291–300 of 467 posts
I feel like these companies are often the more equitable ones. Salaries are never fair when they depend on negotiation skills IMO, and I say this as someone who would probably benefit from the negotiation tradition.
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.
Not having a band is surprising at Fortune 100. I'm guessing the talent retention is still done through bonus and LTI.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nobody was talking about gender here until you used it as an excuse to reiterate talking points about how pay disparity is actually explained by women not asking for enough money or how men actually have it hard.
the person I replied to was in an environment about gender > “they were especially trying to make sure women were making as much as men” when the incentive models are unequal the behaviors of the market participants will be unequal you’ll get workplace equality and wage normalization overnight with that patch to the culture, instead of focusing solely on trying to patch the workplace
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Leverage is not defined as something you're interested in. That would be more like a BATNA. Leverage is what someone else believes you're interested in. In the US many jobs post a salary range, which can be not accurate or updated and apply to several levels of roles, "based on your experience" which puts you back at the negotiation table. I've always found it odd american culture does not always embrace negotiating…
> Leverage is what someone else believes you're interested in. If you're good enough at dissimulation to make a recruiter (who has a lot more experience at this than you do) believe you're interested in another offer when you're actually not, you probably don't need any of the advice in either the article or this discussion thread. But if you're not that good at dissimulation, attempting it is shooting yourself in th…
If you've ever called in sick, pretended to be thrilled at someone's birthday gift (not family), told your boss you were stoked about a project that you certainly were not and felt believed -- tap into it!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's exactly what I said with different numbers.
This kind of strategy seems a bizarre one for a company. "Let's figure out how to systematically pay our employees less than they're really worth." How is that any kind of long-term plan? To really move the needle you'd have to do it a LOT -- but then you've selected on employees who lack knowledge about their own power. Those are going to be systematically different (probably not in a good way?) from employees who a…
Which is the majority of employees. Because...
> employees who are more proactive and entrepreneurial about negotiating
...aren't going to remain employees for too long; they are going to end up starting their own businesses because they realize that the upside is so much greater. Which means, first, that, to them, the job at your company is not a career; it's a temporary day job while they get set up to pursue their real goal. And second, that at any given time these kinds of employees will be a fairly small minority of all the people in the job market.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>If you say 210, are you going to absolutely refuse any offer that's less than that? I, for one, tell the number, which if was given to me during negotiation would result in acceptance on my part. > You've already hypothesized that the manager's actual range is 200-250 And I have not hypothesized the range, in my example I speculate why people believe they would have been offered more than they asked for if they did…
> I, for one, tell the number, which if was given to me during negotiation would result in acceptance on my part. That's not the same as saying you would refuse any offer for less. So you haven't answered the question I actually asked. > I have not hypothesized the range Yes, you did. In the scenario we're discussing, you said the manager's range is 200-250. > this is the hypothesis, not the actual range In other wor…
The question is ambiguous, in some cases I stood on my number and would not take anything less, in other cases I renegotiated for other compensation e.g. less base, for much higher sign up bonus. Don't see how is this relevant though.
Essentially, after each side called a number, no matter the order, you are either in agreement or with the employer's number lower than yours. The final outcome in the latter case will be either rejection, or a number between these two. You claim that if the employer calls the number first, the final number will magically be higher than if the candidate called the number first. I don't see how is this feasible unless the employer always calls the maximum possible number or close to it.
>In other words, you're moving the goalposts.
Not really, I did not edit my message, just read it again, the goalposts are still there.
>I don't see how. You've told them you'd accept an offer from them for 210, but now you're reneging
I just wrote how, say you've got another offer. In your model, if employer said 200 first and you, using your strategy responded with 250, and while the employer is thinking or negotiating further, you've got an offer for 260 from another company, how is this different? Are you going to take 250 if offered even though you have 260 on hand?
>You're assuming that the company will interpret your giving them the 210 number up front as a sign that your negotiating position is strong. I think they will assume the opposite: that your negotiating position is weak.
I think you are personalizing things too much, nobody really cares. The HM has a vacancy that needs to be closed ASAP, not a need to demonstrate who is strong and who is weak.
I usually just tell recruiters I won't even consider interviewing unless they can tell me up-front that salaries are not negotiated and are systematically the same for all employees in the same seniority ranks. I feel like these companies are often the more equitable ones. Salaries are never fair when they depend on negotiation skills IMO, and I say this as someone who would probably benefit from the negotiation trad…
What companies actually do this? In my experience, none. Not even governments actually do this, though on paper many will claim they more or less do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's generally easy to line up the interviews , at least at big companies you can pretty much pick your interview date. Then if you've done say 5 interviews (1 per day for a week), you can just wait for the first offer and use that as leverage to get the others to hurry up. Since they already have all the data they need.
I haven’t pursued it seriously so I don’t know how much you can hurry things along, but most of the interview processes I’ve seen are weeks long. Google even warns you up front that it’ll probably take on the order of months. So it’s kind of tricky to get them to all line up like that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This may seem like I'm being dismissive but I don't want to work anywhere. I work because I have bills that need to be paid. I don't derive enjoyment from making other people wealthy. I legitimately cannot think of such a state as enjoying work nor enjoying working at any given company in particular. Do you, and if so how did you cultivate that? If you don't mind answering.
Consider, thoroughly, the hypothetical lottery jackpot. What is it you would choose to do, pursue, aim for, if money were no object and you had nothing except your inner volition to drive you. Would you spend your days reading, exploring philosophy and knowledge? Or would you travel and see the world you've yet to traverse? Maybe you're an individual striving toward community and you want to focus on family, friendsh…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did you study at the Haber Institute?
This is a very specific interrogative. What leads you to consider it as a possibility?