't even interview you, if it's too low you're screwed because they won't go higher anymore.
I don't think I'm negotiating to get a better compensation than what is reasonable. On the contrary, I'm negotiating to get a fair compensation.
Some companies (bigger ones) will just say "we hire you for this title, so the compensation is $X and we don't negotiate because we want it to be fair for your colleagues". Then I don't think you can negotiate much, but at the same time they're probably not screwing you. It's just what it's worth to them, take it or leave it.
This has not been my experience at all -- even as recently as last year it was
Recruiter: "Here's your offer for $X"
You: "Well I'm also negotiating an offer with Z for $X + 200k
Recruiter: OK well how about $X + 200k and a 50k signing bonus?
Multiple offers are key -- seriously, timing that properly is the biggest thing you can do to optimize your job search. Even if you can't give exact numbers, the mere presence of a competing offer will make a company offer you top of band.
at my company the dollars are what they are - take it or leave it. However you can often get an extra week of paid vacation if you ask. You don't eken have to know it is exactly what we can give - the hiring manager wants you and has been told $x by hr but know vacation is an option and will offer it if you just don't say yes instantly.
I would NEVER work for a company where dollars are what they are - that is fucking mcdonald’s and I would in passing tell everyone their employer is either financially insolvent or a sweatshop. jesus!
Pretty sure this is largely related to the industry and type of position you're applying for, and whether it's a big or small company.
At a big company with known positions (e.g. junior, mid-range, and senior devs), salaries for each of those positions may fall within a narrow range with little to no leeway. At a smaller company, where roles are more amorphous, starting salary may span a huge range depending on your specific qualifications, how their business is going, etc.
I have had this situation multiple times in my life. It was probably a lot more common for tech in the last 10 years especially in the US.
Edit: I'm seeing a lot of comments on this thread that has not aligned with my experience. I have, in tech, as a software engineer used multiple offers to increase a lower offer by like 15% for a company I preferred and I have also held an offer on the hook so to speak to use it leverage someone else to good effect.
3 companies in a row I got recruited by folks from other companies - skipped the degree and about to turn 40, so older is relative - the biggest diff I have had is I am obvious and honest that I am always looking and actively build the network, especially the youngins - I have gotten 4 jobs (and its accelerating given the last 3) from folks I helped teach or train in the past who went on to do something interesting.
Hmmm, the nugget about focusing on younger folks you've trained sounds interesting, I hadn't previously thought of that. However, there have been very few juniors around in my last few jobs. Maybe because they were contracts.
Then it’s not for them. You don’t see me complaining about advice for plumbers bc I’m not a plumber. The advice is for the 1%. Anecdotally I know numerous people, including myself, who have been in this situation.
Best way I've found is no negotiate tell recruiters and head hunters what you want to make (saying that's what you make currently) when you respond to their initial message. Either the conversation continues where they offer a bit more or it ends.
Yes, our system is a multiverse of psychological distortions and senseless inequality. Some people straight out of university with no skills will receive large offers from multiple companies and will use that to negotiate themselves a big pay package then they will feel good about themselves and feel like they earned it...
But in reality it's just an illusion. Companies want to hire people who are delusional and believe that they deserve what they got. Big tech doesn't really need these people or their skills, in reality. They're merely cogs in the big machine. Big tech could easily have found someone better for a lower price; they get so many applications. The whole thing is like a psychological operation. They don't want to build up an elite class which understands how broken the system is. They want a delusional elite class who believe the grotesque myth of the meritocracy. People who don't believe in meritocracy are a huge threat; they cannot be allowed anywhere near the elite because the system is so unmeritocratic, it wouldn't take many interactions to snap the elite out of their comfortable trance.
Business leaders start getting imposter syndrome after they interact with people who understand reality. Business leaders sometimes start viewing themselves as mavericks/mafia boss and sometimes start behaving in dodgy ways.
It's like if you do something and you later discover that it was causing harm; you can either feel bad and correct your behaviour or you reinvent your self-image as a 'bad guy' and double down on the harm... Most people choose the latter, unfortunately.
I just skimmed, so not sure if this was mentioned.
It's pretty basic, but BE FAIR. It goes a LONG way and is (sometimes) hard to clock.
I was offered something in my contract, and I misread the offer (not because it wasn't clear, I literally just skipped over a couple of words). Subsequently, I continued on with negotiations and never mentioned it as a concern.
It wasn't detrimental to my offer, and I knew I'd be fine with accepting that term, but it was sort of an annoying term. I knew if I went back to it after the 3rd round of negotiations and negotiated it, then it just wasn't fair. I later told my boss about it and he appreciated it a lot. I have an amazing and fair relationship with my boss.
I looked for resources a few years ago and found a post by a software engineer talking about "Fearless Salary Negotiation" [1]. The engineer said: "it's a small book, cost me around 40 bucks which were immediately compensated by the fact that I managed to negotiate a higher salary".
I wanted to ask for a raise: I had been working in that startup for 4 years and had never had a raise. I thought "if that book helps me get a raise of a few bucks per month, that will pay for it".
It didn't go as planned: I followed the instructions in the book, my boss spent an hour bullshitting me and I didn't get a raise. So I sent my resignation the next day. The boss called me back, and I got a substantial raise and a bonus (to compensate for the shitty salary I had been having before, it was not a miracle).
All that to say that this book did not make me a pro negotiator. But it made me understand how salary negotiation works (reading it, I felt like a child: it only says common sense stuff, but I had been doing everything wrong my whole life). And it gave me the confidence to actually ask for a raise.
Totally worth it.
[1]: https://www.amazon.com/Fearless-Salary-Negotiation-step-step...
> reading it, I felt like a child: it only says common sense stuff, but I had been doing everything wrong my whole life
Negotiation is a grammar. The rules of the grammar, when laid out on the page, sound incredibly basic. But like any grammar, anyone used to "hearing" the grammar, it becomes immediately apparently who has command of the grammar and who is making grammatical mistakes.
But the point of the grammar is not to learn the grammar, the point of the grammar is to make beautiful sentences. How far you choose to go down the path is up to your own avocation but learning the grammar allows you to understand and communicate the beautiful sentences of negotiation.
One lesson is that you have to be willing to walk away. Doesn't mean you can't negotiate at all otherwise. But you're in the strongest position when you legitimately can go "take it or leave it" if it comes to that.
And you also don't want to throw away a great opportunity because you didn't wring every last dollar out of it.
> One lesson is that you have to be willing to walk away.
That's probably because I did not explain it well enough. I can tell you the lesson, because it is impact it had on me :-).
I was already willing to walk away and was about to. I found the book by chance, in something like a random HN discussion. Without the book I would have resigned without asking for a raise, I know it.
Then I got a few lessons about the way I should prepare for asking for the raise, and the big mistakes I should not make ("don't say this", which seems obvious when you read it, but which I would have done wrong).
Finally it helped me talk about salaries when I was interviewing for other jobs. Again, difficult to say if I would have ended up with a lower salary without the book, but it most definitely gave me the confidence to talk about compensation, and I think it's worth more than the $40 of the book.
Just understanding how negotiations work removes the frustration.
I read a book about negotiating. It had the usual breakdown of strategies, tactics and scenarios, and a lot of filler, but it was entertaining to read. Today I'm still not a good negotiator. Normally I just don't want to waste my time and just want to get something, or I don't want to "squeeze" the other side for little profit.
But I know that on big key deals, like buying a house, a car, or getting a job, there it is well worth to apply some pressure. And if I don't get to my goal, or if a deal fails, now I understand why and don't feel so much frustration as before.
I've found that it's a good idea to practice such skills when buying things in $100 and above range, especially if you are directly talking to the seller. It almost never hurts to ask "hey, I see the price is X, I like your product, would you be able to squeeze in some discount?" with a smile on your face. Even if for a 2% discount.
> or I don't want to "squeeze" the other side for little profit.
That's exactly how I feel! That's why I believe it is important to understand the process. When you negotiate with a company, you're not squeezing the other side for profit. They just won't accept anything unreasonable. But in case they want to squeeze you (which is likely), then you should defend yourself.
Haha, I love it. It's incredible how tables turn once you submit your resignation. I was being outsourced and my boss declined even the smallest raise, saying that his client would have to raise the payment as well, and I cannot skip him as the middleman. So I resigned and found another job. The next day client reached out to me and asked if I want to skip the middleman, because suddenly it's fine and there are no contractual problems. That would probably mean like a 40% raise at the time. I was tempted, but it was too late.
