On a related note: be careful how you answer "why are you leaving your present position? Is something wrong there?" If you respond with "they'll never pay me what I'm worth" they will stop considering you as an employee. This was one of the first things I was asked once. My response was "nothing is wrong there, I thank then for giving me a strong start in the industry, but feel ready to move on" I wasn't offered a job.
Agreed! That question is not an opportunity to vent. Try turning the question around to focus on things that you want to learn that align with the company you're interviewing with. Example that I get a lot when interviewing candidates... "I'm looking to join a larger team so I can learn more from my colleagues" or "I want to grow my knowledge in X, so I'm looking for opportunities that will allow me to do more of that."
I love my current job and have been with them for 8 years now. This is the longest I have spent at one job. My experience was definitely that I did not know my value. I had worked my way up for a few years in IT after I graduated from starting at 40K to 85K. My cousin was making easily above 150K for the "same" kind of work. So when my current job ask me for my salary requirement I just threw 105K out there and they came right back and said "ok, when can you start".... "DOH!", I think I undervalued myself again, haha, but this company has since given me generous raises every year.
One of the most offensive posts I've read in a long time. Oh, nothing personal -- just that 99% of us don't try to up their offer by a few $100k, plus some stock options and a signing bonus. This speaks to a world where people get enormous sums of money for tremendously overvalued work, while the people who generate the actual profits are laboring down in the cellar somewhere. It makes me furious, actually.
It is dangerously tone-deaf and reeks of privilege. The writer talks about exorbitant amounts of money, but then has the nerve to champion equality. Hilariously ironic
Like any transaction, there is no such thing as a "raw deal" If both the seller and buyer agree. The same is true for employers and employees. The transactions is money in exchange for skill, knowledge, and work provided. The comment that " (some) people get enormous sums of money for tremendously overvalued work, while the people who generate the actual profits are laboring down in the cellar somewhere" does not reflect what actually happens. Companies pay employees for their value to the company. If an individual is paid a lot of money, that is because the company feels he/she is worth that amount of pay. The same is true for the "person working in the cellar somewhere". The person working in the cellar, might feel that they are actually generating all the profits while the big-wigs are making all the money and having two-hour martini lunches, but if this were true, the cellar worker would be far more empowered and higher paid by their own value to the company.
At best, a brutal distortion of reality -- at worst, a statement that begets institutionalization. In what possible way has history shown that workers are paid according to value they produce? Where do you live that corruption, greed, discrimination, inequality, etc. don't exist? You realize there are literally slave laborers farming cacao while executives in the same supply chain drive Lamborghinis? There is absolutely no connection between productivity and pay, beyond gatekeeping the flow of cash at the top of corporation.
Hi Mel - I think there's a larger discussion here around how labor is valued societally and I hear your frustration that not all roles are given respect.
Lenny, fantastic job demystifying the salary negotiation process with Niya Dragova's expert insights! Your post offers practical, clear strategies for anyone seeking to navigate compensation discussions confidently. Really valuable guidance for tackling this challenging aspect of career advancement.
Great post! These myths are spot on, Niya! The only one that is interesting is that it would be bad to negotiate with an email. I agree that it would be a bad strategy to try to use a "plug and play" email template found online and avoid having any calls during this process but sending a counter offer via email is usually a great strategy for most individuals. Not all job seekers will be great at having these conversations over the phone, and even if they do prepare in advance a recruiter could steer them off-topic before they deliver the counter confidently. It also allows the recruiter to provide objections for why they can’t offer that and unless the individual is prepared for those in advance it could be difficult to overcome. Sending a well-thought-out counter offer email in advance of any conversations with the recruiter related to the salary negotiation is a good strategy for some individuals in my opinion.
I am so fed up with these type of articles assuming everyone is some sort of high power executive working for a mega company. With their corporate lingo. What about salary negotiating advice for the redt of us who don't make a million a year & maybe work in some basic job? Say healthcare. Or an adminstrative asst. Or someone who is much older trying to get back into the work force. You never see articles or job advice for these folks. Just job advice for the elite. This also applies for money/ investing articles. Only for ppl who don't need it who are rich.
