Another principle is that you should always counter.
So I'm _extremely_ surprised to hear that 95% of the time, people have refused to continue talking with you. I can't refute your experience, but I can say this has never happened to me or anyone that I've worked with to negotiate a starting salary.
Patrick's writing, which you alluded to, was a big inspiration for me to write and think more deeply about this subject. He knows what he's talking about.
If you watch the Salary Negotiation workshop (linked in my original comment), you'll see a section on "The Dreaded Salary Question" and there was a 15-minute discussion on it in the Q&A. (Both are linked in the notes below the embedded video.) You might watch those segments to see if anything jumps out at you that yo haven't' tried before.
Thanks for the question!
Places where I experienced this gross miscalibration: a large U.S. food retailer's digital analytics team; a small pharmaceutical research software company; a 25-year-old multinational scientific computing and supercomputing consulting firm; and an FFRDC research lab attached to a university.
In one of these places they even went on at length about how much the hiring manager liked me, how I fit all the skills they were seeking, and many team members remarked that I would "mesh instantly" with the team, and so forth. I had walked away from those interviews knowing that I had done a good job and feeling very confident.
Then they made a job offer than was around 75% of what I had been making before in a similar job in a similar cost of living area, and the new job's other benefits were far worse.
When I told them what I was making before, they just said, "it just looks like there's a bit of a gap here that we are unable to make up, but we think you'll be very happy on this team so we hope you'll consider our offer despite that." The people interviewing me in that company had even gone on at length about how successful their business unit had been recently, signing a new important contract, and how their biggest challenge was recruiting good people and staffing up to support some projects that had important deadlines looming towards the end of 2016.
I still continue to avoid sharing salary info, because I'm not convinced that sharing it would be better.
But I think what you might not be accounting for is that almost every single candidate in the tech world does share salary, freely and openly, from the very first minute they are asked, without even realizing it might have any side effects.
A lot of corporate recruiters are conditioned to expect this, and the minute someone fails to share salary, they flag them as "not a dope, can't hire them cheaply" and they just move on. Constraint number one, above any and all talent requirements, is that they must be cheap to hire ... for a lot of firms.
As for 'shares' I flatly refuse to even consider that as part of a package. if they want to /add/ them it's wonderful, but I've been so many time multi-millionaire in 'options' that it's not even funny.
As for 'yes but the work/team is so rewarding' point I counter that it's a lot better if there isn't a sour note about being underpaid mixed in. Pay me well, and I'll be the one pulling the team to be all shinny and dynamic.
However, ultimately, you STILL get underpaid unless you go to the usual suspects like GG and such. That's why I gave up 'career' and went off contracting. Turns out being a mercenary is rewarding in many ways, including monetary !
If you want to give a number, give a high one that you are ok with the company negotiating down, because that is what will happen.
Usually, my advice is "don't share you current or desired salary", but the one exception I've discussed with some people is when they're concerned they'll be low-balled. In those cases, I've suggested it might be better to just disclose your desired salary.
I've been rethinking this lately. I think a better tack might be to ask the company to share the salary range they're offering for the position. (You're only doing this if you're concerned you'll go through the interview process and get an offer so low you can't even counter with anything reasonable.)
In this case, you have virtually nothing to lose: either they'll tell you the range and you'll know if you're wasting your time, or they'll refuse and now you're both refusing to disclose the "desired" salary component. In the latter case, you can choose to continue with the process or not, depending on your general feeling about the opportunity.
The more I think about it, the more I suspect you should _never_ reveal your desired salary because it can basically only cost you money. When you do reveal your desired salary, you're basically guessing and gambling. You're guessing at the range they're offering, and gambling that you don't undershoot and cost yourself money. (See this clip on why I think it's so important to protect the few pieces of information you have in a negotiation: https://youtu.be/ndrY2UI-fyU TL;DR, you have only two or three unique pieces of information that the company doesn't have; the company has oodles and oodles of information that you don't have; they have a significant informational advantage in your negotiation and this is bad for you, but it's worse if you give away the few pieces of unique information that you have.)
This is a worse gamble than simply interviewing to see what they're best offer is, IMO. If you go all the way through the interview process and find they can't afford you, you wasted a few hours of interview time. If you guess and gamble by disclosing your desired salary, you're risking thousands of dollars of base salary over several years. Odds are, the opportunity cost of your time isn't anywhere near the potential downside of guessing wrong with respect to the base salary they're willing to pay.
(I'm going to sleep on this, but it feels right) So, my suggestion is don't disclose your desired salary, even if you're afraid their offer will be way too low or if the recruiter says they won't continue without it. If you're dealing with a very persistent recruiter OR you're afraid they can't afford you, ask them to tell you the salary range they're offering so you can tell them if it meets your requirements. If they won't tell you, then you can choose to continue and possibly get a low offer, walk away, or the recruiter may end the conversation (this is rare, in my experience, but I'd be open to seeing data to change my mind).
