Salary negotiations for techies (2011)(jacquesmattheij.com)
jacquesmattheij.com
Salary negotiations for techies (2011)
http://jacquesmattheij.com/Salary+negotiations+for+techies#
233 comments
The subtle point that's lost in so many of these blog posts is that value-based pricing is a model for consultants. Employees are not consultants.
Consultants are typically brought in to solve specific problems that are perceived to be high-value. If a company hires a consultant to sustainably reduce hosting costs by $15,000/month, a good consultant will probably have no problem pricing the engagement as a not insignificant percentage of the savings over a reasonable period of time. Good luck trying this as a rank-and-file employee. If you're that good and are serious about maximizing your earnings, become a consultant.
Consultants are typically brought in to solve specific problems that are perceived to be high-value. If a company hires a consultant to sustainably reduce hosting costs by $15,000/month, a good consultant will probably have no problem pricing the engagement as a not insignificant percentage of the savings over a reasonable period of time. Good luck trying this as a rank-and-file employee. If you're that good and are serious about maximizing your earnings, become a consultant.
The value you add to the company is not based on how many customers were gained from your completion of task X or similar metrics. If you decrease hosting costs by $15k per month and only get paid $5k per month but dozens of others would do the job for $3k, you aren't in a good position to ask for a raise.
Your value to the company is how much it would cost, in time, effort, and money, to find a replacement(s).
Your value to the company is how much it would cost, in time, effort, and money, to find a replacement(s).
Time effort money multiplied by risk of getting less value
That's the important component - the volatility of performance has a major impact on price of an option !
That's the important component - the volatility of performance has a major impact on price of an option !
Well, to be fair, there's also a chance of getting more value.
Well, you are talking about risk adjusted return there. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_%28investment%29
Sure, I just thought that the parent was only presenting one side of the math.
Mostly I was - and I suspect that is fair too.
Let's imagine we are Board of BigCo. Our CEO just took home fifty mil for what is at best a lacklustre performance.
We could fire his ass, but who do we replace him with? We could get pretty much anyone here on HN to do the job, for just one tenth of the cost. But if we hire say that lifeisstillgood, the inevitable PR disasters will wipe more than fifty mil off our stock / revenue.
But if we hire (insert your name here), a clearly brilliant HN member, they will discover that being CEO of a major company means very little power or influence - these things are like oil tankers and do not turn for anything. So getting an even better CEO than our guy will not manage to bring in much upside.
So unless there is a massive upheaval in the market meaning plenty of opportunity, then replacing a CEO is always a bad idea - the downside is huge, the upside is minimal.
Maybe that's risk adjusted returns - but I prefer cynicism.
Let's imagine we are Board of BigCo. Our CEO just took home fifty mil for what is at best a lacklustre performance.
We could fire his ass, but who do we replace him with? We could get pretty much anyone here on HN to do the job, for just one tenth of the cost. But if we hire say that lifeisstillgood, the inevitable PR disasters will wipe more than fifty mil off our stock / revenue.
But if we hire (insert your name here), a clearly brilliant HN member, they will discover that being CEO of a major company means very little power or influence - these things are like oil tankers and do not turn for anything. So getting an even better CEO than our guy will not manage to bring in much upside.
So unless there is a massive upheaval in the market meaning plenty of opportunity, then replacing a CEO is always a bad idea - the downside is huge, the upside is minimal.
Maybe that's risk adjusted returns - but I prefer cynicism.
Oh, there's also power dynamics at play. In practice most companies are run for the benefit of top management, not shareholders.
Some economist did a rather macabre study of share prices of companies as their CEO's died in various accidents. (Ie removal of the CEO controlled by factors outside corporate politics.)
Some economist did a rather macabre study of share prices of companies as their CEO's died in various accidents. (Ie removal of the CEO controlled by factors outside corporate politics.)
> The main tenet of this blog post is that you should argue for your compensation based on the amount of value you add to the company.
The truth is that your employer doesn't consider your value as a major part of their compensation offer, they consider what would happen if you didn't exist. Is there or isn't there an endless ocean of other candidates who could more or less do what you do and do it for what they're willing to pay you and no what you're demanding?
In case you aren't sure what the answer is, there is.
The truth is that your employer doesn't consider your value as a major part of their compensation offer, they consider what would happen if you didn't exist. Is there or isn't there an endless ocean of other candidates who could more or less do what you do and do it for what they're willing to pay you and no what you're demanding?
In case you aren't sure what the answer is, there is.
The trick is finding a field that doesn't have legions of hungry coders waiting to fill your boots..
Good STEM programmers (i.e. science companies) are very hard to find. The jobs aren't as abundant as web dev, but they are there, pay reasonably and it's easy to show how valuable you are to the company.
Good STEM programmers (i.e. science companies) are very hard to find. The jobs aren't as abundant as web dev, but they are there, pay reasonably and it's easy to show how valuable you are to the company.
Someone made a comment a while ago "The only way to capture your economic value is to put it on the market as a business" and I think they are spot on. The mindset of dealing with people/employees and dealing with businesses seems completely different.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8357471
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8357471
> but the techies' dilemma is that it's often difficult or impossible to put a hard number on the value they have added.
Yes, but the point is that if you want to make a good salary, that's the problem you need to fix. What is your approach when you encounter something that's "difficult or impossible" in your daily work? You apply intelligence and creativity and create a solution.
> The reality is [..] If you don't like that, time to go into management or sales.
Whatever you do, DO NOT try to change the rules. DO NOT try to learn what it is management and sales do to get those nice, big salaries. When something is hard, GIVE UP.
Of course you need to understand the employer's BATNA as well: If they don't appreciate tech, ie. their BATNA is to fire you/ignore you until you leave, then that's what you do. But companies can do that to their sales and management teams as well.
Yes, but the point is that if you want to make a good salary, that's the problem you need to fix. What is your approach when you encounter something that's "difficult or impossible" in your daily work? You apply intelligence and creativity and create a solution.
> The reality is [..] If you don't like that, time to go into management or sales.
Whatever you do, DO NOT try to change the rules. DO NOT try to learn what it is management and sales do to get those nice, big salaries. When something is hard, GIVE UP.
Of course you need to understand the employer's BATNA as well: If they don't appreciate tech, ie. their BATNA is to fire you/ignore you until you leave, then that's what you do. But companies can do that to their sales and management teams as well.
You can address most of those concerns with algebra, some light research, and Fermi estimates.
This is not a problem where you need precision, just a reasonable level of accuracy and a well-presented argument.
This is not a problem where you need precision, just a reasonable level of accuracy and a well-presented argument.
> ... and Fermi estimates
I can figure out which algebra to use and what light research to perform... but may you please educate me on these "Fermi estimates" regarding salary negotiation?
I can figure out which algebra to use and what light research to perform... but may you please educate me on these "Fermi estimates" regarding salary negotiation?
"In physics or engineering education, a Fermi problem, Fermi quiz, Fermi question, or Fermi estimate is an estimation problem designed to teach dimensional analysis, approximation, and the importance of clearly identifying one's assumptions. The solution of such a problem is usually a back-of-the-envelope calculation."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_problem
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_problem
the real world doesn't work this way when people are involved.
How many customers were retained because you decreased response times by 100ms? How many customers were gained because of that slick UI you created?
These two things can be precisely measured, provided you have the traffic. And you should be measuring them anyway, because that slick UI might be hurting things.
A/B test all the things. Then you'll know both your value, and whether any specific improvement you made is worthwhile.
These two things can be precisely measured, provided you have the traffic. And you should be measuring them anyway, because that slick UI might be hurting things.
A/B test all the things. Then you'll know both your value, and whether any specific improvement you made is worthwhile.
A salaried employee is never going to gain anything from this except a small bonus, a marginally higher salary increase than his or her peers, or a pat on the back.
there are all kinds of intangibles not mentioned here. what if you have an idea that transforms the company's sales numbers or you dream up a better way of doing the builds that reduces integration bugs. So many ways an employee contributes intangibly.
you're right, pay is basically what your peers make +/-
you're right, pay is basically what your peers make +/-
Yes, particularly in the UK the vestiges of the old class system are that no matter what price the market clears at a blue-collar worker can never be paid more than a white-collar manager.
So if you are in a situation where there is a glut of junior managers and a scarcity of talented engineers, then seemingly inexplicable things start happening to salaries.
So if you are in a situation where there is a glut of junior managers and a scarcity of talented engineers, then seemingly inexplicable things start happening to salaries.
I'm fascinated that in the UK, software engineers are not viewed as white-collar professionals. That seems to be a rather big difference between the work culture of the UK and the USA.
Yes, like I say, the class system, and the typical engineer's strongly expressed desire to dress scruffily and generally nonconfom, disregard hierarchy and so on. There's no reason that software professionals shouldn't be on a par with lawyers and accountants, the work is similar enough (describing the current and desired states of complex systems in very precise terms, and creating finely detailed plans for getting from here to there).
> describing the current and desired states of complex systems in very precise terms, and creating finely detailed plans for getting from here to there
What a beautiful and elegant description of software engineering!
What a beautiful and elegant description of software engineering!
What do you think will happen? Will the engineers earn more than the managers, or will the managers salaries go up just because the engineers earn more?
No, you will have managers crying about a talent shortage, and engineers wondering why they get paid so much less than lawyers, accountants and doctors (all of whom count as "white collar").
In other words, the UK today.
In other words, the UK today.
These "intangibles" can still have a value assigned. Each integration bug eliminated by an improved build process can have a cost assigned to it by using the average time and money cost of previously fixed integration bugs. Example: "Each integration bug costs 1hr of senior dev time at $100/hr fully loaded and 8hrs of junior dev time at $50/hr. The new build process produces X fewer integration bugs per month, for a savings of X*$500 per month."
"Transforming" the sales numbers should also be measurable. Example: "Before, salespeople were closing x% of deals and missing scheduled followup on y% of contacts. Now (x+5)% of deals close and only (y/2)% of contacts are mistakenly dropped."
"Transforming" the sales numbers should also be measurable. Example: "Before, salespeople were closing x% of deals and missing scheduled followup on y% of contacts. Now (x+5)% of deals close and only (y/2)% of contacts are mistakenly dropped."
>The reality is, you're basically going to get paid based upon what your employer has deemed everyone else in your position is earning, plus or minus some % based upon experience level, your reputation, and how badly the company needs the position filled. If you don't like that, time to go into management or sales.
Pretty much this. If you are not part of the profit generating side of the business, you will always be viewed as a cost overhead. Engineering is unfortunately a question of cost expenditure for businesses but even more so for smaller software companies who don't have monopoly.
Pretty much this. If you are not part of the profit generating side of the business, you will always be viewed as a cost overhead. Engineering is unfortunately a question of cost expenditure for businesses but even more so for smaller software companies who don't have monopoly.
> paid based upon what your employer has deemed
Your job is to change that perception.
Your job is to change that perception.
Another B.S. article about negotiating IT salary's.
If IT salary's kept pace back before the Dot bomb days everyone would be making 150k starting.
Here is why we don't
IT has for the most part never been a money maker of a lot of companies. They see it as a loss leader. IT is seen as the "Oh boy here comes the IT budget again." Unless of course your business is making software for the masses. But then I have been at 3 companies like that and IT was always the first on the chopping block. You are paid only as much as it takes to replace you, unless you walk on water then you should be at Google or FaceBook.
The only way to get a 20 to 25k raise is to find another job. Unless of course you are doing the job of 4 people which in IT 99.9% of the times you are. Don't believe me? Go ask for a 20k raise if their eyebrows shoot up like Mr. Spock then you know how much you are worth. I sure hope you have another job lined up because that's the queue to them you are looking.
This has been my experience and I have done exactly what I have stated above.
I now do security and compliance. No more wake up calls, no more you can't go on vacation because Oct. through January is the time of the year where we make our money.
Oh and that 100K salary mark gets very hard to justify every year especially when the CFO looks at the books and has a list of who is making over 100K per year. Unless of course you live in California and NewYork then that's welfare wages.
Here is why we don't
IT has for the most part never been a money maker of a lot of companies. They see it as a loss leader. IT is seen as the "Oh boy here comes the IT budget again." Unless of course your business is making software for the masses. But then I have been at 3 companies like that and IT was always the first on the chopping block. You are paid only as much as it takes to replace you, unless you walk on water then you should be at Google or FaceBook.
The only way to get a 20 to 25k raise is to find another job. Unless of course you are doing the job of 4 people which in IT 99.9% of the times you are. Don't believe me? Go ask for a 20k raise if their eyebrows shoot up like Mr. Spock then you know how much you are worth. I sure hope you have another job lined up because that's the queue to them you are looking.
This has been my experience and I have done exactly what I have stated above.
I now do security and compliance. No more wake up calls, no more you can't go on vacation because Oct. through January is the time of the year where we make our money.
Oh and that 100K salary mark gets very hard to justify every year especially when the CFO looks at the books and has a list of who is making over 100K per year. Unless of course you live in California and NewYork then that's welfare wages.
Are we differentiating between IT and Engineering and Operations?
I think OP was referring to Engineers and Operations at software companies, not IT at an accounting firm.