I’ve recruited and led Talent Acquisition teams in high profile, well established, name brand tech companies and this advice is poor. If you enact these strategies you will be seen as difficult and will be labeled as out of range leaving you at risk for termination down the road when inevitable downsizing happens, because it will happen. Some managers have rescinded offers to candidates who over negotiate during the salary portion of the hiring process. You are joining a team, you have to be able to fit in and not burn bridges. You should of course be open about your expectations and know your worth, but I would caution you from following this advice. It will likely not turn out well for you.
Comments like this are *the reason* people are afraid of negotiation.
I am disappointed reading this. It's objectively not correct. A respectful candidate who knows their worth and works in partnership with the recruiter will not get their offer rescinded or be added to some future " blacklist". The perspective that people need to lay low to "fit in" is also harmful in so many ways. Good teams are build on diversity and strong perspectives.
Christine, as a hiring manager in tech for many years, your comments surprise me.
Neither I nor my TA partners have ever faulted a candidate for negotiating. On a couple occasions we took issue with how they did it when the candidate showed poor interpersonal skills or understanding, but it was never so egregious as to result in rescinding the offer.
What types of roles are you hiring for? For myself and my colleagues, we're looking for pretty specific skillsets, so when we find the right candidate, we will do whatever it takes (within reason) to close the deal because it's not like there's an endless supply! (To be fair, I am not at a FAANG. My company is reasonably well known, but not a huge name, so I could see this being a factor.)
As for being labeled as difficult and the risk for termination later... the offer is a mere moment in time compared to the time an employee spends working with their team. I honestly don't remember most of the negotiation conversations I've been in with my team; I remember what they've done since.
"Did you know that women make only 47 cents in equity for every dollar a man makes? "
Lenny! My man... your advice just went into the toilet. That stat was rigorously debunked years ago. If you're really that far behind the times I'm really wonder what your advice is worth. I'm just saying.......
Everything you need to know about the gender pay gap myth is covered in the controlled gender pay gap section in the first link. Once you control for relevant factors like job title, years of experience, etc. the pay gap shrinks to just 2 percent. 2 percent can easily be explained by individual negotiation skills, years with the company, etc.
Job for job, experience for experience, there is no gender pay gap.
You're incorrect. Most gender gap studies only take base compensation into account, which makes them wildly inaccurate for tech in particular and can make it seem like the pay gap is tiny. That's incorrect, instead - in tech most of the pay gap comes from stock and incentive compensation.
If I am indeed incorrect, which I don't believe I am, I would expect to see lawsuits out the yin yang for this stock/incentive pay gap, which is prohibited by law.
Yes! There are a ton of those. That's why big companies adopt a formula-based compensation philosophy.
At smaller co's it's hard to prove who's getting more/ less equity because it's not public info. That's one big reason why I found the Carta study particularly impactful - they have verified data from the cap tables of their clients.
Thanks for posting this link! It's info everyone should know.
The data on all 3 of these do not take equity/ stock compensation into account so they're not relevant to what I wrote about stock/ equity based pay. But all great links for general reading - thanks for sharing!
I guess I just don't understand compensation anymore. There are enough people out there saying they want “500K” or "I’m talking $100K+ more" that this article matters? How many people in a 1k+ employee company are making over $200k? What do they contribute? I just don't understand why we pay executives & managers so much more than the people actually moving the needle. I bust my hump for <$100k while my manager pulls $120k+ and his manager makes $200k and yet these people could disappear from the company and no one would notice.
There's zero chance that the people making that kind of money would be reading this article, much less taking it into any sort of consideration. The writer is trying to sell a product: some investment service. So they're just peddling it through buzz word laced articles
It really isn't all that complicated to negotiate a salary either with an existing or new employer. This article seems to make it a lot more complicated than it needs to be. You just tell the employer what you expect to be paid. You might qualify why you feel that the salary is appropriate based on the details of your experience, education, work history, and value. Besides that, it is either "yes" or "no" or maybe an offer in the middle.
What boggles the mind is this was clearly written for people making 6-8 figures. Executives that are getting compensated millions of dollars DON'T KNOW HOW TO NEGOTIATE A BETTER SALARY FOR THEMSELVES?????????????? What in the flying fuck?