All of these outcomes are preferable to the alternative, which is risking thousands (or tens of thousands) of dollars of base salary by guessing at their range and gambling by disclosing your desired salary.
The bottom line is the company has something you need: a job. BUT you have something the company needs: skills and experience that can help them make money. Don't be fooled into perceiving a salary negotiation as a one-sided affair.
If I am the first one to bring up salary, and I request a range because I want to make sure that nobody is wasting their time, then they clearly get the message that I am expensive to hire, and they can efficiently reject me if needed. If they give a number and it's too low, then I can politely tell them it's best for everyone to discontinue the interviews.
But, if they don't want to give a range, presumably because they might be willing to pay a high wage if they liked me, then it puts me in a much better position to avoid stating what I am seeking.
Then I could say, "OK, it's alright with me if you don't want to explicitly tell me the range ... I just want to be sure that the position is offering compensation in the range that I am seeking. If you prefer to leave the salary discussions for later, that is perfectly understandable."
Now, if they press me for salary info, I can say the same thing they said and refuse to answer.
In my experience, refusing to agree on a range will inevitably lead to some lowball offers.
The strategy I've been using is to give out a range that is 1.5-2x what I'd be happy with. This anchors the conversation and quickly sifts out the employers who are not serious about attracting top talent.
Realistically, I never expect to get that 2x number and am certainly not leaving money on the table.
On the one hand, that screws up the usual "don't give a number" advice, including this advice -- there's usually not a defined salary range for a startup's catchall "we want somebody who does backend" poorly-defined job req.
On the other hand, I suspect "don't give a number" isn't the biggest mismatch happening there.
"Too open-ended? Then how about you just put in the lowest/highest amount YOU'D be willing to accept and we move from there."
And if they do and somehow, your previous employer disclosed this to them (a big no no), you can always say "I was underpaid then and what I was making there is not relevant to the position I'm applying to with your right now. I also think I've learned a lot in my past position, which justifies this jump in compensation".
"I'm not comfortable sharing that information [my current salary]. I'd prefer to focus on the value I can add to your company and learn more about this opportunity.
I want this to be a big step forward for me in terms of both responsibility and compensation."
You can obviously adjust it for your own situation, but the idea is "I'm not comfortable telling you my current or desired salary. Let's keep going, please."
I call this "The Dreaded Salary Question" and you can see a better clip and a lengthy Q&A on this specific question in this salary negotiation workshop I did in Orlando last week: http://bit.ly/21zFG5q
Generally I say something like, "I appreciate the need to consider salary as an important part of the process, but since we have only just started talking about the position I feel it would be best to make sure that I really am the sort of technical and cultural fit you are looking for. If we can determine that I am the right fit for the role, then the salary information will fall into place at the appropriate time. But if it seems that I am not the right fit for your team, then no amount of salary discussions will be able to help us."
I have a few variations on that kind of description that I use. It's entirely possible that the way I say it can come off as rude, and I think that did happen to me especially a few times when I first started doing this.
But I have practiced it, asked friends for advice about how to say it better, how it sounds, etc., and researched a lot about this online. So I have some confidence that it is coming off as strong and assertive, but not rude, and it is communicated clearly in good-faith because I truly am primarily interested in whether the cultural fit is a good one.
Even so, these kinds of HR-approved ways of talking only ever result in about a 95% chance of immediate rejection.
Whenever I have made it past the initial question about salary, and eventually salary comes up again towards the stage when an offer is made, I have a different way of talking about it.
At that stage, if they ask me again, I will usually say something like, "I have spoken with the team and had a great chance to learn about your company and how I could fit in with this role. If you have a particular salary range that you'd like to share with me, I can definitely let you know how it will match up with my expectations."
Again, I have some slight variations on that, but it's more or less the same idea of changing their question asked of me into my question asked of them. They can't keep coming back and specifically asking me for a number without seeming very awkward, and if they do that it's sometimes a red flag and I would usually be happy walking away if they were to heavily press me at that point.
Unfortunately, as I mentioned above, when people have been OK with all of this and they have actually come back with their offer, it has been not just a tiny bit below my ideal, but way, way off base from what I was previously earning, let alone what I was actually seeking to earn in the new role.
It's important to neg them a little when you guess what they will offer. Male them self consious about lowballing you without insulting them.
I actually am beginning to think that its weak to ask them to throw out a number. Why not state a deal that's 10% better than what you want? Are you really going to be heartbroken if you get more than you want?
