I totally agree. It makes a great work philosophy, but it doesn't guarantee or necessarily affect results at a given employer. There are too many unrelated factors that aren't being controlled for.
Is your company going through expansion or is it shrinking? You can work terribly hard on a sinking ship and still wind up with a lower salary and worse position than the average at your age.
Staying with the same firm in IT that long may be luck or it may even be harmful with the wrong employer.
I'm certainly going to try this in future negotiations. However I'm sceptical that a prospective client/customer is going to show their hand by revealing (albeit on a swapped piece of paper) their maximum bid in many cases.
No-one wants to pay the maximum for any commodity. It runs contrary to game theory.
Part of what the OP is saying is true: I've been rewarded by employers (especially at the beginning) by working hard, not making demands, and delivering more "value" than I received in compensation.
Working hard and delivering more value than your receive is generally a good strategy.
However, eventually you will need to learn the art of asking for things: raises, benefits, etc... In my experience the squeaky wheel DOES get the grease.
Imagine two people working hard, doing their best. Imagine their boss, also working hard, too busy to stop and think about the future. One day, one of the workers asks the boss for a raise and a promotion. The other worker just assumes his hard work will be noticed and rewarded.
Who do you think gets the raise? The boss makes the easy decision and goes with the person who asked for it.
I've seen it happen time and again. You can either cry that the world is unfair, or just be the person who asks for what you want.
In the securities industry high salaries are common because they usually are paired with lower percentage payouts. If you want a higher payout, you are generally expected to take a small or no salary (in the extreme case)
Disagree on spam. I don't think it's high-quality content-- nothing against the idea or writing, but it's one anecdote and I think the conclusion is wrong-- but it can produce high-quality discussion and that's why we actually come here.
In my experience, likelihood of spam content is correlated with number of ads or tracking cookies (the indicator number in ghostery). I expect posts with more than 5 tracking cookies/ads to be spam
(and yes, techcrunch rings in at 15, and almost all of their content is garbage)
in fact, Ghostery does block the article, for me anyway. Which is odd, one of the few times I've seen Ghostery have the effect of making a site unuseable/unreadable, and possibly the only time i've seen it on a blog.
For those who want to read the article despite using Ghostery, the tracker you want to allow through is "Adobe Digital Marketing (Omniture)". Or just add it to Pocket and read it there.
Reason for posting on HN: "come to our start-up and work for free. We will compensate. Maybe. Sometime. See that one hedgie-trader did that and was OK!"
Almost everyone is cynical in the comments today...must be the weather.
I actually found the article interesting; sure the author didn't test his theory over multiple jobs but one might argue that his approach was SO SUCCESSFUL that he deemed it worth staying there for 17 years (and likewise for the company).
The method sounds like a doormat approach (particularly the title, but it's meant to grab your attention) but what it really is doing is forcing both parties to be honest about what they want. Which, honestly, is a pretty smart move because it engages a less exploitive psychology in both parties and reveals what the true value to be provided is.
I think of it differently. There are maximizers, satisficers, and doormats. Maximizers are the ones who will go all-out to get the best deal, and sometimes even play the system. They're the ones who know that you can get a box of cereal for $3.79 instead of $5.29 at another store. They'll also come up with excuses to line their job interviews on the same week so the offers roll in at the same time and they can start a "bidding war".
Most people look at maximizers, in the context of negotiation, as being a bit sociopathic. I disagree; I think it's sometimes quite reasonable to take a maximizing strategy. It can be exhausting, but I wouldn't call it sociopathic.
Satisficers have a goal and a sense of "good enough" and, as long as they're north of it, they're happy. Doormats are the ones who take what's given to them. Being a doormat is the worst. You never win by being a doormat.
The problem with "ask for nothing at all", in the workplace, is that it makes you a doormat, not a satisficer.
On the other hand, you have to know when to maximize and when to satisfice (is that a word? It is now.) There's a time for each. Usually, you want to satisfice on salary and maximize on project quality and work culture. But there are exceptions to that rule.
The author seems to be recommending that you present as a doormat. You're exposing your jugular as a sign of trust, similar to the practice of shaking our right (weapon) hands as a greeting. If the other party is going to try to take advantage of you in this situation, walk away. You've now seen how they'll behave when they think you're in a weak position.