As I suggested elsewhere, that's fine but you have to be OK with them saying "Sorry to see you go. Don't let the door hit you on your way out."
Josh Doody, the author, runs a consulting service that helps candidates negotiate. Multiple people in my network have used his services to great advantage.
I'd say in almost all companies, no other approach works except this. Every other approach is basically wasting each other's time and energy.
In fact for most people, don't even bother, just find a new job.
If you super like the work at your current company, the way I'd roll is:
- work hard in a way that also builds new skills, and get recognized for your performance, widely (and add everyone to LinkedIn, you never know who might be moving on next to somewhere that needs more hires)
- At 2 years absolute limit: "I think I'm senior now" or whatever is next level, or "my salary isn't aligned with market" - at least give them opportunity
- They blah blah. Don't protest, politely nod and let the meeting end.
- You then, depending on your bank balance and risk appetite, either say the next day "ok I need to move on to pursue other opportunities" and resign, or start reaching out to your network for a new job the very same day they do their blah blah
(Goes without saying that saving up a big bank balance is the most important negotiating tool, but catch-22 and all that)
NB: I might add one other technique that can get overlooked: timing. The best time to ultimatum is when the counterparty is least capable of dealing with it. So if you wait until the person who has to decide if you'll get what you want is having an absolutely shit month, e.g. several other people have left recently, or they are bogged down in some other pain, they're far more likely to give in. And due to the ebbs and flows of business, those ebbs will always show up from time to time.
While that has worked for me too, I find that negotiating by resignation isn't going to address other issues such as those that bolster the unfair salary. Yes. You got what you wanted, but now they know you played a wildcard and they want you gone on their terms. Or they want to extract the maximum work from you.
> Or they want to extract the maximum work from you
I think that if this strategy works and salary is increased, then the job is burned anyway and I'd be looking for a new one no matter what they say, while pocketing the extra cash for a few months. If management starts to ask for documenting processes or training someone, that's a dead giveway and, ethics aside, the best course of action is (unfortunately) to do bare minimum and focus on job search.
Just to be clear: my point is not that the book taught me to negotiate by resignation :-). The book gave me confidence to negotiate, and I did not even mention resigning as part of the negotiation. Only after the negotiation (a few days later), I chose to resign because of the result of the negotiation (which was therefore a failure).
What the book brought to me confidence: I would have resigned without asking for a raise, saying "well it's time for me to move on" and not "I'm leaving because of the salary". Hence my boss would not have made an offer.
The book also helped me understand how salary negotiation works, and how it is "normal": the recruiter does it all the time, they are used to it, and you may actually look more professional if you know how to talk about compensation than if you just accept whatever they say like a junior.
> but now they know you played a wildcard and they want you gone on their terms. Or they want to extract the maximum work from you.
Not at all, in my case :-).
One of the sentences at the very start caught my eye:
> I thought to myself: why is there so little actionable advice out there about negotiation?
There's a wealth of actionable negotiation advice if you know where to look, like Harvard Business Review and Harvard Law, First Round Review, among others.
One of the big pieces on negotiation I got from Harvard[0], from their Program on Negotiation. I did not attend Harvard, but reading two or three of their articles a week goes a long way.
--
[0]: https://www.pon.harvard.edu/uncategorized/what-is-anchoring-...
Getting to Yes and Bargaining for Advantage are also good reads related to this topic
Getting to Yes is a good very short book that has some gems in it. We used it in some business school class or other I took.
For a company I've interviewed with, I've been asked twice a salary range and declined both times. I was even transparent for the 2nd time (which happened months later) and answered that it's not in my interest to give a number first.
Well, I received an offer from them and I would have undercut myself by 30%.
This is perhaps—or perhaps not—an extreme example, but I only applied what I was told in the negotiation articles and books I've read.
When you read a book, you're going to think "It's just fantasy; no way this is going to happen to me" but if you actually apply that knowledge it can truly work in your favor.
I also declined an offer 2 months beforehand because the salary was ridiculously low, despite being unemployed at the time.
Want is fine, need is not.
I am a bit confused by not talking about the salary right away, I have seen advice like yours and in this article about not giving the number fisrt but the opposite in other articles saying to leverage the anchoring bias by giving a high number first. That would help raising the following offers. Both approaches seem to make sense so I am not sure what to choose.
I think it's fair to give it first if you're a Senior engineer and are able to receive offers quickly.
If you were looking for a $150k salary, you could drop an extreme anchor at $200k and they might even give you $180k.
I’m also ambivalent because you risk investing in a time consuming interview process only to find out they’re offering .5 of what you deemed the minimum you’d take.
are you a vc level with visibility of salaries in all the company orgs? if not, just stay silent or you will undercut yourself. working class never knows their value, by design.
You can get a lot of data points online though from levelsfyi or blind.
> Rule #5 of negotiation: don’t be the decision-maker. Even if you don’t particularly care what your friends/family/husband/mother thinks, by mentioning them, you’re no longer the only person the recruiter needs to win over. There’s no point in them trying to bully and intimidate you; the “true decision-maker” is beyond their reach.
It's a very old thing in general, not just in job-hunting.
And sometimes "I have to discuss it with my spouse" is literally for real.
But if someone says it, but the listener doesn't think it's for real, then the speaker sounds like either:
* from a culture in which it's mutually understood as a nicety, not to be taken literally; or
* a bullshitter.
The former is very Californian stereotype, incidentally.
I don't know why a listener wouldn't think it's for real?
A new job can involve relocation, or if it's in the same city, prevent the spouse from a desired relocation.
Not to mention people do tend to evaluate major life decisions with trusted friends etc. Discuss whether to job-hop now or wait to see if something better shows up in six months.
I'm intrigued by your perspective that someone would assume this was non-literal or a bullshitter?
I mean yes, it might be buying time, but as a recruiter why would you even care? The person wants extra time, they've given a valid reason for it, so you give it to them within reason unless it's an emergency and the position needs someone in the chair on Monday and there's another candidate who can take it. I don't think they would bother to think about it any more deeply than that.
Of course most married people considering a job offer would discuss it, but that doesn't mean the person making the claim isn't actually just using a delaying tactic.
(For example, maybe they already discussed it with their spouse. Or they're going to discuss it in the next hour, but they are saying this when their goal is to effectively delay for a week.)
That's just one example of commonplace lying.
A lot of people will openly lie, and think that's normal. Even most of these advice articles for job-hunting are full of habitual corporate-standard lying.
But not all people are like that, and don't want to hire corporate-standard liars.
That's interesting, I'd never thought of it from the perspective of lying. Thanks.
It's funny, because I don't really consider making statements about what I plan to do in the future lies.
Like, if I promise someone I'll do something for them or do something important to them and I know I won't, that's a lie.
But if I'm just sharing a plan or a personal need... I don't see that as a lie. My plans and needs change by minute. I can decide to discuss something with my spouse, then change my mind. To me, it falls under the category of personal autonomy. Frankly it's not even a company's business why I need more time, and if they want a reason to give it to me, and I give them a reason about needing to discuss it, I'm free to change my mind immediately afterwards without telling them. And that being the case, it makes no difference what my reason for needing time actually was.
Also, remember that they're the ones telling you they have a 48h deadline in the first place. Isn't that a lie, too? But you're not going to judge them for extending that for you, because it's in your interest. Same way they won't judge you for your reason for needing more time, because they want to hire you.
I don't know. I just think it's hard to call these things lies when they're merely stating intent, which is constantly changing. But I appreciate your perspective! It comes from a different moral worldview, which is important to recognize.
> Of course most married people considering a job offer would discuss it, but that doesn't mean the person making the claim isn't actually just using a delaying tactic.
I'm a very bad negotiator, but perhaps because of this I understand that it often doesn't matter what they believe. What truly matter is whether your excuse is plausible enough. If they can make it seem like you are a bullshitter then they will win. To counter this tactic you need to find a way to make it impossible for them to dismiss your need for time.
Think of legitimate reasons to discuss their offer with your friends or your spouse beforehand, and prepare the strong arguments. This way you will make it clear that it is not a "cultural thing, not to be taken literally", and how could you sound as a bullshitter if you genuinely intend discuss it with your spouse or friends?