As a seasoned Talent Acquisition leader for a global tech company, I can tell you this advice is confusing for your audience and much of it is just wrong.
TalentAcqPro, and the other Talent Acquisitions are correct! I am a Recruitment Manager, been working in this industry for years! This is terrible advice!! I work in high profile positions, but have worked entry-mid level positions as well. And all of this is absolutely terrible advice!!! People think recruiters just want the money, but we try to try get candidates the most money they are worth. Cause the more money you make, the money we make. A good recruiter can look at a resume and know how much you are worth as an employee, so if you think you are worth more, than your cv should reflect that. If you need help on your cv reach out to a recruiter, they will help you.
I've had clients turn people away for almost every reason argued in the article!!
You didn't answer the question - if you have a specific rebuttal, please elaborate. Also, I should mention that the dynamics with outsourced recruiters are different and where the article mentions " recruiters", it refers to in-house folks.
You said recruiters in general. I assumed you meant all recruiters.
On #1, I've had clients say no to people wanting to negotiate more then what they originally said. If you say you want $x to perform these specific job duties, which are in the jd. Then it's unethical for you to ask for more later. I've had that happen several times, where people say they want one amount to perform the job and then when they get down to an offer they want more. It puts a bad taste in the clients mouth. Come in knowing what you want for your services. Clients won't speak to you if you can't even come up with a number from the very beginning. Saying you don't want to share your expected salary from the very get go, is unprofessional and confusing.
On #3 when you say that "I'll go to bat for you" they usually do. They want you to make more so they make more money. Not putting "in-house recruiters" makes that confusing, and hinders third party recruiters by saying that.
I agree with #7, it is important for a person to give supporting answers for why they are seeking more compensation.
And on #8, I posted rebuttal surveys in an above comment to your survey.
There are some comments in your article I do agree with. But for the most part, you're article is confusing, misleading, and misinformed.
Yes - sorry I didn't specify in house, that's definitely who I meant. Thanks for calling it out.
On #1: It's a tough one because sometimes ( and I'm sure you've seen this also) the JD doesn't actually describe the job well and companies don't enter the interview process with perfect information. From the candidate's side, these happen frequently:
Situation 1) - after speaking with the team, you might find there's 2x more work or much higher complexity than the JD called for. In this case I think it's fully justified to talk about level and salary with this new info in mind.
Situation 2) The JD was obscure because of competitive concerns or candidate goes in a generalist queue to be matched with a team later. In both of these cases you don't know what you're working on until you speak with the team so your initial pricing of your skills could be way off. I've been in situations where Facebook poached someone from Amazon to build *the exact same product* the person led. In this case I'd expect to see a multiple of the regular salary because they're not getting the person's skillset, they're getting historical knowledge of the product/ strategy etc.
On #3 - I agree that this is for in-house folks. Sorry that's not more clear.
On #8- I posted a rebuttal to your rebuttal :) The studies you quoted are using incomplete datasets.
Would you be willing to do a modest rewrite for those who are just starting out? Some of this advice is great for mid-career or later but I'm curious as to what's applicable in your first couple jobs if you're not an Ivy grad.
Hey there - Great idea! definitely happy to write something on new grad/ early career, if there's enough interest. You might find this general salary negotiation guide helpful in the meantime: https://candor.co/guides/salary-negotiation
On a related note: be careful how you answer "why are you leaving your present position? Is something wrong there?" If you respond with "they'll never pay me what I'm worth" they will stop considering you as an employee. This was one of the first things I was asked once. My response was "nothing is wrong there, I thank then for giving me a strong start in the industry, but feel ready to move on" I wasn't offered a job.
Ray
Agreed! That question is not an opportunity to vent. Try turning the question around to focus on things that you want to learn that align with the company you're interviewing with. Example that I get a lot when interviewing candidates... "I'm looking to join a larger team so I can learn more from my colleagues" or "I want to grow my knowledge in X, so I'm looking for opportunities that will allow me to do more of that."