This only works if you are actually in a strong negotiating position (you have or can get equivalent/better offers elsewhere), but you are willing to pretend to put yourself in a weak one, to test the other party's good faith. Risky. If you expose your jugular, you might establish trust, but you also might get your throat slashed.
It works fine as a long-term career strategy as long as you always have a strong BATNA. If you can walk whenever anyone betrays your trust, then eventually you'll end up surrounded only by people you can trust. That's a very strong position to be in, and usually makes for both a happy life and a solid professional outcome.
Indeed. Negotiation is about understanding what "finished" looks like. Winning is not always a desired outcome.
There are two drivers in a negotiation - concern for self, or concern for others. There are five approaches to negotiation depending on the degree of the drivers - integrate; oblige; compromise; dominate; and avoid[1].
There are times where you dominate your counterpart, and there are times when it makes sense to capitulate. You choose your approach based on your objective and your drivers.
No mention is made of strategy, however. Negotiation is tactical, and it is useful to understand its place in a wider context.
This strikes me as a very good point. I've read How to Win Friend and Influence People, and the 48 Laws of Power. Do you have any books you can recommend that take a more nuanced approach to negotiation and working with people?
>They're the ones who know that you can get a box of cereal for $3.79 instead of $5.29 at another store.
That's not a "maximizer" (in the sense that you describe his other characteristics), that's an el cheapo, "my time is worthless", "I use coupons at dates" case.
He may not be asking for nothing, at least not in the sense it seems to me at the moment that you mean. He seems to be saying something to the effect of: we'll both show our cards at once and if we've got inconsistent upper and lower boundaries, I'm walking.
Given that:
"The typical approach is for both sides to demand something unreasonable—but not let on that they consider it unreasonable—and then negotiate a “compromise” in the hopes that you will end up closer to your side than the midpoint."
He can be seen to be cutting out the negotiating part. They're not going to offer $0 because they expect him to be asking for a fair bit. Saying 'this is the minimum I'll accept and I'm not going to discuss anything lower' is quite a hard bargaining position for the other person to match under most conditions.
If he were actually interested in asking for nothing he'd undercut their offer if it were higher than his minimum, and keep insisting on being paid as little as possible. But he doesn't seem to have done that. Whatever he's done he's not actually talked them into letting him pay for the meal, so to speak - and I can't imagine that doing so would have been particularly hard.
In "Pricing With Confidence" by Reed Holden & Mark Burton, Rule 4 breaks everyone down into four types [of buyers]: price buyers, value buyers, relationship buyers, and poker players.
Price buyers only care about one thing: maximizing the amount of money in their pocket. (Your maximizers)
Value buyers understand that there is value in some offers that are worth paying more for. (Your satisficers)
Relationship buyers prefer to find trust worthy partners and build solid long term relationships with them, even if it means not getting the cheapest price. (Your doormats)
Poker players don't like to show their cards and play a tough game. They often say price is all the matters but you can often call their bluff by removing some value of your offer in order to reduce the price to something they claim they are aiming for.
(Negotiators, those that know when to maximize and when to satisfy and when to give in a little [a short term pain for a long term gain])
The left has FINALLY tried to pass a bill here to let companies fire people a little. Many yelled, but in soviet france, it has been a real issue, and the right/sarkozy did not manage to change something about it. It's sad, because this is the #1 cause of unemployment here, it's the total opposite of the US. The minimum wage is also a big issue which adds up to the fact companies almost cannot fire people.
That means companies are too much careful and cannot hire without being the employee will not drag everyone down. It boils down to companies hiring only people they trust, e.g. the friends of employees or their relatives.
It's weird, because for some time now, since 2004 or something, I have been so much interested and obsessed into the american culture in general, without really thinking about working there, or going to canada. I love the US and its issues, since the 2008 crisis I've been fascinated by how an economy works.
"best place in the world" oh boy, well I won't argue with this, but when you live a developed country, wherever you go, there's nothing to work on, because of human nature, and you can't say shit about it.
You either wait for some global conflict to make leaders and big owners react to the problem or force them to, which is really stupid to wish a thing like war, or watch terrorism happen and say "not surprising". You can also wait for the older generation to die out to leave room, but in the end it's just biology.
"I explained that my goal is to live a debt-free life, and therefore I wanted to give value before receiving compensation."
Why? If someone is hiring you to do something, they're taking the risk of you not delivering enough value, but they're also entitled to whatever rewards they can get from your work, which can be several times what they're paying you. Basically the author wants to take all the risk, and if he doesn't have a substantial bonus, very little of the rewards.
