Rather than loudly proclaiming your ignorance about casions and options, you should introspect.
I know several people who successfully negotiated better terms. Demanding "adequate" salary and valueing options at "zero" are two seperate tasks. You assume latter (options not valued at 0) implies former (salary not adequate) its a statement about your risk averse world view, not a statememt of fact.
As far as meekness, loudly proclaiming that you are valuing options at zero is great way of letting your co workers and others know of your level of interest in the success of company. At which point if not meek you would surely come across as contemptuous, lest the company suceed and your coworkers end up better off than you.
i think that's bullshit. "I make X, I feel I am worth Y". Credibly demonstrate that you are worth Y[1]. This got me the raise I wanted within my current employer, and willingness to decline an offer less than Y will get me the salary I want the next time I move companies.
[1] here's a hint: don't say "i can do XYZ, trust me" -- signal to them you can do XYZ by blogging, speaking at meetups, portfolio of projects, etc.
There is also zero chance that I will accept an offer for the amount I need because there are plenty of people who are willing to pay me more than that.
I think that holds only if your time is worth nothing. I don't want to go through weeks of interviews just to find out that my salary demands are $50K more than they're willing to pay.
Why? I have no idea what the absolute least I need to demand for salary and survive. Why should I? Market rate for my skillset is $100k+ in my area of the country and that's what I calibrate against. If you offer me less than that I simply don't consider working for you.
For a "normal" straight salary job I like to state a range as soon as they ask. The "never make the first offer" rule is taken as gosple but IMO, wrong. Stating your numbers (with wiggle room, hence the range) has an "anchoring" effect. To pull the number lower, the other party will have to expend negotiating capital.
As for a stock options go, I would value them as zero but use them as a negotiation "chip" to be traded for real compensation/benefits. Before you trade this (statistically) worthless chip for something, get them to "sell" you on how valuable it is. ;-)
I wasn't dismissing law as zero sum. Salary negotiation is zero-sum too; that doesn't mean you shouldn't do it. But you shouldn't organize your career around it.
Very poor advice. Salary is a huge part of job satisfaction. I normally line up multiple offers at places I'd like to work and negotiate on the salary. If a place I really want to work can't offer me compensation that the market is already offering me, then by definition that place isn't a good place to work. They don't value my labour.
I had a similiar experience. After what felt like a long journey, and then receiving an offer that was less than my then base pay, I refuse to talk to companies that won't give me a pay range.
>It's true that the #1 mistake people make is to sell themselves short by giving away a (low) salary upfront.
As an agency/3rd party recruiter/headhunter who asks people questions about salary all the time (current or desired), I'd argue that the #1 mistake people make is saying that they are willing to negotiate before getting any objection. I've written about this at length, but the typical conversation goes like this.
ME: "How much are you looking to make?"
CANDIDATE: "I'm looking for 100K."
ME: PAUSES TO TAKE NOTE
CANDIDATE: "...But I'm always willing to negotiate"
I haven't even said "no" and they are already negotiating against themselves. Any hiring manager dealing with junior level candidates will likely know this tendency for inexperienced negotiators to mention flexibility when greeted with any silence, so they'll incorporate that silence into their "script".
Value selling isn't an option for most employees. Try it in a typical salary negotiation and you'll get funny looks followed by a repeat of their standard offer.
Right. I see no point negotiating with people who cannot be trusted to uphold their end of the bargain.
Incidentally, I would never suggest that anyone negotiate with the goal of getting a "fair" salary. I think that is our inner serf talking. Find your inner hedge fund trader and send him instead. Sure, $60k might be a marked improvement in your standard of living, but if you think "Oh yeah, that is fair", you're probably not going to say "That offer is interesting. Can you do better?" and get $5k extra (plus compounding on your annual raises, plus a higher peg on every future position in your career) for two sentences of work.
Isn't the answer to that question always going to be that you were offered what you were offered because that was the least amount they thought you might accept?
That is, nobody pays you what you're worth to them. If they did, their profit from hiring you would be zero. Therefore, they pay you the least amount they can get you to accept.
reply