Hacker News Reader

Comment by snowbird122 | Hacker News Reader

This comes down to negotiation theory. Is it better to make the first offer, or wait for the other person to make the first offer? I used to think "The first person to mention a number loses", but after taking a negotiations class and applying some of the concepts, I learned the power of anchoring the negotiation by mentioning the first number. After the first number is mentioned, you are now negotiating around that range. This has proven to be very effective for me.

View on HN

You can't "anchor" a corporation. It doesn't have feelings or emotions -- it has a big table of pay ranges for people with X years of experience and/or education.

Your strategy works if you name a "negotiable" number that is higher than what you really want to make, but near the employer's upper bound for the position. Guess right, and you'll be negotiated down to a number that is mutually acceptable. Guess too low, and you'll be under-paid. Guess too high, and you'll be bounced without further negotiation. No matter what you do, the onus is on you to guess correctly the numbers on the employer's sheet. That's why saying the first number is bad when you're negotiating with a more knowledgeable opponent.

If you've had a lot of success with the "anchoring" method, it's likely because you're not coming close to the upper bound of the pay range that your employers had pre-determined for their positions.

Caution: you're not negotiating with a corporation, you're negotiating with an HR person, whose job performance is tied in part to how well he/she negotiates.

That's true, but HR people don't generally have the authority to negotiate outside of narrow parameters. They're recruiting for particular jobs, with particular salary ranges.

You're probably right. Just so you know though, one of the Big Lessons I've had selling to big companies is to figure out:

(1) The times you are asking your counterpart to spend "her own money" (from her budget, outside her range, etc)

(2) The times you're asking your counterpart to spend play money.

It's always helpful to remember when you're hesitant to ask someone at a big company to pay you for your product or service that they aren't paying you out of their own pocket.

> Guess too high, and you'll be bounced without further negotiation.

This hasn't been my experience. My experience has been if they want you then they'll find a way to make it work.

If you don't fit in one grid then they'll just bump you up to the next grid.

That's reassuring.I was left with the impression from one of my job interviews that they were looking for someone in a set price range, and would have bounced anyone who asked for more. Of course this job was basically a minimum waged, low skill job I had in high school. Maybe its different for high skilled jobs.

Most HR people are staffing for positions. They don't have the authority or the incentive to "bump" you to another job (and most likely, another recruiter).

I'll have to take your word on it as far as what HR people will do.

The people I was thinking of were the team leads and managers.

These are the people I've dealt with and I am. We do, at least in every company I've worked for, have the ability to say I want this person, lets make it work wrt salary.

Now obviously this has limits; a developer can't come in and expect to be the highest paid person in an established company:). But if the person's demands fit anywhere on the salary grid, and their abilities match, then they are almost assured of getting hired at their desired salary.

We don't create a salary range when we create a position.

I have a very interesting story about exactly this situation, but I am forbidden by regulations to share it here. ;-)

But the reply alongside mine nails it quite well - the HR staff has no authority to bump you up. You earn what they pay for that position and that's all the HR people can do.

> it has a big table of pay ranges for people with X years of experience and/or education.

Those ranges are so large that in most cases they're pretty much irrelevant. If you're a good enough candidate, they'll make it work. Why you would want to knowingly under pay yourself just for this particular job?

I've read that way the number is stated also affects the range. For example, 100 has a large negotiating range than 90, and 90 larger than 92.

I haven't had a change to use this yet, though....

I haven't thought about that, but it definitely makes sense. Do you have a source on that?

I remember reading that as well. Here is what Google turned up: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119410422/abstrac...

EDIT: information wants to be free etc. http://drop.io/precision_of_the_anchor_etc

Reply on news.ycombinator.com