They can still believe that you are just buying time, but it doesn't matter if they have no polite way to challenge you.
> A lot of people will openly lie, and think that's normal.
I do not lie. I hate to lie. But I can bend the truth a little. For instance, if it is me who making a decision and I plan advice from my friends, I still can decide that I will not accept any offer without discussing it with them. It is a true decision and I do not lie when stating it openly. I just need to be careful with wording to avoid revealing the full truth. Moreover if I need to I can disclose the truth, and explain then that I did mistakes in the past by not taking time to think. Now I strictly adhere to the rule of discussing significant decisions with friends before making them. I can even share a true story about a poor decision I made.
If I have no such a story, I can refer to a book on negotiation, explain that I agree that big decisions need to be weighted carefully, and assert that I won't make any decisions without talking with my friends first. Just stress it, and if it comes to it, be ready to politely decline their offer because you need time to think.
I'll reiterate: it doesn't matter do they believe you, what is matter if they have no polite way to pressure you while sticking to the rules of polite conversation. I hate to lie, so I imposing one more constraint: I must believe what I'm saying. But that's all.
> But not all people are like that, and don't want to hire corporate-standard liars.
Perhaps. I hadn't considered that. However they are likely a minority, and it will be hard to find some of them and to impress them by your anti-corporate-politics stance in a way that leads to immediate hiring. I suspect that even if you do find some, they will take full advantage of your refusal to engage in corporate negotiation tactics. It is sad, I know. The world is unfair.
> it will be hard to find some of them and to impress them by your anti-corporate-politics stance in a way that leads to immediate hiring.
I think this might get at a cultural/values difference.
For some, an important goal is to be honest, and/or to be known as honest.
Maybe for its own sake, maybe for a more complicated reason (like they want to promote honesty by example so they can trust others, or want to avoid small dishonesty turning into big dishonesty).
But some others trying to fit that to immediate goals, will be, like: . o O ( OK, self, I can make this counterparty think I'm honest, for cost X, but how much will that advance my objective of getting them to take action Y, which is the goal, of course )
The elite schools and top-paying tech employers that encourage truth-bending and theatre, in getting in and then advancing, are promoting the latter kind of thinking about honesty.
We can debate which thinking is better, but we can inform that by understanding the other groups better.
I've worked as a recruiter, and I have never assumed "I need to check with my spouse" is anything other than real.
When negotiating with a startup, especially a founder, always ask for two offers: one with a higher equity offer and another with a higher cash offer.
This allows the other party to still feel in control of the negotiation process but tells you two important pieces of information: the first is what the “top” number is for both equity and cash. The second is how much they really are valuing the equity portion.
Depending on the response, you can argue for both higher cash or equity, or both. I often ask what is preventing from giving both higher cash and higher equity? Often times I’ve gotten both.
This is good advice. As a technical founder I have been through many offer ceremonies and I would always make 2 versions of an offer, one equity weighted and the other base salary weighted. The math should be easy if you’ve already had a priced round and you should be telling the candidate the price and fma of your equity anyway. I would say 90% took the higher base. And I wouldn’t up both unless they were a truly great candidate.
I have been recommending this post over and over - in a blog post from 2016 on going from academia to data science (https://p.migdal.pl/blog/2016/03/data-science-intro-for-math...), via email, in person.
It helped quite a lot of people - especially women, who had a mindset that they should accept they should accept the offer. A thought that one can (and should) negotiate was a game-changer. Sometimes they were shocked that an ask for 25% more was accepted with no questions.
The best advice I found was in 'Never Split the Difference'. The rest is me being honest and direct.
Yep, I've read a lot of negotiation books and that's the one that explains all the other ones.
Everything else (including this article) is a specific case of the models described in that book.
Also, Never Split The Difference is basically a negotiation-oriented, machismo-tinted version of Nonviolent Communication by Dr. Marshall Rosenberg. I highly recommend both books.
I bounced on that book pretty quickly, so maybe I need to give it another attempt. It started off so generic and, "Here are my expert qualifications and anecdotes".
Yeah I rolled my eyes at that, but publishers basically require the front 10% of non-fiction be like that. It's for the people walking through book stores and picking up books to browse.
Thats why we need disruption in the books publishing industry
You have it. You can self-publish.
Publishers are not actually idiots. By and large, they know what sells.
Self publishing doesn't work because there is no filter for quality or editing.
[dead]
Having worked in investment banking (a job where your only true value add is your network and ability to negotiate) I would like to say two things:
1. I second everything in the article.
2. You would be surprised to learn how important rule #7 is. We would build entire presentations that we would provide to the other side of the table in negotiations just to reinforce our points. Basically putting ourselves in the position of “hey we’re on your side, but look at the numbers; our hands are tied!”. Having a non-confrontational attitude and providing specific reasons for why you are asking for things makes a big difference in negotiations.
(Definitely don’t need to be building presentations for potential employers though… unless it’s for contracts large enough that you’d need a lawyer and wouldn’t need OP’s advice anyways!)
Classic banker tactic, I love it. “Overwhelm them with data”
I wish I could take this advice, but my imposter syndrome is just too strong and you cant just turn it off with logical explanations.
By the time I get an offer, I already feel like I’m already uncomfortable about all the bragging I’ve had to do to hype myself up. Asking for more in a negotiation is just a recipe for even worse guilt during the onboarding process (which is already a fraught time for feeling like an idiot).
The simple thing I tell people to do who are uncomfortable with more complex negotiation is, just before you're about to accept the offer, just ask if they can increase it any. Just straight up say "Is there any room to increase this offer?" If they say no, just accept it. If not, let them increase it, then accept that increased offer. I've gotten an increase at a significant majority of companies doing this and it's essentially zero cost.
How many different companies have you worked for?
Close to 20 now I believe all time.
Imagine meeting co-workers on your first day: "This is parpfish, a rock star who is making twice what all of you make. He is one of those 10x engineers you all hear about. Just stay out of his way while he re-architects all our systems!" I think I should have taken the lower offer?
The hope would be to get an intro like “This is parish, a normal 1x coder that makes a normal amount of money so please be forgiving when he doesn’t understand something”.
Dated 2016.
I think the 2025 rules will be different, for most US tech job-seekers.
Which rules would be different in particular, you think?
The information landscape has changed a bit - several large states now require posting clear salary bands, which many companies comply with in good faith. Some like Netflix post something useless (eg: "The range for this role is $100,000 - $720,000").
Netflix is a weird case, in that they let new hires pick the mix of stock vs. cash in their total compensation. Since the CA law requires posting the cash salary in the job offer, it really can be that wide of a range.
When given the range, overshoot the max so they can negotiate you down close to the max.
"Why do we need a candidate that can't read or do basic math?"
Also, usually the high bound is set to catch desperate overqualifieds into the job competing process, not to be actually paid.
YMMV, speaking from experience in non-US job market culture.
It's not about the basic math but negotiating if they can do better, also saying that they shouldn't even bother proposing you something in the lower part of the range.
I deal with non-US shops as well, it is surprising how many of them can and do pay US rates when asked.
That isn’t useless, the $100k bottom number provides a lot of information to labor sellers.
Sorry, that was a confusing choice of term by me, when the article already used the term "rule". I mean the courtship dynamics.
When it's a buyer's market -- or the buyers think it is -- some of the candidate tactics are going to play differently.
Even the old advice that, once the company decides they want you, that changes the dynamics, and now opens up negotiation. The dynamics maybe don't change as much as they used to. If candidate A doesn't take the offer, B, C, D, etc., are lined up and waiting, and probably not going anywhere.
I suspect that a lot of techbros who only know/remember the sellers market of a few years ago are going to be hit by the pendulum swing, when a lot of employers will be similarly cocky and fickle.
Midwest, not Silicon Valley, but that's my current experience. I've already got a job and just got an offer which would be a small pay cut. So, I told them I'm excited about the work, etc but I just can't take a pay cut.
They remained firm that they couldn't budge on salary even a little. Then remained firm as I asked for a signing bonus (denied) and reduced hours (denied). This company doesn't do stock at all and they've already got unlimited PTO so no room to negotiate there.
Meanwhile, their interview feedback indicated I did very well. They unanimously wanted me, and I slightly exceeded their technical expectations for the role.
Seems tougher than I remember from before covid.
(Throwaway since I don't want this tied to my name for my current or future employer to find.)
