Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Salary Negotiation

kalzumeus.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 419 posts

Re: Salary Negotiation

#231

Post by mehrdada »

jkempe11 wrote: post #217
whack wrote: post #139

I've heard this "don't name a number first" advice so many times, but personally, it never seems to work. My current comp is significantly higher compared to others with my level of experience. So when I refuse to give a number, the recruiter ends up guessing a number that is significantly lower, and making a lowball offer. I've also had many other experiences where after many hours of interviews, I find out that the…

I am a recruiter and I will tell you this: you should abandon this advice, for certain. It's funny - probably the best advice anyone ever gives on negotiation is exactly the opposite of "don't name a number first." It's "anchor high." You should be anchoring to a number that is high but realistic, and negotiating from a position of strength. This is especially true for senior- and late-career individuals who have som…

> You should be anchoring to a number that is high but realistic, and negotiating from a position of strength.

I very much agree with you and my other comments in this thread are very much advocating for this position. I'd just like to add an important caveat by saying anecdotally in multiple occasions I've seen friends (notably people who are just moving in to the Valley from elsewhere and/or right out of college) tend to widely underestimate the "realistic" estimation in your advice (they know in abstract that salaries are "high" but don't necessarily concretely know how high), and therefore following it can be dangerous and would mean lowballing themselves. Hence, not saying anything might result in a better net result end of the day.

Re: Salary Negotiation

#232

Post by amorphid »

weaksauce wrote: post #213
chefkoch wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>personally I wouldn't even bother interviewing at places where I know for certain the comp won't hit my expectations Why would anyone do that?

some people want interview practice for instance, or if they think that they can talk them up to their desired salary once the interviewer sees how good they are and have time invested into the process.

And it is sometimes worth interviewing with a company that sounds interesting. One can't predict how an interview will go beforehand. I've been pleasantly surprised by some interviews that I had expected would be completely uninteresting.

Re: Salary Negotiation

#233

Post by vertex-four »

Mendenhall wrote: post #184
vertex-four wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Always be able to walk away" is not very good advice to people who don't have the option to walk away, whether people should always have that option or not in a perfect world. "Pretend you're able to walk away" possibly is, but not everyone's good at playing games like that. The alternative to not working is, eventually, losing almost everything you have. The alternative to not having a romantic partner is, well, no…

"always be able to walk away" to me includes never allowing yourself to be in a position where you cant walk away. I think of that as an actual survival trait not just a business skill. I would also say never pretend, actually be willing to walk away. Someone good at psychology or picking up subtle clues will see right through pretending. Anyway you slice it being desperate is never good, don't be desperate.

What a wonderful piece of advice. "Never get in a bad situation!" - people don't intentionally get into bad situations, really, believe it or not.

Re: Salary Negotiation

#234

Post by basseq »

whack wrote: post #139

I've heard this "don't name a number first" advice so many times, but personally, it never seems to work. My current comp is significantly higher compared to others with my level of experience. So when I refuse to give a number, the recruiter ends up guessing a number that is significantly lower, and making a lowball offer. I've also had many other experiences where after many hours of interviews, I find out that the…

There's also the concept of a negotiation anchor. In that it's better to name the first number and make it borderline ridiculous and in your favor. So that anything lower seems like a deal.

Hypothetical situation time. I'm a job seeker and my minimum acceptable salary is $100k. You're a recruiter and your range is $80-$120k. Neither of us know the others' number.

If I make you say a number first, you would start at the bottom of your range. (Why not?) Now I'm "negotiating up" to my minimum.

Alternatively, I go first and anchor at $150k. Now it's much more difficult to lowball me at $80k, and we'll probably "negotiate down" to your maximum.

The key with this technique is setting a good anchor. Too high (e.g., $200k) and you'll just walk away. Too low (e.g., $120k) and you'll whittle me down because you know you can negotiate.

-----

Bottom line is knowing what you're worth and quickly testing whether you're in the ballpark. If you go into interviews without having a sense of whether the company will give you a competitive offer, you're wasting everyone's time. (And you have a bad HR department.)

Don't use ranges: the employer will hear the lower number. Just say, "The market rate for this kind of role is $150k base. I'd look for a competitive overall comp package, and we can talk about salary, bonus, and equity. Is that what you had in mind?"

You'll get one of three answers:

1. "Yes, that's in range." (And you can probably negotiate up.)

2. "No, that's too high. We were thinking $x." (Now you know where you stand, and how far apart you are. don't give another number: you're just negotiating against yourself.)

3. "Ehh, it's on the higher end, but I think we can make this work." (Might actually be #1, but otherwise means you're in the sweet spot.)

Re: Salary Negotiation

#235

Post by swombat »

basseq wrote: post #81
swombat wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't see why paying people less would lead to an improvement in love, family, being a good person, respect, transparency, etc -- unless you're saying that due to pay difference vs market, you'll also expect less work out of them. There's definitely no necessary causal link here. We aim to pay enough that they won't leave because it's too little but not so much that they will stay just because of the salary is to…

> You say I'm worth $X. I go get a job offer for $Y. If $Y > $X, you were mistaken. Here's the disconnect. In this scenario, I'm not saying, "you're worth X". I'm saying, "I'm willing to pay someone $x to do this job." If someone else is willing to pay you more for the same job (all else being equal), I'd advise you to take the other job. If I can't find anyone qualified to take the job for $x within a reasonable per…

Exactly. We know and recognise that pay scales are arbitrary. We are trying to get it right by neither underpaying nor overpaying. We are also trying to get it right by enabling a mature conversation on the topic, so instead of feeling undervalued and quitting after finding a better job, people within GrantTree can simply start some sort of process to get their pay adjusted to what they believe is a fair market value for their work. Alternatively, they might find out, through the process, that their work is not valued as much by others as they value it. This, if they are humble enough, is a signal that either they should be working on something else, or clarify to the rest of the company what the impact of their work is. Either way, this is an open process accessible to all, instead of something behind closed doors only available to those who are ballsy enough to ask for a pay raise.

