I have found from hard experience that when I lowball my asking pay, I am treated with profound disrespect.
That doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me as the usual reason I do so is not to get an offer, but to help out my potential employer, for example by enabling them to hire other people as well.
The actual result is that I get kicked in the teeth. Because of that I ask for what others of my expertise can command, despite that amount of money being far more than what I really require to be happy.
I've had the same thing happen. I went as a (relatively inexperienced) freelancer to heise (a large and old conservative company in germany) to a job interview and they asked me what i used to take (20$/hour remote internet work) and then told me they wouldn't even consider any freelancer below 60$ per hour.
You're being compensated for your work. If you don't want the money, donate it to help organizations that help other people. Leverage your work to help others people who could really use help, not just your business.
My point of view is you should ask for the value you provide your employer, not just your financial needs. In my case the value I provide is 3+ times my financial needs so that's what I ask and they happily pay based on the quality of my services. The rest goes to fund my retirement fund and pay off the remaining debts from that crazy dot-com era (strippers and booze, fun times)
Would you donate $10,000 to a random business off the street to help them out? Because that's all they will be once you leave that company. I suggest offering to take more options in lieu of cash if you want to help the company hire more people. If the company can't survive paying you a market salary that is due you, it doesn't deserve to survive at all. You are important, don't sell yourself short.
Consider donating the money to a third world country initiative. It will create a lot more happiness there than it will in the pocket of your employer.
Consider donating the money to a third world country initiative. It will create a lot more happiness there than it will in the pocket of your employer.
How did it take this poor lady so long to figure out she was being paid too little? Me and my fellow coders are very aware of who is paying what. It's a daily conversation, what with linkedin and recruiters spamming us with job adverts.
I've always found that switching jobs is easier than getting a proper pay rise. Asking your boss for +10% and getting offered 2.5%. Go to some interviews, accept, hand in notice. Boss offers +15% for me to stay... wtf. Poor communication skills from both me and my boss I guess.
I've always found that switching jobs is easier than getting a proper pay rise.
I have found that to be the case as well. Using a combination of skillful salary negotiation, leveraging counteroffers (use sparingly), and hopping between companies, I have averaged 19.5% yearly salary increases for the past 10 years. Obviously this is not sustainable, since my current salary level limits the number of positions I can take without taking a pay cut.
For those who are curious, it took 6 companies over those 10 years, with 1 career change from teacher/manager to programmer. During that time, the largest year to year jump was 38% (2nd was 37%), the longest time spent at a company was 3 years, the shortest was 3 months. I used the counteroffer trick twice, once quitting and once staying.
I told them I realized pretty quickly after starting that it wasn't a good fit, but I stayed on long enough to finish my first project and for them to find a replacement. I got a 20% increase to work at this company and I would have taken a lateral move salary-wise to go to the next, but the new company ended up offering me 14% more than I asked for anyway.
Yep, I'm in the same boat. I've left two jobs over the past 3 years and have gotten a +25% "raise" both times, as well as a jump in job titles.
After seeing how difficult it is at any company with an HR department to approve raises or approve title changes, I'm not even going to bother in the future with trying to do that. Do a good job somewhere for 1-2 years, accept offer at new company, rinse, repeat.
Big companies seem to have it written in their DNA that 3-5% is a standard raise, and 10% is the theoretical maximum anyone could ever get. I've made it a mission to prove them wrong, even if it means switching companies every other year on average. The idea was to get all my raises upfront, instead of spread over 40 years.
Another rule: never take the counter-offer. Just go.
Reason #1 against taking the counter-offer: The boss is already planning to replace you, just on his terms instead of on yours. I.e., you could stay but get laid off as soon as they hire and train a replacement.
Reason #2: They didn't respect you properly before, and the information of a new job offer isn't going to fundamentally change that.
I took the counter and it worked out. They just didn't know what I really wanted, and I guess I never did a great job explaining it until I explained why I was leaving.
I didn't interact with anyone outside my company, and pretty much the rest of my coworkers were the same. It was like we were in this little bubble and that's how we thought things were outside the bubble. Pretty much everyone in the company (<20 people) went to this startup right after college so AFAIK almost no one got recruiter spam because we didn't even have LinkedIn profiles. It was also over 6 years ago, so the ecosystem was a lot different too. But we were definitely in our own little bubble and it was only when I met my husband (a software dev) did I realize that I was being underpaid.
Sometimes and expensive lesson is a remembered lesson. I hope 'poor lady' came across as unfortunate, not lacking in money. Is 'poor <person>' a colloquialism? It's quite common here. And I didn't know your age, so lady seems to cover 18+ nicely.
