When Should You Think Twice About Salary Negotiation?

> Ms. Lindsay felt penalized for her attempt to negotiate.

From the employer's perspective I can understand not wanting to hire someone that has asked for more money if I can't grant the rise; they may continue seeking that higher wage and hold some resentment for not getting it in the first place.

From a the potential hire's perspective I wouldn't ask for more money if I was willing to work without them granting the rise. I would be opening myself up to feelings of resentment, and I would continue looking for an employer that could meet my wage demands.

This seems less like a penalty, and more like recognition by the employer that there's a valuation mismatch. Could someone that understands Kate's feelings explain them?

As a preamble, I can't read the full article due to the paywall, so I might be misunderstanding the situation. Judging by the lede though, it seems there are two potential dynamics at play here. For one, there are some positions out there that will only ever fill at exactly the outlined original offer with no wiggle room. This is often true for positions where there's a disproportionate number of candidates applying and churn is cheap. For two, there's a world of difference in how you negotiate. Flat out saying you will take the job but only at a specific higher rate can work in some contexts but completely backfire in others. Getting a feel for what kind of a situation you are in and acting accordingly is more of an art than science and comes with experience.