I think OP was referring to Engineers and Operations at software companies, not IT at an accounting firm.
"The only way to get a 20 to 25k raise is to find another job. Unless of course you are doing the job of 4 people which in IT 99.9% of the times you are. Don't believe me? Go ask for a 20k raise if their eyebrows shoot up like Mr. Spock then you know how much you are worth. I sure hope you have another job lined up because that's the queue to them you are looking."
I used this technique to get that much of an increase. First found a job that I was actually willing to quit for. Went to my boss with the offer. They made a counter that I accepted. Without that offer I would have gotten probably 2-3% yearly.
People get too caught up in trying not to hurt their employers feelings by threatening to leave. Who cares if they know you were looking for another job. It's a business decision. I've tried to leave more than once at my current position and they don't treat me any differently. The key is to be prepared to actually leave if they call your bluff.
Also this probably means I was severely underpaid to begin with.
I used this technique to get that much of an increase. First found a job that I was actually willing to quit for. Went to my boss with the offer. They made a counter that I accepted. Without that offer I would have gotten probably 2-3% yearly.
People get too caught up in trying not to hurt their employers feelings by threatening to leave. Who cares if they know you were looking for another job. It's a business decision. I've tried to leave more than once at my current position and they don't treat me any differently. The key is to be prepared to actually leave if they call your bluff.
Also this probably means I was severely underpaid to begin with.
I used this technique as well, it didn't end up in a raise or another job position, or any change at all. They just said no.
I ended up taking that other job offer I had lined up since it was clear the company views its workers as replaceable cogs rather than valued contributors.
I believe you missed a key point of this technique
>First found a job that I was actually willing to quit for.
Check out BATNA - all about improving your Second option
>First found a job that I was actually willing to quit for.
Check out BATNA - all about improving your Second option
Sorry to be pedantic but it is the "cue" to them that you are looking, not "queue".
Kind of undercuts all the points made. Also, if you walk on water you should be working at Google or FaceBook? Hunh?
You don't have to walk on water to work at either of them. With a bit of coaching, the median HN member would qualify.
upvote-hero to the rescue
> They see it as a loss leader.
Cost center, not loss leader.
It helps to be in an IT-focused company, vs a company that has an IT department. I've been in both and the former is vastly better.
Cost center, not loss leader.
It helps to be in an IT-focused company, vs a company that has an IT department. I've been in both and the former is vastly better.
I got a $15K raise last month, from $60 to $75K. I expect a much bigger one next year. It's not impossible to get those raises, but you have to align your thinking with the way the company operates, have supporters in the company, and bring real value to the table.
If you're just checking boxes or asking for more money "just because", then you deserve the arched eyebrow you're bound to get.
If you're just checking boxes or asking for more money "just because", then you deserve the arched eyebrow you're bound to get.
a 25% raise is unlikely next year, sounds to me that this was more of a salary adjustment than a raise which are typically between 3-9%. At your salary level it's not uncommon to have adjustments to bring you in line with others in your team. Possibly they started you low to see how it would work out.
Whatever you want to call it, I expect a bigger one next year.
So, just curious, but what makes you so confident you'll be getting back-to-back massive payraises? And when do you think it'll stop?
Hard to explain in any kind of useful way. Let's just say I hack my career like I hack code. I don't expect it to ever stop.
That's a good attitude you have! But honestly, you are still working for peanuts, if you are any good as a programmer.
How long have you been programming professionally?
How long have you been programming professionally?
Professionally, only about 4 years, also a year as a sysadmin and a few in the Air Force a while back. That's why the peanuts. I'm not the most amazing programmer ever, but I am pretty good. I also have business sense and the ability to talk convincingly to non-technical people.
These things ultimately mean much more to a company, at least my company, than years at firm. I'm also constantly pushing myself to build more skills, not just programming, but also social skills too. I've noticed the longer I do this, the more people are willing to listen to and value my input. My company hierarchy is very flat for one that does $40 million in revenue. I see my CEO whenever he's in the office, his office is right next to my workspace.
It's a case of, sure, I could go somewhere and get a $X0,000 raise and finally check that six figure salary box, or I work here towards middle / upper management and reach that goal in just a few years and get a $X00,000 raise. I'm comfortable right now, no need to make a decision right now, I don't hit two years here until July anyway. If by then it doesn't look like the vision I have for my career here is really viable, then sure I'll start looking.
These things ultimately mean much more to a company, at least my company, than years at firm. I'm also constantly pushing myself to build more skills, not just programming, but also social skills too. I've noticed the longer I do this, the more people are willing to listen to and value my input. My company hierarchy is very flat for one that does $40 million in revenue. I see my CEO whenever he's in the office, his office is right next to my workspace.
It's a case of, sure, I could go somewhere and get a $X0,000 raise and finally check that six figure salary box, or I work here towards middle / upper management and reach that goal in just a few years and get a $X00,000 raise. I'm comfortable right now, no need to make a decision right now, I don't hit two years here until July anyway. If by then it doesn't look like the vision I have for my career here is really viable, then sure I'll start looking.
I started with a fairly low salary of ~50k USD in my first job in 2009, mostly because I screwed up salary negotiations. I've changed jobs twice since, and roughly tripled my salary.
> I'm not the most amazing programmer ever, but I am pretty good. I also have business sense and the ability to talk convincingly to non-technical people.
If you can deliver at all, you are probably better than most programmers out there. Talking to non-technical people is an awesome skill in its own right.
Yes, my asking about how many years you've been working was just as a rough proxy.
If you want, you can shoot me an email (see profile) for some more in-depth chats. I'm interested to see how typical my trajectory is. I don't think I did anything extraordinary, but most people I talk to seem to be getting inferior results.
> I'm not the most amazing programmer ever, but I am pretty good. I also have business sense and the ability to talk convincingly to non-technical people.
If you can deliver at all, you are probably better than most programmers out there. Talking to non-technical people is an awesome skill in its own right.
Yes, my asking about how many years you've been working was just as a rough proxy.
If you want, you can shoot me an email (see profile) for some more in-depth chats. I'm interested to see how typical my trajectory is. I don't think I did anything extraordinary, but most people I talk to seem to be getting inferior results.
or he could go get a competing offer with a 50% raise ;)
You're in the U.S.?
By reading Hacker News I had the impression that everyone there that is not a junior is making at least U$100k/year, except for special cases in rural areas or small towns.
By reading Hacker News I had the impression that everyone there that is not a junior is making at least U$100k/year, except for special cases in rural areas or small towns.
That impression is a bit skewed by the large number of HNers who work in places like silicon valley and NYC, I think. There are a lot of places in the US where you can be very, very comfortable on $75k a year.
^ This guy is right. Changing your job will get you a much higher raise than asking.
In my own experience I only got a significant raise once in my career - I asked for $90/hr when I was making 80/hr, and they gave it to my to my surprise. That's around $20K/year.
In my own experience I only got a significant raise once in my career - I asked for $90/hr when I was making 80/hr, and they gave it to my to my surprise. That's around $20K/year.
> IT has for the most part never been a money maker of a lot of companies. They see it as a loss leader.
Exactly. I'm pretty sure that IT is harder and requires more training/practice than e.g. finance or sales, but profits from those two are very easy to quantify and it's quite obvious who the deal-maker was, whereas IT is mostly teamwork and doesn't have obvious profits.
Exactly. I'm pretty sure that IT is harder and requires more training/practice than e.g. finance or sales, but profits from those two are very easy to quantify and it's quite obvious who the deal-maker was, whereas IT is mostly teamwork and doesn't have obvious profits.
Shut down the IT and watch all those profits disappear. As in, finance/sales guy can't pull up his daily/weekly/monthly/quarterly/yearly numbers.
Oh, and your customers are gone too because you can no longer deliver any product or added-value. So, no income (except investments).
Oh, and your customers are gone too because you can no longer deliver any product or added-value. So, no income (except investments).
There are very few unnecessary jobs in today's economically-rationalised world. Fire the cleaning staff, and see how long your other staff hang around with piling-up garbage and a lack of toilet cleaning/stocking. Fire the receptionists and watch as a ton of work moves elsewhere because you're too hard to get hold of.
A debatable subject, but still, have a look at: http://libcom.org/library/phenomenon-bullshit-jobs-david-gra...
That article seems to start with the assumption that the only worthwhile jobs are manufacturing jobs. It's taking a bit of a different slant in context, I think. Above I'm talking about how all jobs in some way enhance the company's bottom line, taking a company-centric approach. The article is talking on a societal level. Corporate lawyers don't help the public much, but they sure as hell help the companies that hire them - it may be a 'bullshit' job, but it's a 'necessary' job (from the fiscal point of view).
Still, I think it's ironic that in one paragraph, dog-washers and pizza deliverers get caned for being bullshit jobs, and two paragraphs later the author bemoans the loss of workers that move things (pizza...) and maintain things (dogs...) :)
Still, I think it's ironic that in one paragraph, dog-washers and pizza deliverers get caned for being bullshit jobs, and two paragraphs later the author bemoans the loss of workers that move things (pizza...) and maintain things (dogs...) :)
[deleted]
(Sigh). I wish I was making 150K starting salary. Unfortunately, I'm not and I live in BosWash which makes me part of the below-welfare-wage numbers. I wish folks could have more attitudes like NinjaTime so that they can become the enlightened masses.
Nothing is more discouraging than watching Joe and Jane from high school and college getting promotions at their consulting, law and medical careers knowing that I was way smarter than they were. Cue Kurt Vonneghan, "The real horror is waking up one day and realizing your high school class is running the country"; well, I'm just slightly disgusted that just the undeserving plebes, not the popular high school kids are buying McMansions and starter luxury cars!
Well, at least I'm part of the enlightened. I got my security clearance (no H1B competition), my personal contracting sole proprietorship (line-by-line deduction), Cisco/Oracle/MCSE certificates (certified scrum-master), and I intend to stick it all the way to the Man!
Nothing is more discouraging than watching Joe and Jane from high school and college getting promotions at their consulting, law and medical careers knowing that I was way smarter than they were. Cue Kurt Vonneghan, "The real horror is waking up one day and realizing your high school class is running the country"; well, I'm just slightly disgusted that just the undeserving plebes, not the popular high school kids are buying McMansions and starter luxury cars!
Well, at least I'm part of the enlightened. I got my security clearance (no H1B competition), my personal contracting sole proprietorship (line-by-line deduction), Cisco/Oracle/MCSE certificates (certified scrum-master), and I intend to stick it all the way to the Man!
> knowing that I was way smarter than they were.
You're not smarter than them. If you were, you would have thought about your career, instead of sloppily stumbling into the first thing that appealed to the teenage version of you.
You're not smarter than them. If you were, you would have thought about your career, instead of sloppily stumbling into the first thing that appealed to the teenage version of you.
The most important salary negotiation tip:
DON'T TELL THEM HOW MUCH YOU ARE CURRENTLY BEING PAID OR GIVE THEM A RANGE.
Recruiters always ask this up front and INSIST that they must know. I have NEVER been denied the opportunity to interview for refusing to give a number upfront.
If you're applying at a company, it means you've done at least a little research on what they should be expected to pay and you see somewhere around that range as acceptable. You don't have to tell them that you've researched their rates and find them acceptable, because that too would be like giving them a range, instead the research is simply to avoid wasting your time. You wouldn't want to interview for a job that pays the position with compensation worth at most $60k when you're already making at least $100k.
This way, you have an advantage: you know roughly how much they pay but they have almost no idea how much (i.e. how little) you will accept as compensation. Best case scenario, they offer you MORE than what your research said they would, and you negotiate a little more on top of it and accept, assuming you actually like the job. Even if they say no to your counter offer, you're still ahead. Worst case scenario, they offer you less, they say no to your counter offers, and you have to decline. Either your research was wrong or they were lowballing you, either way you've got multiple other interviews in process (right?) so move on. If you find your research is repeatedly off the mark, find better sources.
No matter what, don't give them a number. Make them give you a number first and negotiate from there.
Recruiters always ask this up front and INSIST that they must know. I have NEVER been denied the opportunity to interview for refusing to give a number upfront.
If you're applying at a company, it means you've done at least a little research on what they should be expected to pay and you see somewhere around that range as acceptable. You don't have to tell them that you've researched their rates and find them acceptable, because that too would be like giving them a range, instead the research is simply to avoid wasting your time. You wouldn't want to interview for a job that pays the position with compensation worth at most $60k when you're already making at least $100k.
This way, you have an advantage: you know roughly how much they pay but they have almost no idea how much (i.e. how little) you will accept as compensation. Best case scenario, they offer you MORE than what your research said they would, and you negotiate a little more on top of it and accept, assuming you actually like the job. Even if they say no to your counter offer, you're still ahead. Worst case scenario, they offer you less, they say no to your counter offers, and you have to decline. Either your research was wrong or they were lowballing you, either way you've got multiple other interviews in process (right?) so move on. If you find your research is repeatedly off the mark, find better sources.
No matter what, don't give them a number. Make them give you a number first and negotiate from there.