You did the right thing. This is a flaw in the system and also the most efficient way on how it works. They did save a lot of money on you over many years though. So their $82K offer was to save you for a few months because they know that YOU know and they only have a few months left having you around.
If your company has H1B workers, you can get an idea of what the base salary range is for a position by looking at sites like h1bdata.info. Unfortunately there's no information on stock and other benefits. The data comes from the US Department of Labor.
Seriously, unless you're deeply passionate about the vision of the company you're working for, it's super important to keep tabs on the market and leave companies that are (for lack of a better term) taking advantage of you. Unscrupulous employers, especially traditional scrooge-mcduck-business-entrepreneurs, will try to squeeze you as hard as they can while paying you as little as they can (a good rule of thumb for spotting these men and women is that they're in their business just to make money, not to chase some "nobler" vision). So it's critical that you get out as soon as you can not only because it'll be better for your financial and emotional well-being, but also so that you don't lower the market wage average of your profession and wind up hurting all the other people in your industry.
People can still be good bosses/owners if they're solely in it for the money. They important point is that they have an accurate picture of costs and value.
Some penny-pinching bosses can be annoying. One boss fired a guy that got paid a lot less than me, but then I had to take over his tasks, which meant I was doing a lot more low-value work (updating pages on his WordPress site) instead of higher-value work (programming).
Actually, the finance sector has this figured out better than most other sectors imo (just consider how much bonus they pay even their lowly analysts after working them to death). A good boss / company there ought to be more about earning money than having money, and so should spare no expenses rewarding employees who bring a lot of value to the corporation... So my point is you want an employer who has the character to reward everyone in the company (including him/herself) based upon some open and fair system of value contributed / need without being prompted, rather than someone who will pay you what he can get away paying you.
But deciding that most inner quality of character is difficult (since it's an hidden attribute on people), so it makes sense to look for various outward expressions of that hidden trait... one of which I postulate to be the question of whether your boss is in it for money, or in it for a vision. In the finance sector, where it's only about money, my postulate admittedly breaks down.
I'm a guy, and I was underpaid for many years at $LARGE_CO. I finally found this out when the CEO gave "normalizing" raises to narrow the spread of salaries at the same position, and I got a nice raise. That left a bitter taste in my mouth, and I left shortly after.
Some of us (men and women) are just not cut out to play this salary game. :-(
There are two sides to this coin - if you are getting valuable experience or you really love your job, then you need to factor in the fact that you may get more elsewhere, but the working conditions or culture may not suit you.
It never hurts to keep tabs on the market by doing interviews outside. In fact, I'm pretty sure I know many folks that got promotions/raises simply because they bothered to look elsewhere.
Keeping in mind, of course, that monetary compensation is only one aspect of a rewarding job.
I experienced the two sides of the coin first hand. Right after college, I started to work at a start-up; everything was just awesome, people were cool, job was interesting, I was extremely happy. 3 months into the job, after I talked to my colleagues, I realized that I was severely underpaid. I asked for a raise, got something like 5%. After 2 weeks, I switch to a job paying me exactly x 2 of my salary.
Worst decision of my life, and I still regret it to this day. But knowing the fact that my old job was taking advantage of me just because I am a new-graduate, I couldn't return back there. But sometimes money isn't really worth comparing to being absolutely happy at work.
> Worst decision of my life, and I still regret it to this day.
Interesting framing. The way I see it, you were successful in determining that you're worth more, but you landed at the wrong place. Like, the issue isn't that jobs that are awesome AND that pay well don't exist, the problem was you just didn't land in one.
I really don't understand the reluctance of companies to pay their employees as much as they reasonably can. If a company is struggling or burning cash, sure I get it, but if you're Apple and have $200 billion in the bank, why are you not paying your employees significantly more? That money sitting in the bank isn't doing you any good, and there's something to be said for reducing turnover and generating loyalty by demonstrating to your employees that you recognize the full value they provide.
It's true that your best shot for a 15% raise is switching jobs, but there's no way that's sustainable (for a comparable position).
I think each year people should evaluate how they're expertise and duties differ from the previous year.
Many people I know inadvertently become team leads, head up projects, mentor others, or change roles entirely and wait for their old position's performance review to address it.
That's a mistake.
As a manager, I've had the best success with getting better comp for my team when giving a new title + bump around 4 months before review.
That way, the discussion with execs is closer to "what eould we pay for a new hire for this position?" and the upcoming review allows for minor comp tweaking.
The system does take advantage of nice people that are bad negotiators.
I guess don't hate the player hate the game as it is all game theory in the end and the complainers or negotiators will always tip in their favor. You can be a team player and get your worth but you have to speak up and be aware.