Can agree that right now the market is tough.
Some years ago there were job posts left and right, salaries were high and hiring was smooth - now there are comparatively fewer jobs posted, salaries are almost half of what it was before, and many don't even write back.
Many companies are even turning away from remote work. It used to be very doable to find a job in the US from Europe, now everyone is demanding you have work authorization and can be in the US.
> is demanding you have work authorization
This was also my observation. Everyone is talking about "outsourcing" but what I am seeing is work-authorization required everywhere. I wonder if this is a legal change that restricts them because it works against their negotiation power.
Yea, this has been pretty much my experience through years of job searching. Very rare to find a company willing to negotiate.
This has been true since 216, let alone in 2016 or now in 2025. It will still be true in 20,216.
I agree, if you extract the "timeless fundamentals" from each one of these paragraphs, it will remain relevant anytime, anywhere.
As long as human nature remains, the advice will still be valid.
Author's points are all still valid and worth the read.
I just went through the job hunting (labour selling!) process for a tech role in a HCOL city in US and every point in the article matched with my experience. As another commenter mentioned, the difference is these days you have bands on job listings and then levels.fyi and blind (for larger tech companies) balances out some of the information asymmetry.
I've always asked for better non-monetary things in writing: title, spot on the org chart, automatic promotion soon, which parts of the product and stack I will work on, even as trivial as whether my desk will have a window. I state with constant certainty that those things are more important to me than a bigger paycheck. Most of the time I was offered far more money (in one case, 2 years pay signing bonus) in return for my agreeing to accept an offer with none of those things in writing.
He's not a perfect figure but I always really valued Haseebs perspective and energy. I used to have access to an old lecture of his explaining memory management through whiteboard sketches of original mario that I really loved in addition to dozens of energetic insightful lectures on foundational computer science concepts that he basically did for free before his AirBnB position.
I think he played a big role for a lot of pre-pandemic bootcamp imposters like me.
But seeing this pop back up on HN I'm wondering how radically the tech world / job market has changed. I've been hiding in kushy underpaid remote jobs basically since the pandemic so I have no real idea whats going on out there.
How applicable is this perspective to the present day market for software engineers? How much have things fundamentally changed?
> A company’s goal is to hire someone who will become an effective employee and produce more value than their cost.
This isn't true. They have no clue how to measure your value output. A company's goal is to make sure it has the staff to get its work done so it can sell its thing. A hiring manager's goal is to find someone to do the thing they don't have time/staff for. They will pay somewhere in the realm of whatever the market pays, depending on the "philosophy" of the hiring manager, engineering director, finance people, etc.
I recently interviewed for two jobs in different locations. Both remote, both companies in mid-tier locations in terms of salary. Same type of job, same kind & size of company, same tech, same problems to solve. One was offering 40K more than the other. I wasn't going to produce 40K more value for one than the other. Hiring and salary is just not a very smart process. They have the budget they have, and the market is what it is.
Yes! I wrote my own response, but your post made me realize the most important piece of missing advice: if you want a great offer, interview at a company with lots and lots of money
Generally speaking, yes, companies with more money can pay more. But there's plenty of companies with lots of money, yet their teams have no budget. And it depends if you came in through a recruiter or not, or are a contractor or not, or if it's a startup throwing around cash or being thrifty. Start by applying to the ones that list a high range, and then the companies with lots of money, and then the rest.
I've found that if they're a startup based out of a high-income city, they're most likely to throw money at you. Larger companies based out of high-income cities have to be more stingy and will limit based on your location, but you can push for more. A corporate hiring structure will often enforce salary caps based on title, so if you ask for too much, they may have to invent a new title for you and get it justified to their executive leadership, which is politically fraught. So if you get to the top of the salary band, don't push hard, or they will be in a corner and have to choose between you (a near-impossible candidate) and a candidate they can actually hire.
With most tech career advice on the internet, I would check to see if it was written before 2022. If so, I'd take it with a grain of salt. I wrote tech advice in the ZIRP times. It was a very different market. Negotiation is still a valid tactic but there's a lot more to lose and a lot fewer offers than in 2021.
Negotiation isn't a tactic, it's the basic thing you are doing.
Depends on your position. I was employed but the company was going down the tubes when I got my last job through a connection. I didn't really negotiate and the one thing I would have liked to have negotiated (paid time off) was made clear was not on the table even before I said anything. And the offer was not FAANG levels but was incredibly good relative to what I was making.
Oh hey, this uses PT fonts, I quite like them:
https://fonts.google.com/specimen/PT+Sans
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PT_Fonts
I'd actually use them as my main programming font if the dot (.) character wasn't a bit too small at smaller font sizes.
>oh, a company wants to give me a job! What a relief!” As though having a job were in itself some special privilege for which a company is the gatekeeper.
A global recession is happening. Let's see if this advice will withstand the times or will age like milk. I predict the latter; the Great Depression wasn't fake news.
This is all great advice especially at the 101 level. At the 201 level, you can start to skip a lot of these formalities by straightening out the information asymmetry and really having a crisp position on the value exchange.
- Your #1 goal should actually be knowing the top of the range of what this role is worth in the market. Once you figure that out, the whole "don't say the first number" rule is BS. Set expectations at the high water mark and then your job isn't to negotiate on salary; it's to negotiate if you're worth it
- Now that you know the maximum price this role (or product, or service -- it's all the same!) can be set to, you need to convince the other side that you deliver the requisite amount of value to justify the price. Like the article said, talk about your impact. Your BATNA. Your opportunity cost. All of these things are real and support why you are worth it
Once you transition from negotiating on price alone to negotiating ROI, everything changes. Try your best to solve the asymmetry, set the price and move on, find your leverage, and then make a compelling case. That's how you win
Related: How to sabotage your salary negotiations efforts before you even start
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37239747
Lots of good gems
I'm far from a great negotiator, but there are definitely lots of good lessons from here that I've learned the hard way over time and through experience.One of the greatest gems I got from a blog post once posted back in HN (I can't find it anymore, unfortunately) was about a guy getting a job at Google (or ex-Googler), and he dropped the following (I'm paraphrasing, of course):
It was a short post, but that piece of advice has been with me for more than 10 years now.> Companies generally respect candidates who negotiate
Is this really the case? If a company is giving you an offer, presumably they want to hire you. At that point, does the recruiter, your hiring manager, your skip level, the CTO, the CEO even care at that point? Does this respect ever come into play in future performance reviews? I personally don’t think so, but I’ve only ever worked for larger companies.
I’ve always thought you should negotiate because you’re potentially leaving money on the table, since companies will often try to lowball your offer.
> Is this really the case? If a company is giving you an offer, presumably they want to hire you.
In my opinion and experience, I've seen recruiters respect you "harder" if you're not a pushover; that reflects in their internal profile about you.
I can't say that this is a blanket truth; of course size of org matters, too.
But I think there's an effect like a "bet" that now favors the candidate that negotiated. When you negotiate and the hiring manager or company accepts, it's like they're placing a bet that you were absolutely the best candidate in that pool.
Imagine you're the one doing the hiring. What kind of candidate would you extend extra compensation to? Only one that you believe would truly improve your organization and in doing so, you -- on the hiring side -- are placing a bet.
Maybe this is a blind spot for me, but my inclination is to think it doesn’t matter?
Only because the company has already made you an offer in the first place, ergo they see your value and are already making a bet on you. Has there ever been an instance where an offer has been rescinded because a prospective employee didn’t negotiate?
How about the other side? Where the company sees you as an even more desirable candidate and increases the offer? Signing bonus, increased salary, other perks?
Author's whole point is "You always win if you negotiate the right way."
The author's point isn't that you aren't going to get the job by not negotiating, the author's point is that you're leaving money on the table by not negotiating. Potentially a lot of money by thinking that the other side is fair and transparent in their offer to you or doing you "a favor" by giving you a job rather than seeing that there is, unfortunately, a game that has to be played once you get to the offer stage.
in my 25+ year career I yearly-negotiated my salary… with every employer… just as if I was just then getting hired… never looked at it as “performance review” - more like “is my compensation matching my contributions.” I think every person should approach it this way (and of course leave if the company is not willing to fully re-negotiate compensation yearly
I found this article at a time where I had the opportunity to accept two job offers, so I had nothing to lose by pushing for more salary. The negotiation went well and got a substantial increase in the final offer on company A. On the other hand, company B dropped their offer. So watch out, if company B had been my only option I would have lost my opportunity.