It's far from perfect, and it's often difficult and demanding of people (particularly those who are on the various pay task forces that assemble and disband to make changes or evaluate people), but it's working alright so far for us. It's also a huge learning opportunity for everyone involved.

> But it assumes that the owner, is in fact, making more profit "off your back". This might be false. The owner might instead care about investing back into people and the working environment: an indirect "perk", if you will.

There is no good idea humanity has ever had that cannot be twisted into a trap to fool people... unfortunately every good thought ends up being used by someone somewhere to screw someone else over. I like to think we (my cofounder and I) are on the good side of that assumption, but it's important for us to remember that if we shift to the wrong side of it then the whole system becomes polluted by this desire - or rather, this fear of not having enough.

Re: Salary Negotiation

#236

Post by pnut »

swombat wrote: post #212
thomnottom wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A company still has to have money in order to operate. I would assume that even without money being the primary focus, they have to be careful about paying out too much or they will be out of business.

Indeed. We are in a highly competitive market, and have a number of interesting projects going on to disrupt that market that won't pay off immediately. If we don't manage our costs reasonably well we won't stay in business. Money is like rocket fuel. If you're accumulating it for its own sake, rather than to get somewhere, I'd say you're doing it wrong - but that's just my opinion...

The individual employee can say that too.

I'm in a highly competitive housing market, and my children are in a highly competitive educational market. A number of interesting projects that won't pay off immediately.

Since when is an individual expected to just defer to a greater good in an employment arrangement? Which is most likely "at-will"?

I'm certain the shareholders and executives aren't making such self-defeating sacrifices.

Re: Salary Negotiation

#237

Post by erikb »

whack wrote: post #139

I've heard this "don't name a number first" advice so many times, but personally, it never seems to work. My current comp is significantly higher compared to others with my level of experience. So when I refuse to give a number, the recruiter ends up guessing a number that is significantly lower, and making a lowball offer. I've also had many other experiences where after many hours of interviews, I find out that the…

Agreed. Setting both as a fixed part of your strategy is wrong. Always saying the first number or always waiting for the other one. The more information and leverage and options you have the more you want to say a number. And the other way around.

In a few weeks I will have a job interview but the job is only partly interesting to me. I can earn my money without that job, so I can say no. And the chances that I'm really interested are currently 45% yes to 55% no. In that situation I would either tell him "I'm not interested if you don't give me a high number" or I would tell him something I consider high myself. His starting number is certainly much lower than what I would consider my "yes" range.

Re: Salary Negotiation

#238

Post by swombat »

lgieron wrote: post #129
swombat wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That assumption doesn't bear out in practice, in my experience. There are plenty of people who believe that for-profit businesses can also achieve great, positive purposes in the world, and want to be a part of it. Cases in point: Tesla and SpaceX. They aren't charities. They are very purposeful.

> Cases in point: Tesla and SpaceX. They aren't charities. They are very purposeful. Those are just two companies, ran by the same guy. I think finding even a couple dozen more examples would be very difficult.

Have a look at the companies listed halfway down the page on http://danieltenner.com/open-cultures/ . Not all qualify as purposeful orgs, but quite a few do. Reinventing Organisations, mentioned on this page too, is a book that studies a dozen examples of purposeful, open culture organisations, if you're interested in learning more about this.

Re: Salary Negotiation

#239

Post by ScottBurson »

designtofly wrote: post #181
whack wrote: post #139

I've heard this "don't name a number first" advice so many times, but personally, it never seems to work. My current comp is significantly higher compared to others with my level of experience. So when I refuse to give a number, the recruiter ends up guessing a number that is significantly lower, and making a lowball offer. I've also had many other experiences where after many hours of interviews, I find out that the…

I agree with you. I see this advice constantly parroted about, but I just cringe at the amount of work these people go through to avoid naming a number. If you want to deflect the first time the question is asked, fine. But if you have to deflect more than once, you won't come off like a professional. A professional knows their value. If you follow all of the rest of the advice, like doing your research, you'll know…

> with other competing offers

The key phrase here.

Always try to get multiple offers! If you can, you're in a much, much stronger position.

Re: Salary Negotiation

#240

Post by swombat »

GrinningFool wrote: post #192
brianwawok wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Importantly, we have no interest in trying to sucker someone into working with us if money is their primary motivation. Are you a charity doing good work with orphans? Or are you a business trying to make as much money for the investors as possible? If the latter is true, why wouldn't someone work for you with "money as the primary motivator" ? (This is not Rhetorical, I actually know nothing about your business. B…

> Are you a charity doing good work with orphans? Or are you > a business trying to make as much money for the investors > as possible? If the latter is true, why > wouldn't someone work for you with "money as the primary motivator" ? It is possible to offer a fair return on investment without having to take every possible step (ethical or otherwise) to maximize profitability.

Some would argue that developing a purposeful organisation (whose purpose is not just to make money) actually also produces better returns, but I think the jury's still out on that. There are some striking examples but they might be cases of survivor bias.
Post reply on HN