Have you ever asked for a raise and, if so, how did you get it?
I wouldn't start sending out resumes and interviewing, seems like a lot of hassle when you haven't even talked to them yet.
...
>I told them I appreciate the effort but the number I gave wasn't really a starting point for negotiation
?
"Pay me $X or I quit" is negotiation, even if it's a rather bloodyminded sort of negotiation.
I didn't throw a tantrum or threat to quit over 3% (I think thats shady and wouldn't have quit anyway). I accepted the offer, thanked them, and told them how I felt.
The actual number I gave took into account current market rates, my job requirements, responsibilities and how I stacked up against other developers in the company.
Step 1: send out a few feelers, try to find out your market worth. Call this $X.
If $X <= $YOUR_PAY + 3% (margin of error), STOP. You are not above the median and you do not deserve a raise. (Most people think they are above average. Almost 50% of them are wrong.)
Step 2: start interviewing. Ideally get an offer above your pay (but not necessarily as large as $X).
Step 3: have a private conversation with your boss. Tell him you'd like more money, and you feel you deserve at least $X.
If he gives you the raise, declare victory and decline your external offer (unless you like it better). If he refuses or gives you a raise that is insufficient, either a) point out your external offer or b) give 2 weeks notice and accept your external offer.
E.g., if a bank wants me to work for them, it will cost them $50k more than a startup.
If you are an artisan doing commodity work (read: bored at work, your open source project is fun), you are absolutely right. You are underutilized and easily replaceable, and your boss will want to replace you with someone cheaper. Regardless of the size of the counteroffer, you should leave.
If you are doing work that few others can do, and you make it clear that your only problem is money, they will accept that you looked outside just to get a market valuation. This is especially true if you accept a counteroffer lower than your external offer (i.e., "I like this place enough to accept $10k less").
(Our vacation policy is "don't be unreasonable" and our only ranks are "founder/owner" and "everyone else".)
If you present it by saying "I really love it here and want to stay, but the compensation being offered here is really good," then your boss should be fine. If your boss can't handle a business negotiation, then you should be looking to get out anyway.
Bottom line: it's a market, and you have to negotiate. Once the papers are signed, things usually go back to normal.
hell, the simple fact that you can negotiate should be stressed more.
As far as I can tell lots of hackers abhor it.
Also, it's not like you have to form a union or anything. Just collectively bargain for a raise or whatever this one time.
From what I know, I can't rule out that collective bargaining for higher wage is like advancing the tide with a bucket.
Sure, find out your worth, be realistic, then just sit down and have an honest conversation with your boss. Putting them in the position of thinking they have to offer you "stay money" without first having the decency to just sit down and have an honest talk with them is a slap in the face.
If your boss can't respect that, then they deserve to be blind-sided when you leave. But anyone who does what's suggested here is not someone I want to work with.
Sure, if your boss is insane, this might not go well, but if they're among the small minority where you genuinely fear for your livelihood just broaching the subject with them, then you probably already know everything you need to, and having to twist their arm to get what you want means you should probably be looking for a new position regardless.
I do agree with the "Almost 50% of them are wrong". If the business can routinely hire great people for less than "market", and keep them, then your sense of where the "market" is is off.
As I said, you don't demand "stay money" from your boss first thing. You just tell him you feel you deserve $X and have the exact honest conversation you describe. That's step 2) of my plan.
You only mention competitive offers to your boss after he tries to lowball you. Without hitting the market, you'll never know if your boss is lowballing you and you'll also have no leverage for negotiation. That's step 3, if your boss didn't give you a satisfactory package.
No employer will be offended by you asking for more. Hell, lots of people think that ambition is a good thing. If you don't get what you want from just asking, /then/ the above makes sense. but really, most of the time there is free money to be had for the asking... get that money before you spend effort job hopping. If you do end up job hopping anyhow, usually your new salary is your old salary plus some percentage on top, so even if the boss gives you 3% and you think that's insulting, eh, that means you start 3% higher when you negotiate your next job.
I don't think you should shop around, but you do need to understand market rate. Have a casual conversation (coffee?) with your boss (say that you'd like to talk about how your compensation will evolve as you continue to work for the company) and ask them a few questions.
1) Where does the company feel it should pay folks? Do they like to pay a little above market rate to encourage retention, at market rate to be competitive, or... (don't finish the sentence) (almost everyone will say at market rate)
2) Does performance effect that? If an employee is top notch among his peers, should that effect his pay?