Great suggestions ^^^
I love my current job and have been with them for 8 years now. This is the longest I have spent at one job. My experience was definitely that I did not know my value. I had worked my way up for a few years in IT after I graduated from starting at 40K to 85K. My cousin was making easily above 150K for the "same" kind of work. So when my current job ask me for my salary requirement I just threw 105K out there and they came right back and said "ok, when can you start".... "DOH!", I think I undervalued myself again, haha, but this company has since given me generous raises every year.
One of the most offensive posts I've read in a long time. Oh, nothing personal -- just that 99% of us don't try to up their offer by a few $100k, plus some stock options and a signing bonus. This speaks to a world where people get enormous sums of money for tremendously overvalued work, while the people who generate the actual profits are laboring down in the cellar somewhere. It makes me furious, actually.
It is dangerously tone-deaf and reeks of privilege. The writer talks about exorbitant amounts of money, but then has the nerve to champion equality. Hilariously ironic
Like any transaction, there is no such thing as a "raw deal" If both the seller and buyer agree. The same is true for employers and employees. The transactions is money in exchange for skill, knowledge, and work provided. The comment that " (some) people get enormous sums of money for tremendously overvalued work, while the people who generate the actual profits are laboring down in the cellar somewhere" does not reflect what actually happens. Companies pay employees for their value to the company. If an individual is paid a lot of money, that is because the company feels he/she is worth that amount of pay. The same is true for the "person working in the cellar somewhere". The person working in the cellar, might feel that they are actually generating all the profits while the big-wigs are making all the money and having two-hour martini lunches, but if this were true, the cellar worker would be far more empowered and higher paid by their own value to the company.
At best, a brutal distortion of reality -- at worst, a statement that begets institutionalization. In what possible way has history shown that workers are paid according to value they produce? Where do you live that corruption, greed, discrimination, inequality, etc. don't exist? You realize there are literally slave laborers farming cacao while executives in the same supply chain drive Lamborghinis? There is absolutely no connection between productivity and pay, beyond gatekeeping the flow of cash at the top of corporation.
Hi Mel - I think there's a larger discussion here around how labor is valued societally and I hear your frustration that not all roles are given respect.
Amen to that!!
Thanks for sharing these insights! Just wished I'd had this a month ago, before I accepted an offer.
Do you have an advice on how to negotiate raises or increases in equity once you've started working at a role? Perhaps a follow up article??
Have a performance review guide here that talks about some of it - lmk if more depth than this would be helpful: https://candor.co/guides/performance-reviews
Lenny, fantastic job demystifying the salary negotiation process with Niya Dragova's expert insights! Your post offers practical, clear strategies for anyone seeking to navigate compensation discussions confidently. Really valuable guidance for tackling this challenging aspect of career advancement.
Keep up the great work!
Robert
Great post! These myths are spot on, Niya! The only one that is interesting is that it would be bad to negotiate with an email. I agree that it would be a bad strategy to try to use a "plug and play" email template found online and avoid having any calls during this process but sending a counter offer via email is usually a great strategy for most individuals. Not all job seekers will be great at having these conversations over the phone, and even if they do prepare in advance a recruiter could steer them off-topic before they deliver the counter confidently. It also allows the recruiter to provide objections for why they can’t offer that and unless the individual is prepared for those in advance it could be difficult to overcome. Sending a well-thought-out counter offer email in advance of any conversations with the recruiter related to the salary negotiation is a good strategy for some individuals in my opinion.
https://www.thesalarynegotiator.com/
I am so fed up with these type of articles assuming everyone is some sort of high power executive working for a mega company. With their corporate lingo. What about salary negotiating advice for the redt of us who don't make a million a year & maybe work in some basic job? Say healthcare. Or an adminstrative asst. Or someone who is much older trying to get back into the work force. You never see articles or job advice for these folks. Just job advice for the elite. This also applies for money/ investing articles. Only for ppl who don't need it who are rich.
So ignorant.