From the hirer side, maybe this is unreasonable given "No matter what, don't give them a number," but my past experiences on the other side of the table lead me to try and press a different dynamic. I try to get us and applicants talking salary during the first interview, before we even know if we fit each other at all.
The rationale is:
A) If how much money you want from us isn't even an option, we don't waste your time. We can be very up-front about that before a lengthy interview process proceeds.
B) We can judge your follow-up interview (generally a full-day paid tryout) against how much you expect to be paid. Which on the negative side lets us weed out expensive mediocrity, or on the positive side, give opportunities to people who aren't quite there yet but wouldn't cost much to take a chance on and try to train up.
A few people definitely look at it with suspicion, but in general I think it's worked out better for everyone.
Also, as an aside, I would take issue with what you said about researching what a company pays. For so many companies (mostly small ones), all you can do is ask around and find a current or former employee who is willing to tell you. And that is so often, for most applicants, not an opportunity you get. I think you're making that research sound much easier than it actually is.
The rationale is:
A) If how much money you want from us isn't even an option, we don't waste your time. We can be very up-front about that before a lengthy interview process proceeds.
B) We can judge your follow-up interview (generally a full-day paid tryout) against how much you expect to be paid. Which on the negative side lets us weed out expensive mediocrity, or on the positive side, give opportunities to people who aren't quite there yet but wouldn't cost much to take a chance on and try to train up.
A few people definitely look at it with suspicion, but in general I think it's worked out better for everyone.
Also, as an aside, I would take issue with what you said about researching what a company pays. For so many companies (mostly small ones), all you can do is ask around and find a current or former employee who is willing to tell you. And that is so often, for most applicants, not an opportunity you get. I think you're making that research sound much easier than it actually is.
So as a recruiter, why not just state the salary range for the position, if that's fixed?
Then if the amount of money I want from you as a potential employee isn't an option, I won't waste both of our times in applying.
Then if the amount of money I want from you as a potential employee isn't an option, I won't waste both of our times in applying.
Because it's not fixed. We don't usually hire for a particular, specific level of talent/experience except in rare cases when we need to fill out a specific growth area. We just bring in people who seem interesting and then see if we can fit them somewhere.
Also, we're honestly pretty new at this. Our company's a little over two years old, and only in the past year have we gone from poaching people we already know and trust to interviewing people we've never met.
Also, we're honestly pretty new at this. Our company's a little over two years old, and only in the past year have we gone from poaching people we already know and trust to interviewing people we've never met.
A) If how much money you want from us isn't even an option, we don't waste your time.
Because it's not fixed. We don't usually hire for a particular, specific level of talent/experience except in rare cases...
You may not realize it, but those two statements are contradictory.
Asking price and value are correlated values. If you have a hard limit on what you can pay, you have a soft limit on the quality of your candidates. And by putting a low-pass filter on the interview process, you are clipping off higher levels of talent/experience.
Because it's not fixed. We don't usually hire for a particular, specific level of talent/experience except in rare cases...
You may not realize it, but those two statements are contradictory.
Asking price and value are correlated values. If you have a hard limit on what you can pay, you have a soft limit on the quality of your candidates. And by putting a low-pass filter on the interview process, you are clipping off higher levels of talent/experience.
If you want applications to talk salary from the start, do you also hold yourself to that theory and mention salary range on the job application/first phone call?
Or do you only want the employee to give up information?
Or do you only want the employee to give up information?
[deleted]
I have three times been denied the opportunity to interview because I refused to give away my bargaining power in this fashion.
If a company won't interview you until after you say a number, you don't want to work for them. Really, you don't. They are literally making their first interaction with you a dominance game designed to decrease your compensation. How do you think that will pan out for you two years down the road?
If a company won't interview you until after you say a number, you don't want to work for them. Really, you don't. They are literally making their first interaction with you a dominance game designed to decrease your compensation. How do you think that will pan out for you two years down the road?
I have to agree, and even add: Never tell them first what you what want as payment. My method was always to say: Lets delay this unimportant money question. I'm a coder, I want to talk about coding, about your company culture, about your projects, about your testing environments, ... all those are much more important to me then salary.
And when they come out with a price tag finally I often tell: Well thats a nice salary for 20 hours per week work.
And guess what? I got 20 hours contracts this way 3 times.
And when they come out with a price tag finally I often tell: Well thats a nice salary for 20 hours per week work.
And guess what? I got 20 hours contracts this way 3 times.
Sounds nice, but I would make a big difference between being a contractor and an employee. Where I live, hiring contractors is much less risky (because of employment laws etc), therefore for contractors it is quite natural to pay more. I'm an employer myself.
Hourly payment is good for employees, and bad for consultants.
I'm now consulting again, and I avoid selling hours, because hours do not scale. Instead I sell solutions, because a solution to a problem likely has a much higher value than the hours summed up.
Also, if you switch from consulting to being employed you can ask for much better terms, then anyone who had been unemployed before. Always add the term to your contract, to allow you stay self employed in addition to employement, to serve old customers. And if you leave a company, offer them a maintenance contract.
For employed people, sometimes the 'cost of living' argument can make wonders. e.g. I once had a query from Munich, and after we went several weeks till I accepted negitiation of salary, I came up with:
I'll play only €208 per month for my flat in Bremen, including heating, waste removal and water. I only pay €100 for my yacht per year, including boats house in winter and mooring in summer. Your offer sounds nice, but rentals are 5 times as expensive in Munich, then in Bremen, and I better do not talk about prices for mooring a yacht in southern Germany. Get me a similar fat and mooring in Munich, or what do you think about home office + Bahn card gold (to ride the train for free) to visit your location once a week + hotel costs.
And you can really get those, if you switch from consulting to employed, because the company does prefer employed.
I'm now consulting again, and I avoid selling hours, because hours do not scale. Instead I sell solutions, because a solution to a problem likely has a much higher value than the hours summed up.
Also, if you switch from consulting to being employed you can ask for much better terms, then anyone who had been unemployed before. Always add the term to your contract, to allow you stay self employed in addition to employement, to serve old customers. And if you leave a company, offer them a maintenance contract.
For employed people, sometimes the 'cost of living' argument can make wonders. e.g. I once had a query from Munich, and after we went several weeks till I accepted negitiation of salary, I came up with:
I'll play only €208 per month for my flat in Bremen, including heating, waste removal and water. I only pay €100 for my yacht per year, including boats house in winter and mooring in summer. Your offer sounds nice, but rentals are 5 times as expensive in Munich, then in Bremen, and I better do not talk about prices for mooring a yacht in southern Germany. Get me a similar fat and mooring in Munich, or what do you think about home office + Bahn card gold (to ride the train for free) to visit your location once a week + hotel costs.
And you can really get those, if you switch from consulting to employed, because the company does prefer employed.
> I'll play only €208 per month for my flat in Bremen, including heating, waste removal and water. I only pay €100 for my yacht per year, including boats house in winter and mooring in summer.
Sheesh that's cheap. I can't think of anywhere in the UK where I could get either for that price.
Sheesh that's cheap. I can't think of anywhere in the UK where I could get either for that price.
>I'll play only €208 per month for my flat in Bremen
I also live in germany and I'm always confused when americans talk about salary because I have no idea what the cost of living is. The only thing I know is that gas and electronics are cheaper in the US.
I also live in germany and I'm always confused when americans talk about salary because I have no idea what the cost of living is. The only thing I know is that gas and electronics are cheaper in the US.
Of course you tell them what you want first. Why would you wait? You want to be setting the stage, and anchor any subsequent numbers.
While I don't normally believe in lying during a hiring process, a former boss once told me that the right way to answer the "how much do you make?" question is to say you're currently making what you want them to pay you, figuring that they'll tack a bit more on top of that.
I haven't decided if I'm open to lying like that or not, but I liked it.
I haven't decided if I'm open to lying like that or not, but I liked it.
Being honest usually doesn't get you very far in a job search. It's sad but true. I've found stating that I have a BS when I don't at least gets me passed the auto filters. Then it's usually not as big of a deal once I talk to a person and they see my experience and I mention I don't have a 4 year degree.
I've seen people have offers retracted when something they've lied about is discovered, including lying about current salary, sadly.
IMO if someone's having issues getting past autofilters, they're doing it wrong. Personal network, reputation, etc doesn't need to pass through filters
IMO if someone's having issues getting past autofilters, they're doing it wrong. Personal network, reputation, etc doesn't need to pass through filters
One problem with that is that if they can see your tax details, they will know what you were on. If they catch you lying in the interview you could be fired. So if you ever piss off your boss, or they don't like you, they can let you go immediatly.
In countries that aren't the USA, and don't have that "at-will" crap, giving up all the legal employment rights is a bad move to make.
In countries that aren't the USA, and don't have that "at-will" crap, giving up all the legal employment rights is a bad move to make.
it means you've done at least a little research on what they should be expected to pay and you see somewhere around that range as acceptable. You don't have to tell them that you've researched their rates and find them acceptable
If you find your research is repeatedly off the mark, find better sources.
I'd be very much interested in what are you sources/methodology to carry out this research. I mean, if the company you are applying to is big and well-known ( and listed in glassdoor, angel list, etc), I may have a chance to figure out the rates. However even in the case of known companies, I often cannot find the salary information and instead I'm left with the classic competitive pay/salary/compensation.
Finding out these rates for each company is even harder if you want to be hired as a contractor.
If you find your research is repeatedly off the mark, find better sources.
I'd be very much interested in what are you sources/methodology to carry out this research. I mean, if the company you are applying to is big and well-known ( and listed in glassdoor, angel list, etc), I may have a chance to figure out the rates. However even in the case of known companies, I often cannot find the salary information and instead I'm left with the classic competitive pay/salary/compensation.
Finding out these rates for each company is even harder if you want to be hired as a contractor.
> DON'T TELL THEM HOW MUCH YOU ARE CURRENTLY BEING PAID OR GIVE THEM A RANGE. [...] No matter what, don't give them a number. Make them give you a number first and negotiate from there.
What tactic do you use for this?
What tactic do you use for this?
I tell them: "We both know that how much I am currently paid has absolutely nothing [emphasis in tone] to do with how you decide to compensate me."
This lets them know two things: 1. You're not going to divulge your current pay no matter what, and 2. Gives them a face-saving 'out' by complimenting them that their company is "different" and special (and makes it sound as if your compensation is totally their decision; the negotiation over a number has not begun yet).
This lets them know two things: 1. You're not going to divulge your current pay no matter what, and 2. Gives them a face-saving 'out' by complimenting them that their company is "different" and special (and makes it sound as if your compensation is totally their decision; the negotiation over a number has not begun yet).
There's also the anchoring theory, where the discussion centres around the first number that any party says out loud. So in the case where the company goes first they might offer a low number (for them) which may be reasonable for you but not what you want.
So the way to use that to your advantage is to say a number first, but make sure it is far more than what you think you can get, but not absurdly high. That way if they accept you'll be pleasantly surprised, but if they negotiate down it will be around that figure.
Of course if you're not confident in that, just let them put out the first number and go from there. But NEVER tell them what you are currently getting, that will anchor your salary to what it is now plus a small increase.
So the way to use that to your advantage is to say a number first, but make sure it is far more than what you think you can get, but not absurdly high. That way if they accept you'll be pleasantly surprised, but if they negotiate down it will be around that figure.
Of course if you're not confident in that, just let them put out the first number and go from there. But NEVER tell them what you are currently getting, that will anchor your salary to what it is now plus a small increase.
"I'm sorry but my employement contract with my current employer doesn't let me talk about my current salary while I'm employed. You wouldn't want to employ someone who breaks contracts, would you?"
Btw, I've heard exactly the opposite. That by giving a number first-hand, you can anchor the price point, and therefore gain an edge. What about giving them a number, what kind of salary you would except, instead of giving the number how much you earn now?
yes, its commonly only recommended to offer first IF you expect their offer to be WAY off from yours or expect them to significantly lowball you. ie set the negotiations into a range, and make them the bad guys for revealing they had:
a. a lower opinion of what you're abilities are worth
b. lower expectations for what you'd be delivering
c. lower value of the position they need filled
a. a lower opinion of what you're abilities are worth
b. lower expectations for what you'd be delivering
c. lower value of the position they need filled
I used to trick of pretending that I was contractially forbidden (by my current employers) to talk about my salary.
Here is another similar guide. Easier said than done of course. http://www.kalzumeus.com/2012/01/23/salary-negotiation/
Patrick has done a much better job at this than me and I wholly second this, please read his guide first, then skim mine to see if there is anything useful in it. When I wrote mine Patrick's did not exist yet, if it had then I would have happily skipped writing it.
I was coming here to post that same link. It's much longer, but contains many more specific situational examples, and more comprehensive advice.