Well, of course anyone can live to make other people profit more, but it's a bit strange to tell everyone to live like that.
tl;dr employers will like you if you tie all your compensation with performance.
For some positions this is a good thing when you have control over the outcome and you're confident you're upto par.
Sales and trading for example are good areas as the performance is easy to quantify. Creative professions... not so much.
The article says that the OP 'developed an approach'. If I'm to believe that this is a technique, and not just a fortunate hiring for employee and employer, then there would need to be more examples of how this works, not just one.
From the content of the article alone it seems like finding a good employer might be a way of securing a good salary. No shit.
Throughout my career and my life I've followed this strategy disparagingly called being a doormat below. I have a friend who has followed the opposite strategy, always asking for and fighting for the most he can squeeze out of an employer and life. Strangely, I have often been paid more, been given more benefits and been generally happier. I think this works because unlike what many people seem to think, the other side aren't typically sociopaths trying to squeeze the last drop of blood out of the employees. But they will respond that way when pushed.
People generally have a solid understanding of what is fair and what isn't. When we start a negotiation from a point of unfairness and unreasonableness, both sides are then on the defensive which anyone who has read Dale Carnegie knows is a recipe for failure. I'm not sure I buy into the OP's idea of asking for $0 since that's just as unreasonable but it's unreasonable in a way that brings the other side closer instead of pushing them away. If you sincerely say you want to work for what you make, the majority of people will want to give you what you deserve. Are there people out there who will immediately try to screw you? Yes but that happens, you get as far away from them as possible. And if you can't recognize those people, you have far bigger problems than learning how to maximize your negotiations.
Negotiations seems to work best when they are discussions, not attempts to get the most of of the other side. Of course, if you're working for a boss who used to be a used car salesman or a sociopath, by all means, be prepared to have to fight for everything you want. And be prepared to be miserable to boot.
I believe the $0 base salary might be more reasonable in the field in which the writer works. Based on the part about hefty profit sharing, I suspect it might be one where that portion of the income is paid out immediately and could potentially provide adequate income.
Are you and your friend working in the same field and having the same capabilities? I'm pretty sure a brilliant "doormat" programmer will make more than, say, an average "maximizer" salesman.
I was with you until the example. At any company I've ever worked at that had both sales and engineering, the salesfolks were making 50%-100% more. And those are the typical negotiating strategies of each group.
Well the adage is, the closer you are to where money comes into the company the more you can make. Most sales jobs are also commission based which means if a sales person is making a lot of money the company also made a lot of money.
I'm pretty sure not, because the doormat will be caught by the first place that pays him any low wage he accepts, they will accept his deal because it's remarkably low, and he won't cycle out.
Companies do not pay you more money just for being brilliant, when it is not obvious that they need to.
This commonly expressed idea that companies are out to screw everyone is divisive and poisonous. "Companies" don't make decisions on how much to pay someone, people do. And most people, by definition, are decent and have a strong understanding of what's fair. Again, there are exceptions but assuming you work in a field where there are other career options, staying in a sociopathic working environment shouldn't even be up for discussion.
I might be considered a doormat because I don't demand what I deserve. But the very fact that I don't seems to turn into fair pay, good working conditions and honesty. Sure, it's one data point. But I've given it a lot of thought and noticed that people who are constantly demanding what the deserve are highly unpopular and frequently unhappy.
Most companies aren't out to screw you, but I've worked for a few (I'm 40 this year), and the vast majority of them aren't actively concerned with not screwing you, which works out to the same thing practically speaking when it comes to raises and other advancement within the company over time.
There is an old adage about the easiest way to get a raise in the tech field being to move to a new company. This is, in my experience, absolutely and nearly universally true (there are a select few companies that really stay on the ball with regards to keeping up with salary adjustments for existing employees, but they are very few and very far between).
There is a wide gulf between fighting for every last drop and being a doormat.
But yes, negotiations work best when they are discussions with each side explaining what they want, need, and why. The other side of that coin though is that people in general get weird when money is involved. When it's a large amount of money it gets worse. So even though people are generally not out to screw someone else, money can cause those same people to screw everyone else.
I'm forced to admit that this strategy reads like something out of the Vorkosigan Saga. Then again, there's a reason the Vorkosigan Saga is awesome. The question is, can it really be made to work outside the sample size of one?