3) Where would you place me among my peers and could you give me some advice about how I could excel even further?
The big Q: Given that we agree that I'm in the top n%, do you feel like my compensation is appropriate? My research has indicated that an average salary for a person of my level is X (might be worth padding a touch for anchoring purposes).
NEVER give the indication that you're shopping. There are plenty of places to research salary without doing interviews. Most managers know that once people start interviewing, there's no point in trying too hard to keep the person. Stress that you really like your job and you see a long/bright future at the company.
If a company wants to buy tenure and you want to sell performance, it's a bad fit. Find someone wanting to buy what you are selling and do business with them.
If the language section of your resume lists Java, J2EE and Java 1.6, you should stick around. You'll never get a better deal elsewhere.
I'm all for a meritocracy, but it's tricky with anything that's hard to measure (exception: sales).
Check out: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/affect#Verb
Or neither, of course.
Here's Val Aurora's "short version", but you should really read the whole thing;
1. Negotiate! It will almost never hurt you, and almost always help. Screw up your courage and just do it!
2. Do your research - know what you are worth. Ask for advice from knowledgeable, well-compensated people with more skill and experience than you.
3. Never ever give the first figure for salary - make the person hiring say a number first, even if they ask, repeatedly. Never ever ever! If there's a form, don't fill in the "Salary" blanks. Just don't do it.
4. Always act slightly disappointed, no matter what the job offer is. Ask for time to think about it (i.e., plan your strategy) before getting back to them.
Lie.
Bang! they just lost the negotiating game.
There is no honor amongst theives, and I might be an idealist, but as long as money exists in the world, we're all thieves in our own small ways.
Anyway, it's wrong: your new employer has to know your previous salary so they can calculate your tax correctly. If you lie about it, you will get caught. Lying in an interview/on a CV == instant dismissal.
So while I think lying in general is a bad strategy, in part because you don't know when you'll get caught, I'm fairly certain that American employers won't catch you through their tax calculation process.
I am not saying to maliciously lie about being underpaid, nor about non-salary compensation to your new potential employer. What I am saying is that during the initial negotiating process, when they ask "how much did you make at your last job?", if you suspect they might try to low ball you or negotiate you down, then you can maintain the advantage by lying and telling some arbitrary higher amount. Although if this is happening to you, you probably might want to look else where for a job. Unfortunately the economic reality means that is not always possible—who hasn't accepted at least one job from an employer they would not ideally choose to work for?
This thread and my reply is about the well-known claim that in any salary negotiating process, who ever first lets slip a specific dollar amount loses the advantage in the entire process. My reply was simply to point out that the entire logic is premised on a flaw, namely that you, the job candidate, are the one telling the employer how much you used to make, and then naming that amount becomes equivalent to losing the advantage of "don't make the first move." Since in most cases your new employer has no way to even verify what your previous salary & compensation was, they are utterly reliant upon trusting that you are telling them the truth. I have no idea what later commentors were saying about telling your new employer what your previous taxes were. I have never heard of any employee being forced to share their tax info with future employers. (No doubt there are some professions and jobs where this happens, such as those elected to public office or serving the public interest.)
My point was this: in any negotiation process involving money it is a mistake to implicitly assume either party wants to be perfectly honest to their own disadvantage. If you look at any economic process like salary negotiation through the mathematical lens of Game Theory, you would never expect any "game player" to give away such an easy advantage.
Now I know this is going to offend many because it stabs the heart of the economics driving what we (falsely) believe is a strictly "ethical" matter, but please hear me out. I say we are all "small thieves" in our own context-dependent ways, because there really is no such thing as an objective "price." Rather, all prices are simply an arbitrary amount somebody is "willing & able" to pay. Any time you buy or sell, you first have to determine how much you can get from the other party. We are all skimming off the top of somebody else's profit margin, no matter how small.
No salary negotiation I've ever heard of followed this logic:
Recruiter: "how much did you make at your last job so we can trick you into making the first move and losing the advantage in this Game Theory-based negotiation?"
Candidate: "how much are you willing to pay?"