Thanks for posting this, it's in the same vein as the original link but far more thorough.
this post can be summarized by two concepts that are typically taught in business schools:
1) do value based pricing not cost-plus for your labor (ask for what the market will bear, not your cost of living plus some small 'profit' on top of that)
2) have a batna (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Best_alternative_to_a_negoti...), i.e., another offer so you have leverage in the negotiation
i've ignored these tenets exactly once, and that remains an unpleasant memory for me. every other time, it's resulted in increases of 10-40% in comp & benefits. of course, you should balance comp with qualitative advantages, but the point is not to just let yourself get screwed. =)
1) do value based pricing not cost-plus for your labor (ask for what the market will bear, not your cost of living plus some small 'profit' on top of that)
2) have a batna (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Best_alternative_to_a_negoti...), i.e., another offer so you have leverage in the negotiation
i've ignored these tenets exactly once, and that remains an unpleasant memory for me. every other time, it's resulted in increases of 10-40% in comp & benefits. of course, you should balance comp with qualitative advantages, but the point is not to just let yourself get screwed. =)
Getting around "cost plus" thinking is definitely a major point. I think developers, as a group, are generally concerned with the concept of fairness and "cost plus" thinking is a huge part of that. Take, for example, the top comment in this thread[0], which posits the solution to airlines' problem with SkipLagged as pricing a "ticket based on what it costs and a fair margin".
Things rarely work like that in the real world. This is not to knock the concept of "fairness" as being naive or useless, but rather just to point out economic realities: Companies do not necessarily price things in terms of "cost plus", but rather try to optimize. In some cases, they may sell certain items at below cost or near cost in order to attract customers for some other items.
In fact, negotiating for a market rate can be seen in the light of fairness and "cost plus". If you suspect you are underpaid, and research (Glassdoor, etc.) suggests this, then implicitly, your time is less valued than some of your colleagues. I doubt many would say their time "costs" less than others'; thus, would such a suggestion be fair?
0. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8813138
Things rarely work like that in the real world. This is not to knock the concept of "fairness" as being naive or useless, but rather just to point out economic realities: Companies do not necessarily price things in terms of "cost plus", but rather try to optimize. In some cases, they may sell certain items at below cost or near cost in order to attract customers for some other items.
In fact, negotiating for a market rate can be seen in the light of fairness and "cost plus". If you suspect you are underpaid, and research (Glassdoor, etc.) suggests this, then implicitly, your time is less valued than some of your colleagues. I doubt many would say their time "costs" less than others'; thus, would such a suggestion be fair?
0. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8813138
here's an idea:
The market for developers is a lemon's market.
That means, if you have 100 good cars selling at $2000, and 100 lemon cars selling at $1000, all the lemons will sell first, because the people making purchasing decisions aren't expert enough to tell the difference.
So it is very rare to be paid based on value, because why would a [CEO|CTO|hiring manager|whatever] pay $1M for this guy, when he can pay $150k for that guy, and he can't really tell the difference between them?
Just an idea, I haven't seen this discussed anywhere, what do you guys think?
The market for developers is a lemon's market.
That means, if you have 100 good cars selling at $2000, and 100 lemon cars selling at $1000, all the lemons will sell first, because the people making purchasing decisions aren't expert enough to tell the difference.
So it is very rare to be paid based on value, because why would a [CEO|CTO|hiring manager|whatever] pay $1M for this guy, when he can pay $150k for that guy, and he can't really tell the difference between them?
Just an idea, I haven't seen this discussed anywhere, what do you guys think?
Interesting perspective on it. The comparison seems valid to me since it will take probably 3-6 months to really know if you ended up with a lemon of an employee. That is if the manager can tell the difference. Obviously excluding a bad hire/non-match which would be obvious in week 1 or 2.
When I think about this perspective, another way to state it is that maybe the work being done doesn't actually need the costly person?
Back to the car analogy, if your requirements are to drive 5-10 miles per day do you need a luxury car with GPS, sound system, leather, headlight wipers, etc.? Or can you use a beat up car that might be a lemon that mostly works? And when the beat up car has problems you get another one. This seems to be the approach larger companies (emp_count > 5000) take since they want to commoditize the work and make the employees completely replaceable.
When I think about this perspective, another way to state it is that maybe the work being done doesn't actually need the costly person?
Back to the car analogy, if your requirements are to drive 5-10 miles per day do you need a luxury car with GPS, sound system, leather, headlight wipers, etc.? Or can you use a beat up car that might be a lemon that mostly works? And when the beat up car has problems you get another one. This seems to be the approach larger companies (emp_count > 5000) take since they want to commoditize the work and make the employees completely replaceable.
It's probably an issue which is why to get rich it's good to own equity in the company. Take for example Brian Acton, turned down for a job at Facebook in 2009, cofounded Whatsapp, acquired by Facebook in 2014 for $19bn.
Almost all people who turn down jobs at Facebook go on to not be billionaires.
Indeed and Facebook can't tell who's going to so they'll pay more the $150k rather than the $1m. Dunno the best strategy if you think you're worth $1m. Probably take the $150k job and jump ship if there seems a great opportunity or if you feel the need. That's kind of what the Whatsapp guys did - they worked as engineers at Yahoo for about nine years before taking a year off and then doing the app stuff.
I dont think the CEO should be doing the hiring... it should really be the tech lead -> CEO later to confirm?
Ill clarify bluntly because apparently this was worth a -1.
"when he can pay $150k for that guy, and he can't really tell the difference between them?"
Your tech lead should be able to tell the difference and see the actual value in programmers and explain that to the money people. That is why this lemon theory entirely requires a bad hiring structure.
"when he can pay $150k for that guy, and he can't really tell the difference between them?"
Your tech lead should be able to tell the difference and see the actual value in programmers and explain that to the money people. That is why this lemon theory entirely requires a bad hiring structure.
In (my) theory your salary is between the company's best alternative (hiring someone else for X) and your best alternative (go work for other company for Y).
Companies do well as they interview many candidates. Developers generally do worse as they go to less interviews - obviously due to resource constrains.
If you are shit hot good, both X and Y go up. The black magic of negotiating is a rounding error compared to how great & unique you are.
Companies do well as they interview many candidates. Developers generally do worse as they go to less interviews - obviously due to resource constrains.
If you are shit hot good, both X and Y go up. The black magic of negotiating is a rounding error compared to how great & unique you are.
Exactly! Keep interviewing, and be ready to jump ship. If you are willing to relocate, the world is your oyster.
And you don't have to be all that great and unique. Interviewing for a tech job is a skill you improve with just a bit of practice.
And you don't have to be all that great and unique. Interviewing for a tech job is a skill you improve with just a bit of practice.
Nice advice, but I feel like articles like this make marginal improvements to my comfort and skill at negotiation.
I think perhaps it boils down to unfamiliarity: I've done it a very small number of times, and it feels alien and weird. Especially some of the language used. Compare that with a manager who has hired $x employees a month for a decade, and doesn't think anything of it.
I wonder: Are there any videos available of negotiations (real or realistically faked) where one could build familiarity with what a successful negotiation looks and sounds like? I think that might be a useful addition to textual "how to" guides like this.
I think perhaps it boils down to unfamiliarity: I've done it a very small number of times, and it feels alien and weird. Especially some of the language used. Compare that with a manager who has hired $x employees a month for a decade, and doesn't think anything of it.
I wonder: Are there any videos available of negotiations (real or realistically faked) where one could build familiarity with what a successful negotiation looks and sounds like? I think that might be a useful addition to textual "how to" guides like this.
I don't have any videos, but I've found this book, Negotiating Your Salary: How to Make $1000 a Minute[0] to be helpful. Sensational title aside[1], it's actually a fairly concise and easy-to-read guide with examples of questions/answers for various situations, strategies and counters to commonly-used negotiating tactics.
It's mainly focused on salary negotiations during/after an interview, but I get the sense this is what you were after. Apologies if this was not the case.
0. http://www.amazon.com/Negotiating-Your-Salary-Minute-Revised...
1. The title may not be so sensational in my experience; most negotiations don't take hours and thus while the effect may not be "$1000 a Minute", it may not be that far off.
It's mainly focused on salary negotiations during/after an interview, but I get the sense this is what you were after. Apologies if this was not the case.
0. http://www.amazon.com/Negotiating-Your-Salary-Minute-Revised...
1. The title may not be so sensational in my experience; most negotiations don't take hours and thus while the effect may not be "$1000 a Minute", it may not be that far off.
Try out Ramit Sethi's videos (http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XY5SeCl_8NE). I haven't watched any yet myself but I've heard they are good. He also has an article on negotiation at http://www.iwillteachyoutoberich.com/blog/salary-negotiation...
Started watching that video and got 5 minutes into it. Thank you for sharing it. It shows good negotiation techniques but it brings out two thoughts/emotions in me.
1. This conversation is painful/awkward 2. Prepping for negotiations is stressful
1. This conversation is painful/awkward 2. Prepping for negotiations is stressful
More money will reduce the stress in your life (if you are using it right). So overall, it's still a net reduction.
[deleted]
There is one danger to taking stock that should be made more explicit - you weaken your future negotiation power with the company, since payment by stock already ties your hands some, especially if you haven't gotten past the 1 year cliff.
Depends on how you take stock. If your on a vesting schedule that hasn't vested then you need to wait for your cliffs like mentioned. If you agree to purchase the stocks using warrants then you are in a better position.
Do you have any favorite links/resources re: warrants?
I'm about to ask for a raise for the first time but I'm not entirely sure how to handle it. I've been with this company for 7 years and only received 2-3% increases the past 3 years. I interviewed at a competitor and they offered me a 20% increase, which I turned down.
During negotiations should I simply ask for them to match? I don't want them to think I'm actively looking for a new job but want to get paid my worth.
During negotiations should I simply ask for them to match? I don't want them to think I'm actively looking for a new job but want to get paid my worth.
I recently asked for (and was awarded) a raise. I have weekly 1-on-1's with my boss (CEO) - they usually go for about an hour & we simply talk about everything happening in the business/team.
At the end, I simply said 'Something I want to bring up is that I've looked at the market and I don't feel I am being paid adequately for the value I'm creating'. I'd be lying if I said it wasn't an awkward conversation. I didn't mention any number at all & was actually met with a slightly negative response, but a week later at the next 1-on-1, it was brought up again & I was awarded a 10% cash raise (I negotiated some ISO's too).
In your scenario, I wouldn't tell them that you interviewed at a competitor either. You can simply tell them that you've looked at other roles & determined market rate as being higher than what you're currently paid. Only use another offer as leverage if you are prepared to leave & take that offer.
Modesty aside, I'll also admit that I'm a high performer in our team & so I already knew that I had leverage. Something I've learned though is that unless you bring it up, it's never going to happen - there is no-one looking out for you unfortunately, so take the initiative & help yourself where you can - it equates to hundreds of thousands of dollars over your career.
At the end, I simply said 'Something I want to bring up is that I've looked at the market and I don't feel I am being paid adequately for the value I'm creating'. I'd be lying if I said it wasn't an awkward conversation. I didn't mention any number at all & was actually met with a slightly negative response, but a week later at the next 1-on-1, it was brought up again & I was awarded a 10% cash raise (I negotiated some ISO's too).
In your scenario, I wouldn't tell them that you interviewed at a competitor either. You can simply tell them that you've looked at other roles & determined market rate as being higher than what you're currently paid. Only use another offer as leverage if you are prepared to leave & take that offer.
Modesty aside, I'll also admit that I'm a high performer in our team & so I already knew that I had leverage. Something I've learned though is that unless you bring it up, it's never going to happen - there is no-one looking out for you unfortunately, so take the initiative & help yourself where you can - it equates to hundreds of thousands of dollars over your career.
I think the dynamic at your company (where you're a direct report to the CEO) is a totally different animal than your standard corporate dev job. When you're working at a place that employs 1000+ people, these types of conversations are much less likely to go in the direction of the employee.
That's true - we're a small (15 person) team & I lead Design & Product so the CEO is my "direct report".
However, just because you have a lower likelihood of success, it doesn't mean you shouldn't ask. If you receive a 'No', it will probably speed up the inevitable decision of whether you actually want to stay with this company (knowing that they aren't going to incentivise your performance).
I would also keep in mind that you should only be asking if you either feel you're being paid lower than market or that you've taken on more responsibility so now your wage doesn't adequately match your role. Just asking periodically without a reason isn't going to work for anyone.
However, just because you have a lower likelihood of success, it doesn't mean you shouldn't ask. If you receive a 'No', it will probably speed up the inevitable decision of whether you actually want to stay with this company (knowing that they aren't going to incentivise your performance).
I would also keep in mind that you should only be asking if you either feel you're being paid lower than market or that you've taken on more responsibility so now your wage doesn't adequately match your role. Just asking periodically without a reason isn't going to work for anyone.
Because you've been at the company for 7 years they may take you for granted. You didn't make any noise or leave when you didn't get a raise for 3 years so they probably don't consider you to be a "flight risk".
Another possibility, is that you've stopped increasing your value to the company. This is normal. Einstein probably wasn't reading patents any faster at 7 years than he was at 3 years when he worked at the patent office.
More importantly to you, the company may not be a place where you can "up your game" any further. You need to seek out new jobs where you can increase your knowledge and value.
Another possibility, is that you've stopped increasing your value to the company. This is normal. Einstein probably wasn't reading patents any faster at 7 years than he was at 3 years when he worked at the patent office.
More importantly to you, the company may not be a place where you can "up your game" any further. You need to seek out new jobs where you can increase your knowledge and value.
Why did you turn down the offer? You are in a MUCH stronger position to ask for a raise with another offer in hand.
