Most job offers come with leeway for negotiation, regardless of your situation. All you really have to do is ask.
> You: This is a really great offer because [a sentence or two about why you want to work for them.]. But I was really looking for a little higher compensation.
> Then, this is the most important part: they need to speak next. You have to be silent until they respond. They will give you one of three responses:
At which point you list the three responses. But the most common (in my experience) response is missing: "Okay, what were you thinking for salary?".
The point is just to ask for what you want. Often people will give it to you just for asking. It took me a long time to figure this out!
If someone comes to me asking for 15-20% more, I'm going to offer them something below the low end of the range. You're essentially giving away 5% for free.
In a few cases, I've seen offers come back right in the middle of the range, when I was expecting the bottom. Free money!
Ideally, have 2 offers that are aware of each other and name the range. They won't both come back with the bottom number. At least, not in this market. They've wasted a ton of time and need to hire someone, so they're going to make their offer count. Internal recruiters have performance-based metrics too, and while I'm sure getting a better deal on a hire looks good, failing to fill positions is not good.
Absolutely. People who don't ask (esp by default) end up losing out. [1]
[1] http://www.reddit.com/r/TwoXChromosomes/comments/hvv2m/i_wor...
No, but if I know that you don't have another option, I'm not going to be as willing to give up more.
A known secondary option puts pressure (sometimes, tremendous) on your negotiating partner. The absence of such an option does not. That's what the article is saying.
That doesn't really make sense. The candidate has at least this much in their favor:
1. A recruiter has had probably 2-3 phone calls with them, a technical person (or two) has done a phone screen, and they've taken up the time of, say, 4-6 people for in-person interviews. The company has already spent a not-insignificant amount of time (aka money) evaluating this person, and losing them over a (reasonable) salary increase would be foolish.
2. Having evaluated the candidate, the company has decided they want this person to work for them. Assuming the candidate is great for the position, but the only sticking point is salary, why would the company go back to square 1 to save a little money? Hiring is hard.
Available comp for a particular position is usually a range, and the initial offer will rarely (if ever) quote the top of that range. If the budget is available, and the candidate is good, whether or not they have a competing offer isn't relevant, unless you know that they'll be forced to take your offer even if you don't budge (which in tech, at least, is pretty rare, I'd think).
Any company worth anything has an a, b, and c candidate (plus, often the option to wait) already in their pocket. While what you say is true, the assumption that your demands are "reasonable" is one you simply cannot make. Only the other party can define that. The cost of hiring is not assigned to you, it is a sunk cost that the company will absorb regardless of who they hire. It's pretty insignificant to keep an already posted position open.
Assuming the candidate is great for the position, but the only sticking point is salary, why would the company go back to square 1 to save a little money?
Budgets. Existing pay scales. Their evaluation of your value. There are numerous reasons. The idea is that you want to work there too, for the most they are willing to pay. That means pushing to the limit but not going past it. The easiest way to do this is to force their hand.
One of the best ways to force their hand is to generate a call to action that is time-based. It's a pretty basic marketing principle that I'm really surprised a lot of people don't seem to understand. This is just like saying "Act fast, quantities are limited!"
That hasn't been my experience (on both sides of the hiring table). From what I've seen, only 1 offer goes out at a time. Otherwise, both might say yes, and you can't retract it. Only if the offer doesn't work out does option b get an offer (if he's still looking by the time all of this is done).
For every day that a job goes unfilled, it's costing them lost market opportunity and delaying their launch.
When you get the chance to say "I do have one other offer that is expecting a response by $date, but I am really interested in this position, so I wanted to see if it was a good fit before committing to the other. Do you think that is enough time for us to meet?"
Suddenly, mountains start moving.
You can find numbers from glassdoor or look at what government salaries are for your job type in that location.
Just know that if you provide an acceptable range, they will lock in on the bottom of the range.
If pressed, have a number ready, that's somewhat higher than what you think is realistic. Unless you are so far out of the ballpark that you look ridiculous, a high initial salary demand is not going to knock you out of consideration if you're an otherwise good candidate.
I'm no expert negotiator but personally I think this depends on the situation. In more than one case I've underestimated my worth and received more than I would have though I could get away with asking for. Once they name their price, I know it's their lower bound, so I'm comfortable asking for even more.
I think negotiating a salary has different dynamics than negotiating a sale. For a sale, I would probably agree with the anchoring tactic.
Yes. But that doesn't make it useful. I recommend e.g. reading http://diplom.org/Zine/F1997R/Windsor/lawdip.html
> In more than one case I've underestimated my worth and received more than I would have though I could get away with asking for.
Of course the other rule is: Know what you can get away with.
You don’t ask, you don’t get.
[1] http://www.bothsidesofthetable.com/2013/05/15/the-one-word-t...