Comment by fecak | Hacker News Reader

Comment by fecak | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

As a recruiter, even I often refer people to Patrick's article on salary negotiation, and I agree with much of it. There are a couple points that weren't covered that I think are valuable.

First, negotiating live is often difficult and it seems somehow job seekers are somewhat surprised to find themselves negotiating (or talking money at all). You need to be prepared for the conversation, otherwise you will find yourself throwing out numbers that you will often regret. Expect that you'll be asked these questions at every point in the interview process and be prepared to answer - just like you may study technical topics.

Second, in negotiations job seekers tend to mistake silence for a 'no' answer. "I'm looking for 130K". Manager is silent for 10 seconds. "...but that number is negotiable". Don't do this. Once you state your number, don't speak until the other party has spoken - otherwise you are negotiating yourself down before getting an objection.

Lastly, it can be rather powerful for the company to envision you starting work (the end goal of negotiation) during the negotiation process. Instead of saying "Can you make it 130K?" as a counteroffer as Patrick suggests, it can be stronger to say "If you are able to offer 130K, I am willing to commit to a start date of MM/DD/YY." It's a subtle difference, but asking for a number without context can be mistaken for "negotiation simply for the sake of negotiation", whereas an offered start date lets them know you're serious and committed to the negotiation.

EDIT: And as much as agency recruiters are maligned, Patrick's mention of having an "internal champion" isn't much different than an agency recruiter's representation. Sending resumes to "jobs@company" is ineffective. As an agency recruiter, if I'm presenting your resume it is going direct to the decision makers, it's being presented by a trusted source with credibility (for some agency recruiters anyway), and it's not just a resume but rather a short letter outlining why this candidate is a fit for the role. Not to mention, when negotiation does come up, the agency recruiter will have experience and know both the salary ranges and negotiation tactics of the hiring company.

I can't help but to pile on about the difficulty of negotiation. The reality is is that 90% of it is done before you've ever started talking. You can maybe influence 10% of the outcome, and it might be worthwhile to do that, but it's also worthwhile to work on that 90% beforehand, and studying negotiation techniques doesn't really help with the 90%, only the 10%.

So if you look at the opportunity cost of effective negotiation, the value prospect doesn't look half as clear. If I want to buy a house, the actual negotiated price is probably somewhere down around #8 on my list of considerations. Time spent looking at comps, finding a good inspector, understanding the real estate biz, could be far better spent.

It's much less difficult in situations where you aren't live - negotiating via email, for example, gives you time to think through ramifications and scenarios. I talk quite a bit to people negotiating offers, and the overwhelming majority get into trouble when in a live setting.

I agree that you are only influencing a relatively small percentage of the outcome in most cases (perhaps higher than 10% though), and at least part of that 90% you refer to consists of the image created when you were first introduced to the employer. Your resume, profile, even your previous employer's identity - that data gives an employer an initial impression of your price tag and influences where negotiations may go. This is even before the interview.

"Time spent looking at comps, finding a good inspector, understanding the real estate biz"

This is literally the biggest part of negotiation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Best_alternative_to_a_negotiat...

Yes, that's what I intended to say. My point was that of all the things you have in your life right now to focus on, negotiating price for a real estate transaction may not be the best use of it. It's likely to take more time than it's worth when you take into account opportunity costs.

Sure, if you have nothing better to do, go nuts.

Thank you for this, especially the point about silence. This is such an under-recognized negotiation tactic. I'd venture to say that negotiations often wind up as a contest of "who can bear the silence the longest". I particularly like the suggestion about a stronger statement when making a counteroffer.

It's very refreshing to hear this advice from an agency recruiter, because they are indeed maligned here and elsewhere. Part of the problem I think, is that the incentives of the recruiter are rarely aligned with the candidate.

I hear the misalignment of incentives argument quite often and I've written about that several times.

If we are talking about an agency recruiter representing 15 different candidates for one position, clearly the alignment isn't there.

For smaller agencies like me (solo) doing lower volume work and working with startups, I find that my incentives are almost always aligned. If I only have one candidate submitted for a position at a given time, you can be sure that my incentive is for that candidate to get the job.

A system where candidates paid recruiters as a "job agent" would ensure aligned incentives, but candidates aren't likely to pay for a service they currently get for free (understanding of course that the hiring client is the primary recipient of the service as most view the relationship).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com