The easiest way to do this is to determine how much value your work has added to the company you work for. If the software you've worked on has added a million dollars in extra profit to the bottom line, that is a good starting point to start from. Secondary business objectives could count as well, e.g. increased customer satisfaction, innovation, etc.
A problem for many people is that it's hard to compute their exact value, or they are afraid to have that kind of discussion.
If you're being paid $75k a year, and you've added a significant amount to the bottom line, I doubt you'll have a hard time negotiating a $10-20-30k increase. Same goes for a new job: give them examples of achievements, and show how you were beneficial to the business.
Negotiating a new secondary offer is a great thing to do; it gives you additional leverage. If there's a chance a value creating employee will leave, there is no reason not to give a raise. You could use that offer to negotiate a 25-35% increase, if you can show the value you've created at your current company.
To put it bluntly, most employees are actually not worth that much. They get hired at the least amount possible, and they execute strategies, for the most part, set by a few people who are paid significant amounts.
I also like this Quora post: http://www.quora.com/What-kind-of-jobs-do-software-engineers.... Check out the first answer written by Amin Ariana; it explains things well.
A problem for many people is that it's hard to compute their exact value, or they are afraid to have that kind of discussion.
If you're being paid $75k a year, and you've added a significant amount to the bottom line, I doubt you'll have a hard time negotiating a $10-20-30k increase. Same goes for a new job: give them examples of achievements, and show how you were beneficial to the business.
Negotiating a new secondary offer is a great thing to do; it gives you additional leverage. If there's a chance a value creating employee will leave, there is no reason not to give a raise. You could use that offer to negotiate a 25-35% increase, if you can show the value you've created at your current company.
To put it bluntly, most employees are actually not worth that much. They get hired at the least amount possible, and they execute strategies, for the most part, set by a few people who are paid significant amounts.
I also like this Quora post: http://www.quora.com/What-kind-of-jobs-do-software-engineers.... Check out the first answer written by Amin Ariana; it explains things well.
The conversation would go something like, I am ready to take the next step in my career, take on more responsibility, company B have offered me a role doing X, Y, and Z, but I'm happy here and would like to stay, is there anything you can do for me?
The trick is, make them think you are not looking, but that others are looking at you.
But you have to have the offer in-hand, and you have to be willing to pull the trigger.
The trick is, make them think you are not looking, but that others are looking at you.
But you have to have the offer in-hand, and you have to be willing to pull the trigger.
I am unable to negotiate a raise (because I don't even try). I always got (10%-15%) more (in the next job) when I wanted to leave and looked for something else. Usually still having a job that I want to leave but not having to find something immediately allows me to to negotiate a higher salary. OTOH I never left a job just to get more money.
[deleted]
Well I wouldn't have turned down the 20% increase I would have taken that to my boss. Did the same thing and was made a counter offer that was better.
Leave! Then you will see how much you were worth.
I found this video useful.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=km2Hd_xgo9Q
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=km2Hd_xgo9Q
I just finished watching it, Very interesting!
I tried to find more information about the video, here's what I found:
An article from Harvard Business Review from the speaker[1], He summarizes the main points:
1) Don’t underestimate the importance of likability.
2) Help them understand why you deserve what you’re requesting.
3) Make it clear they can get you.
4) Understand the person across the table.
5) Understand their constraints.
6) Be prepared for tough questions.
7) Focus on the questioner’s intent, not on the question.
8) Consider the whole deal.
9) Negotiate multiple issues simultaneously, not serially.
10) Don’t negotiate just to negotiate.
11) Think through the timing of offers.
12) Avoid, ignore, or downplay ultimatums of any kind.
13) Remember, they’re not out to get you.
14) Stay at the table.
15) Maintain a sense of perspective.
Here is a quick summary from "BatMasterson" on that forum [2], they are useful for those who watch the video
Dr. Malhotra makes some good points.
I've summarized quotes from his lecture (not the entire 15 points) here:
1. Think about who you are and what you want do to in your life. Pick the right choice
2. What is not negotiable today may be negotiable tomorrow.
3. Stay engaged.
4. The Mike Tyson allusion: "Everybody has a plan until they get punched in the face"
5. Get the why they're asking what they are asking.
6. If they make an ultimatum, generally speaking, (you can) ignore it.
7. There is no right answer to every situation -The Star Trek Captain trial allusion where the answer is Yes...provided that, considering this...
8. These people like you but you are not their only concern.
9. Negotiating w/ your future boss is not the same as negotiating with HR "adapt-to-each".
10. Don't be in a mad rush to get offers
11. Tell the truth. Resist the temptation to tell even a small lie.
[1] https://hbr.org/2014/04/15-rules-for-negotiating-a-job-offer
[2] http://www.wallstreetoasis.com/blog/how-to-negotiate-your-jo...
An article from Harvard Business Review from the speaker[1], He summarizes the main points:
1) Don’t underestimate the importance of likability.
2) Help them understand why you deserve what you’re requesting.
3) Make it clear they can get you.
4) Understand the person across the table.
5) Understand their constraints.
6) Be prepared for tough questions.
7) Focus on the questioner’s intent, not on the question.
8) Consider the whole deal.
9) Negotiate multiple issues simultaneously, not serially.
10) Don’t negotiate just to negotiate.
11) Think through the timing of offers.
12) Avoid, ignore, or downplay ultimatums of any kind.
13) Remember, they’re not out to get you.
14) Stay at the table.
15) Maintain a sense of perspective.
Here is a quick summary from "BatMasterson" on that forum [2], they are useful for those who watch the video
Dr. Malhotra makes some good points.
I've summarized quotes from his lecture (not the entire 15 points) here:
1. Think about who you are and what you want do to in your life. Pick the right choice
2. What is not negotiable today may be negotiable tomorrow.
3. Stay engaged.
4. The Mike Tyson allusion: "Everybody has a plan until they get punched in the face"
5. Get the why they're asking what they are asking.
6. If they make an ultimatum, generally speaking, (you can) ignore it.
7. There is no right answer to every situation -The Star Trek Captain trial allusion where the answer is Yes...provided that, considering this...
8. These people like you but you are not their only concern.
9. Negotiating w/ your future boss is not the same as negotiating with HR "adapt-to-each".
10. Don't be in a mad rush to get offers
11. Tell the truth. Resist the temptation to tell even a small lie.
[1] https://hbr.org/2014/04/15-rules-for-negotiating-a-job-offer
[2] http://www.wallstreetoasis.com/blog/how-to-negotiate-your-jo...
A few more reads on this subject that I have collected from HN:
* http://www.kalzumeus.com/2012/01/23/salary-negotiation/
* http://www.kalzumeus.com/2011/10/28/dont-call-yourself-a-pro...
* https://keen.io/blog/29904565692/how-i-negotiated-my-startup...
* http://www.kalzumeus.com/2012/01/23/salary-negotiation/
* http://www.kalzumeus.com/2011/10/28/dont-call-yourself-a-pro...
* https://keen.io/blog/29904565692/how-i-negotiated-my-startup...
This post is a condensed version of an already short book I recently read - Breaking the Time Barrier [1]. I recommend reading both.
Like the author of this post says, calculating the value you're adding with your work is the only true way to accurately price yourself. It may not be as easy to do as someone who works in sales but it's worth your time to do so.
Shortly after reading BtTB, I had a new contract opportunity come my way. I doubled my hourly rate.
[1] https://www.freshbooks.com/breaking-the-time-barrier
Like the author of this post says, calculating the value you're adding with your work is the only true way to accurately price yourself. It may not be as easy to do as someone who works in sales but it's worth your time to do so.
Shortly after reading BtTB, I had a new contract opportunity come my way. I doubled my hourly rate.
[1] https://www.freshbooks.com/breaking-the-time-barrier
Does just receiving an annual performance bonus make your negotiating position stronger or weaker?
How long would you wait after the bonus to ask for a raise?
What if you don't want to stay at your company much longer? Should you still ask for a raise, and would you feel unethical for leaving soon after getting a raise?
How long would you wait after the bonus to ask for a raise?
What if you don't want to stay at your company much longer? Should you still ask for a raise, and would you feel unethical for leaving soon after getting a raise?
If you plan on leaving shortly, what's the point in asking for a raise? I would not say it's unethical. It just seems like a waste of time.
As an intermediate developer I've managed to quadruple my wage after going from full-time (40 hours) to contracting rates (30+ hours, 6-month term). I brought up the fact that my side projects are starting to gain traction, but I know the work I'm doing for the company is important and I'd like to finish what I started.
I also brought up that I've had a few job offers with highly reputable firms, and my current career growth had stagnated where I was currently positioned.
Basically; me me me.
I also brought up that I've had a few job offers with highly reputable firms, and my current career growth had stagnated where I was currently positioned.
Basically; me me me.
my short version:
Every two to three years start looking for another job - chances are you are being underpaid and holding out for a meaningful raise or promotion is usually a bad idea. Few companies seem to keep salaries properly indexed to the market. At least in IT.
When you get an offer - always always counter it. No reasonable business is going to withdraw an offer if you counter. Figure out what you're worth and add 5-10%. If the first offer is already on the 'high end' of the spectrum still counter and ask for a signing bonus, options, better year end bonus, or more vacation. That will most likely be the most profitable email/phone-call you'll have - at least until you repeat the process in 2-3 years.
Every two to three years start looking for another job - chances are you are being underpaid and holding out for a meaningful raise or promotion is usually a bad idea. Few companies seem to keep salaries properly indexed to the market. At least in IT.
When you get an offer - always always counter it. No reasonable business is going to withdraw an offer if you counter. Figure out what you're worth and add 5-10%. If the first offer is already on the 'high end' of the spectrum still counter and ask for a signing bonus, options, better year end bonus, or more vacation. That will most likely be the most profitable email/phone-call you'll have - at least until you repeat the process in 2-3 years.
Make sure you start high then request a 5% raise Every year!
If you wait five years and request 25% it's Never gonna happen!
If possible, try to get 2.5% every six month.
> Make sure you start high then request a 5% raise Every year! If you wait five years and request 25% it's Never gonna happen! If possible, try to get 2.5% every six month.
It's worth noting that due to compounding, these are not mathematically the same.
In 5 years:
5%/year: 27% raise from base
2.5%/6mo: 28% raise from base
It's worth noting that due to compounding, these are not mathematically the same.
In 5 years:
5%/year: 27% raise from base
2.5%/6mo: 28% raise from base
Thanks! I was hopping someone would interpret that.
Also, your boss probably hates these talks just like you do, and want to get you out of the room as fast as possible. So go low and often.
Depending on where you are and how good you are, 5% (or 2.5% semi-annually) annually is likely low. Any competent developer should be able to negotiate $5000+ raises in 6-12 months based on performance (or jump to a job paying much better).
I'm very happy to be with a company that has a standard policy of yearly 10-15% pay increases. We tend to do unexciting and sometimes just plain weird contract work for other companies, so my company has to pay us what we're worth to keep us around.
Which company is that? I will send them my resume right now.
If you want to know what companies offer as base salaries check this website I made that uses H1B wage data. The tech companies have a very wide range for negotiation at each level and it's important to know that when you go into salary negotiations. Although this is H1B data, for top companies these are the same base salaries that US residents are also making, and they are pretty damn high....Look at google for example: http://salarytalk.org/search#%7B%22qcompanyName%22%3A%22goog...
Looking through the pages for "software engineer" I see mostly in the range of $90k - $135k with a few outliers. This is pretty reasonable for a big software company in my experience. There are some that are $200k or more, but these are probably very specialized roles.
Even searching through all companies there are some down lower around $70k, but most of these are companies I've never heard of, in locations that are likely cheaper than New York, SF bay area, etc where Google has offices.
Even searching through all companies there are some down lower around $70k, but most of these are companies I've never heard of, in locations that are likely cheaper than New York, SF bay area, etc where Google has offices.
Thanks for the observation. Yes, averaging over all companies will give you those results. Remember that is a comprehensive list over all companies in the USA. If you're targeting companies like Google, sort by descending order in wage, and then scroll through the first 50 records, about 40 of those are software engineers with salaries way above 200K. I think that's phenomenal.
That is an absolutely fascinating data set.
I'm really curious, for the technical salaries that are 500k+, does anyone know what is going on? There basically appear to be a bunch of random system analyst, database administrator and similar positions pulling down 600k in the most random places around the country.
I'm really curious, for the technical salaries that are 500k+, does anyone know what is going on? There basically appear to be a bunch of random system analyst, database administrator and similar positions pulling down 600k in the most random places around the country.
> Technology people are without a doubt the most inept group when it comes to negotiating for compensation.
I would rephrase it as:
People that love what they do are without a doubt the most inept group when it comes to negotiating for compensation.
I think it doesn't matter if you are from IT, an architect or any other job. If you really like what you do, you don't mind to do it for minimal money and business people will exploit that weakness. For example, in architectural field, relevant architects are sometimes invited to be guest teachers in colleges. Once one said during his class:
If they discover that I like to come here, they will stop paying me.
I would rephrase it as:
People that love what they do are without a doubt the most inept group when it comes to negotiating for compensation.
