Hacker News Reader

The only sort of negotiation worth "winning" is one in which there is no ongoing relationship at the conclusion of the negotiation, i.e. certain types of purchases/sales such as for example a house or a car.

If there is an ongoing relationship and one party "won" the negotiation then the price is resentment and likely "evening up" by the "loser" at some point in the future.

In many cases it is worth conceding some value to the other party even if the other party has no leverage just because you (as the "winner") want the other party to feel that they did not "lose" the negotiation. For example say a potential employee asks for an extra $10K. The employer might know that the new employee will take the job even if the $10K request is refused. But just to ensure the new employee saves face and feels like they were valued and listened to and did not "lose", then a wise employer might give them $1K or $2K or some other concession instead such as a guaranteed review in 3 months.

I totally agree with you, under a lot of circumstances. Many job-hunters/HR reps treat the interview process as a one-time deal. Therefore, it is my responsibility to prove my worth. When I negotiate a higher salary, it's not because I want the extra money (though it is a factor), it's because I want to prove to them I am worth at least that much to them (hopefully more).

At the end of the day, unless I'm a terrible employee, the employer still profits off of me and still "wins." There might some some opportunity cost here and there (they could have hired person B for $X less!), so from there on out it is my job to prove that I am worth the $Y salary that I worked so hard to negotiate. I don't want them to think about the "what ifs" of not hiring me, I want them to see the value I put on the table.

For me, personally, I always try to do my best work, no matter how much I am being paid (my latest contract job was $15/hour and was definitely way below my pay grade, but I put my best foot forward regardless).

Since I know that many other people will only perform to the rate at which they think they should perform at that pay level, that puts me at an advantage. I can negotiate a higher salary and prove that I will always over-deliver, thereby proving my worth.

I get a nicer salary, they get an exceptional employee, win-win.

Of course, if I end up not performing up to the price I put on myself, then the company is not getting what they are paying for, and I'll probably find my name on the list of lay-offs when it comes to that. Rightfully so, too.

I agree with you.

"You want to employer to feel that they have someone who is being paid at a level that reflects the employees skills and experience and is broadly consistent with other employees at a similar level."

No, you don't want the employer feels there is equality in salaries. If the employer cared about that it wouldn't have hired on a high salary in the first place. And any "feeling" by the employer is literally irrelevant, as by their own standards, the moment they accept to hire you at a higher salary.

Now, it is different regarding colleagues. But your argument that it is in the employee best interest to not push for a higher salary, is nonsense.

BTW, I am not a developer or engineer, I am a marketing person and no one in my line of work would ever consider this. This sounds a lot like companies that hire tech people trying to rationalize why developers should not earn that much with anything that is not just economical market balance.

This may depend upon where you are, and perhaps a number of other factors, but since we are mostly speaking in gross generalizations here, I will too.

I think you far oversell the degree to which people who are being recruited do not have at least one, and possibly far more than one, best alternatives to a negotiated agreement with the recruiting party. Anyone who was to say to anyone around me "you have no alternatives, this is it" will immediately trigger an inventory taking in my own mind of all the possible alternatives that person may have.

Ultimately, I agree about the well-oiled machines, though. It is unfortunate that some organizations end up being run like this. It is bad for them too, especially in a world where an operational mindset can be overturned seemingly overnight by a new, better, cheaper way of doing the same thing.

For people who want to stay where they are, but see this happening, my response to them would be to make this acutely obvious to those around them: both the state of things, and the consequences. Not all companies are in a harvest and exit mode. Some still want to grow, and their growth will be considerably less in jeopardy if they play an offensive game against the market. But, in order to that, they have to stop playing a defensive one against their own employees.

If they realize this, they'll quickly realize soon after that their best alternative is not to turn recruiting into a battle.

Another BATNA I would propose to the people around me is this: invent that better thing. Your new job can be to put the company that treated you like a cog out to pasture.

What I will say this: I don't believe fear of the big, bad recruiting machine is a best alternative to anything. I feel it is consideration of one alternative, realizing it might not work out well, and getting angry. There are other alternatives out there; there is no reason to act so powerless in front of this one.

> "I've negotiated hundreds or maybe thousands of salaries."

How many job offers have you accepted or rejected? Perhaps the GP has more experience (and a more even keel) than you?

> the firm really has most of the power

The firm cannot compel you to accept an offer and work for them.

> if i attempt to get a salary that i think i deserve, and fail, they won't lose any sleep. their well-oiled machine will continue to hum.

Perhaps you should reconsider what you think you deserve, or move on to another city or sector that will value your skills more highly than the "tech company assembly line."

each person must ultimately navigate their own career as they see fit. but i do encourage my peers to prioritize their own earning potential and act upon that priority, soberly and pragmatically.

I believe your position only holds true if you assume that the applicant has no current employment, no other real options and no resources for between jobs.

The prospective employer has no power to force you to take the job or prevent you from seeking and accepting an offer elsewhere. It is certainly a mutual business process and should be approached as such. To approach it in an adversarial fashion just puts you at a disadvantage versus your true adversary: other applicants.