I was clear from the beginning that I had another offer at hand, to use as leverage.
Based on the website, was this published in 2016?
The job market in 2016 is unrecognizable to anyone who has had to look for a job recently.
It is absolutely brutal out there right now, and this feels a bit detached from reality.
Conditions change. Sometimes you have to tread very carefully, but even then a soft negotiation check is usually worth it. My 2c.
This was written in 2016. The job market in 2016 was basically "you can throw a stone and find somebody looking for a developer". These days, the market is so different that I'm not sure if the same advice is still relevant.
In addition, some of this kind of advice has always struck me as particularly US-centric and I doubt it all applies equally well in e.g. Europe. You don't get very far here by not sharing your initial salary expectations early on, I think.
I've negotiated hundreds of salaries for developers and tech people.
The key to negotiating is to get to a deal that both parties feel happy with - if you “win” a negotiation through power then you will likely find later you lost when you get paid back for winning through strength.
Here is what I know about negotiating:
1: know in advance the salary that you want
2: aim for a salary that is not at the high end, not at the low end
3: your target salary should be one that you will feel satisfied with if you get the job - you do not want to get the job and then be unhappy and feeling like you undersold yourself an looking over your shoulder for the next job.
4: it is a good idea to ask for a salary range - typically $5K to $10K. you can say "I'm looking for $150K to $160K but it depends on what the role is" - this gives you some room to negotiate and helps avoid overpricing yourself.
5: if you feel that your salary target is fair, then stick to that - when the time comes that they ask you how much you want - state what you want and explain why you think it is fair.
6: if you get negotiated down, explain again that you think your target number is fair and explain why. explain that given that the number is a fair market rate then you're not moving down.
7: be willing to accept that you do not get the job as an outcome of asking for a fair salary - at that point shrug and move on.
8: if you are the start of your career then money should not matter at all - find a job that will allow you to hone your craft and learn key skills - this is the attitude you should have for your first five years. After that, you will be able to negotiate on the strength of your skills and experience.
Remember negotiation of salary should not be about a win/lose attitude - if either party feels that someone won and someone lost, then that will be a bad start to the relationship. Negotiating salary is about finding a salary that both employer and employee feel happy at.
If you are an employer, remember that every dollar you pay ABOVE the requested salary buys you good will and enthusiasm. Every dollar you offer BELOW the requested salary does the inverse. Also avoid the "If you do well we will pay you more in 3 months" - just pay straight up front that amount.
> say “I'm looking for $150K to $160K…”
I’ll defer to your experience on this but I am under the impression that giving a range was a bad idea because a company can always lowball you: “oh, you said you were okay with 150K, why are you trying to renegotiate with us now?!”
“Just to clarify, I said in an email that I’m looking for $150k to $160k depending on the role. Now that we’ve talked about the job I feel like the $160k is the right amount given my skills and experience.”
That’s how to handle it, with the caveat that you should not be using that as a ploy to get the higher rate, never having had the willingness to take the lower rate. If you give a range, you should expect to be offered at the lower end and you should be happy to accept that offer. If you’re not happy with the lower end then you put forward the wrong numbers.
And if they say no, shrug and move on.
But you never find out that the actual range was 180-250k.
> if you “win” a negotiation through power then you will likely find later you lost when you get paid back for winning through strength.
Could you please provide an example of said scenario?
> if either party feels that someone won and someone lost, then that will be a bad start to the relationship. Negotiating salary is about finding a salary that both employer and employee feel happy at.
Yes, I second this. It once happened to me that I "won" by getting an over-budgeted salary, but had to quit 3 days later because one of the bosses leaked in a meeting that they intended to overwork me since they felt hustled by me during the salary negotiation.
Said and done, they assigned me more work than initially scoped, as to adjust the "bang for the buck" balance (and had to quit shortly after that).
As someone on the hiring side, I strongly agree with GP.
I can think of a specific example where someone with experience and strong qualifications pushed for a higher salary - which I agreed to - then struggled with the role and ended up not sticking around. In another instance, someone had lower qualifications and experience, but also negotiated hardest out of their hiring cohort - same outcome, plus they weren't a great fit personality wise.
Meanwhile, I can think of several other people who cross-trained from their initial non-technical careers at the local community college, came in with low experience, didn't negotiate aggressively (although did stand up for themselves)... They've done great work (and grown substantially and been good to work with) over the long term, and seem to enjoy working for me enough that a few who left for other jobs were interested in being hired again later on.
Negotiating employment terms is the first task you complete at a new job. It is a good predictor. If it leaves a bad taste in the mouth for either side, it's not a good sign of things to come...
I read some advice that suggested asking the salary band during salary negotiations and that many HR departments won't hesitate to share.
I tried this while interviewing for my current job and sure enough they shared. Lesson learned: you can ask and the worst they will probably do is say no, but it's very valuable knowledge if they share.
Important questions most reasonable people can answer: Can you share the salary range? Are you targeting the mid-point? Are you able to make an offer at the top of the range if you want to?
Here is my negotiation tactic: “I see on levels.fyi that people of my level make X dollars, I want the top of that range”
And magically I got 25% more TC. Only works for big enough companies with salary datapoints online.
It is kind of crazy how there is a bifurcation of TC between those who bothered to negotiate and those who didn’t. Being on the inside I know there are ranges for positions and if you push you can pretty much always get to the max for your range, obviously the recruiters will not give you a max TC offer right away.
Don't even need to make an argument.
"I'll work for you if you give me X"
"Here is X-Y"
"No thanks"
Rule #1 is: have leverage, and understand your leverage.
Rule #2: be prepared to walk away
There are no other rules.
I had a simple formula:
"I feel like I am contributing at least $X value to the company. If I am then it makes sense to pay me that, and if not I'd like to know how we can get there."
It starts a discussion and it's more honest: if I am not worth that much then tell me how I can be more valuable.
I have had a pay rise every year from this conversation but my company is very flexible and successful, so mileage may vary.
I find all other approaches to me gimmicky and tricks, and somewhat dishonest in some way.
It’s funny, I switched from engineering to management a few years ago, and as part of learning to be a manager I really had to learn to negotiate (Avery Pennarun, founder of Tailscale, describes Eng managers as professional negotiators, which I think is at least partly true). I loved this article.
There’s a book on negotiation called “Getting to Yes” that uses a different framework, which became my preferred way to think about negotiation: The goal of a negotiation is to strike an agreement that both parties are happy about. The stereotypical negotiation, “I won’t go a cent below $10,” “well I won’t go a cent above $8” is bad negotiation because even if they meet at $9, neither is happy about it. Instead, the effective negotiator thinks creatively about what would make them happy and asks if it’s available.
As much as I basically agree with it, I would cast the advice in this article differently. Here’s my take, for what it’s worth:
- Re. all the author’s advice about withholding information: you may not be happy if one day you find out that you’re being paid 30% below market (though maybe you won’t care—know what you care about! It will help you negotiate more effectively). The ideal solution here, though, is to know about the market! Consult levels.fyi, talk to your friends, maybe interview from time to time before you’re really looking.
- Re. Don’t be the decision-maker: this is a useful rhetorical tactic, often also called “bad cop,” and it’s not really negotiation-specific but you can bring it into a negotiation if it helps you (at one startup, our co-founder would say on sales calls, “let me check with my sales team” when he was definitely the whole sales team). Honestly, IMO it’s only really useful if you’re trying to placate someone, which you hopefully shouldn’t be when you’re weighing their offer, but you’re welcome to use it if you have social anxiety about pissing off the recruiter (you probably won’t, but I understand the worry)
- Re. stay positive: …yes? The goal is to get to a deal you’re both happy with. If you’re already not happy, then the negotiation is already over. The effective negotiator walks away before getting mad—why burn a bridge over one deal not panning out?
- Have alternatives: honestly this is the main thing. I don’t know how much there is to say but anyone will understand you not being happy with a deal that’s already not your best option.
in [2016]
Companies should offer the best offer in the first place. If the candidates still negotiates, either he is not a fit or you will not make him/her happy/loyal either, the best option is pass.
If the people spent half as much time building skills as they spent creating, reading and following random "rules" then the climate change, homelessness, tech employment crisis etc would all be solved problems.
