Salary Negotiation

> I am well aware of what my service is worth

This is the first and most important thing to understand and know before entering a negotiation.

Without this fact, your negotiating ability is irrelevant (and kind of inherently non-existent), as you're operating blind.

With that being said: many do not know what they are worth, to their dismay.

> I refuse to see the relationship with an employer as adversarial

I frame as such: You're two businesses/professionals trying to reach a meeting of the minds. You both want the same thing.

>It's true that the #1 mistake people make is to sell themselves short by giving away a (low) salary upfront.

As an agency/3rd party recruiter/headhunter who asks people questions about salary all the time (current or desired), I'd argue that the #1 mistake people make is saying that they are willing to negotiate before getting any objection. I've written about this at length, but the typical conversation goes like this.

ME: "How much are you looking to make?"

CANDIDATE: "I'm looking for 100K."

ME: PAUSES TO TAKE NOTE

CANDIDATE: "...But I'm always willing to negotiate"

I haven't even said "no" and they are already negotiating against themselves. Any hiring manager dealing with junior level candidates will likely know this tendency for inexperienced negotiators to mention flexibility when greeted with any silence, so they'll incorporate that silence into their "script".

"Don't name a number first" is advice that really only pays dividends to those who don't know their worth.

Those who do know their relative worth are already playing a different game than the former, and will probably be able to reap more advancement and value than someone "getting lucky" by having a company mess up and issue a highball offer.

When entering a negotiation, you should know your worth and be able to articulate your reasoning behind it.

In my experience, it's much easier for me to articulate how I am going to create value and justify my compensation than it is for the counter party to justify their beliefs I am not worth what I say I am.

Usually, if diplomacy fails, it's because the entire team is anchored at a comp range that I would never consider. In that event, though, the counter party has done me a valuable favor: I do not want to work with individuals who are paid less than me.

Having been on both sides of the hiring process many times, I think there's some useful tactical ideas in this podcast, but I think they're missing the forest for the trees.

As a candidate for a job, before you go to any interview (even a phone screen) you need to know what the local market salary range is for the type of job in you are applying for. If you don't know that, you're in a position of weakness and any amount of verbal judo isn't going to be useful.

A good hiring manager will not try to cheat you - they will make you a fair and reasonable offer. It might be at the low end of reasonable, but nevertheless it will be reasonable. If they give you a ridiculous lowball, they're not a good hiring manager, and at that point you should just walk away. Even if they come back with a reasonable offer. You don't want to work for a company or a boss that thinks that's ok to do to people.

A good hiring manager will not ask you your current salary. They might ask you early in the process: "what are your salary expectations?". It is acceptable to not name a number and just say something to the effect of "competitive market salary" which should signal to the hiring manager that you know what that range is, as does he, and you're good with that. If you need to give a number, just state range near the top of the local market salary range and move on. Yes, there's a theoretical risk that you've anchored yourself lower than they might pay, but you've anchored yourself at the top of the market range - not exactly a terrible outcome.

Caveat: this advice might not apply when dealing with a recruiter.

This is a fantastic side-effect of transparent cultures and salary structure: people like you who, for reasons good or bad, do not want to work in this kind of environment, don't apply.

You may believe that sets you apart as an "A player" and means we only hire B players. I believe the concept of A players and B players is false, and have discussed this here: http://danieltenner.com/2014/09/11/there-are-no-b-players/ . That said it is your right to believe this dichotomy exists and that you are on the right side of it. I put it to you that if you insist on having an A/B player dichotomy your desire for an environment which makes you feel worthy through paying you more makes you inherently a B player in the environment at Buffer or GrantTree, where this kind of mindset will have all sorts of side-effects that will make it difficult to work with you.

Almost all the people who we interview are very keen to work in this kind of environment. The last job we had opened (admittedly a relatively low skilled job) we had 200 applicants, interviewed about 20, and almost all those 20 were really, really keen to work in this open environment (and none found it a turnoff, though some didn't really understand what it meant). I like to think we hired someone who will be able to do the role very well and be happy doing it in our company. What I love about your comment is that you are far from alone to have this reaction, but because we are very upfront about our culture, people with your reaction never seem to apply. That's a win on both sides: you don't waste your time interviewing with us, and we don't waste our time interviewing you.