Even though in reality that is precisely what both sides are already trying to do. Size each other up and determine if both parties can agree to mutually benefit within their financial constraints. It's economics 101. But neither party will be honest and tell themselves nor the "opponent" that is what they are doing. And that's equivalent to lying—like Mark Twain said: "the worst lies are told in silence." And that is why I say we might as well throw out any ethical preconceptions and just look at it as a strictly game theoretic, economic process.
Since I don't even view this through the lens of ethics, I can playfully throw around the term "thieves" as a way of winking at the rules of the game itself. Who hasn't played cops & robbers and had fun pretending to be the robber?
To further see my point, think about the exact same situation, but inverted: if you, the candidate, were to ask anyone under the new potential employer: "how much did you make last year?", could you expect anyone to tell you? Or ask the CEO: "I might want to work for you, but how big was your bonus last year?" The conversation would come to a screeching halt right there.
In our era of Too Big to Fail, where the average CEOs makes hundreds of times the average salary of their lowest paid employee, why do so many of us "worker-bee" types have such a problem with turning the tables and fighting fire with fire? How do you think the CEO and the big guys got so big? How do you think the global Labor movement achieved so many gains on behalf of workers back in the 1920's? Why shouldn't employees be able to do the same today on a smaller scale? Fair is fair afterall.
That is all I'm saying. Stop voting down my insights just because I explained myself poorly and it sounded like something morally offensive to your biases. Where's the fun in having biases if we can't debate them on the Internet. :)
Candidate: "how much are you willing to pay?"
Isn't that how it pretty much works always? I mean, personally I'm pretty bad at negotiation. If it is something that really matters, I always need to get multiple bids. I mean, personally, I switch jobs fairly often, so I think that my old salary is usually pretty fair... saying "I am making X now, beat that" seems to work okay. I am leaving some money on the table, yeah; The thing is, as an employee, there really isn't that much room to negotiate most places. Especially larger companies have strict guidelines for pay for particular positions. Even at smaller places, the boss is very conscious of perceived 'fairness' - The boss might not like his employees talking about money, but he knows we do it anyhow. The idea is that paying one worker more than another without an externally visible reason can be damaging to the business above and beyond the extra cash expended.
The problem is that the employee is at a /massive/ disadvantage, even if she is a good negotiator. As an employee, you are applying for a job designed for people who are not primarily driven by money... and you are competing with other people who are also primarily not driven by money. If you apply for a full-time employee position, you are saying that you don't really care that much about maximizing your cash return on your time... that's not what full time jobs are for.
Listen to all this talk of 'work-life balance' - most jobs are not designed for people who want to retire at 30. most jobs are designed to be comfortable enough that you can do them most of your life. And really, that's what most people want.
It's easier to maximize cash as a contractor, 'cause people who value safety, stability and comfort leave contractor positions as soon as they can, leaving the field to the mercenary and the incompetent, so it's a place where a competent mercenary can thrive.
More cynically, many people here are not anonymous... Few few people, I imagine, are willing to publicly and non-anonymously advocate dishonesty.
The only negative about putting the ball in their court is that it gives them control of the negotiation as they can easily come back with an extremely low figure stating that they have discussed all of the options with the appropriate personel and the quoted figure is their absolute maximum allowable increase, leaving you with zero scope to stretch it.
What you have to do is somehow reframe the conversation in terms of what it'd cost to hire - and train - someone to replace you. This only works if you really are essential, of course.
If I like you, I'll push to get you. Simple as that. I'd like the best deal, but at the end of the day I'll do my best, and I'll let you know how far I can go. At that point the ball is in your court to turn me down.
But don't start talking about your worth. That just comes off as cocky, and generally speaking, I've got a pretty good idea what the position is worth to me.
It's a fine line of course. I wouldn't recommend kissing up. I'm just suggesting that there's ways to communicate your value without giving the impression that you're going to be a thorn in my side and not worth the trouble.
At least thats my impression. Prove me wrong and tell me how you were able to do it.
This is especially important for negotiations that are more complex than a real number.
To quote Paul D. Windsor, Esq., Laywer and Diplomacy Player (http://www.diplom.org/Zine/F1997R/Windsor/lawdip.html):
1. Always Start With Your Own Proposal
In my profession, this is known as "controlling the document." It is often true that he who controls the document controls the deal. Psychologically, if the negotiation begins with with your proposals, it's likely to proceed from your perspective and not the other guy's. The end result is much more likely to be in your favor under such circumstances. Most people in the real world are too lazy to draft their own contracts and, if they do, often do a poor job. Always be the first to present the contract. By doing so, you are taking the initiative in setting the terms of the deal for the remainder of the negotiations.