>"I explained that my goal is to live a debt-free life, and therefore I wanted to give value before receiving compensation."
Really, "live a debt free life" by letting other people pile HUGE debts on you?
So the top dogs get lear jets, nice Jaguars and golden parachutes with the fruits of the work you and others like you contribute, since they get to keep all the extra profits off of your work (besides those needed to keep the company going and moving forward).
If you really want to eliminate debt, eliminate it on BOTH sides.
"We started with base pay. I wrote down the least I would work for and asked them to write down the most they would offer a perfect person, irrespective of whether I was that person or not. If when we exchanged papers, their number wasn’t higher than mine then we could stop there and save time. Their number was twice the best base pay I had ever received in past jobs, and my request was for $0."
I am not understanding. The least he would work for is nothing? That can't be a "start base pay", can it? Could someone clarify? Thanks!
He didn't ask for nothing. He asked for zero salary along with the highest profit sharing percentage in the industry. He works as a prop trader and hedge fund manager, so his value delivered is totally quantifiable. In othe words, he offered to take on more risk in exchange for a higher percentage return in a business where it's hard for your employer to be dishonest about exactly how much value you delivered.
It also seems like the type of business where effective game-theoretic methods that maximize positive cashflow are going to be valued higher than, say, teamwork and team loyalty.
But aren't teamwork and team loyalty just two means to the same end--which is to maximize profits. So why does it matter that it's a type of business that only value the end instead of the means?
Reminds me of designer friends of mine that constantly harp on about their 'design process'--but, do your users like your product in the end or not? That's the key. The process is merely a means to an end (there are many means in business, but generally one end: profit). If the end sucks, the means is worth very little (it's only worth is as a lesson in what not to do).
You want the job don't you? The job involves working with people.
Here's how that negotiation would go with any hiring process I've ever worked with:
"So Mr. Pwnguinz, what are your salary requirements?"
"On this piece of paper I've written down the least I would work for. Now you please write down the most you are prepared to offer a perfect person, irrespective of whether I am that person or not. Then we shall exchange papers."
"This is highly irregular."
"If after exchanging papers, we find that your number is less than mine then we can save time."
Two ways I see this going:
A. "Thank you for your time Mr. Pwnguinz".
B. The hiring manager writes down what they were considering as an initial offer, you write down $0, and you become an HR office legend.
My failure in previous salary negotiation was assuming my employer would be honest about my delivered value.
Even documented and presented as a counter point in negotiation they simply denied the truth and quickly tried to pan the evidence.
Maybe I was naive, but it was so shockingly dishonest to me, I was mentally broadsided, mouth agape in disbelief. I mentally quit right then and there, and left as soon as possible.
A job where I can swing that type of contract and have the onus completely on me to prove my worth sounds perfect. The sad reality is that it seems like in my field of work the dependencies on others is enough to make such a move very risky. From my experiences I can imagine a few situations which of results in a "you didn't have a good year" kind of reward even though it wasn't my fault and I truly did the best that anybody could have.
When your work in a job that requires leverage and you have dependencies you need your entire dependency chain to do their job so yours can be judged accurately.
108 comments
[ 5.1 ms ] story [ 196 ms ] threadThis isn't a small sample, it's a single sample. It barely qualifies as an anecdote. OP just had the good luck to find a good company and recruiter.
He works in the "securities industry as a proprietary trader and hedge fund manager".
Is your company going through expansion or is it shrinking? You can work terribly hard on a sinking ship and still wind up with a lower salary and worse position than the average at your age.
Staying with the same firm in IT that long may be luck or it may even be harmful with the wrong employer.
No-one wants to pay the maximum for any commodity. It runs contrary to game theory.
Working hard and delivering more value than your receive is generally a good strategy.
However, eventually you will need to learn the art of asking for things: raises, benefits, etc... In my experience the squeaky wheel DOES get the grease.
Who do you think gets the raise? The boss makes the easy decision and goes with the person who asked for it.
I've seen it happen time and again. You can either cry that the world is unfair, or just be the person who asks for what you want.
(and yes, techcrunch rings in at 15, and almost all of their content is garbage)
I actually found the article interesting; sure the author didn't test his theory over multiple jobs but one might argue that his approach was SO SUCCESSFUL that he deemed it worth staying there for 17 years (and likewise for the company).