I think it is better to be fair at salaries even though you could pay the great developer you have lower than the good one that knows the market and is a negotiator. If you don't and they find out they are gone as happened in this instance. Open salaries might even be a good idea with bonuses for performance.
nope, "don't hate the player, hate the game" is a massive cop-out, and excuses people who perpetrate broken systems because they benefit from them. there is no abstract "the game" written into the fundamental nature of human psychology; there is only the collective behaviour of all the players, some of whom end up influencing the game more than others.
Yes, many of us have been fortunate in that we've actually had managers or clients encourage us to raise our rates to what they knew were market standard. Unfortunately, not everyone experiences those lucky moments.
> massive cop-out, and excuses people who perpetrate broken systems because they benefit from them
> there is only the collective behaviour of all the players, some of whom end up influencing the game more than others
You drew the wrong conclusion from your own example. The sum of all of the players actions is the game, and it delivers results similar to the Nash Equilibrium. Everyone works in their own best interest and the system is actually not "broken". This is the system working. If you would work for half what another employer might pay you, fine. Obviously, I weight the benefits of saving money on your salary, with the negative (and likely outcome) that when you find out, you may leave taking talent away. Some employers pay well to prevent this (google, yahoo, amazon come to mind), and thus their talent is largely safe from financial poaching.
This is how the system works, and how the world works. It isn't equitable and it isn't a fairytale. However, it is true.
> Everyone works in their own best interest and the system is actually not "broken".
You assume that all actors are rational. It ignores things like office politics, people building fiefdoms, people holding grudges, the idea that you aren't a "team player" if you're asking for more money, the idea that one should be "loyal" to the company (but that the company can be "cold and calculating" when it comes to you), gender/racial/whatever discrimination, etc...
People often do not work in their own best interest. Or maybe they work in their best short-term interest while ignore their medium- and/or long-term interests.
The player's action is not separate from the game. The game is what the various players do.
Hate the player. The player is someone you can hate and blame and point fingers to and make an example of so that other players refrain from unwanted behavior.
We are all* bad at bad at negotiating when we desperately need a job, this is one of the biggest reasons I suggest people look for a different job while they're still employed, if they have that luxery.
Job hunting while you don't need to helps you overlook those places where you know you might not be a good fit for whatever reason, and interviewing when you don't need to helps you build your negotiating skills.
I got my current job while happily employed at my last one, the only reason I applied was quite literally for the interviewing experience. But I liked what I saw, they agreed to a salary that I decided ahead of time was the bar that had to be met to be seriously considered as a potential new job, so I said yes and so did they.
2 years later, I'm loving my job, my team, and my management team. Job hunt while you don't need to.
How do I know I'm making market rate? I check glass for periodically and share salary info with colleagues who reciprocate.
* we aren't all bad at negotiating but enough of us are that I think its a safe generalization here.
That happened to me today. They asked me my rate. I said $X. They said they could offer $X-20%. I declined the interview. (I was getting bad vibes for other reasons, so I don't feel bad.)
If I was unemployed, I might have considered $X-20%. Since I have a job, there's no reason to accept a job for a lower salary than I'm getting now, especially when the interviewer is being a jerk. (If it seemed like an awesome opportunity, I'd consider equal or slightly less. This was not one of those, it was a contracting company looking for a warm body RIGHT NOW to fill a client need.)
One other lesson I've learned that's surprising: You would think that in a job where you're underpaid, you'll be appreciated, and in job where you're paid well, you'll be abused more. My experience has been the opposite. In the jobs where I was paid well, it was a more pleasant experience than in the jobs where I was underpaid. In business, money equals respect, so if you're underpaid, that means they don't respect you.
This is known as the Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement, or BATNA, and it's a pretty helpful concept: the better your next best option is, the better position you will be in to negotiate.
> ... it is all game theory in the end and the complainers or negotiators will always tip in their favor.
But what is "in their favor"?
Hypothetically, I'm new to a field, interviewing with a company in another city. If I'm completely honest with them, then I might say, "You can make me a lousy offer if you want; I'd probably accept it. I don't know the job market, and I don't know your city. But soon, I will. And when I do, unless you offer me enough now to encourage me to stay, I'll be gone. And all your effort in finding me and interviewing me and moving me there and training me and bringing me up to speed on your business will be wasted. So why not just make me a decent offer now?"
Of course, no one ever says that.
But, viewed through that lens, I think it's clear that many businesses are awfully poor players of "the game", as well.
Many people stay even after they realize they're underpaid, simply out of inertia. Companies knows this, and by getting you to accept a low-ball offer, they're just taking a calculated risk, and reaping the benefits in the interim, if not the long run.