We’re talking about spending a couple of hours learning the basics of negotiation for a likely 10-20% increase in salary/equity. That’s certainly not making the difference in solving the world’s problems.
If you’re speaking more broadly than just salary negotiation - I’d just say that humans aren’t perfect machines. We care about solving problems but we also have desire for money, power, status and following random rules.
For startups, I'm pretty upfront about the fact that I don't negotiate but if they go under my activation price I will simply decline. It's a one and done deal and we can revisit months later. The range of cost I'll accept is quite large (though this part I don't communicate). I don't mind working for $200k annualized on things I really enjoy and I don't mind working on things I enjoy less for $800k annualized and so on. I have an internal sliding scale and I'm quite clear that I don't really need to work on any specific thing. Then I just take the gig if it meets my internal criteria.
In my experience, it isn't about making a $20k more now or whatever. It's about making a million more because you're invested in something worthwhile etc. etc.
This is quality advice. It approaches the process with the other party in mind.
I’ve put a few of these into practice and they work quite well.
Once you’ve made it to the offer stage most companies want to close. You have more ability to push back on offers than you think.
Unless you're in like the top 1% in your field, there is no negotiation. Must be nice I guess.
Yea, I kind of think a lot of these "Just negotiate, bro" posts are from people who are extremely strong candidates already, like they invented the entire field that the company plays in. Or their PhD thesis was on the exact thing the company is trying to do. For the rest of us, companies can take us or leave us--they aren't going to get into some bidding war for some generic, but strong senior skilled candidate.
That’s scarcity mindset and it decimates your potential for negotiation. If you really truly believe you are a commodity and have nothing at all to offer compared to any other candidate, it’s worth either learning something new to get out of that commodity category and/or look at your experience + knowledge outside your core specialty and market that better.
It sounds cliché but there is nobody like you. We all have unique experiences (life + professional), hobbies, knowledge no one else has or at least not in that particular combination. That’s your « unfair advantage » as some call it and you absolutely can use it to your advantage.
The choice is yours.
I have things like Haskell, Lean and Prolog on my CV - definitely not things that everyone else has had experience with. Recruiters/HMs generally aren't interested in these kinds of things. Oh but you have worked with Kafka before? Now that puts you ahead, even though so many others have.
The one time I tried to negotiate for a director position they responded along the lines of "Oh we're sorry if we implied that this was a negotiation. You can accept or decline the offer by the end of the week."
I’m an average software engineer and I can’t remember a time where I took a job I didn’t negotiate the salary on. Companies that refused to negotiate were the last offers I’d consider and I end up not taking their offers. I was often better paid than my peers. And my professional accomplishments are far from exceptional, I’ve never worked for any companies you’d know, I have gaps in my CV.
What? No. If my team has gone to the effort of a full interview loop with you, and we think you’re a good candidate, we’re not going to start over to save $10k. This isn’t one of those periods when companies are having trouble hitting their hiring quotas; if you got that far then they must be serious.
(Note that if is one of those crazy periods, they still won’t quibble over the salary, but for an entirely different reason!)
It's not just for "elite" devs.
For my second real job I did not feel I was an "extremely strong candidate", just a mildly above-average one. I crushed the coding portion of the interview, but that balanced against my unspectacular CV and lack of experience in the company's field. I read the linked article, applied the principles as best I could: I got £10k more than what they offered first.
Mind you, this was during peak ZIRP so I was probably playing on easy mode and didn't know it.
> If you must divulge what you’re making
Never do that.
> Companies will ask about your current compensation at different stages in the process
This is not legal in many states, 44% of the US population lives in states where companies asking your salary is not legl.
Also, the exploding offer advice is terrible. It won't work. The company will just drop the offer. The actual advice is to decide quickly.
I also think that gaining some chump change during the negotiation is somewhat pointless as companies will just equalize salary bands over time.
Let's say you win $5-10k additional salary during negotiation. Great, now your second year's salary increase is only going to be 2% instead of 5%.
I think the real advice in the age of states having salary transparency laws is to not apply to jobs that don't have a salary range listed in the job description.
The equalization thing may be theoretically true, but in a cumulative 25 years of managing at big companies, I’ve never seen anyone get equalized down, just get slower raises. You’re definitely better off getting overpaid at the beginning. If the offer is 25% high, it might take five years to equalize. And the present-value premium of money isn’t zero anymore!
Slower raises is exactly what I mean.
Perhaps it’s better to start high but I think the impact is moot. In reality every company has a budget range and it’s quite narrow.
I've had a company actually halt the recruiting process because I wouldn't share my current salary. They asked (as they all do), and I did a standard polite "I'd rather not share my current compensation, please make an offer you feel is a good starting point." They then said, well we'd rather not make an offer without knowing this baseline. And that was that. Sure, I guess I could have just made up a fake (high) number, but I wasn't too thrilled about what I saw about the company during the interviews, so it didn't bother me at all. If a company is being shitty during the interview process, they're probably going to be shitty to work for.
Very old advice (2016). Definitely very good in that period of time though. I suppose it’s relevant today for some job posts.
But thanks to transparency in pay regulations from states such as Colorado. Pay is advertised up front.
You know what you are worth. Find jobs/companies that fit that ideal number. Then pop off in interview(s).
Just a data point: I once avoided giving the first number, and when pushed into it, gave a ridiculously high number for a job I really wanted. The HR guy said, "no that's too high". Well duh, idiot. You make a big story about how you can't possibly move forward until I tell you something, I'm going to tell you something, and you're not going to like it.
I waited a day to cool off and think hard, and called the guy back to say, "Your colleagues have selected me, I've proven I'll be able to do this job, and they told you they want me to. I told you, make me an offer. You instead required me to make an offer, and look where it got us? Now do as I asked, make me an offer, and we'll see. I won't be offended, this is a hard post to fill, and we both want this to work, so just try, will you?"
Hardest phone call I ever made, but worth it. I saved my colleagues from having to go find another candidate, and got myself a job I wanted for the right price.
This is all very interesting, but is complete fiction for most readers. 99% of job seekers aren’t going to receive competing offers from multiple companies conveniently at the same time.
This is addressed in the article:
> Turns out, it doesn’t matter that much where your first offer is from, or even how much they’re offering you. Just having an offer in hand will get the engine running.
> If you’re already in the pipeline with other companies (which you should be if you’re doing it right), you should proactively reach out and let them know that you’ve just received an offer. Try to build a sense of urgency. Regardless of whether you know the expiration date, all offers expire at some point, so take advantage of that.
Anecdotally, I have seen this work many times to great effect.
Me too. It was utterly bizarre. Spent 6 month looking for a job, with I don’t know how many failed interviews, then I got one offer for a 6 month contract, and suddenly the next two companies I interviewed with were falling over themselves to give me a permanent one.
I just do not see how that works. There’s no logical reason for it.
It is at least in part because of how recruiting works, especially in large tech companies. Companies have many candidates for each role, and can't easily review all of them. Between bureaucracy, how busy the hiring manager is, etc. many candidates get lost in the process.
This is why 1) it really helps to have a referral and 2) tell the recruiter when you have competing roles. Neither will change much about getting or not a role, but they will really help the prioritization and avoid you getting lost.
Paradoxically, that effect is bigger nowadays when the market is not as hot as it used to be, because recruiting is more stretched. Even some FAANG are very understaffed on the recruiting side
This is the same logic as dealing with VC investors. Nobody feels confident saying yes so they drag the process out. Then someone else does say Yes and they assume this other unknown party has figured out something they haven’t. Now they have a sense of urgency over losing out on something. Even if they don’t know what quality the entity offering the first Yes even saw.
In addition to your (presumably positive-enough) interview performance that the later company has themselves, they also have a "hire" recommendation from an entire other interview loop at a different company.
That's a strong signal, and probably puts you ahead of most people interviewing at the later company, who only have the one set of positive feedback.
That’s theoretically true, but the only proof they have of that is the 5 or so words I uttered saying “I have a different offer”. Why should those 5 words make all the difference. You could say them without any offer at all and suddenly get the job?
Yes, you can lie to people and have good things happen to you because they believed the lie.
Surprisingly, most people are not in fact lying most of the time.
(Also, in practice, there's supporting evidence like being able to spout off credible minor details that yes, are still easy to bullshit but again, most people usually aren't lying.)
Why would someone not then just tell every recruiter/company they are interviewing with that they already have offers are are in the pipeline at other companies even if they don't.