In the few [play by email] games [of Diplomacy] I've played so far, the majority of players I've negotiated with have tended to open negotiations after every turn something like this: "Hey, that last turn went well/OK/bad for our alliance. Where do you want to go from here?" I believe most players who do this think they are trying to force the other player to "show his hand," but I don't see what that accomplishes. In my view, opening a negotiation in this fashion is a huge mistake. It concedes all of the negotiation momentum to the other party and gives him a chance to write the draft contract which will form the basis for the remainder of the negotiaion. It seems a lot of leverage to give up in order to go on a fishing expedition for information that is not likely to be terribly useful.
You don't have to take my word for it. Read the [end of game comments] in Dan Shoam's games which are published regularly in this 'Zine. Notice how Dan tends to dominate the diplomatic front in his games almost by sheer volume alone. It is not that he merely sends lots of press. He also makes all of the proposals. The other players in his games invariably play by responding to his ideas, rather than generating plans of their own. Dan seizes the negotiating momentum early and never lets go. His is the best application of lawer-like Diplomacy that I've seen. Anyone who tries to cleverly get Dan to "show his hand" is just more grist for his mill.
Here's another way to think of it. Winning an individual military battle is a matter of getting there fastest with the mostest. Winning the negotiation battle often occurs the same way. If you are the first to put a treaty proposal or battle plan on the table, you are the odds-on favorite to get that plan accepted by your negotiating counterpart.
Based on experience around me (ie friends etc), the slightly depressing conclusion is that you will have more raises if you change of company on a regular basis (ie each 12 to 24 months).
I've even seen people leave their company, then one year after, being proposed a lot more money by the very same company they left one year before, while the coworkers wages had barely evolved.
The situation is different on high paying jobs (still around me), where companies apparently try to ensure people won't leave (eg: > 100k€ per year + 15 weeks of holidays per year for a european insurance job I know of).
What would a person need to learn to get that kind of job?
1) I have no motivation to increase your pay beyond you being a happy contributor. More money to a happy employee doesn't make the employee more productive or more happy. Therefore, unless you tell me that your pay is making you unhappy, I have no reason to give you a raise, no matter how well you perform
2) It's all about balance with the rest of the team. You as an individual tend to focus on your perceived worth. I don't care so much as keeping fairness among the team. I know how much I pay more senior people than you, and how much I pay more junior people. If you need a raise (as defined earlier), then I don't really mind as long as you don't mess up the equilibrium with the rest of the team.
That's it. Of course, those basic facts can lead to millions of subtle variations.
I'm a much better programmer than the rest of the team, so I deserve a much better pay. If you pay me just a little above them, you get just a little more work. And I have more time to think about my startup.
As someone who has worked as an employee, I can understand why you feel that way.
As someone who has worked as an employer, good god, do you realize how useful that information could be to your boss?
If you can figure out how to convey that information to your boss in a socially appropriate way, it would allow him to more efficiently do his job.
Seriously, most people don't work that way. I'm slowly learning this through trial and error; personally, I'm strongly motivated by money. But I don't think this is true of most people. When its crunch time and I want my guys working nights and weekends, I will occasionally declare that I'll pay double for hours between certain dates. It gets me almost no extra work vs crunch time when I pay regular rates, at least from my regular sysadmin. (time and a half for time over 40 hours a week is normal of course, but even 'crunch time' doesn't usually mean more than 40 hours a week for me... I think working more than that usually has seriously diminishing returns.)
So my SysAdmin- you know what gets him to work harder? not money- as far as I can tell, that doesn't make any difference at all. I gave him a raise and he quit his other job, but he didn't really increase his hours working for me, which is what I wanted. What motivates him is me working alongside him on the project, as far as I can tell.
Sometimes this works out great; I mean, he's at the beginning of his career, so he's working for the experience more than he's working for the money, and like most arrogant people, I enjoy teaching, especially teaching bright people who pick things up quickly. It makes me feel like I'm a good teacher, and really, working with him keeps /me/ on track and helps prevent me from doing things like wasting time on hacker news. But it's requiring me to re-think how to motivate people.