I think it doesn't matter if you are from IT, an architect or any other job. If you really like what you do, you don't mind to do it for minimal money and business people will exploit that weakness. For example, in architectural field, relevant architects are sometimes invited to be guest teachers in colleges. Once one said during his class:
If they discover that I like to come here, they will stop paying me.
"the first is that they usually actually like their jobs. As long as they get to work with the cool tech and the neat toys, they’ll sleep under their desks if they have to."
I have never seen anyone like that who for example have a family... Only very young and very naive people do this; maybe there are lots of them, but I don't think they are the majority.
"our average programmer approaches salary negotiations like this: (1) I need ‘x’ to survive. (2) It would be nice to save a bit. (3) I need to pay my taxes."
That seems to be a strawman. I mean some very young and very naive programmers would do that, but all my programmer friends do this:
(1) I am a fairly good C++ developer. (2) I ask all my fairly good C++ programmer friends how much they are paid in the country where I live. I also ask them which are the companies which pay wel, so that I will apply to those. (3) I try to ask for the upper part of that range, at the companies I have heard pay well. I try multiple companies.
And basically that's what you can do. Bigger companies are mostly looking for replacable people. They mostly need 'good C++ programmers'/'good enterprise java developers'/'good web developers' etc... and will train you in their special systems. They will not care about your reasoning about how much business value you bring to their company: First that is so hard to measure that you cannot measure that, second they just do dozens of interviews with other people, and will simply hire other people if you want bigger pay than the realistic market range.
When you are a big gun or a specialist with some very unique skills, or when you are talking to a smaller company who have no established policy on developer salaries than there is more to it. But for most people at most companies: You just have to know the typical salary 'your kind' can get, and you have to ask for that, and that is all to it.
Programmers are mostly a commodity, but a quite well paid commodity at most companies. Which means that you can get a quite good salary without having extremely good negotiation skills (just using the heuristic I described), but you cannot get much more whatever negotiation skills you have.
I have never seen anyone like that who for example have a family... Only very young and very naive people do this; maybe there are lots of them, but I don't think they are the majority.
"our average programmer approaches salary negotiations like this: (1) I need ‘x’ to survive. (2) It would be nice to save a bit. (3) I need to pay my taxes."
That seems to be a strawman. I mean some very young and very naive programmers would do that, but all my programmer friends do this:
(1) I am a fairly good C++ developer. (2) I ask all my fairly good C++ programmer friends how much they are paid in the country where I live. I also ask them which are the companies which pay wel, so that I will apply to those. (3) I try to ask for the upper part of that range, at the companies I have heard pay well. I try multiple companies.
And basically that's what you can do. Bigger companies are mostly looking for replacable people. They mostly need 'good C++ programmers'/'good enterprise java developers'/'good web developers' etc... and will train you in their special systems. They will not care about your reasoning about how much business value you bring to their company: First that is so hard to measure that you cannot measure that, second they just do dozens of interviews with other people, and will simply hire other people if you want bigger pay than the realistic market range.
When you are a big gun or a specialist with some very unique skills, or when you are talking to a smaller company who have no established policy on developer salaries than there is more to it. But for most people at most companies: You just have to know the typical salary 'your kind' can get, and you have to ask for that, and that is all to it.
Programmers are mostly a commodity, but a quite well paid commodity at most companies. Which means that you can get a quite good salary without having extremely good negotiation skills (just using the heuristic I described), but you cannot get much more whatever negotiation skills you have.
As long as you do not own what is being produced you will always be in a 'time for money' situation. You are trading your time for money (sometimes 5% more a year - or 15% more a year, if you strategically play chess with the job market and your skills niche).
I believe we are all much better off if we focus on building our own niche community/product (a.k.a. http://javascriptweekly.com - the number of subscribers is not as important as the quality of the subscribers).
I believe we are all much better off if we focus on building our own niche community/product (a.k.a. http://javascriptweekly.com - the number of subscribers is not as important as the quality of the subscribers).
> Typically, in a mature company the salaries of the dev team are a rounding error on the total operation.
I don't think that's true at all. From small startups to large successful no-longer-startups, often dev salaries dominate spending, from what I usually hear.
Perhaps my experience is limited? Or perhaps the author means something specific by "mature company"?
I don't think that's true at all. From small startups to large successful no-longer-startups, often dev salaries dominate spending, from what I usually hear.
Perhaps my experience is limited? Or perhaps the author means something specific by "mature company"?
The company I work for now, is around 18-20 employees (high/low for the past year), and the 5 people working in IT account for more than half of payroll... so I'd say you are probably correct.
IT personnel typically pays well over $50k/year for an established (not tech support) role. And over $90K for a senior developer role (usually more). This is usually twice what an employee in other roles will make.
Rock star sales people in a sales driven company can make quite a bit more, but this tends to be commission based... there is a risk there, and the reward is higher pay. If you have a good idea, and want to take a risk, then you can reap larger rewards from that, though you have as much or more chance of falling on your face. I've now done that twice, and am happy to make a nice salary as a senior developer or software architect than deal with the risk/reward scenarios.
IT personnel typically pays well over $50k/year for an established (not tech support) role. And over $90K for a senior developer role (usually more). This is usually twice what an employee in other roles will make.
Rock star sales people in a sales driven company can make quite a bit more, but this tends to be commission based... there is a risk there, and the reward is higher pay. If you have a good idea, and want to take a risk, then you can reap larger rewards from that, though you have as much or more chance of falling on your face. I've now done that twice, and am happy to make a nice salary as a senior developer or software architect than deal with the risk/reward scenarios.
You have to take into account, that it is very difficult for the employer as well to evaluate the value of the techies to the company.
interesting to read all these from the engineer's perspective. from the manager's side of the table things are quite different. If an employee comes to me and asks for a raise then I begin the process to replace them. We give reasonable raises, we pay fair market value and an engineer might make a little more elsewhere but they'll be giving back their RSUs and the opportunity to work on really cool stuff. If, however, they want something else then good luck to them, people are all different and it's a free country, but asking for raises means they aren't happy so they will leave anyway, either way, I begin looking.
when someone joins, unless they are at vp level they really don't have much negotiating opportunity, we make a decent offer and they either take it or leave it. we very seldom adjust the offer.
when someone joins, unless they are at vp level they really don't have much negotiating opportunity, we make a decent offer and they either take it or leave it. we very seldom adjust the offer.
> but asking for raises means they aren't happy
That's an assumption on your part.
And since you state up front that you are giving reasonable raises you essentially forestall the negotiations so unless your definition of 'reasonable' is different than the ones that your employees maintain you should have next to no turnover. If that's not the case you might have a problem there.
The 'opportunity to work on cool stuff' is worth $0 to a working dad with a mortgage, so likely you can do this but only to younger people, but people do not remain young forever and sooner or later their expenses will go up. And you sound like you will not be taking their position into account at all.
That's an assumption on your part.
And since you state up front that you are giving reasonable raises you essentially forestall the negotiations so unless your definition of 'reasonable' is different than the ones that your employees maintain you should have next to no turnover. If that's not the case you might have a problem there.
The 'opportunity to work on cool stuff' is worth $0 to a working dad with a mortgage, so likely you can do this but only to younger people, but people do not remain young forever and sooner or later their expenses will go up. And you sound like you will not be taking their position into account at all.
I'm really perplexed by this common attitude.
Employees are sometimes happy. Sometimes they're miserable. Sometimes they're in-between — for complicated reasons, that may lie outside of work.
Firing any employee that asks for a raise is so unbelievably short-sighted, binary, sociopathic, and potentially bad for business (morale, replacement costs, unknown costs), it's cartoonishly villainous.
You sir, appear to have authoritarian tendencies.
Employees are sometimes happy. Sometimes they're miserable. Sometimes they're in-between — for complicated reasons, that may lie outside of work.
Firing any employee that asks for a raise is so unbelievably short-sighted, binary, sociopathic, and potentially bad for business (morale, replacement costs, unknown costs), it's cartoonishly villainous.
You sir, appear to have authoritarian tendencies.
This is true at most employers, and is one of the biggest contributors to churn and the lower-than-it-should-be pay in our industry. Companies whose offer includes (implicit or explicit) statements about how cool the projects are are peddling the same employees-are-pets nonsense that the "free food/perks" companies peddle, and there is no shortage of labor ready to lap it up.
Yup, and high churn actually makes the projects less pleasant to work with IME. More turnover means the people updating the projects have a weaker understanding of how the projects work, so they create more bugs/cruft than an equally-skilled developer who has worked with the project longer. And by the time those developers know the projects inside-and-out, they are already looking to move on.
Another manager here.
I don't automatically do this. I want to know why, and what their value proposition is.
People have things happen and reasons and goals for wanting to change their comp, and frankly, that goes both ways. I've had people want less and to change roles for very similar reasons.
Replacement is expensive, so is commitment and vision. For some people, yes. It's a trigger for replacement. For others, it's a time to discuss keeping everybody healthy and productive.
And there could be options too. Perhaps more money isn't optimal. Nobody knows, until there is a discussion.
I don't automatically do this. I want to know why, and what their value proposition is.
People have things happen and reasons and goals for wanting to change their comp, and frankly, that goes both ways. I've had people want less and to change roles for very similar reasons.
Replacement is expensive, so is commitment and vision. For some people, yes. It's a trigger for replacement. For others, it's a time to discuss keeping everybody healthy and productive.
And there could be options too. Perhaps more money isn't optimal. Nobody knows, until there is a discussion.
What would you say if the "value proposition" is simply Company Y will pay me more?
It is a discussion regardless. And it is one where motivarions, goals, etc... all play out.
Could be time to replace, could be time to make different employment arrangements, whatever.
I might advise them to take the offer.
See my other comment.
Could be time to replace, could be time to make different employment arrangements, whatever.
I might advise them to take the offer.
See my other comment.
Several bad assumptions here.
If they're getting better offers elsewhere, its not market rate.
Whats to say other companies aren't doing cool stuff? All companies say this.
If they're getting better offers elsewhere, its not market rate.
Whats to say other companies aren't doing cool stuff? All companies say this.
"If they're getting better offers elsewhere, its not market rate."
Exactly.
Exactly.
I commend you for your honesty. If more employers were this honest up front, the workforce would be a much better place.
Since we happen to be in a sellers market for IT talent, I suspect you would not have very many takers if your prospective employees knew up front that this was your attitude towards them, and they'd be valued so little that asking for what they thought they were worth would mean they would get fired.
You attitude would fly much better in a buyers market, where the employer holds all the cards. Then you could demand whatever you like, and the employee would most likely be desperate enough to lick it up.
Since we happen to be in a sellers market for IT talent, I suspect you would not have very many takers if your prospective employees knew up front that this was your attitude towards them, and they'd be valued so little that asking for what they thought they were worth would mean they would get fired.
You attitude would fly much better in a buyers market, where the employer holds all the cards. Then you could demand whatever you like, and the employee would most likely be desperate enough to lick it up.
"If an employee comes to me and asks for a raise then I begin the process to replace them."
That makes you sound like a horrible manager.
That makes you sound like a horrible manager.
It makes him the kind of low-level or middle-manager that certain companies love. His purpose isn't to support his subordinate employees in their work, it's to make sure the company pays as little as possible for as much work as possible, and to act as the first line of defense against employees who aren't "100% on board".
Clearly he thinks that "asking for a raise" puts an employee in the "not 100% on board" category. That makes him terrible at reasoning, and perhaps poor at empathy, and strongly indicates he's not the kind of person an intelligent developer who desires to be treated like a human being should ever have to work for, but I'm not sure it makes him a bad manager per se. He might manage very well in other respects.
Clearly he thinks that "asking for a raise" puts an employee in the "not 100% on board" category. That makes him terrible at reasoning, and perhaps poor at empathy, and strongly indicates he's not the kind of person an intelligent developer who desires to be treated like a human being should ever have to work for, but I'm not sure it makes him a bad manager per se. He might manage very well in other respects.
maybe, but when an employee asks for a raise, or say they are quitting does that make them a horrible employee. so many people think that work is some big philanthropic organization set up to serve their needs.
"when an employee asks for a raise, or say they are quitting does that make them a horrible employee"
No it doesn't.
You seem think employees are there just to serve you for the lowest bid and if an employee is coming to you with a better offer then, you aren't paying them "market rate".
No it doesn't.
You seem think employees are there just to serve you for the lowest bid and if an employee is coming to you with a better offer then, you aren't paying them "market rate".
Very timely repost. Just had coffee with an old female colleague an hour ago about negotiating salary at a company she's joining. I remember reading this a few years ago and it's been helpful advice.
In something like 25 years in this industry I have seen this opinion time and time again. "I am not being paid what I'm worth". You can negotiate to higher levels of compensation, but there is more to life (and your job) than money. I have often seen people price themselves out of a job.
A normal high tech company runs an R&D budget that is less than 10% of earnings. The rest of the money goes to cost of sales, infrastructure (building, chairs, etc) and various other things. This means that on average your contribution needs to pull in at least 10x your cost in order for you to be seen as being worth it. There are also a lot of costs for hiring employees -- employee tax, insurance, benefits, etc, etc. So if you make $100K in salary, then your contribution has to bring in maybe $1.2 - $1.5 million.