The trouble with an issue like this is that it is difficult to disentangle a calculated risk of the kind you are talking about from mere short-sighted thinking. People proceeding from the two different viewpoints could end up acting identically.
And then there is the fact that the company is often not really the one making the salary decisions. Rather, someone has had hiring authority delegated to them. And this person's motivations in making an offer might not aligned with the long-term best interests of the company.
I've heard several hiring managers say "recruiting is very expensive in both money and attention; while we don't want to significantly overpay you, we also don't want to underpay you and then have to go through the whole process again in six months when you discover your market value."
I am currently reading through Thomas Schellings The Strategy of Conflict, which is brilliant, but even the first chapter is enough to outplay the normal plays that you will encounter (e.g buying a car, demanding a certain wage etc). It is a surprisingly easy read for an old book.
I am not an HR wizard but in general, why don't companies like paying market value for people? If they underpay you're more likely to be disgruntled and leave right? Or worst case you get a rep for lowballing.
The initial number defines your trajectory. Then everything else is a fight for the "qualitative" process of yearly increases based on "qualitative" (read: arbitrary) opinions of performance.
Unless you are in Sales (in which the amount of revenue you have been able to bring speaks for itself), everything is arbitrary and it's up to you to identify the potential biases in the process.
Also, people think this is a women thing. It is not. I will venture to say that ordinary (i.e. NOT STEVE BALLMER) short guys or bald guys make less money, or "ugly" guys (i.e. not "attractive tall and handsome").
People, you need to fight for yourselves because it's only you in that room. Also, as somebody else said, KNOW YOUR WORTH and DONT DISCOUNT YOURSELF (i.e. immigrants, women, "stereotypical" gays, short folks, people with no degree but tons of experience, blacks, people with bad teeth, extra weight around the waist, etc. etc.).
Fact is, it's a discriminating world. Sorry, it's what it is.
I would not be surprised if the difficulty relevant to scenarios like the OP is the nature of re-negotiation.
She started at what was likely a quite reasonable $40,000 salary for an unproven undergraduate. Then was hired on shortly after at that rate because it was convenient for everyone.
The problem is that her performance (value) busted the curve and quickly out-paced the percentage-based raise system. Some companies do "corrections" every so often, in fact I have benefited twice from that sort of thing.
It's probably safe to say though, that you probably don't want to sit around waiting for "market corrections" if you're being underpaid.
Man...c'mon. Nobody goes from forty to eighty because they're an "unproven undergraduate." They go from forty to eighty when somebody's screwing them and gets called on it.
It isn't what I fail to grasp, it's that I reject the idea that one's performance can break such a curve in a developer job unless the person in question was underpaid to begin with.
That doesn't happen unless the deck is stacked. It just does not.
Yes. It's an attitude promoted by management to keep people ignorant, divided and too paranoid to demand their fair market compensation from their employer.
You can try this experiment if you own some seriously effective asbestos underwear. Grab a random sampling of people at your office. Sit them down in a room and tell them that you want to try a game to see if they can select their own salary. Get some poker chips or monopoly money, or something like that -- maybe 10 per person. Put all the tokens in the middle of the table and ask them to decide amongst themselves how to split the pot based on their value to the business. In the likely event that the people don't agree to split the pot evenly, the person who wishes to make more money has to explain why they are justified in doing so by comparing their performance to the other people who would make less. Allow the other people to respond if they wish.
As organizer, you get a bonus if you manage to come to a consensus without having to call the police (and honestly, you are wasting your time as a programmer if you have such amazing people skills).
The current situation sucks. In an ideal world, management would say, "Here is how we ranked people. I'm sorry if it doesn't match your expectation. If you wish to move up in the rankings, come and see us and we will work together with you to create a plan for doing that."
In an ideal world, people upon hearing this would say, "Awesome! I'm going to work super, super hard to make sure that I do more of what my management values and less of what they don't. And if it turns out that I'm limited by a lack of talent, I will feel good about myself because I tried my best".
I really, really, really wish I lived in that world, but I suspect the current crappy situation is likely to persist for some time to come.
In an ideal world, people would be paid their fair market value compensation for their labor.
In a practical world, collective bargaining provides a front for fairer negotiations such that a compensation that's closer to what a free market would bear is met for the individual.
If you're going to sell something, you need to have some sense of what it's worth or you run the risk of being taken advantage of.
One of the most valuable things you will ever sell is your time and work energy. That's a sale worth tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars per year, every year.
It is incumbent upon you to understand the value of what you're selling, or else someone will lowball you and take advantage of the situation when you say "yes."