We've heard nowadays how hard it is to even get to the interview for many companies so theres probably plenty of candidates who do not have many other offers prepared or even close to prepared.
Another issue is timing. Theres been times when I've started the interview process with two companies but one is on a much shorter timeline than the other so now I have an offer for one whereas I am still waiting on an interview that isn't for even a couple weeks for another, if not longer.
Not gonna lie, last time I went through the interview process I just told them I have other offers already even when I didn't. It worked in my favor I believe but feels like to get the best outcome you just have to be okay with basically lying out your ass - and that goes both ways, as the employer and the employee since it seems like even the companies feel fine with dragging their asses on concrete unless you have other stuff going on.
Presumably there’s a karmic payoff for this, or someone at X company knows someone at Y who can tell them whether or not you’re actually in the pipeline or have received an offer. Perhaps there’s an element of bluffing or calling bluffs in all of this.
I like karma, but wouldn't checking have the appearance of illegal collusion between the companies? For example, would it look like they were price-fixing?
"Oh, your honor, I was only checking whether they had an offer. We totally weren't discussing how we'd not raise our offers, with the goal of suppressing wages."
iirc there’s already an app for that in some sense, and a good amount of plausible deniability and backroom politics that can make up for any potential lawsuit. Similar issue to “proving” any kind of discrimination: a smooth corporate operator can CYA well enough to create a fake paper trail to justify any sort of decision making.
I mean, that sounds like a level of due dilegence that a lot of companies are unlikely to follow. I suspect that most don't even check the references that you give them.
Would you be compelled to tell them the offer was from company Y? Or are you saying this is all predicated on Y being a famous company?
It is a labor law violation to disclose such info.
False. Whatever you got told in primary school was a lie.
there is also the risk of getting black listed for lying.
I’d file that under the karmic payout thing. I personally hire and fire people but don’t have The Blacklist handy, and I’m not really sure that it exists outside of Roko’s basilisk-esque sense, in which it could be really bad if it really did.
Sure works for realtors too!
It’s always easier to get a new job when you already have one.
I have also experienced this and subsequently bluffed it.
I told a startup that I “was talking to Meta”, and they were like ok we cant compete with that. I hadnt even done leetcode yet I was just doing emails with Meta’s recruiter. I told the startup that its okay because I will be stuck in team matching for 6 months, and the startup bumped my salary 30%.
Perhaps having the 6mo contract in hand increased your confidence and changed the way you were carrying yourself and interviewing (subtly to you, but meaningfully).
I think this is a real effect. Dating certainly has a version of this dynamic.
Quantum entanglement
Literally nothing involving human behaviour is entirely logical. Coincidentally, as a hiring manager, hearing people describe “illogical” human behaviour with any sort of surprise is an inexperience indicator for me.
why is it relevant? do you hire psychologists?
Agreed. In my last job search I went months with no offer, then 4 within a week. Precisely because I leveraged the first one to speed the others along.
As a hiring manager, this might help negotiate pay up if I already wanted to hire you, but if I was on the fence, knowing someone I'm not thrilled with has an offer does basically nothing for me.
As a hiring manager, if I was on the fence, knowing someone I'm not thrilled with has an offer makes me try to figure out what I/we missed and I would reexamine potential gaps in our recruiting processes with the candidate, which are always wrought with biases. And luck is such a big factor (on both the company- and candidate-side) in getting a positive signal.
As a hiring manager with over two decades experience I tend not to think this way unless I know who the other hiring manager is, have reason to believe that they are strong at hiring, and that the role they are hiring for is similar enough to mine for it to mean something.
That's not to say I don't think about where I might have blind spots for a candidate—as you say, all processes are biased—but I've seen too many bozos in this industry (especially as the money started to become its own draw) to take a random offer as signal for anything. More context is necessary or it's just garbage in garbage out.
If you’re good at running your interview process you will have 3-4 at a time. That’s usually where I’m at, I’m interviewing with 12 and get it necked down to 3 or 4 getting to the offer point. I try to stretch out the fast movers and speed up the slow ones but just be honest with recruiters. You’re in the pipeline with other companies and you’re not ready to respond yet.
Edit: I saw other comments. I am both “old” and I have a mechanical engineering degree (not CS) and I do just fine interviewing with startups. I worked really hard at the practice of interviewing, this has more rewards and lower risk than basically any other skills you can learn so invest it.
> I worked really hard at the practice of interviewing
What did you do?
Not the OP but I tell everyone on the market that one of the highest ROI things you can do is just go through your own past career history with a fine toothed comb and simply remember all the different things you did and be able to tell the story of each concisely and informatively (if possible, recall actual numbers and quantifiable impacts etc.).
When in an interview, when you're asked a question about your past experiences, the larger the library you have to draw on, the more likely you are to find an example that's relevant and persuasive. Even questions of the form "How would you deal with [hypothetical scenario]", I encourage applicants, if possible, to answer it in the form of "Oh yeah, that's interesting, we had to deal with a very similar case at [one of my previous jobs], here was my approach towards it".
After each interview, do a "l'esprit de l'escalier" retro, write down all the questions asked, what your answer was at the time and what you would have ideally answered now given the fullness of time to think about it. If there's a significant delta, that's a sign to go back and prepare more until your "real time" performance approaches your retroactive performance.
As terrible as the Amazon interview process is, they’re very up front in telling candidates exactly this: Here are the LPs, come up with stories for each one and make sure it’s STAR format.
And even if you receive two or more offers at once, many organizations don't bother negotiating. One time I received two offers at once, and neither organization was willing to change anything substantive about their offers.
In this case, one organization had an onerous IP policy and that other did not. I asked for some carve-outs, and the first organization came back with a single line added to the IP policy that did not change anything meaningful. I told them that I could not accept that offer as written and wanted more changes, but they refused further negotiation and told me to take it or leave it. I waited a few days, rejected their offer, and accepted the other offer.
(I think that they were willing to add the single meaningless line to make it appear they were willing to change things without actually changing anything substantive.)
The morale of my story is that you may not be able to negotiate a better offer, but at least you have a choice when you have multiple offers.
Yeah well at least you tried, sometimes that’s just how it plays out. You might be surprised by how many people don’t even realize you CAN negotiate a job offer. I think it’s a little more well known among tech workers maybe?
It's also quite difficult to manage.
I was lucky enough to have 3 companies that all gave me offers (a couple years back when the market for tech was at its peak). It played out like this article recommends. After an offer was on the table, the other 2 kept throwing better and better offers at me.
However, interviewing at 3 companies, over the span of 2 weeks, with an existing (remote) full time job was hard work. Likely impossible if I hadn't already checked out at the FT job. It was also mentally exhausting, with how companies like to do multiple rounds.
I agree with you within the scope of top tech jobs. The tech interviews process is fairly uniquely grueling because it's both very high paid (so a costly mistake to hire poorly) while lacking much professional certification.
In many other careers the interview process is, if not shorter, at least more behavioral and less mentally draining because you're already pre-screened by licensure or rigid advancement structure of some sort.
Considering the ration of job applications to job offers right now seems to be 1 in 500, your right on point
In the current job market, only if your in the top 0.01% will you ever have to worry about this.
I really hope things improve but I'm pessimistic...
A priori, this is a very strange assertion.
Assume that X% of companies are interested in you and you pursue Y leads to result in X% * Y offers. A large number of people will receive 0 offers and they'll be long term on the job market until they make a change to either X (job hunting strategy) or Y (pool of roles considered).
A large number of people will receive >1 offers because they're competitive in the marketplace. Only some tiny number of people will receive exactly one offer unless Y is very small.
That many people only receive one offer is more of a sign that they're not strategic in their job hunting approach (which is upstream of them not being strategic in their negotiations) and this is a fixable problem.
Every single time I’ve been job searching (10x) I’ve always had 2-3 offers on the line simultaneously; I honestly assumed this was the norm.
Has that been recently? I've read the market has been brutal lately, but I haven't had to look myself, thankfully.
I’m job searching right now, and it’s definitely not the doom and gloom that I’m hearing about.
I think it’s a challenging environment for developers who are either inexperienced or who have skills that are out of date. I have found that companies are a bit more picky than i remember about knowing the exact tech stack they use, but they are still making offers and those offers are pretty good.