You may think "Oh those bastard sales people are making way too much and aren't providing any benefit", but you will find that the company will still budget less than 10% of earnings for R&D. Whether it is justified or not, quite a few of the people in the "management side" identify a lot better with sales and understand their value a lot more. Unless you think of a way to significantly increase earnings, then you are depleting the pool of cash for R&D when you ask for a raise.
"Not my problem," you think.
Except Jane down the corridor appears to be very nearly as productive as you are (whether it is true or not is completely beside the point because everything will be judged by its appearances). She makes something like 60% of what you make. She's a freaking bargain! You, on the other hand, bitch and moan that you can't make ends meet on $100K and that you are living out of garbage bins. Plus you see yourself as the saviour of the company and without you everything will just collapse. Managers think, "God, please don't make me talk to that guy again".
The order comes down from above -- either 1) Our competitors are kicking our ass and we need to downsize R&D OR 2) We need to ramp up explosively to hit the next big business wave, so we need more programmers!
How will we reduce our expenditures or hire more programmers with the same amount of money? Easy! We'll do away with those bitchy-moany prima donnas and hire more of the absolute bargains that never complain.
Here's a secret I've learned. Being seen as worth significantly more than you are paid means your boss always approaches you with a sense of gratitude. In fact, creating a sense of solidarity with management in this respect shows loyalty. While it is true that, in general, companies do not return such loyalty, individuals in management will tend to select a handful of people that they trust and "can not do without". Those people will not be the guys that constantly threaten to leave for greener pastures, or that constant complain that they aren't appreciated.
I have never negotiated salary. I have either taken what has been offered and then worked hard to become an integral member of the team or I have refused the job. I have left jobs that I didn't like, but I have never left to make more money. Nor have I ever threatened to do so. I probably get paid less than I might if I pushed hard, but I can tell you that I enjoy the privileges of being "that dependable guy" much more than any salary could provide.
A normal high tech company runs an R&D budget that is less than 10% of earnings. The rest of the money goes to cost of sales, infrastructure (building, chairs, etc) and various other things. This means that on average your contribution needs to pull in at least 10x your cost in order for you to be seen as being worth it. There are also a lot of costs for hiring employees -- employee tax, insurance, benefits, etc, etc. So if you make $100K in salary, then your contribution has to bring in maybe $1.2 - $1.5 million.
You may think "Oh those bastard sales people are making way too much and aren't providing any benefit", but you will find that the company will still budget less than 10% of earnings for R&D. Whether it is justified or not, quite a few of the people in the "management side" identify a lot better with sales and understand their value a lot more. Unless you think of a way to significantly increase earnings, then you are depleting the pool of cash for R&D when you ask for a raise.
"Not my problem," you think.
Except Jane down the corridor appears to be very nearly as productive as you are (whether it is true or not is completely beside the point because everything will be judged by its appearances). She makes something like 60% of what you make. She's a freaking bargain! You, on the other hand, bitch and moan that you can't make ends meet on $100K and that you are living out of garbage bins. Plus you see yourself as the saviour of the company and without you everything will just collapse. Managers think, "God, please don't make me talk to that guy again".
The order comes down from above -- either 1) Our competitors are kicking our ass and we need to downsize R&D OR 2) We need to ramp up explosively to hit the next big business wave, so we need more programmers!
How will we reduce our expenditures or hire more programmers with the same amount of money? Easy! We'll do away with those bitchy-moany prima donnas and hire more of the absolute bargains that never complain.
Here's a secret I've learned. Being seen as worth significantly more than you are paid means your boss always approaches you with a sense of gratitude. In fact, creating a sense of solidarity with management in this respect shows loyalty. While it is true that, in general, companies do not return such loyalty, individuals in management will tend to select a handful of people that they trust and "can not do without". Those people will not be the guys that constantly threaten to leave for greener pastures, or that constant complain that they aren't appreciated.
I have never negotiated salary. I have either taken what has been offered and then worked hard to become an integral member of the team or I have refused the job. I have left jobs that I didn't like, but I have never left to make more money. Nor have I ever threatened to do so. I probably get paid less than I might if I pushed hard, but I can tell you that I enjoy the privileges of being "that dependable guy" much more than any salary could provide.
another angle: How much would the company loose if they had to recruit another person exactly like you? The headhunters get 20% of your salary the first year, than it's cost time and working hours to find new employee, bring them up to speed, the insecurity that the new guy is not the right person, etc..
First, know things and people are worth what others will pay for them
As a floor, you need to fund a modest life, and that means retirement, healthcare, personal improvemwnt, food, home, etc...
Add some small margin onto that for quality of life.
Second, get business minded. It helps to take an interest in the company, know it's financials, and it's goals. This helps you position your value in direct, meaningful terms.
I very strongly agree with being ready to walk when it comes time for salary discussions. If you can't walk, you will get the lowest comp, unless you have some relationship or other leverage to play on.
The bigger the increase, the more this matters.
The idea that you are as valuable as a replacement and training is false. This ignores you as a person, relationships you have, etc... this is often the framing, but do not be afraid to expand the discussion.
Set goals and justify them. This is something sales people do all the time. They are motivated by those goals and communicate them easily and consistently.
Ie: I need 200k this year to fund my travel and home investment plans.
A tech person may have identical goals, or maybe is wanting to build something, or send a kid to school.
Value these and frame your motivation to work in terms of your goals, company, love of the work, etc... Managers, and higher level people in the company understand and respect goal oriented people. Make sure your goals and the company align, or make basic sense and there are no conflicts.
This all speaks to the work being worth it and it also speaks to reasonable expectations as opposed to just greed. Greed isn't bad. Clear, meaningful goals are easier to sell and for others to identify with. When others identify with your life purposes, they can value them and very easily see how you are inclined to stay and work for them. They also nicely dodge the "how much is enough?" Type questions.
Get your other offers and or secure relationships needed to know you can land on your feet should you need to make a change.
Be flexible. The company isn't seeing it's goals play out all at once, and you won't either, but there should be a path to get there that is realistic.
All of this boils down to a "this is where I need to be and why it matters" conversation.
Shared and aligned goals is a great basis for a loyalty type arrangement. People will work hard for others who take care of them and seeing that play out is worth a lot.
Another advantage of goals is there sometimes is more than one way to get there besides cash. Nice to have options on the table.
If it goes well, great. If not, you have your fall back.
You may be able to contract too. Where a company really cannot pay you what you need to realize your goals, perhaps a more flexible arrangement can leave you empowered to do it your self.
This does not need to be a conflict of interest, particularly where you may have more skills not being used, or relationships where you can add value in atomic, easy to execute ways.
Another consideration is involvement with sales and marketing. If you can take some risk, you may find opportunities to capture nice rewards by being part of that process. This takes some people skills, but getting them is worth it.
Ask sales how valuable a tech person who can handle and understand the sales process is. They could be your most potent value advocates.
You help them close a big one, and it directly benefits them. You leaving will present an opportunity cost they will have zero problem justifying.
Of course there are spiffs and such potentially mixed up in this and it all depends on who you are. Taking some risk will differentiate you from other techs and that can be worth a lot.
The first time you walk it is hard. The first time you cultivate advocates is hard. The first time you take risk is hard, and the first time you get a nice increase is hard.
All worth it. Actually it all is as worth it as you think it is. And people count on those things being hard enough and not worth it enough to keep you inexpensive.
What is worth what? That is your primary question to answer. Sort your life goals out, value them, decide on risk and alternatives, and then proceed to have the dialog needed to get you there.
Once you start down this path, you do not stop. It becomes part of you and others will see that mindset and treat you accordingly.
As a floor, you need to fund a modest life, and that means retirement, healthcare, personal improvemwnt, food, home, etc...
Add some small margin onto that for quality of life.
Second, get business minded. It helps to take an interest in the company, know it's financials, and it's goals. This helps you position your value in direct, meaningful terms.
I very strongly agree with being ready to walk when it comes time for salary discussions. If you can't walk, you will get the lowest comp, unless you have some relationship or other leverage to play on.
The bigger the increase, the more this matters.
The idea that you are as valuable as a replacement and training is false. This ignores you as a person, relationships you have, etc... this is often the framing, but do not be afraid to expand the discussion.
Set goals and justify them. This is something sales people do all the time. They are motivated by those goals and communicate them easily and consistently.
Ie: I need 200k this year to fund my travel and home investment plans.
A tech person may have identical goals, or maybe is wanting to build something, or send a kid to school.
Value these and frame your motivation to work in terms of your goals, company, love of the work, etc... Managers, and higher level people in the company understand and respect goal oriented people. Make sure your goals and the company align, or make basic sense and there are no conflicts.
This all speaks to the work being worth it and it also speaks to reasonable expectations as opposed to just greed. Greed isn't bad. Clear, meaningful goals are easier to sell and for others to identify with. When others identify with your life purposes, they can value them and very easily see how you are inclined to stay and work for them. They also nicely dodge the "how much is enough?" Type questions.
Get your other offers and or secure relationships needed to know you can land on your feet should you need to make a change.
Be flexible. The company isn't seeing it's goals play out all at once, and you won't either, but there should be a path to get there that is realistic.
All of this boils down to a "this is where I need to be and why it matters" conversation.
Shared and aligned goals is a great basis for a loyalty type arrangement. People will work hard for others who take care of them and seeing that play out is worth a lot.
Another advantage of goals is there sometimes is more than one way to get there besides cash. Nice to have options on the table.
If it goes well, great. If not, you have your fall back.
You may be able to contract too. Where a company really cannot pay you what you need to realize your goals, perhaps a more flexible arrangement can leave you empowered to do it your self.
This does not need to be a conflict of interest, particularly where you may have more skills not being used, or relationships where you can add value in atomic, easy to execute ways.
Another consideration is involvement with sales and marketing. If you can take some risk, you may find opportunities to capture nice rewards by being part of that process. This takes some people skills, but getting them is worth it.
Ask sales how valuable a tech person who can handle and understand the sales process is. They could be your most potent value advocates.
You help them close a big one, and it directly benefits them. You leaving will present an opportunity cost they will have zero problem justifying.
Of course there are spiffs and such potentially mixed up in this and it all depends on who you are. Taking some risk will differentiate you from other techs and that can be worth a lot.
The first time you walk it is hard. The first time you cultivate advocates is hard. The first time you take risk is hard, and the first time you get a nice increase is hard.
All worth it. Actually it all is as worth it as you think it is. And people count on those things being hard enough and not worth it enough to keep you inexpensive.
What is worth what? That is your primary question to answer. Sort your life goals out, value them, decide on risk and alternatives, and then proceed to have the dialog needed to get you there.
Once you start down this path, you do not stop. It becomes part of you and others will see that mindset and treat you accordingly.
One other thing. When you reach a goal, share that and how it motivates you to continue.
This plants the seeds for future discussions.
Frame this stuff in ways that make them feel good about your comp, not negative.
A cycle or two of this makes things easier and more rewarding fo everyone
This plants the seeds for future discussions.
Frame this stuff in ways that make them feel good about your comp, not negative.
A cycle or two of this makes things easier and more rewarding fo everyone
as a business owner/operator involved in everything from sales to hiring to vendor purchasing, here's the most important thing:
if you can't walk away from a negotiation, it's not really a negotiation. if you feel, at any point, compelled to stay even though your interests are not being met in a reasonable matter, you're going to get screwed - and it's your fault, not the other person's.
in a true negotiation both parties are attempting to find an optimum solution that solves for 2 sets of 'peer to peer' requirements. it's supposed to be a cooperative endeavor. if at any point it turns contentious, you back out immediately. the opportunity was never there. it was just an illusion. this is the hard thing for people to grasp.
unfortunately, for most people these are things you learn by doing. "not all that glitters is gold".
if you can't walk away from a negotiation, it's not really a negotiation. if you feel, at any point, compelled to stay even though your interests are not being met in a reasonable matter, you're going to get screwed - and it's your fault, not the other person's.
in a true negotiation both parties are attempting to find an optimum solution that solves for 2 sets of 'peer to peer' requirements. it's supposed to be a cooperative endeavor. if at any point it turns contentious, you back out immediately. the opportunity was never there. it was just an illusion. this is the hard thing for people to grasp.
unfortunately, for most people these are things you learn by doing. "not all that glitters is gold".
> if you can't walk away from a negotiation, it's not really a negotiation.
Reminds me of a quote from a G.K. Chesterton book:
> "But surely it is a very old principle of law that a leonine contract is not a free contract. And it is hypocrisy to pretend that a bargain between a starving man and a man with all the food is anything but a leonine contract."
> He glanced up at the fire-escape, a ladder leading up to the balcony of a very high attic above. "I live in that garret; or rather on that balcony. If I fell off the balcony and hung on a spike, so far from the steps that somebody with a ladder could offer to rescue me if I gave him a hundred million francs, I should be quite morally justified in using his ladder and then telling him to go to hell for his hundred million. Hell, indeed, is not out of the picture; for it is a sin of injustice to force an advantage against the desperate [...]"
http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks05/0500421.txt
Reminds me of a quote from a G.K. Chesterton book:
> "But surely it is a very old principle of law that a leonine contract is not a free contract. And it is hypocrisy to pretend that a bargain between a starving man and a man with all the food is anything but a leonine contract."