(on the other hand, my brother, who also works for me occasionally, is a total mercenary in this regard. He eats up the double time hours, and isn't particularly interested in my regular rates.)
If the work is steady and you are making a solid contribution, then there is usually much to be gained by bargaining for a pay increase. If work (ie: not necessarily "profits") is slow it is harder to claim you are due a raise if the organization is not operating near capacity.
I usually try to get a feel for other salaries in the company first (note: it is helpful to make friends with the HR people, even if you don't particularly like them, they can be a useful source of info). If the company has a general principle of paying way below average salaries, it's going to be harder to negotiate. But, if other people are making decent bank, your request is likely to be evaluated in proportion to other team members, and perhaps seen as more reasonable/rational.
But what it really comes down to is scheduling some time with your manager and laying out the details. There are a million variables, but you probably want to highlight your lack of salary growth while you've been there, your increasing contributions, fair market value for your position and so on. If your boss is weak, he'll probably tell you he needs to get approval and may reference some semi far-off non specific date/event ("the next staff meeting", or "after HR is done with the new benefits policy") if he won't commit to a specific time, tell him you'll check back "next Thursday" or some specific time.
In the end, few people have ever gotten fired simply for trying to better their salary and move up the ladder. Don't be intimidated by the process or make it into anything larger than what it is: a simple conversation.
Companies are desperate for good programmers. If you have the goods (and can prove it), you should have no trouble making whatever reasonable amount of money you want. If your company doesn't care that much, you can convince them to care (hard), or go elsewhere (easy).
It's a business, and you are the product.
(Oh, and something I've noticed when reading people's resumes... it's apparently fine to go back to your original company after you've gotten a raise via some other second company. The finance industry makes incest look good.)
-I researched how much I should be getting and brought that data to the meeting with my boss. It's usually a little tricky because most data is one-dimensional (e.g. salary per years of experience) but it also opens up more ways to interpret it to your benefit. I insisted on comparing to the market and not to my co-workers.
-I always highlighted what the company or my boss was getting with my work. Never what I needed for myself. Also think about how much it would cost them to replace you.
-I highlighted how my work was changing and how that change should be reflected in my salary (e.g. more responsibility).
-I was open to creative solutions, such as getting half of the raise now, half of it a year later.
-I was prepared to leave if he had strictly refused without good reasons (e.g. a strict company-wide freeze on raises).
The last time I did this, the raise was 33%.
When you're part of a larger whole that controls the HR scale, showing you can work within that isn't always bad.
Assuming you're one of the most valuable employees, and you have a good reason (ie. your boss is paying you well under market rate for someone of your skill set) then keep in mind that your boss probably won't be upset. Nobody is happy to pay more for the same thing, but they'd be less unhappy than losing you. What an employer pays his employees is often based on what they asked for rather than what they deserved.
On a side note:
I've had 4 jobs in the past 3 years, and I've had significant pay increases everytime I started with a new employer (except for my current job).
Job 1 -> Job 2: +30%
Job 2 -> Job 3: +50%
Job 3 -> Job 4: -15%
I took a pay decrease for Job 4 as the job was still paying well over the median, was more interesting, and had a way better work environment.
Sometimes the best way to get a raise is to find another job.
Listen to the other advice here and go negotiate, but if the best point you have is I'm average and not paid average, you aren't at a strong negotiating point, yet (I know you said "above" average, but you also said that you "feel like" it's that -- meaning you accept that you might not be).
If you don't get the raise, and you feel like it's hopeless to get it. End with: What do I have to do to merit this raise in 6 months? Then go exceed it by a lot, and keep going. Future negotiations will be much easier.
Also, becoming more than marginally above average will make finding a different job much easier too.
When I did ask I knew the company was small and relatively informal. I said that I had done X, Y and Z that included taking more responsibility and really delivering and that I would like a raise. They asked me how much and I said $15K and they said yes. It was pretty sweet.
Not to say you don't deserve it, but I would not really consider doing "above average work" to be a good enough reason for a big raise. A small annual one, sure. I would think you'd need to be taking on additional responsibilities. Assuming you're doing that, then I think you should be able to make a compelling argument. Also, since you know that you're underpaid, you could bring that up as a point.
Whatever you do, don't make it into a threat that you will leave if you don't get the raise. If they say no, just ask what steps you can take so that you WOULD be worth $10K more money to them. If the answer is "nothing", then get the hell out. Most likely the answer will be "you would need to doing X independently" or something like that. In that case, do it, get your praise in writing from your managers/coworkers, and then ask again in 6 months.