My background: I'm a senior-level engineer in my early 30s, in SF. After a consulting stint, I interviewed heavily in 2013, and again in the second half of 2015, and currently speak with 1-2 recruiter cold calls per week to keep my options open. My sample size is many dozens of intro calls, across startups ranging in maturity from 1st engineer through some of the unicorns everyone knows.
In short, I agree with p4wnc6. A very relevant fraction of recruiters, say a third, will refuse to proceed until you quote a figure. This is true for internal and external recruiters. No amount of push back works with this group, they'll see you as difficult or otherwise not worth pursuing, and would rather end the discussion than proceed number-less.
This leaves the two-thirds of recruiters who are willing to play ball. Now there's another problem - not quoting a number is only a good idea if you want to avoid being low-balled - it's a tremendous waste of time if your desired compensation is above the expected range.
For transparency and knowledge sharing, I'll be specific: my background is in operations and infrastructure ("devops"). 90+% of the roles coming my way pay in the range of $130-180K base. My base is above this, and very few companies will be willing to pay a premium of 50% more than they expected to. No amount of wishful thinking about "your payroll is a drop in the bucket" will bridge the gap if it's too large.
Which brings me to a question I'd love the answer to: other than working for the big ~6 (Google, Facebook, Uber, Apple, etc), how can I push my comp up to $2X0 (or even $3XX!)? I feel like I'm near max, so I'm biding my time until the right VP/Director/etc of Ops role comes along. Is there anything else I can do?
Which posts exactly? What is that blog known for? First time I see it referenced.
I am in scientific computing and machine learning, and I actually love being an implementer and a coder. I don't want to be a people manager (mostly because I think all companies force managers to treat their subordinates in unhealthy ways, and no matter how good your intentions are, being a manager will ruin your humanity).
I worry about finding any job, and then further worry about what growth path there could possibly be.
I'm suspicious that this is a silent-evidence phenomenon. I'd assume that the duration a job listing is up correlates inversely proportional to the compensation. If that's true, all the great paying jobs are optically invisible.
Is there a way into machine learning without doing going and going an Ms or PhD?
Im working my way through a coursera course on it but I'm not sure that is enough. All the positions I see are looking for academic experience or 5+ years doing it. Neither of which are doable for me.
Jobs in the $2X0 range are basically outside the range where a company will trust the normal recruiter/interview process to bring in a good candidate. You must start working your network, and you must either go to one of the big 6 you mention, or you must find a company that desperately needs somebody really senior and where you have an "in" -- somebody who knows the quality of your work and knows you're work $2X0.
It's not that hard to be worth that -- that's about two senior-ish engineers in Silicon Valley. But it's very hard to prove you're worth it. You have to know somebody and they have to know you.
You'll see a lot of advice about becoming a "thought leader" and "noncommodity." And to be fair, that helps -- I give talks, wrote a book, etc. But those things won't usually let you interview cold and get $2X0. At this point, maybe $200, barely? Beyond that, it's networking or seniority.
I can't tell you about $3X0, that's out of my personal experience.
You'll occasionally see massively outliers, up to maybe $6XX (which includes stock, not just base.) But those are almost invariably people who rose in the ranks at very profitable companies -- either big 6 or a small niche company that makes bank. It's very hard to be hired into a role like that unless you're well-known by the company in question.
also, everyone I know in that income tax bracket works for those big companies. Startups just don't pay that kind of money. If you want to get paid (I mean, paid now, not paid if you get lucky and pick the right company and it gets huge) - if you want to get paid, go get a job from a big company.
why don't you want to work at google, facebook, uber, apple, etc...? (amazon, btw, is on that list, too.)
Also, on another note, while I get "what is your salary expectation" a lot, (and I often return with "getting X now, need X+y if you want me to move" because maybe I'm a terrible negotiator?) I've never had any but the lowest of body shop recruiters actually ask me for a previous salary.
I've never come across an ex-Amazon employee with good things to say about the company (though this is admittedly a small sample-size).
$180k a year can not buy you a home in Santa Monica. Mortgage would be > half your take home even in a condo and the alternative is to commute an hour each way.
And at the opposite end of the spectrum, if a candidate gives a number that's too low, we ignore that and offer them what we think they are worth (which is a higher number). Our reasoning is simple: if we treat people fairly, they will be more loyal and less likely to jump ship at the earliest opportunity that pays more.
I actually have a friend who worked at one of the aggressive boutique recruiting firms who mostly focus on the New York investment banking jobs.
He told me that almost always, their client companies would tell them that if they were able to get a candidate to come in with a salary below X, the recruiting firm would get an extra bonus on top of their commission, and the bonus was priced to make sure it was more lucrative to try to suppress candidate wages than to adequately represent the candidate's higher-end expectation.
