This is all very interesting, but is complete fiction for most readers. 99% of job seekers aren’t going to receive competing offers from multiple companies conveniently at the same time.
> Turns out, it doesn’t matter that much where your first offer is from, or even how much they’re offering you. Just having an offer in hand will get the engine running.
> If you’re already in the pipeline with other companies (which you should be if you’re doing it right), you should proactively reach out and let them know that you’ve just received an offer. Try to build a sense of urgency. Regardless of whether you know the expiration date, all offers expire at some point, so take advantage of that.
Anecdotally, I have seen this work many times to great effect.
That's not to say I don't think about where I might have blind spots for a candidate—as you say, all processes are biased—but I've seen too many bozos in this industry (especially as the money started to become its own draw) to take a random offer as signal for anything. More context is necessary or it's just garbage in garbage out.
I just do not see how that works. There’s no logical reason for it.
That's a strong signal, and probably puts you ahead of most people interviewing at the later company, who only have the one set of positive feedback.
(Also, in practice, there's supporting evidence like being able to spout off credible minor details that yes, are still easy to bullshit but again, most people usually aren't lying.)
This is why 1) it really helps to have a referral and 2) tell the recruiter when you have competing roles. Neither will change much about getting or not a role, but they will really help the prioritization and avoid you getting lost.
Paradoxically, that effect is bigger nowadays when the market is not as hot as it used to be, because recruiting is more stretched. Even some FAANG are very understaffed on the recruiting side
We've heard nowadays how hard it is to even get to the interview for many companies so theres probably plenty of candidates who do not have many other offers prepared or even close to prepared.
Another issue is timing. Theres been times when I've started the interview process with two companies but one is on a much shorter timeline than the other so now I have an offer for one whereas I am still waiting on an interview that isn't for even a couple weeks for another, if not longer.
Not gonna lie, last time I went through the interview process I just told them I have other offers already even when I didn't. It worked in my favor I believe but feels like to get the best outcome you just have to be okay with basically lying out your ass - and that goes both ways, as the employer and the employee since it seems like even the companies feel fine with dragging their asses on concrete unless you have other stuff going on.
"Oh, your honor, I was only checking whether they had an offer. We totally weren't discussing how we'd not raise our offers, with the goal of suppressing wages."
I told a startup that I “was talking to Meta”, and they were like ok we cant compete with that. I hadnt even done leetcode yet I was just doing emails with Meta’s recruiter. I told the startup that its okay because I will be stuck in team matching for 6 months, and the startup bumped my salary 30%.
Edit: I saw other comments. I am both “old” and I have a mechanical engineering degree (not CS) and I do just fine interviewing with startups. I worked really hard at the practice of interviewing, this has more rewards and lower risk than basically any other skills you can learn so invest it.
What did you do?
When in an interview, when you're asked a question about your past experiences, the larger the library you have to draw on, the more likely you are to find an example that's relevant and persuasive. Even questions of the form "How would you deal with [hypothetical scenario]", I encourage applicants, if possible, to answer it in the form of "Oh yeah, that's interesting, we had to deal with a very similar case at [one of my previous jobs], here was my approach towards it".
After each interview, do a "l'esprit de l'escalier" retro, write down all the questions asked, what your answer was at the time and what you would have ideally answered now given the fullness of time to think about it. If there's a significant delta, that's a sign to go back and prepare more until your "real time" performance approaches your retroactive performance.
It worked, after 4 years of studying I landed a SF job and 6 months later I was at Apple, year after that I was at Netflix. You get out of this life what you put into it, and in software it’s all out there for you to get. You don’t need a degree, you don’t have to pass the bar or boards, you just need to prove yourself and be willing to hustle
I was lucky enough to have 3 companies that all gave me offers (a couple years back when the market for tech was at its peak). It played out like this article recommends. After an offer was on the table, the other 2 kept throwing better and better offers at me.
However, interviewing at 3 companies, over the span of 2 weeks, with an existing (remote) full time job was hard work. Likely impossible if I hadn't already checked out at the FT job. It was also mentally exhausting, with how companies like to do multiple rounds.
In many other careers the interview process is, if not shorter, at least more behavioral and less mentally draining because you're already pre-screened by licensure or rigid advancement structure of some sort.
In this case, one organization had an onerous IP policy and that other did not. I asked for some carve-outs, and the first organization came back with a single line added to the IP policy that did not change anything meaningful. I told them that I could not accept that offer as written and wanted more changes, but they refused further negotiation and told me to take it or leave it. I waited a few days, rejected their offer, and accepted the other offer.
(I think that they were willing to add the single meaningless line to make it appear they were willing to change things without actually changing anything substantive.)
The morale of my story is that you may not be able to negotiate a better offer, but at least you have a choice when you have multiple offers.