The method sounds like a doormat approach (particularly the title, but it's meant to grab your attention) but what it really is doing is forcing both parties to be honest about what they want. Which, honestly, is a pretty smart move because it engages a less exploitive psychology in both parties and reveals what the true value to be provided is.
Or the cynicism inducing post?
Most people look at maximizers, in the context of negotiation, as being a bit sociopathic. I disagree; I think it's sometimes quite reasonable to take a maximizing strategy. It can be exhausting, but I wouldn't call it sociopathic.
Satisficers have a goal and a sense of "good enough" and, as long as they're north of it, they're happy. Doormats are the ones who take what's given to them. Being a doormat is the worst. You never win by being a doormat.
The problem with "ask for nothing at all", in the workplace, is that it makes you a doormat, not a satisficer.
On the other hand, you have to know when to maximize and when to satisfice (is that a word? It is now.) There's a time for each. Usually, you want to satisfice on salary and maximize on project quality and work culture. But there are exceptions to that rule.
The OED dates the earliest use in the sense you use to 1957:
So it is a word :)Think about poker. Do you really know the other player knows all your cards when he/she bluffs?
As a long-term career strategy, it's a bad one, but that's not what the OP is talking about.
Being a lefty makes that gesture very meaningless.
There are two drivers in a negotiation - concern for self, or concern for others. There are five approaches to negotiation depending on the degree of the drivers - integrate; oblige; compromise; dominate; and avoid[1].
There are times where you dominate your counterpart, and there are times when it makes sense to capitulate. You choose your approach based on your objective and your drivers.
No mention is made of strategy, however. Negotiation is tactical, and it is useful to understand its place in a wider context.
[1] http://www.negotiationlawblog.com/uploads/file/Organizationa...
That's not a "maximizer" (in the sense that you describe his other characteristics), that's an el cheapo, "my time is worthless", "I use coupons at dates" case.
Given that:
"The typical approach is for both sides to demand something unreasonable—but not let on that they consider it unreasonable—and then negotiate a “compromise” in the hopes that you will end up closer to your side than the midpoint."
He can be seen to be cutting out the negotiating part. They're not going to offer $0 because they expect him to be asking for a fair bit. Saying 'this is the minimum I'll accept and I'm not going to discuss anything lower' is quite a hard bargaining position for the other person to match under most conditions.
If he were actually interested in asking for nothing he'd undercut their offer if it were higher than his minimum, and keep insisting on being paid as little as possible. But he doesn't seem to have done that. Whatever he's done he's not actually talked them into letting him pay for the meal, so to speak - and I can't imagine that doing so would have been particularly hard.
Price buyers only care about one thing: maximizing the amount of money in their pocket. (Your maximizers)
Value buyers understand that there is value in some offers that are worth paying more for. (Your satisficers)
Relationship buyers prefer to find trust worthy partners and build solid long term relationships with them, even if it means not getting the cheapest price. (Your doormats)
Poker players don't like to show their cards and play a tough game. They often say price is all the matters but you can often call their bluff by removing some value of your offer in order to reduce the price to something they claim they are aiming for. (Negotiators, those that know when to maximize and when to satisfy and when to give in a little [a short term pain for a long term gain])
'satisfice' is a word at least in academia
fuck my life
The left has FINALLY tried to pass a bill here to let companies fire people a little. Many yelled, but in soviet france, it has been a real issue, and the right/sarkozy did not manage to change something about it. It's sad, because this is the #1 cause of unemployment here, it's the total opposite of the US. The minimum wage is also a big issue which adds up to the fact companies almost cannot fire people.
That means companies are too much careful and cannot hire without being the employee will not drag everyone down. It boils down to companies hiring only people they trust, e.g. the friends of employees or their relatives.
It's weird, because for some time now, since 2004 or something, I have been so much interested and obsessed into the american culture in general, without really thinking about working there, or going to canada. I love the US and its issues, since the 2008 crisis I've been fascinated by how an economy works.
"best place in the world" oh boy, well I won't argue with this, but when you live a developed country, wherever you go, there's nothing to work on, because of human nature, and you can't say shit about it.
You either wait for some global conflict to make leaders and big owners react to the problem or force them to, which is really stupid to wish a thing like war, or watch terrorism happen and say "not surprising". You can also wait for the older generation to die out to leave room, but in the end it's just biology.