If the next pay review is 6 months away, is it feasible to argue for a payrise now, or would managers have very limited power to fight against the HR process?
If you're new to the workforce, and think your underpaid, get a new job, or shut up.
TL;DR: you don't have to threaten to quit, and presenting good, logical reasons for a higher salary can be pretty effective. Just figure out what those reasons are and then present them to your boss in a non-threatening manner.
I would say if you are not happy with your pay, find a new job or at least offers and take it from there.
You may not be unhappy at your current job (not your dream job, but not terrible either), so if you present any real offers to your current employer and they like you and see you as a valuable asset that they do not want to lose I would think they would offer you more if that's what you wanted. Then you can decide from that point if you want more pay (assuming they offer to pay more and keep you) or do you want more pay and a different job?
"Top 10 Tips (+1) to Get a Pay Raise"
1. Just ask what you need to do to get a raise. You should expect something about the economy being bad as the answer.
2. Get another offer, Tell your current employer that you are very happy with the current job but, they are not competitive in compensation, and you will be giving you two weeks notice the next Monday. The wait to see if there is a counter offer.
Your boss will not give you money just because you are a good guy (or girl). They will always try to maximize their fortune and not yours. Sure you will get a raise at some point to address inflation but that will come as late as possible.
What I have done in the past was a long term one and not a 30 minute conversation. I would throughout the course of the year, send emails to my boss outlining my achievements of that period. So for instance if I managed to upgrade X servers to save the company money, I would send an email at the end of the task outlining that. This would be ammunition for me later on to ensure that my request is not seen as unreasonable.
When the time comes to ask for the raise I was printing the emails and started discussing the matter with my boss. 9 out of 10 the boss would not remember half of the things that I had done throughout the year. I would let him/her tell me first what they thought regarding a raise. I would approach it as "What do you think I am worth here - what is my value to this company". To this day it has worked wonders since only once I got an offer less than what I wanted.
Finally you will need to have an accurate picture of the company's financial position before you do that. You cannot ask for a raise when the company is in trouble. If that is the case then you should be looking for another job.
A very good piece of advice is from yummyfajitas also as far as assessing your value.
Good luck!!
Isn't this the standard for most companies (especially IT) in today's economy?
2) Justify your raise, this will probably mean talking to the guys in accounting, make up something about helping sales but get the sales numbers and a rough estimate of profit margin. Show your boss the numbers and how you contribute to them, admittedly I got cut off from the official numbers after I almost doubled my salary doing this.
3) Send out resumes. Yes, most employers don't want to hear you're leaving because the pay is crap, others do, you want to work for the latter. If 1 and 2 don't work then usually this one will as business is a bit like dating, it's much easier to get the girl if you already have one. When you have a job and ask for money you will do so with confidence. If you are looking for money then you are looking for money. Focus on the goal you want, be willing to jump ship if the pay isn't there.
4) Be interesting, if you don't have some funny stories, make some up, you want to be affable, when you talk to whoever will give you the raise do not go in talking about your raise immediately, make some small talk about whatever THEY are interested in first. Then move to your pitch.
5) There is a lot more to a job than money, make sure you really want the cash, and not any other kind of perk.
Edit: I also wanted to say, that asking for a raise is a bit of an art, like interviewing. You want to get good at it so do it frequently. Admittedly, you can't ask for a raise every month or two, I personally never asked more than once a year. So go do lots of interviews.
1. Never ask for a raise with "or else I'm leaving" threats. This is an important lesson, that some of my coworkers don't understand - so they believe that I got my raises through threats - since I am inclined to stand my ground on important issues. I have threatened to leave for various stuff - even gave my notice a couple of times. But never for trying to get a raise. I also categorically refused to accept a raise as bribe instead I demanded to sort the pressing issues out and after awhile I came to negotiate a raise.
2. Make sure you're really that good OR at least perceived as good. Run the extra mile, jump through extra hoops, endure extra hardships - don't overextend yourself just step out of median (messianic complex is bad in itself) - be a little more thorough, a little more reliable,... And your efforts shall be noticed.