Maybe that's unfair. But it's just how things work.
Women, here is the deal: unless you are at the C-level, in which case I cannot offer help one way or another and have no data, ASSUME YOU ARE BEING UNDERPAID.
The bias is too powerful. It's like people saying "they are not racist." Almost everybody is! Same thing with salaries.
Always come up with something more aggressive than your original "feeling." Also, make friend with us guys. We can help you. Don't simply ask your girlfriends how much they are making or how much you should ask for. It's a vicious cycle! Ask the guys!
It amazes me when I have hired females how little they ask for, and the surprise when I tell them the range I am hiring them for.
> Women, here is the deal: unless you are at the C-level, in which case I cannot offer help one way or another and have no data, ASSUME YOU ARE BEING UNDERPAID.
I agree but only to a point: another poster said it better when you really do need to have some idea what you are worth (which is very difficult I know).
Because if you are in a decent situation making decent money and benefits for satisfactory performance, hardball negotiation tactics can absolutely backfire.
My girlfriend was in a similar position. Her company knew it and knew that she knew it and eventually came through with a 55% promotion. Too little, too late.
She then took that confidence boost and changed companies with a further 30% salary boost!
Unfortunately you don't get what you don't ask for.
This is so common, I helped my sister negotiate from 55 to 90 as well in one of her jobs. They also didn't blink, and that she's been able to keep her salary around that range even when moving companies.
It had me wonder if there was a gap for having professionals negotiate on your behalf as a service come these one to one reviews.
That's assuming everyone has knowledge of their true worth. You can certainly find out, but some people only find out after years and others never do.
I've worked in companies that paid 1/3 less than others (management consulting), many people knew they were paid less, but few people left. Jobs can often be sticky.
(anyone with other documentation that could easily be referenced in a salary negotiation?)
Another thing: I have an easy copy-paste response to recruiter cold contacts on linkedin where I say basically: I'm committed to my current company, but I'm always interested in real salary information, if you have something you can share I'd be happy to keep you in mind in the future. ... sometimes that gets me a number.
Having accurate information that you trust is half the battle IMO.
Uh...really‽ Is that range like [new grad - experienced]? Should I expect the same range from a software engineer at a device manufacturer not-on-one-of-the-coasts?
The doc. is published by a staffing agency, so they are on the sell side rather than the buy side, which means the numbers are higher, which is one of the reasons I like it as a reference!
This is why we all need to start talking about how much we make! Otherwise companies have hundreds of data points on average salaries, and engineers only have a handful. I talk about how much I make with people I am close to, and we get a better idea of our market worths.
My brother did this at a small business. He worked there for a year or so and realized that out of the folks he worked with (his level and the next level up) he pretty much knew the most and actually did the most.
He went into his boss' office and said "It think I deserve a promotion" and his boss said "ok, I'm promoting you to X" and he said "no, I deserve two promotions to Y". His boss thought about it for a minute then said "you got it".
I have a great experience which taught me a lot in negotiating for salary and keeping an eye on your check.
I worked at a telecom startup. Was given a beefy salary ($45K) plus commission. As a young sales guy, I had a blast. Then I scored a huge account, just as the company was about to go under. They paid me, then sent me a letter demanding I give back the commission check because they were going under and needed it to pay their attorneys and would file a lawsuit against me for a "fraudulent" sale.
I went back and started looking at my checks and realized they were only paying me $35K instead of the agreed upon $45. I sent them a letter stating if they wanted to give me my back pay (almost twice as much as the commission check) I'd be happy to send the commission check back.
Never heard from them again.
Just goes to show, you not only need to negotiate your raise or your salary, but always make sure the company does not pull a fast one and short change your paycheck.
My first job out of college was starting at 15/hr. I did that for three years, getting a $1/hr raise every year until I landed a "sweet" job for 55k/yr. It wasn't until a couple years after that I realized I was still underpaid. I'm not a ninja programmer, and I'm doing mainly web development, but I'm outside of the Seattle area, and there are places hiring jobs with my experience level paying 100k+.
> I said that I reviewed other salaries for my level, and I felt that I deserved a raise to $85,000. At the last moment I panicked and lowered my ask from the planned $90k.
I suggest my friends to figure out how much they want and ask for 10 more (10k more/year, $10 more/hr). Best case they might not even flinch and pay it (it has happened to me a couple times), worst case they will counter-offer down to somewhere higher to what you originally wanted.
139 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 223 ms ] threadThat doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me as the usual reason I do so is not to get an offer, but to help out my potential employer, for example by enabling them to hire other people as well.
