this is dumb, don’t let them anchor the negotiation on the low end. Starting with a high number and working down is a lot easier than starting with a low number and trying to work them up.
1 Like
Did you read the linked article/thoughts on it? Its pretty famous and its worked out well for me (and says never give a number). Of course it may be different based on how desired your skillset is i.e. software engineer or not.
Just got off the phone with them. I gave them a 25% range based on the a pretty absurd number that I would be shocked they would meet. She said it was higher than the number she has but would discuss with others and asked if I would be willing to negotiate. I don’t need the job so I guess we will see what happens.
1 Like
There’s reams of data supporting the bias to anchor on the first number and inadequately adjust from there. Is there any data that forcing the other side to name a number first yields better results? I haven’t seen any, and it would seem to contradict published research that encourages anchoring as a strategy. “Never give the first number” sounds to me more like chest-thumping about being a Big Man and forcing the other guy to name a number first.
Of course giving the first number is a losing strategy if you low-ball yourself because you’re scared of negotiating and just want to play nice and grant a lot of concessions. You’ll end up with a bad salary offer this way, but you’d be a likely candidate to lead the Democratic Party at the national level so that’s something.
3 Likes
This is a pretty good spot for you, you can always say you totally understand that they need to work within their budget and of course salary isn’t the only thing that matters to you. You look forward to hearing from them on what they can offer in lieu of salary.
You might lose the job if they find an equally good candidate that is willing to do the job for peanuts, but then again the only way you could beat that person would be to work for 95% of peanuts anyway which you probably don’t want to do.
Yeah it’s a fortunate position. I’ve got expertise in a niche field that they are trying to transition into so I pretty much have all the leverage. If it works out great, if not then it’s no loss here. She said it would be 1-2 weeks before they make a decision.
it worked out well for you… compared to what?
letting them drive the negotiation just seems like a huge mistake if you have any clue as to what your market value is. If you’re completely in the dark, then maybe this is a good plan.
this is a good sign. you haven’t undershot their range and you didn’t scare them off.
1 Like
I know my market value pretty good but in a hot market you’re limiting yourself pretty badly by saying a number first in my experience maybe gb or suzzer have some experience here. IDK I used to be hardcore against it but now that I’m hitting the top of my range I generally don’t bother and just say ~30-50% more than my already high TC I think.
I think this is only true if you go low to try to “outbid” other people that want the job. If you say a number first and you have the confidence to give a high number, then that is (measurably) better than not setting the first anchor.
I’m forced by the structure of the transaction to throw out the first offer every day at work… and I can confidently say that I wish I didn’t have to and have an insanely clear idea of what the market rate for trucks is at any given moment.
Most of the negotiation guides that tell you to set a super high starting point are bad. Those mega high fake offers make a huge % of skilled buyers (and these are the kind of buyers you actually want) fuck off instantly. There’s a ton of information you can glean out of your counterparties first offer. For example if they offer you an insultingly low number you can just ghost them immediately and dodge a potentially bad situation.
this is why I said you should talk to a lot of recruiters, even for jobs you have no interest in, and throw out numbers and see what sort of responses you get. You can know your value a lot better than “pretty good” and then you can 100% drive the negotiation.
This seems more relevant to regular transactional stuff than salary negotiation, which is more of a one off that happens rarely. In a salary negotiation, sure you don’t want to ask for 2x the CEOs pay thinking that will be an effective anchor. But I think it’s a good idea to place an aggressive first anchor. I actually think most people are pretty shocked when they put in what they suggest what they think is a high number and the other side comes back and negotiates around that number. Most people underestimate how much their current employer has been shorting them, especially if you stay at one place for a long time.
1 Like
Fair enough. It is an effective way of filtering out the low ball people too. I mostly worry about leaving money on the table or pricing myself too highly.
I feel like there’s a very real risk in taking a job that you’re being paid vastly more than the company in question planned on paying. Your performance will be graded much more harshly and there’s a very real risk that they continually look for your replacement. IME the longer term the deal the more important it is that both sides leave happy. Employment is a pretty long term deal.
That being said I think the most important thing in negotiation is to research, research, research and not arrive at the table with a negative information asymmetry any bigger than is it can be. A company trying to hire massively above or massively below the market rate is a big red flag.
It is an enraging feature of corporate America that the least loyal, most political actors are rewarded while steady Eddie types just get monumentally fucked over.
Inevitably the company that gives 2% max raises no matter what is astonished to continuously lose their best people…
1 Like
All fair points although a couple of things I disagree with a little:
-
I don’t think that many companies are actively looking for replacements for overpaid employees. Generally, getting rid of an employee is a massive pain in the ass and expensive (at least in a first world country with labor laws, no maybe not in 'Merica). However, my experience at large companies is that they are planning on making some % of people redundant every year to clear out perceived dead weight, and it is the case that if you have made yourself expensive that could make you an attractive target. So yeah, you can’t be expensive and suck at your job for very long.
-
I think it’s a bad idea to engage employers these days with the objective of a healthy long term mutually beneficial relationship. At least for larger employers, they are absolutely run by and for sociopaths that will slit your throat without hesitation if it is in their short term interest. I would sign up with a company fully expecting to tear up the deal in three years looking for more money (probably somewhere else). The whole system is designed to reward this - in part because you have a chance to anchor your salary negotiation at a HIGHER number when you switch jobs and it is implicitly anchored at your current number if you stay in the company.
2 Likes
for jobs, pricing myself too highly isn’t that big of a deal because 1) there are lots of jobs and 2) I can realistically only have one of them at a time and 3) I only have a finite number of years I’ll be working. Missing a couple of opportunities while I calibrate my ask isn’t nearly as bad as taking a job making less than I could be and spending a couple of years spinning my wheels.
I feel like there’s a very real risk in taking a job that you’re being paid vastly more than the company in question planned on paying
This seems to be a wildly overrated risk, they’re much more likely to tell me to fuck off than to pay me “vastly more” than they had budgeted.
1 Like
Also, if you’re the kind of person who uses your current salary as an anchor for future salary negotiating, having a job making less than you could be will have impacts on your entire future career earnings trajectory.
I actually think it happens a lot, one of the reasons employers screw over existing employees and give them tiny increases per year is that they burn all their budget attracting new talent. Each individual compensation “reach” for new hires is easily justified.
A few folks have hinted at it, but it really depends on the company.
There often isn’t a monolithic “they”. You have a bunch of separate decision makers with different things influencing the decision.
For example. If it’s being driven by a hiring manager. They may not care about the salary, either because it’s not their budget, or because your salary is lost in a bigger budget. In this case, the hiring manager may actually be on your side in the negotiation.
On the other hand. For a small business owner. Its effectively a zero sum game. Where your salary goes out of their pocket. But they also own the upside if you come with clear revenue opportunities.
Hiring manager may care about how your salary fits vs others in their team. Or their own salary, and be anchoring around that.
On the other hand. The key decision maker may be HR. Either the recruiter directly, or some kind of forum/approval process.
There may be a job banding assigned to the role. That may be completely binding, or completely flexible. Depending on the company.
All of this stuff is very hard to figure out from outside. So it may be that a single approach is the best, however don’t make the mistake that the other folks in this decision are always the same.
Ideally. Try and find out info from someone in the company. But take with a handful of salt, because most folks in a corporate are under informed and underpaid.
2 Likes
Follow up: the 1-2 week wait turned into a phone call today requesting an interview with the VP of the division tomorrow. I guess my number was reasonable enough not to get ghosted lol. I’ll try not to blow it tomorrow.
5 Likes