3. When asking for a raise make your mind beforehand of what you're worth and stick to the plan. If they refuse of the bat - persist, don't cave in (don't be an ass - just ask what will it take to get what you want). What actually happened with one boss is that I was commended, he said that he didn't realize I was that aggressive and that this trait was exactly what he required - this was actually a big boost to my early career.
It was kind of nice actually. I made a mental note of this trick, so that the next time I want some breathing room to get the boss off my back, the easiest way is to drop a hint that I want a big raise. :)
I did eventually get the raise, and oddly for the exact amount I requested, but it was quite a painful first lesson to learn. Why will a modestly wealthy person who owns a successful company have no issue whatsoever with completely ripping of a just out of college kid who is slaving away for the owner's profit margins, and yet exhibit the most irrational behavior when it comes time to play fair and pay up? I don't know.
But it is absolutely true that in the software industry the easiest way to get a raise is to switch jobs. That's just how the game is played. Any human enterprise premised on profits is forced to be hugely wasteful, especially when you consider how much talent is thrown away to another company in order to avoid being honest about money, all so some jerk at the top can keep a larger piece of the pie for himself. This kind of direct experience is why I laughed at that stupid blog article from a few months back that said to never hire "job hoppers." IMHO job hopping developers, acting like all out software mercenaries, guns blazing on behalf of whoever is signing the checks, are automatically amongst the smartest of the pool, since they see the fundamental economic pattern underneath the entire software industry.
This silly money pattern also leads to the unusual circumstance that requires when you switch jobs, always, every time, no matter what, ask for a higher salary than what you received at your last job. Even if it's only a little bit. Never, ever move backwards, at least unless there are other external constraints preventing it. This is the only way to keep yourself from sliding down into the economic sinkhole. Sadly, it is money and not geeky ideology about OS, programming languages, etc that is the true driving force to align yourself with. Money is magnetic north in all things.(Unless you have enough Fuck-You Money, but that's a different story.)
Anyone who doesn't follow this negotiation pattern, and who isn't in some highly custom circumstances is a complete fool who probably deserves to get fleeced and left as a beggar by those shark-mouthed, pointy-haired MBAs we all love. But we can absolutely beat them at their own game. :)
Best of luck!
The deal with hardball is that you have to leave your current company. You may not actually leave the company but you must be _prepared_ to, otherwise it wont work and you will back down too quickly.
As usual, look around the market for better pay and try to get a job interview and a position for pay that you like the sound of. Once this is done and dusted, hand in your resignation and state that the reason you are leaving the job is due to pay. State a figure that would keep you at the company but obviously keep this very private between yourself and your manager. You can be a little cheeky with this figure, depending on how much you want to remain there.
If they value your work sufficiently they will accept your figure and modify your salary to keep you there. If they don't you leave for the other job that pays better.
For best results you need to get the timing of the hardball perfect. You need your employers to either be desperate, guilty or a bit of both. Desperation is achieved by doing this at a critical moment. Say, the most senior member of staff on your project leaves, thus leaving you with the most knowledge of the system. Or in my case, regulation of the mortgage market was about 8 months away and I was the only member of staff with sufficient knowledge to implement their new system.
Guilt can be even better though depending on the type of manager you have. Essentially you want the manager to feel as though they owe you something. For example, if your pay review was supposed to happen six months after your start but it has been twelve or eighteen months then they will feel guilty about not doing it sooner. If they have cancelled a project you worked hard on or did you some other kind of disservice your guilt ratio increases and you can cash in.
I managed to push my salary from £12k to £36k in one fell swoop this way about 8 years ago. It's how I started contracting.
For context, the company had cancelled my own software development project (which despite being poor code (when i look back on it) was fit for purpose and worked). They replaced this with a system bought in (which they had to buy on a management agreement from joining a particular group) that was just a confusing mess of VBScript and SQL stored procedures. It didn't work, wasn't built for purpose (a common operation would lock up the database server for 2 minutes+) and I only _just_ managed to stitch it together in time for regulation day (actually it was a few days after, I had to manually do a lot of the quotes in the first few days of regulation.. ). And when I say stitched this process involved a bunch of programs I had also hacked together to cover the gaps.
I've got hardworking coworkers that deserve a raise, and they won't since they won't negotiate and the boss (deservedly) doesn't have the political clout within the company to negotiate for us.
Edit: this at a largish company. Obviously doesn't apply to startups and smaller companies.
But better life experience might be a very possible.