The actual result is that I get kicked in the teeth. Because of that I ask for what others of my expertise can command, despite that amount of money being far more than what I really require to be happy.
I mean for like a homepage: $250k. Oh those were the days.
So whenever they would turn away work, my friend would anonymously solicit the work himself.
It may have appeared to them you did not respect your own financial needs, and if you don't, why should they?
I've always found that switching jobs is easier than getting a proper pay rise. Asking your boss for +10% and getting offered 2.5%. Go to some interviews, accept, hand in notice. Boss offers +15% for me to stay... wtf. Poor communication skills from both me and my boss I guess.
I have found that to be the case as well. Using a combination of skillful salary negotiation, leveraging counteroffers (use sparingly), and hopping between companies, I have averaged 19.5% yearly salary increases for the past 10 years. Obviously this is not sustainable, since my current salary level limits the number of positions I can take without taking a pay cut.
For those who are curious, it took 6 companies over those 10 years, with 1 career change from teacher/manager to programmer. During that time, the largest year to year jump was 38% (2nd was 37%), the longest time spent at a company was 3 years, the shortest was 3 months. I used the counteroffer trick twice, once quitting and once staying.
What did you tell the next company during the interview when they asked you why you were looking to leave your current job?
After seeing how difficult it is at any company with an HR department to approve raises or approve title changes, I'm not even going to bother in the future with trying to do that. Do a good job somewhere for 1-2 years, accept offer at new company, rinse, repeat.
Reason #1 against taking the counter-offer: The boss is already planning to replace you, just on his terms instead of on yours. I.e., you could stay but get laid off as soon as they hire and train a replacement.
Reason #2: They didn't respect you properly before, and the information of a new job offer isn't going to fundamentally change that.
I didn't interact with anyone outside my company, and pretty much the rest of my coworkers were the same. It was like we were in this little bubble and that's how we thought things were outside the bubble. Pretty much everyone in the company (<20 people) went to this startup right after college so AFAIK almost no one got recruiter spam because we didn't even have LinkedIn profiles. It was also over 6 years ago, so the ecosystem was a lot different too. But we were definitely in our own little bubble and it was only when I met my husband (a software dev) did I realize that I was being underpaid.
Glad you got your pay rise.
Some penny-pinching bosses can be annoying. One boss fired a guy that got paid a lot less than me, but then I had to take over his tasks, which meant I was doing a lot more low-value work (updating pages on his WordPress site) instead of higher-value work (programming).
But deciding that most inner quality of character is difficult (since it's an hidden attribute on people), so it makes sense to look for various outward expressions of that hidden trait... one of which I postulate to be the question of whether your boss is in it for money, or in it for a vision. In the finance sector, where it's only about money, my postulate admittedly breaks down.
Some of us (men and women) are just not cut out to play this salary game. :-(
It never hurts to keep tabs on the market by doing interviews outside. In fact, I'm pretty sure I know many folks that got promotions/raises simply because they bothered to look elsewhere.
Keeping in mind, of course, that monetary compensation is only one aspect of a rewarding job.
Worst decision of my life, and I still regret it to this day. But knowing the fact that my old job was taking advantage of me just because I am a new-graduate, I couldn't return back there. But sometimes money isn't really worth comparing to being absolutely happy at work.
Interesting framing. The way I see it, you were successful in determining that you're worth more, but you landed at the wrong place. Like, the issue isn't that jobs that are awesome AND that pay well don't exist, the problem was you just didn't land in one.
I think each year people should evaluate how they're expertise and duties differ from the previous year.
Many people I know inadvertently become team leads, head up projects, mentor others, or change roles entirely and wait for their old position's performance review to address it.
That's a mistake.
As a manager, I've had the best success with getting better comp for my team when giving a new title + bump around 4 months before review.
That way, the discussion with execs is closer to "what eould we pay for a new hire for this position?" and the upcoming review allows for minor comp tweaking.
I guess don't hate the player hate the game as it is all game theory in the end and the complainers or negotiators will always tip in their favor. You can be a team player and get your worth but you have to speak up and be aware.
I think it is better to be fair at salaries even though you could pay the great developer you have lower than the good one that knows the market and is a negotiator. If you don't and they find out they are gone as happened in this instance. Open salaries might even be a good idea with bonuses for performance.
> there is only the collective behaviour of all the players, some of whom end up influencing the game more than others
You drew the wrong conclusion from your own example. The sum of all of the players actions is the game, and it delivers results similar to the Nash Equilibrium. Everyone works in their own best interest and the system is actually not "broken". This is the system working. If you would work for half what another employer might pay you, fine. Obviously, I weight the benefits of saving money on your salary, with the negative (and likely outcome) that when you find out, you may leave taking talent away. Some employers pay well to prevent this (google, yahoo, amazon come to mind), and thus their talent is largely safe from financial poaching.
