Lots of good gems
> And yet, when people talk about the labor market, they think “oh, a company wants to give me a job! What a relief!” As though having a job were in itself some special privilege for which a company is the gatekeeper.
>
> Dispel yourself of this mindset.
>
> A job is just a deal. It is a deal between you and a company to exchange labor for money (and other things you value).
>
> Negotiating is a natural and expected part of the process of trying to make a deal. It’s also a signal of competence and seriousness. Companies generally respect candidates who negotiate, and most highly attractive candidates negotiate (if for no other reason, because they often have too many options to choose from).
One of the greatest gems I got from a blog post once posted back in HN (I can't find it anymore, unfortunately) was about a guy getting a job at Google (or ex-Googler), and he dropped the following (I'm paraphrasing, of course):
It was a short post, but that piece of advice has been with me for more than 10 years now.> Companies generally respect candidates who negotiate
Is this really the case? If a company is giving you an offer, presumably they want to hire you. At that point, does the recruiter, your hiring manager, your skip level, the CTO, the CEO even care at that point? Does this respect ever come into play in future performance reviews? I personally don’t think so, but I’ve only ever worked for larger companies.
I’ve always thought you should negotiate because you’re potentially leaving money on the table, since companies will often try to lowball your offer.
> Is this really the case? If a company is giving you an offer, presumably they want to hire you.
In my opinion and experience, I've seen recruiters respect you "harder" if you're not a pushover; that reflects in their internal profile about you.
I can't say that this is a blanket truth; of course size of org matters, too.
But I think there's an effect like a "bet" that now favors the candidate that negotiated. When you negotiate and the hiring manager or company accepts, it's like they're placing a bet that you were absolutely the best candidate in that pool.
Imagine you're the one doing the hiring. What kind of candidate would you extend extra compensation to? Only one that you believe would truly improve your organization and in doing so, you -- on the hiring side -- are placing a bet.
Maybe this is a blind spot for me, but my inclination is to think it doesn’t matter?
Only because the company has already made you an offer in the first place, ergo they see your value and are already making a bet on you. Has there ever been an instance where an offer has been rescinded because a prospective employee didn’t negotiate?
How about the other side? Where the company sees you as an even more desirable candidate and increases the offer? Signing bonus, increased salary, other perks?
Author's whole point is "You always win if you negotiate the right way."
The author's point isn't that you aren't going to get the job by not negotiating, the author's point is that you're leaving money on the table by not negotiating. Potentially a lot of money by thinking that the other side is fair and transparent in their offer to you or doing you "a favor" by giving you a job rather than seeing that there is, unfortunately, a game that has to be played once you get to the offer stage.
in my 25+ year career I yearly-negotiated my salary… with every employer… just as if I was just then getting hired… never looked at it as “performance review” - more like “is my compensation matching my contributions.” I think every person should approach it this way (and of course leave if the company is not willing to fully re-negotiate compensation yearly