Whenever I hear a recruiter say anything like, "Look, I don't get paid unless you do so clearly I'm trying to get you the most that I can..." it's an immediate dealbreaker. They are probably being paid a bonus precisely to ensure I come in at a lower salary than what I could otherwise command.
I definitely understand the need to be efficient with everyone's time, but "have the candidate share their desired salary" is only one way to do that.
I have heard this reasoning from recruiters many times, but haven't heard a good explanation as to why they don't just tell the candidate the range they're willing to pay.
(This is a genuine question) Why not just tell the candidate your range if your concern is to respect everyone's time?
Surprisingly, very few candidates ask us upfront what the position pays. In fact, we've only had one candidate who tried to play the "salary game" (if you will) and turned the question back on us when we asked what their salary range was. Like I said though, we just reveal it. To us, it's not a game, but rather two parties exchanging information in a fair and transparent manner.
It is true that making sure you are on the same page salary-wise is a good idea, but it doesn't always have to be the interviewee to establish that.
Because you aren't honest at all, to system is trying to get rmpoyees for less.
This was the only time someone offered me more than I was asking :)
It can be one of the great parts of negotiating with someone located in a much higher paid location.
Example: today I was talking with a recruiter about an iOS developer position. The salary question came up (in the form of: how much do you make right now?), and I gave the standard deflection about wanting to make sure the position was a right fit, etc... When pressed, I said that based on my research, the base for this position is $75k - $95k, and that a number in that range would be acceptable as a starting point for negotiation, but contingent on the details of the position.
This kind of response seems to give you some wiggle room without giving up all your leverage, while giving everyone a general idea if you're in the ballpark. I only use this as a last resort if I'm getting the feeling that there is little chance I'll be able to proceed with the opportunity if I don't answer. True, by not establishing salary up front you may be wasting each others' time due to different expectations, but that is a very small risk to take compared with the potential upside of a big raise.
This makes sense. You have to be as good as the same quality of software engineer, do work that is less glamorous, and carry a pager.
"Lower bound you'd accept" != "Lower bound you SAY"
That's one way, at least, where neither party has to concede the information advantage.
In fact, I'm surprised there aren't already 37 start-ups that offer this as a service. You could have a cute little envelope logo like the MS Outlook logo and give a TED talk about how you're totally disrupting information asymmetry in recruiting, and eventually be pressured by techtopus to provide data about what candidates are asking for to perpetuate information asymmetry.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yao%27s_Millionaires%27_Proble...
Why pay for a service when you can just ask? Basically they do it on purpose because they have the upper hand.
You have very little unique information when you enter the negotiation (you know your current salary, your desired salary, and how badly you need the job—that's about it). They have tons of information that you don't have (what they're willing to pay, what they're already paying others to do the job, how badly they need to fill the position, how badly they want you in particular).
By waiting for them to make an offer, you retain the unique information you have AND you wait for them to reveal some of the information you didn't have. When they make you an offer, you now know approximately what they're willing to pay you to do the job. This is a very big gain for you and allows you to negotiate much more effectively and increase your salary.
Before I would speak to any of them on the phone, I'd get a soft confirmation via e-mail that they had a position that could meet my requirements.
The web page also had information about what areas I was willing to commute to.
I've used variants of this approach for more than 20 years, and it's working exceedingly well.
They have only ever said that every position they are working on would offer a salary too low to compete even with what I currently made, let alone the larger amount I was seeking.
Yet at the same time, I have friends and colleagues who already are earning the higher level I am seeking, and who say it is a common amount to be earning in certain places.
My opinion is that recruiters focus a lot on whether it would be easy to get you hired. If your salary is high, few recruiters will bother because it means you are picky and you're looking to work at companies that are picky and so lots of times it doesn't work out.
Recruiters are a lot like crappy stock analysts. They are always looking for a story about something being undervalued, to hook someone on how they can get something great for an amazingly cheap price.
If you are justifiably expensive, most recruiters scatter like roaches. They can't sell things at their true value, and view it as wasting time even to try.
[1] Thinking, Fast and Slow - by Daniel Kahneman
[2] http://www.businessinsider.com/how-to-negotiate-make-first-o...
The most important part here is that this will end the conversion with many recruiters. This helps you to know that those recruiters were not trying to help you. Just repeat with more recruiters.
Honestly, discussing desired salary is a good screening tool and when following advice like this I find ~50% of job applications are a waste of my time.
So desired salary is an important filter if a job doesn't state the salary range.
I know it can often mean wasting time, but focus on whether it's a company you want to work at. If it is, see it as a way of getting on their radar, and if you can't agree for that position, ask them to keep you in mind if they get something more suitable.