This is how the system works, and how the world works. It isn't equitable and it isn't a fairytale. However, it is true.
You assume that all actors are rational. It ignores things like office politics, people building fiefdoms, people holding grudges, the idea that you aren't a "team player" if you're asking for more money, the idea that one should be "loyal" to the company (but that the company can be "cold and calculating" when it comes to you), gender/racial/whatever discrimination, etc...
People often do not work in their own best interest. Or maybe they work in their best short-term interest while ignore their medium- and/or long-term interests.
The player's action is not separate from the game. The game is what the various players do.
Hate the player. The player is someone you can hate and blame and point fingers to and make an example of so that other players refrain from unwanted behavior.
Hating the game does nothing constructive.
Job hunting while you don't need to helps you overlook those places where you know you might not be a good fit for whatever reason, and interviewing when you don't need to helps you build your negotiating skills.
I got my current job while happily employed at my last one, the only reason I applied was quite literally for the interviewing experience. But I liked what I saw, they agreed to a salary that I decided ahead of time was the bar that had to be met to be seriously considered as a potential new job, so I said yes and so did they.
2 years later, I'm loving my job, my team, and my management team. Job hunt while you don't need to.
How do I know I'm making market rate? I check glass for periodically and share salary info with colleagues who reciprocate.
* we aren't all bad at negotiating but enough of us are that I think its a safe generalization here.
If I was unemployed, I might have considered $X-20%. Since I have a job, there's no reason to accept a job for a lower salary than I'm getting now, especially when the interviewer is being a jerk. (If it seemed like an awesome opportunity, I'd consider equal or slightly less. This was not one of those, it was a contracting company looking for a warm body RIGHT NOW to fill a client need.)
One other lesson I've learned that's surprising: You would think that in a job where you're underpaid, you'll be appreciated, and in job where you're paid well, you'll be abused more. My experience has been the opposite. In the jobs where I was paid well, it was a more pleasant experience than in the jobs where I was underpaid. In business, money equals respect, so if you're underpaid, that means they don't respect you.
But what is "in their favor"?
Hypothetically, I'm new to a field, interviewing with a company in another city. If I'm completely honest with them, then I might say, "You can make me a lousy offer if you want; I'd probably accept it. I don't know the job market, and I don't know your city. But soon, I will. And when I do, unless you offer me enough now to encourage me to stay, I'll be gone. And all your effort in finding me and interviewing me and moving me there and training me and bringing me up to speed on your business will be wasted. So why not just make me a decent offer now?"
Of course, no one ever says that.
But, viewed through that lens, I think it's clear that many businesses are awfully poor players of "the game", as well.
The trouble with an issue like this is that it is difficult to disentangle a calculated risk of the kind you are talking about from mere short-sighted thinking. People proceeding from the two different viewpoints could end up acting identically.
And then there is the fact that the company is often not really the one making the salary decisions. Rather, someone has had hiring authority delegated to them. And this person's motivations in making an offer might not aligned with the long-term best interests of the company.
This saying completely ignores the fact that the "players" are adults, fully capable of taking responsibility for their own actions.
I am currently reading through Thomas Schellings The Strategy of Conflict, which is brilliant, but even the first chapter is enough to outplay the normal plays that you will encounter (e.g buying a car, demanding a certain wage etc). It is a surprisingly easy read for an old book.
The worst thing that can happen is you'll be told "no" and you'll have the same raise (or job offer) that you had before.
The initial number defines your trajectory. Then everything else is a fight for the "qualitative" process of yearly increases based on "qualitative" (read: arbitrary) opinions of performance.
Unless you are in Sales (in which the amount of revenue you have been able to bring speaks for itself), everything is arbitrary and it's up to you to identify the potential biases in the process.
Also, people think this is a women thing. It is not. I will venture to say that ordinary (i.e. NOT STEVE BALLMER) short guys or bald guys make less money, or "ugly" guys (i.e. not "attractive tall and handsome").
People, you need to fight for yourselves because it's only you in that room. Also, as somebody else said, KNOW YOUR WORTH and DONT DISCOUNT YOURSELF (i.e. immigrants, women, "stereotypical" gays, short folks, people with no degree but tons of experience, blacks, people with bad teeth, extra weight around the waist, etc. etc.).
Fact is, it's a discriminating world. Sorry, it's what it is.
She started at what was likely a quite reasonable $40,000 salary for an unproven undergraduate. Then was hired on shortly after at that rate because it was convenient for everyone.