I’ve recruited and led Talent Acquisition teams in high profile, well established, name brand tech companies and this advice is poor. If you enact these strategies you will be seen as difficult and will be labeled as out of range leaving you at risk for termination down the road when inevitable downsizing happens, because it will happen. Some managers have rescinded offers to candidates who over negotiate during the salary portion of the hiring process. You are joining a team, you have to be able to fit in and not burn bridges. You should of course be open about your expectations and know your worth, but I would caution you from following this advice. It will likely not turn out well for you.
Comments like this are *the reason* people are afraid of negotiation.
I am disappointed reading this. It's objectively not correct. A respectful candidate who knows their worth and works in partnership with the recruiter will not get their offer rescinded or be added to some future " blacklist". The perspective that people need to lay low to "fit in" is also harmful in so many ways. Good teams are build on diversity and strong perspectives.
Christine, as a hiring manager in tech for many years, your comments surprise me.
Neither I nor my TA partners have ever faulted a candidate for negotiating. On a couple occasions we took issue with how they did it when the candidate showed poor interpersonal skills or understanding, but it was never so egregious as to result in rescinding the offer.
What types of roles are you hiring for? For myself and my colleagues, we're looking for pretty specific skillsets, so when we find the right candidate, we will do whatever it takes (within reason) to close the deal because it's not like there's an endless supply! (To be fair, I am not at a FAANG. My company is reasonably well known, but not a huge name, so I could see this being a factor.)
As for being labeled as difficult and the risk for termination later... the offer is a mere moment in time compared to the time an employee spends working with their team. I honestly don't remember most of the negotiation conversations I've been in with my team; I remember what they've done since.
👏👏👏👏
"Did you know that women make only 47 cents in equity for every dollar a man makes? "
Lenny! My man... your advice just went into the toilet. That stat was rigorously debunked years ago. If you're really that far behind the times I'm really wonder what your advice is worth. I'm just saying.......
Would love to see the data on that! The original source is the Carta annual survey. can you share a link to the rebuttal?
https://www.payscale.com/data/gender-pay-gap
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/05/25/gender-pay-gap-facts/
https://www.business.org/hr/benefits/gender-pay-gap/
Everything you need to know about the gender pay gap myth is covered in the controlled gender pay gap section in the first link. Once you control for relevant factors like job title, years of experience, etc. the pay gap shrinks to just 2 percent. 2 percent can easily be explained by individual negotiation skills, years with the company, etc.
Job for job, experience for experience, there is no gender pay gap.
You're incorrect. Most gender gap studies only take base compensation into account, which makes them wildly inaccurate for tech in particular and can make it seem like the pay gap is tiny. That's incorrect, instead - in tech most of the pay gap comes from stock and incentive compensation.
If I am indeed incorrect, which I don't believe I am, I would expect to see lawsuits out the yin yang for this stock/incentive pay gap, which is prohibited by law.
https://www.eeoc.gov/equal-paycompensation-discrimination
Yes! There are a ton of those. That's why big companies adopt a formula-based compensation philosophy.
At smaller co's it's hard to prove who's getting more/ less equity because it's not public info. That's one big reason why I found the Carta study particularly impactful - they have verified data from the cap tables of their clients.
Thanks for posting this link! It's info everyone should know.
The data on all 3 of these do not take equity/ stock compensation into account so they're not relevant to what I wrote about stock/ equity based pay. But all great links for general reading - thanks for sharing!
This just came out today and hopefully gives more context on what I mean : https://www.wsj.com/articles/gender-pay-gap-stock-options-11632414012
You have to pay for this article...
I guess I just don't understand compensation anymore. There are enough people out there saying they want “500K” or "I’m talking $100K+ more" that this article matters? How many people in a 1k+ employee company are making over $200k? What do they contribute? I just don't understand why we pay executives & managers so much more than the people actually moving the needle. I bust my hump for <$100k while my manager pulls $120k+ and his manager makes $200k and yet these people could disappear from the company and no one would notice.
There's zero chance that the people making that kind of money would be reading this article, much less taking it into any sort of consideration. The writer is trying to sell a product: some investment service. So they're just peddling it through buzz word laced articles
Oh, you're right. I hadn't noticed. I see now that this article is marketing disguised as disingenuous advice to overcompensated tech executives.
