At large FAANG companies, I've seen candidates leave $100k+ on the table, as they simply accepted the first offer (on-hire stock awards and signing bonuses).
On the other hand, I've seen candidates spend weeks negotiating over some trivial point and spoil their relationship(s) before they even started the job.
Knowing the range for the role you're applying for (via Blind, or Levels.fyi, or similar) makes this process so much easier.
I once referred an acquaintance I knew was underpaid to a job on my team, with explicit instructions to negotiate their initial offer. They did not, and I was quite disappointed.
> It is Bob’s job to get you signed with the company as cheaply as possible, but Bob is not super motivated to do so, because Bob is not spending Bob’s money to hire you. Bob is spending Bob’s budget. Bob generally does not get large performance incentives for shaving money off of his hiring budget: you get a new Macbook if you convince Bob to give you $5k extra, but Bob gets (if he is anomalously lucky) a dinner at TGIFridays if he convinces you to take $5k less.
I've a few data points on this, and disagree. Hiring Managers (and their managers) have to approve and signoff on things, and VPs are needed for major deviations from the norm. Yes, the HR team can do many things but it's all done in conjunction with the hiring manager.
I distinctly recall talking with one of my GM's one day about a new start. The discussion was, "I'm excited for $person to start, but I'm really worried (s)he's a player of games. The negotiation process was non-stop angle-shooting, and please keep an eye open for actual work vs politics."