Why? If someone is hiring you to do something, they're taking the risk of you not delivering enough value, but they're also entitled to whatever rewards they can get from your work, which can be several times what they're paying you. Basically the author wants to take all the risk, and if he doesn't have a substantial bonus, very little of the rewards.
Well, of course anyone can live to make other people profit more, but it's a bit strange to tell everyone to live like that.
From the content of the article alone it seems like finding a good employer might be a way of securing a good salary. No shit.
People generally have a solid understanding of what is fair and what isn't. When we start a negotiation from a point of unfairness and unreasonableness, both sides are then on the defensive which anyone who has read Dale Carnegie knows is a recipe for failure. I'm not sure I buy into the OP's idea of asking for $0 since that's just as unreasonable but it's unreasonable in a way that brings the other side closer instead of pushing them away. If you sincerely say you want to work for what you make, the majority of people will want to give you what you deserve. Are there people out there who will immediately try to screw you? Yes but that happens, you get as far away from them as possible. And if you can't recognize those people, you have far bigger problems than learning how to maximize your negotiations.
Negotiations seems to work best when they are discussions, not attempts to get the most of of the other side. Of course, if you're working for a boss who used to be a used car salesman or a sociopath, by all means, be prepared to have to fight for everything you want. And be prepared to be miserable to boot.
Companies do not pay you more money just for being brilliant, when it is not obvious that they need to.
I might be considered a doormat because I don't demand what I deserve. But the very fact that I don't seems to turn into fair pay, good working conditions and honesty. Sure, it's one data point. But I've given it a lot of thought and noticed that people who are constantly demanding what the deserve are highly unpopular and frequently unhappy.
There is an old adage about the easiest way to get a raise in the tech field being to move to a new company. This is, in my experience, absolutely and nearly universally true (there are a select few companies that really stay on the ball with regards to keeping up with salary adjustments for existing employees, but they are very few and very far between).
But yes, negotiations work best when they are discussions with each side explaining what they want, need, and why. The other side of that coin though is that people in general get weird when money is involved. When it's a large amount of money it gets worse. So even though people are generally not out to screw someone else, money can cause those same people to screw everyone else.
Really, "live a debt free life" by letting other people pile HUGE debts on you?
So the top dogs get lear jets, nice Jaguars and golden parachutes with the fruits of the work you and others like you contribute, since they get to keep all the extra profits off of your work (besides those needed to keep the company going and moving forward).
If you really want to eliminate debt, eliminate it on BOTH sides.
Hmm, seems to be in particular "Adobe Digital Marketing (Omniture) [2]. If you have ghostery block this, you can not see the blog text.
[1] http://www.ghostery.com/
[2] http://www.ghostery.com/apps/adobe_digital_marketing_(omnitu...
I have it blocked and the site works fine.
"We started with base pay. I wrote down the least I would work for and asked them to write down the most they would offer a perfect person, irrespective of whether I was that person or not. If when we exchanged papers, their number wasn’t higher than mine then we could stop there and save time. Their number was twice the best base pay I had ever received in past jobs, and my request was for $0."
I am not understanding. The least he would work for is nothing? That can't be a "start base pay", can it? Could someone clarify? Thanks!
He was confident that his % share of any profit he generated would be enough that he didn't require a base pay.
Reminds me of designer friends of mine that constantly harp on about their 'design process'--but, do your users like your product in the end or not? That's the key. The process is merely a means to an end (there are many means in business, but generally one end: profit). If the end sucks, the means is worth very little (it's only worth is as a lesson in what not to do).
Here's how that negotiation would go with any hiring process I've ever worked with:
"So Mr. Pwnguinz, what are your salary requirements?"
"On this piece of paper I've written down the least I would work for. Now you please write down the most you are prepared to offer a perfect person, irrespective of whether I am that person or not. Then we shall exchange papers."
"This is highly irregular."
"If after exchanging papers, we find that your number is less than mine then we can save time."
Two ways I see this going:
A. "Thank you for your time Mr. Pwnguinz".
B. The hiring manager writes down what they were considering as an initial offer, you write down $0, and you become an HR office legend.
Even documented and presented as a counter point in negotiation they simply denied the truth and quickly tried to pan the evidence.
Maybe I was naive, but it was so shockingly dishonest to me, I was mentally broadsided, mouth agape in disbelief. I mentally quit right then and there, and left as soon as possible.
When your work in a job that requires leverage and you have dependencies you need your entire dependency chain to do their job so yours can be judged accurately.