In the current job market, only if your in the top 0.01% will you ever have to worry about this.
I really hope things improve but I'm pessimistic...
Assume that X% of companies are interested in you and you pursue Y leads to result in X% * Y offers. A large number of people will receive 0 offers and they'll be long term on the job market until they make a change to either X (job hunting strategy) or Y (pool of roles considered).
A large number of people will receive >1 offers because they're competitive in the marketplace. Only some tiny number of people will receive exactly one offer unless Y is very small.
That many people only receive one offer is more of a sign that they're not strategic in their job hunting approach (which is upstream of them not being strategic in their negotiations) and this is a fixable problem.
The question is whether it will return to what it once was.
The big tech companies are monopolies, no longer afraid that they have to employ "all the engineers" to prevent competition. ZIRP isn't there to give rise to startups, or to give the tech companies unlimited leeway in development.
If interest rates drop or big tech is broken up, we might see a sharp rise in salaries. But now there's also more competition from overseas, both in terms of great talent and competition from large international players.
edit: the article was from 2016, and can confirm. I was making bank then and getting free at-work massages, boba, and towel service.
I think it’s a challenging environment for developers who are either inexperienced or who have skills that are out of date. I have found that companies are a bit more picky than i remember about knowing the exact tech stack they use, but they are still making offers and those offers are pretty good.
Note that I’m applying mostly to mid-sized non-public companies. I’m not sure what it’s like applying to MAANG-types right now.
Now, those companies have mostly lost the luster they used to have, and the comp differences aren't as large.
Recruiter: "Here's your offer for $X compensation."
You: "I was actually looking for something paying $X+Y."
Recruiter: "Well our offer is $X."
You: "This data shows that comparable jobs with the work I'm taking on are paying $X+Y."
Recruiter: "Our offer is $X. Do you want the job or not?"
You: "Well, I'm not willing to join for less than $X+(Y/2)."
Recruiter: "OK, well, bye. We have 35 other candidates lined up to talk to. Good luck."
Not sure how it's different when you have multiple offers. The company offering a lower comp will just say "Well, their offer is higher. Have fun at Company B. Thanks for interviewing!" Reading stories of these Captains Of Industry just asking for more and getting it, or getting companies into a bidding war over them is... kind of wild. It's like we're living in different universes.
I don't think I'm negotiating to get a better compensation than what is reasonable. On the contrary, I'm negotiating to get a fair compensation.
Some companies (bigger ones) will just say "we hire you for this title, so the compensation is $X and we don't negotiate because we want it to be fair for your colleagues". Then I don't think you can negotiate much, but at the same time they're probably not screwing you. It's just what it's worth to them, take it or leave it.
Recruiter: "Here's your offer for $X"
You: "Well I'm also negotiating an offer with Z for $X + 200k
Recruiter: OK well how about $X + 200k and a 50k signing bonus?
Multiple offers are key -- seriously, timing that properly is the biggest thing you can do to optimize your job search. Even if you can't give exact numbers, the mere presence of a competing offer will make a company offer you top of band.
At a big company with known positions (e.g. junior, mid-range, and senior devs), salaries for each of those positions may fall within a narrow range with little to no leeway. At a smaller company, where roles are more amorphous, starting salary may span a huge range depending on your specific qualifications, how their business is going, etc.
But in reality it's just an illusion. Companies want to hire people who are delusional and believe that they deserve what they got. Big tech doesn't really need these people or their skills, in reality. They're merely cogs in the big machine. Big tech could easily have found someone better for a lower price; they get so many applications. The whole thing is like a psychological operation. They don't want to build up an elite class which understands how broken the system is. They want a delusional elite class who believe the grotesque myth of the meritocracy. People who don't believe in meritocracy are a huge threat; they cannot be allowed anywhere near the elite because the system is so unmeritocratic, it wouldn't take many interactions to snap the elite out of their comfortable trance.
Business leaders start getting imposter syndrome after they interact with people who understand reality. Business leaders sometimes start viewing themselves as mavericks/mafia boss and sometimes start behaving in dodgy ways.
It's like if you do something and you later discover that it was causing harm; you can either feel bad and correct your behaviour or you reinvent your self-image as a 'bad guy' and double down on the harm... Most people choose the latter, unfortunately.
Edit: I'm seeing a lot of comments on this thread that has not aligned with my experience. I have, in tech, as a software engineer used multiple offers to increase a lower offer by like 15% for a company I preferred and I have also held an offer on the hook so to speak to use it leverage someone else to good effect.
You're negotiating based on potential.
Then it’s not for them. You don’t see me complaining about advice for plumbers bc I’m not a plumber. The advice is for the 1%. Anecdotally I know numerous people, including myself, who have been in this situation.