141–150 of 467 posts
I work for a Fortune 100 company. Years ago they wanted to make sure that everyone in the same job was making the same amount of money (they were especially trying to make sure women were making as much as men). So they had an outside consulting group look at everyone’s salaries and adjusted them as needed to make sure they were all the same within $1. I ended up getting a $15k bump. They review it again every year t…
It sounds like a great way to miss out on talent that can command a salary higher than the average, while simultaneously attracting talent for whom this is a good deal.
I used to work in trading and I think some of the principles I learned there apply directly to salary negotiations. Two key things I think about all the time are price discovery and competition. Price discovery means that in some illiquid markets, you don't really know what a thing will trade at unless you try to trade it (which itself reveals some information to the counterparty but that's not important in the job c…
Interviewing may be the best way to gather market information, but does that make it surprising that people hate doing it?
There are very few activities I hate more than taking part in a job interview (on either side of the desk). That it's useful and necessary doesn't make it any less unpleasant.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Would you work 80 hour weeks for a month or two to make an additional $5-20k per month indefinitely for the foreseeable future? I would. It's not like it's impossible, it's just more work.
This feels like a "mythical man month" fallacy. Say you're working a standard 9-to-5. Sure, you can submit applications during the evenings, but once you get your foot in the door, you're constrained by the business hours of the place where you're applying. Most job interviews take place during normal business hours. You might be able to take your lunch hour to do a phone screen, or you might be able to take off a co…
If you're hustling toward a $300-600k/yr gig, I think a lot of temporary insanity can be tolerated in furtherance of that goal. Remember also that salary increases compound over your working career.
Not talking about your salary history is a decent tip. But negotiation isn't rocket science: you need to be thoughtful and honest to yourself and come up with an aspirational number (what you want, best case) and a floor (which you will not go below). Any number in between should be acceptable to you, by definition. I find the hardest thing for people is being honest about the floor and being willing to walk away.
I gave an honest floor salary to a company prior to interviewing. Their offer was 20% less than my floor. I think they thought it was my "best case" number despite very clear communication that it was my minimum to consider leaving my current role. I walked away vaguely annoyed with the hiring company.
So I can see making an offer below or near floor. 20 percent is awfully low, but I would have fun and make a counter. If they don’t move much you then it’s clearly time to move on. Really depends on what else is on the table.
I work for a Fortune 100 company. Years ago they wanted to make sure that everyone in the same job was making the same amount of money (they were especially trying to make sure women were making as much as men). So they had an outside consulting group look at everyone’s salaries and adjusted them as needed to make sure they were all the same within $1. I ended up getting a $15k bump. They review it again every year t…
It sounds like a great way to miss out on talent that can command a salary higher than the average, while simultaneously attracting talent for whom this is a good deal.
While the OP has a ton of experience, I disagree with this advice unless you're just starting out and don't know what you're worth yet.
I think it is much faster and easier to ask what you're looking for up front.
If you want $200,000, $400,000, whatever, just say so. BEFORE you start any interviews.
If GOOD recruiters are talking to you, they want to place you at the highest comp package they can. If the number isn't realistic, they'll tell you. Last thing they want is to waste your time interviewing for a position you'll reject because of the package.
(There are plenty of recruiters that only care about placement volume and nothing else. Inbound emails from recruiters that clearly look like a copy and paste job are probably one of these. Good recruiters don't leave money on the table like that.)
I DO agree with OP that you _shouldn't_ state what your current salary/comp is (unless you don't care about negotiating on comp but want to ensure you maintain what you're making).
I work for a Fortune 100 company. Years ago they wanted to make sure that everyone in the same job was making the same amount of money (they were especially trying to make sure women were making as much as men). So they had an outside consulting group look at everyone’s salaries and adjusted them as needed to make sure they were all the same within $1. I ended up getting a $15k bump. They review it again every year t…
It sounds like a great way to miss out on talent that can command a salary higher than the average, while simultaneously attracting talent for whom this is a good deal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It sounds like a great way to miss out on talent that can command a salary higher than the average, while simultaneously attracting talent for whom this is a good deal.
Sure, it sounds that way, if we assume that negotiating skill and job performance are tightly correlated. But why should we assume that?
But, if we can assume that the "rare talent" is anything other than straight out of college, they will have discovered that they are a rare talent, be aware of it themselves, and barring some sort of crippling neurosis, want to cash in on it. They might not even be skilled at negotiating... they'll just be aware that they have leverage.
We might even phrase the problem that way... that it's not so important that they have "negotiating skill", as it is that they have "leverage awareness".
> My general policy with third-party recruiters is to not tell them ANYTHING and to always deal directly with the companies they introduce you, once you establish a point of contact there. You should assume that anything you tell your recruiter is going to get back to every company you’re working with. Why? Because their primary objective is to place your butt in the seat of one of the companies they’re working with,…
That assumes you know what you want and know what's reasonable/fair for the job and area.
Most people don't know. Even if they've worked a similar job in the area, doesn't mean they know what the current going rate is. Once when applying for a job I asked for what was basically my current salary plus $20,000. The hiring manager said something to the lines of "Oh, we can do better than that" and ended up hiring me at my ask plus ANOTHER $40,000. I had way undervalued myself and wasn't up to the moment on the latest in pay rates.
Needless to say I was lucky and that person was an excellent manager. But most people will not be so lucky and most managers are not that amazing.