Note that I’m applying mostly to mid-sized non-public companies. I’m not sure what it’s like applying to MAANG-types right now.
I'm in loops at multiple FAANGs right now and it's not even that bad. Feels similar to when I did this last time? But I do get the impression that they're all just throwing out any resumes that don't already have a FAANG on them. If you're already in the club then it's ok, but I think it's harder than ever to join the club so to speak.
this is EXACTLY where everyone should be applying… too many people are nuts to work at faang, I can live 50 lifetimes and never understand it.
When the FAANGs stocks were soaring and they handed out options like candy, even low level devs at those tech companies were making the kind of money usually reserved for medical doctors and attorneys. There was a huge gulf between SV pay and pretty much everywhere else.
Now, those companies have mostly lost the luster they used to have, and the comp differences aren't as large.
The last time any faang gave options to low level employees was probably 2009 or earlier
For me, it was. Couldn't find anything for 4 months, and suddenly I had 3 offers. It often works out like that. It's as if companies suddenly smell you've become desirable or something.
Seriously. Getting even one underwhelming offer is beating the odds these days.
This article must've been written in Spring 2022. Tech hiring is now like 2008 or post-dotcom.
The question is whether it will return to what it once was.
The big tech companies are monopolies, no longer afraid that they have to employ "all the engineers" to prevent competition. ZIRP isn't there to give rise to startups, or to give the tech companies unlimited leeway in development.
If interest rates drop or big tech is broken up, we might see a sharp rise in salaries. But now there's also more competition from overseas, both in terms of great talent and competition from large international players.
edit: the article was from 2016, and can confirm. I was making bank then and getting free at-work massages, boba, and towel service.
your whole problem is that you want to work at big tech. I still get a whole lot of perks (not massages :) ) working for small private companies making MUCH more money now than 2016… big tech bubble is killing a whole lot of careers these days, tech hiring now is actually pretty good, I get emails from companies and recruiters (even though I virtually do not exist publicly, e.g. linkedin etc…) weekly or less
In a 25 year career, I've never really managed to significantly negotiate compensation upwards, either at the job offer phase or for raises once I'm in. It's always a "take it or leave it" offer and yea, I've chosen to leave it a few times.
Recruiter: "Here's your offer for $X compensation."
You: "I was actually looking for something paying $X+Y."
Recruiter: "Well our offer is $X."
You: "This data shows that comparable jobs with the work I'm taking on are paying $X+Y."
Recruiter: "Our offer is $X. Do you want the job or not?"
You: "Well, I'm not willing to join for less than $X+(Y/2)."
Recruiter: "OK, well, bye. We have 35 other candidates lined up to talk to. Good luck."
Not sure how it's different when you have multiple offers. The company offering a lower comp will just say "Well, their offer is higher. Have fun at Company B. Thanks for interviewing!" Reading stories of these Captains Of Industry just asking for more and getting it, or getting companies into a bidding war over them is... kind of wild. It's like we're living in different universes.
Not an expert, but my impression is that many companies (maybe especially startups) don't say "we offer $X". They will try to ask you how much you expect as early as possible: if that's way too high, they won't even interview you, if it's too low you're screwed because they won't go higher anymore.
I don't think I'm negotiating to get a better compensation than what is reasonable. On the contrary, I'm negotiating to get a fair compensation.
Some companies (bigger ones) will just say "we hire you for this title, so the compensation is $X and we don't negotiate because we want it to be fair for your colleagues". Then I don't think you can negotiate much, but at the same time they're probably not screwing you. It's just what it's worth to them, take it or leave it.
This has not been my experience at all -- even as recently as last year it was
Recruiter: "Here's your offer for $X"
You: "Well I'm also negotiating an offer with Z for $X + 200k
Recruiter: OK well how about $X + 200k and a 50k signing bonus?
Multiple offers are key -- seriously, timing that properly is the biggest thing you can do to optimize your job search. Even if you can't give exact numbers, the mere presence of a competing offer will make a company offer you top of band.
at my company the dollars are what they are - take it or leave it. However you can often get an extra week of paid vacation if you ask. You don't eken have to know it is exactly what we can give - the hiring manager wants you and has been told $x by hr but know vacation is an option and will offer it if you just don't say yes instantly.
I would NEVER work for a company where dollars are what they are - that is fucking mcdonald’s and I would in passing tell everyone their employer is either financially insolvent or a sweatshop. jesus!
I think they're doing just fine without you then. Don't seem very sorry either :P
companies will always find slaves, always been that way
Pretty sure this is largely related to the industry and type of position you're applying for, and whether it's a big or small company.
At a big company with known positions (e.g. junior, mid-range, and senior devs), salaries for each of those positions may fall within a narrow range with little to no leeway. At a smaller company, where roles are more amorphous, starting salary may span a huge range depending on your specific qualifications, how their business is going, etc.
So true. Even companies I've heard back from, it's impossible to predict when. I've has a few take 2+ months!
I have had this situation multiple times in my life. It was probably a lot more common for tech in the last 10 years especially in the US.
Edit: I'm seeing a lot of comments on this thread that has not aligned with my experience. I have, in tech, as a software engineer used multiple offers to increase a lower offer by like 15% for a company I preferred and I have also held an offer on the hook so to speak to use it leverage someone else to good effect.
Right, I've received one job offer in the last decade. One. Took me a year and a half of searching to get it. Don't skip the degree or get older. ;-)
3 companies in a row I got recruited by folks from other companies - skipped the degree and about to turn 40, so older is relative - the biggest diff I have had is I am obvious and honest that I am always looking and actively build the network, especially the youngins - I have gotten 4 jobs (and its accelerating given the last 3) from folks I helped teach or train in the past who went on to do something interesting.
Hmmm, the nugget about focusing on younger folks you've trained sounds interesting, I hadn't previously thought of that. However, there have been very few juniors around in my last few jobs. Maybe because they were contracts.
It doesn't seem you read the article completely. It is pretty long.
> 99%…aren’t going to receive competing offers
Then it’s not for them. You don’t see me complaining about advice for plumbers bc I’m not a plumber. The advice is for the 1%. Anecdotally I know numerous people, including myself, who have been in this situation.
Best way I've found is no negotiate tell recruiters and head hunters what you want to make (saying that's what you make currently) when you respond to their initial message. Either the conversation continues where they offer a bit more or it ends.
You think they're going to check? Just call up the competition, ask them to divulge information about current hiring, which legally can't be divulged?
You're negotiating based on potential.
And now that so many jobs require hours of take home assignments, it’s even harder to align interviews at the same stage.
Yes, our system is a multiverse of psychological distortions and senseless inequality. Some people straight out of university with no skills will receive large offers from multiple companies and will use that to negotiate themselves a big pay package then they will feel good about themselves and feel like they earned it...
But in reality it's just an illusion. Companies want to hire people who are delusional and believe that they deserve what they got. Big tech doesn't really need these people or their skills, in reality. They're merely cogs in the big machine. Big tech could easily have found someone better for a lower price; they get so many applications. The whole thing is like a psychological operation. They don't want to build up an elite class which understands how broken the system is. They want a delusional elite class who believe the grotesque myth of the meritocracy. People who don't believe in meritocracy are a huge threat; they cannot be allowed anywhere near the elite because the system is so unmeritocratic, it wouldn't take many interactions to snap the elite out of their comfortable trance.
Business leaders start getting imposter syndrome after they interact with people who understand reality. Business leaders sometimes start viewing themselves as mavericks/mafia boss and sometimes start behaving in dodgy ways.
It's like if you do something and you later discover that it was causing harm; you can either feel bad and correct your behaviour or you reinvent your self-image as a 'bad guy' and double down on the harm... Most people choose the latter, unfortunately.
You would have to be incredibly underwhelming to not receive multiple offers simultaneously.
I just skimmed, so not sure if this was mentioned.
It's pretty basic, but BE FAIR. It goes a LONG way and is (sometimes) hard to clock.
I was offered something in my contract, and I misread the offer (not because it wasn't clear, I literally just skipped over a couple of words). Subsequently, I continued on with negotiations and never mentioned it as a concern.
It wasn't detrimental to my offer, and I knew I'd be fine with accepting that term, but it was sort of an annoying term. I knew if I went back to it after the 3rd round of negotiations and negotiated it, then it just wasn't fair. I later told my boss about it and he appreciated it a lot. I have an amazing and fair relationship with my boss.