It really isn't all that complicated to negotiate a salary either with an existing or new employer. This article seems to make it a lot more complicated than it needs to be. You just tell the employer what you expect to be paid. You might qualify why you feel that the salary is appropriate based on the details of your experience, education, work history, and value. Besides that, it is either "yes" or "no" or maybe an offer in the middle.
What boggles the mind is this was clearly written for people making 6-8 figures. Executives that are getting compensated millions of dollars DON'T KNOW HOW TO NEGOTIATE A BETTER SALARY FOR THEMSELVES?????????????? What in the flying fuck?
All I see are "managers". How many "excellent" managers have you had in your career? Me: 2 in 40 years. Mainframe programmer career.
Had to look up FAANG... how depressing!
As a seasoned Talent Acquisition leader for a global tech company, I can tell you this advice is confusing for your audience and much of it is just wrong.
Which part(s) is(are) wrong and what is the correct information from your perspective?
TalentAcqPro, and the other Talent Acquisitions are correct! I am a Recruitment Manager, been working in this industry for years! This is terrible advice!! I work in high profile positions, but have worked entry-mid level positions as well. And all of this is absolutely terrible advice!!! People think recruiters just want the money, but we try to try get candidates the most money they are worth. Cause the more money you make, the money we make. A good recruiter can look at a resume and know how much you are worth as an employee, so if you think you are worth more, than your cv should reflect that. If you need help on your cv reach out to a recruiter, they will help you.
I've had clients turn people away for almost every reason argued in the article!!
You didn't answer the question - if you have a specific rebuttal, please elaborate. Also, I should mention that the dynamics with outsourced recruiters are different and where the article mentions " recruiters", it refers to in-house folks.
You said recruiters in general. I assumed you meant all recruiters.
On #1, I've had clients say no to people wanting to negotiate more then what they originally said. If you say you want $x to perform these specific job duties, which are in the jd. Then it's unethical for you to ask for more later. I've had that happen several times, where people say they want one amount to perform the job and then when they get down to an offer they want more. It puts a bad taste in the clients mouth. Come in knowing what you want for your services. Clients won't speak to you if you can't even come up with a number from the very beginning. Saying you don't want to share your expected salary from the very get go, is unprofessional and confusing.
On #3 when you say that "I'll go to bat for you" they usually do. They want you to make more so they make more money. Not putting "in-house recruiters" makes that confusing, and hinders third party recruiters by saying that.
I agree with #7, it is important for a person to give supporting answers for why they are seeking more compensation.
And on #8, I posted rebuttal surveys in an above comment to your survey.
There are some comments in your article I do agree with. But for the most part, you're article is confusing, misleading, and misinformed.
Yes - sorry I didn't specify in house, that's definitely who I meant. Thanks for calling it out.
On #1: It's a tough one because sometimes ( and I'm sure you've seen this also) the JD doesn't actually describe the job well and companies don't enter the interview process with perfect information. From the candidate's side, these happen frequently:
Situation 1) - after speaking with the team, you might find there's 2x more work or much higher complexity than the JD called for. In this case I think it's fully justified to talk about level and salary with this new info in mind.
Situation 2) The JD was obscure because of competitive concerns or candidate goes in a generalist queue to be matched with a team later. In both of these cases you don't know what you're working on until you speak with the team so your initial pricing of your skills could be way off. I've been in situations where Facebook poached someone from Amazon to build *the exact same product* the person led. In this case I'd expect to see a multiple of the regular salary because they're not getting the person's skillset, they're getting historical knowledge of the product/ strategy etc.
On #3 - I agree that this is for in-house folks. Sorry that's not more clear.
On #8- I posted a rebuttal to your rebuttal :) The studies you quoted are using incomplete datasets.
Would you be willing to do a modest rewrite for those who are just starting out? Some of this advice is great for mid-career or later but I'm curious as to what's applicable in your first couple jobs if you're not an Ivy grad.
Hey there - Great idea! definitely happy to write something on new grad/ early career, if there's enough interest. You might find this general salary negotiation guide helpful in the meantime: https://candor.co/guides/salary-negotiation
Great article. Another theme that comes up in coaching discussions is asking "what X am I willing to trade off in order to get priority Y".