The problem is that her performance (value) busted the curve and quickly out-paced the percentage-based raise system. Some companies do "corrections" every so often, in fact I have benefited twice from that sort of thing.
It's probably safe to say though, that you probably don't want to sit around waiting for "market corrections" if you're being underpaid.
The problem is that her performance (value) busted the curve and quickly out-paced the percentage-based raise system.
I figure it was implied that either no one noticed or had the willingness to take any personal risks to circumvent the system to fix her salary.
That doesn't happen unless the deck is stacked. It just does not.
http://www.npr.org/2014/04/13/301989789/pay-secrecy-policies...
As organizer, you get a bonus if you manage to come to a consensus without having to call the police (and honestly, you are wasting your time as a programmer if you have such amazing people skills).
The current situation sucks. In an ideal world, management would say, "Here is how we ranked people. I'm sorry if it doesn't match your expectation. If you wish to move up in the rankings, come and see us and we will work together with you to create a plan for doing that."
In an ideal world, people upon hearing this would say, "Awesome! I'm going to work super, super hard to make sure that I do more of what my management values and less of what they don't. And if it turns out that I'm limited by a lack of talent, I will feel good about myself because I tried my best".
I really, really, really wish I lived in that world, but I suspect the current crappy situation is likely to persist for some time to come.
In a practical world, collective bargaining provides a front for fairer negotiations such that a compensation that's closer to what a free market would bear is met for the individual.
One of the most valuable things you will ever sell is your time and work energy. That's a sale worth tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars per year, every year.
It is incumbent upon you to understand the value of what you're selling, or else someone will lowball you and take advantage of the situation when you say "yes."
Maybe that's unfair. But it's just how things work.
This is also a reason unions exist, such that a fairer negotiation can happen where both sides come from a more even footing.
In other industries not experiencing our current boom, desperation and a deep applicant pool can make things more difficult.
Always know where you stand in negotiations, you are the only advocate your worth has.
The bias is too powerful. It's like people saying "they are not racist." Almost everybody is! Same thing with salaries.
Always come up with something more aggressive than your original "feeling." Also, make friend with us guys. We can help you. Don't simply ask your girlfriends how much they are making or how much you should ask for. It's a vicious cycle! Ask the guys!
It amazes me when I have hired females how little they ask for, and the surprise when I tell them the range I am hiring them for.
I agree but only to a point: another poster said it better when you really do need to have some idea what you are worth (which is very difficult I know).
Because if you are in a decent situation making decent money and benefits for satisfactory performance, hardball negotiation tactics can absolutely backfire.
She then took that confidence boost and changed companies with a further 30% salary boost!
Unfortunately you don't get what you don't ask for.
It had me wonder if there was a gap for having professionals negotiate on your behalf as a service come these one to one reviews.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/reddit-ceo-ellen-pao-ban...
I've worked in companies that paid 1/3 less than others (management consulting), many people knew they were paid less, but few people left. Jobs can often be sticky.
(anyone with other documentation that could easily be referenced in a salary negotiation?)
Another thing: I have an easy copy-paste response to recruiter cold contacts on linkedin where I say basically: I'm committed to my current company, but I'm always interested in real salary information, if you have something you can share I'd be happy to keep you in mind in the future. ... sometimes that gets me a number.
Having accurate information that you trust is half the battle IMO.
> Software Engineer 2015 $ 96,000 - $147,250
Uh...really‽ Is that range like [new grad - experienced]? Should I expect the same range from a software engineer at a device manufacturer not-on-one-of-the-coasts?
He went into his boss' office and said "It think I deserve a promotion" and his boss said "ok, I'm promoting you to X" and he said "no, I deserve two promotions to Y". His boss thought about it for a minute then said "you got it".
I worked at a telecom startup. Was given a beefy salary ($45K) plus commission. As a young sales guy, I had a blast. Then I scored a huge account, just as the company was about to go under. They paid me, then sent me a letter demanding I give back the commission check because they were going under and needed it to pay their attorneys and would file a lawsuit against me for a "fraudulent" sale.
I went back and started looking at my checks and realized they were only paying me $35K instead of the agreed upon $45. I sent them a letter stating if they wanted to give me my back pay (almost twice as much as the commission check) I'd be happy to send the commission check back.
Never heard from them again.
Just goes to show, you not only need to negotiate your raise or your salary, but always make sure the company does not pull a fast one and short change your paycheck.
I suggest my friends to figure out how much they want and ask for 10 more (10k more/year, $10 more/hr). Best case they might not even flinch and pay it (it has happened to me a couple times), worst case they will counter-offer down to somewhere higher to what you originally wanted.