> He glanced up at the fire-escape, a ladder leading up to the balcony of a very high attic above. "I live in that garret; or rather on that balcony. If I fell off the balcony and hung on a spike, so far from the steps that somebody with a ladder could offer to rescue me if I gave him a hundred million francs, I should be quite morally justified in using his ladder and then telling him to go to hell for his hundred million. Hell, indeed, is not out of the picture; for it is a sin of injustice to force an advantage against the desperate [...]"
http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks05/0500421.txt
That's a very enlightening bit, especially for people who are not used to negotiate stuff all year round.
For me it boils down to this : I try to be as comfortable walking away as I would be accepting an offer. Otherwise I just don't enter any negotiation phase. Also when expressing salary expectations, I try to aim high enough to be sure they will not accept my initial demand. If they did that'd be a sign I just left something on the table.
However, it can be most difficult to put oneself in a position to leave the table. Developers are in a very privileged position in this regard. For most employees walking away could mean being out of a job for several months and employers know this.
For me it boils down to this : I try to be as comfortable walking away as I would be accepting an offer. Otherwise I just don't enter any negotiation phase. Also when expressing salary expectations, I try to aim high enough to be sure they will not accept my initial demand. If they did that'd be a sign I just left something on the table.
However, it can be most difficult to put oneself in a position to leave the table. Developers are in a very privileged position in this regard. For most employees walking away could mean being out of a job for several months and employers know this.
Free food is such a no-brainer, if you're a manager. For £5 of pizza you can get £50-100 of work, easy, and the workers think they're getting the better deal...
This is why I like to say "Just pay me more, I can take care of my own perks. Promise."
Sure, free food is great and all. But we're not kindergarteners are we? I'm an adult and I like to take care of my own food (and such).
Free beer and pizza is for helping your friend move. Or for giving a talk at a *camp event. It's not for producing hundreds of thousands if not millions in value for your employer.
Sure, free food is great and all. But we're not kindergarteners are we? I'm an adult and I like to take care of my own food (and such).
Free beer and pizza is for helping your friend move. Or for giving a talk at a *camp event. It's not for producing hundreds of thousands if not millions in value for your employer.
As an employer that provides free food, I think there's more to it than that in that both sides receive more value. We don't provide free food in order to pay our employees less. We provide free food because we see a lot of value in everyone eating together and employees get a lot of value in just not having to think about lunch or spend the time to go out and eat somewhere.
I think most people get more value you out of the free food than if they were simply paid what it cost to provide. In the case of free food I see it as where both employer and employee do better with the in-kind perk than the equivalent cash alternative.
I think most people get more value you out of the free food than if they were simply paid what it cost to provide. In the case of free food I see it as where both employer and employee do better with the in-kind perk than the equivalent cash alternative.
You provide free food because you get more working time out of your employees. Any other benefit your pushing is quite honestly, bullshit. They're sitting together? Great; odds are they're talking about their job and that's only beneficial to the employer.
The other problem with free food is that it starts to feel like an obligation to consume it. I like eating out about once a week otherwise I brown-bag it most of the week with yogurt, fruit and some peanut butter crackers. If you make free food a perk (1) I don't feel like i'm maximizing my benefits (2) people start to think i'm not a team player because I don't want to eat pizza/burritos/chinese/indian/<Insert Food Here> five days a week.
The other problem with free food is that it starts to feel like an obligation to consume it. I like eating out about once a week otherwise I brown-bag it most of the week with yogurt, fruit and some peanut butter crackers. If you make free food a perk (1) I don't feel like i'm maximizing my benefits (2) people start to think i'm not a team player because I don't want to eat pizza/burritos/chinese/indian/<Insert Food Here> five days a week.
I fully embrace that we get more value out of providing free food than it costs us. That plus the fact that almost everyone seems to like it is enough of a reason to do it.
Is sitting together and talking about your job ONLY beneficial to the employer? I feel like better communication and more discussion hopefully leading to doing a better job is also beneficial to the employee. Working on a more successful team probably leads to higher satisfaction and better long term career prospects. Even when I've worked in places that didn't provide food, all or almost all of the team still usually ate together, just because we liked what we were doing and enjoyed one another's company.
My point is employees aren't losing anything by taking or not taking the perk. We wouldn't pay someone more not to eat the food. Aside from all the weird bad team dynamics that would cause it would also be a net-loss to the company. When people work from home, we also don't pay them any more, despite that we order less food and they have to buy/cook their own.
Is sitting together and talking about your job ONLY beneficial to the employer? I feel like better communication and more discussion hopefully leading to doing a better job is also beneficial to the employee. Working on a more successful team probably leads to higher satisfaction and better long term career prospects. Even when I've worked in places that didn't provide food, all or almost all of the team still usually ate together, just because we liked what we were doing and enjoyed one another's company.
My point is employees aren't losing anything by taking or not taking the perk. We wouldn't pay someone more not to eat the food. Aside from all the weird bad team dynamics that would cause it would also be a net-loss to the company. When people work from home, we also don't pay them any more, despite that we order less food and they have to buy/cook their own.
Is sitting together and talking about your job ONLY beneficial to the employer?
In an organization that enables and embraces employee initiatives, I have found that eatting together greatly benefits me, the employee. Cross team socializing has led to many new initiatives that were profitable for the company and for me personally (promotions and raises came as a result).
Eating together can be accomplished through culture alone but providing food is probably easier and more successful.
Eating together can be accomplished through culture alone but providing food is probably easier and more successful.
Putting a basket in the break room, filled with menus from nearby take-out restaurants, is even easier.
I have worked at a lot of different companies, and an ad-hoc, employee-organized lunch run is very common. The person who commits to handling the cash and picking up the food decides on the restaurant, orders are placed by a deadline, and people eat it when it arrives. If a manager or admin staffer names the restaurant, they have to say whether the cost of the meal is on the company or not.
Occasionally, someone will name a sit-down restaurant and a time of day, and people simply show up.
People who don't want to participate on any given day don't participate. They eat the lunch they packed from home, or go somewhere else.
That's how grown-ups eat lunch. If this pattern does not arise naturally, there is some dysfunction in the workplace that should probably be solved directly, rather than trying to force the pattern into existence by providing catered lunches.
I have worked at a lot of different companies, and an ad-hoc, employee-organized lunch run is very common. The person who commits to handling the cash and picking up the food decides on the restaurant, orders are placed by a deadline, and people eat it when it arrives. If a manager or admin staffer names the restaurant, they have to say whether the cost of the meal is on the company or not.
Occasionally, someone will name a sit-down restaurant and a time of day, and people simply show up.
People who don't want to participate on any given day don't participate. They eat the lunch they packed from home, or go somewhere else.
That's how grown-ups eat lunch. If this pattern does not arise naturally, there is some dysfunction in the workplace that should probably be solved directly, rather than trying to force the pattern into existence by providing catered lunches.
I think your suggestion works well at a smaller company (<50 employees), but as the company starts moving to multiple floors/buildings and departments become a bit more isolated then the organic lunches tend to be intra-department vs inter-department. We have lunch brought in once a week. On the days we don't have lunch it is very much as you describe within each department, but on the day the company provides lunch it is very common to see engineers eating with the account management team and that is when the useful conversations happen.
I don't know, This is more or less how my company works (~150 people). It scales well, because even in a larger company there is a certain amount of intermingling between teams as developers change roles over time. For example, I know a lot of people in my company because I have moved across several different teams during my four year tenure. I just throw the people I want to hang out with at lunch on a Skype group chat. Sometimes they join and sometimes they do not.
On a different note, at my company, talking about work at lunch is pretty taboo unless the topic of the lunch was previously disclosed by the initiator to be work-related. Lunch is when we talk about all kinds of other bullshit and only talk about work if we're desperately spinning our wheels on something or want to vent.
On a different note, at my company, talking about work at lunch is pretty taboo unless the topic of the lunch was previously disclosed by the initiator to be work-related. Lunch is when we talk about all kinds of other bullshit and only talk about work if we're desperately spinning our wheels on something or want to vent.
That sounds like some form of confirmation bias. You may not be aware of the usefulness of conversations that happen under circumstances not favorable to you observing their content.
The company-supplied lunches lead to useful conversations in a place where you are able to judge their utility.
When people from your office go out and do not invite you, you are unable to know who is talking to whom, or what they are talking about. And you should not know, because that would make you a spying creep.
The company-supplied lunches lead to useful conversations in a place where you are able to judge their utility.
When people from your office go out and do not invite you, you are unable to know who is talking to whom, or what they are talking about. And you should not know, because that would make you a spying creep.
Confirmation bias is fine here, because we are trying to establish whether or not lunch being provided benefits employees. The anecdotal evidence suggests that it is beneficial to >0 employees at >0 companies, therefore the claim that it only benefits the employer is false.
You also have to show that it could not have been more beneficial for the employee to be doing something else.
You can't discount opportunity costs. If Oprah was giving away cars to everyone who went out to eat lunch at a local strip mall, you can't reasonably say that a person who found a quarter on the break room floor benefited by staying in the office to eat lunch.
You only observed the conversation that you observed. You did not observe all the potential conversations that might have occurred instead of the one you heard. The value of such conversations is the result of an expected value calculation, based on the potential benefit multiplied by the possibility that such benefit would be realized. That involves a lot of guesswork, obviously.
You can't discount opportunity costs. If Oprah was giving away cars to everyone who went out to eat lunch at a local strip mall, you can't reasonably say that a person who found a quarter on the break room floor benefited by staying in the office to eat lunch.
You only observed the conversation that you observed. You did not observe all the potential conversations that might have occurred instead of the one you heard. The value of such conversations is the result of an expected value calculation, based on the potential benefit multiplied by the possibility that such benefit would be realized. That involves a lot of guesswork, obviously.
I work at an agency that used to have an office bistro for breakfast/lunch. We moved to a new office and lost the perk because it didn't have the space.
Now people just sit at their desk and check Facebook/reddit/etc over lunch — or they break into cliques. As a junior employee, I found that free lunch leveled the playing field. Senior managers couldn't hide out with only other senior managers when you all eat at the same place.
They say that the family that eats together stays together and I think that's just as true for work families.
Now people just sit at their desk and check Facebook/reddit/etc over lunch — or they break into cliques. As a junior employee, I found that free lunch leveled the playing field. Senior managers couldn't hide out with only other senior managers when you all eat at the same place.
They say that the family that eats together stays together and I think that's just as true for work families.
>You provide free food because you get more working time out of your employees.
I don't see a problem with that. If I work overtime I can leave earlier on another day. Quite a lot of my coworkers leave at 12am on fridays.
I don't see a problem with that. If I work overtime I can leave earlier on another day. Quite a lot of my coworkers leave at 12am on fridays.
I would be pretty upset if I was still at work at 12am on any day, Friday especially...
In the context of "leaving early", I suspect he meant that some of his coworkers left at lunchtime on Friday, after having worked longer earlier in the week.
Yes. I messed up the time format. I would have said 0:00 If I meant midnight in germany.
True, it does save time and thought. How much of depends primarily on location. The benefit is greater at something like a Google or Facebook campus, and much smaller at a small office in a downtown area with 20 restaurants in a 5min walk radius.
But one too often sees perks like these offered as "Well, we're a startup, we can't pay you market rate, but we feed you". And that shit ain't right.
But one too often sees perks like these offered as "Well, we're a startup, we can't pay you market rate, but we feed you". And that shit ain't right.
This is such an outdated way of thinking (asses in seats). Your company then completely eliminates the possibility of remote work if this lunch time eat-along is so important to the cogs in your machine. You're not providing your employees with food because it benefits them. You're providing your employees with food because it forces them to always be working.
> We provide free food because we see a lot of value in everyone eating together and employees get a lot of value in just not having to think about lunch or spend the time to go out and eat somewhere.
This is literally saying that your employees get free food so that they can stay at work and only think about work and only eat with people from work...
> We provide free food because we see a lot of value in everyone eating together and employees get a lot of value in just not having to think about lunch or spend the time to go out and eat somewhere.
This is literally saying that your employees get free food so that they can stay at work and only think about work and only eat with people from work...
Some places may make it work, but teams not being together is a huge drawback. I think Peopleware covered it and it was one of the top detriments. Something like a 50% penalty in project schedules when teams were remote. That lines up with many projects I've seen first hand, too. Calling it outdated doesn't change anything.
There's also tons of non-engineering stuff that benefits from being together, onsite. Stray comments might lead to huge import improvements. In my pervious company, there were always large things we'd find out when we'd have team leaders meet up. And this was a small 15 person business!
It takes a lot of directed effort to make remote work. The GP post about wanting people together has a lot going for it.
There's also tons of non-engineering stuff that benefits from being together, onsite. Stray comments might lead to huge import improvements. In my pervious company, there were always large things we'd find out when we'd have team leaders meet up. And this was a small 15 person business!
It takes a lot of directed effort to make remote work. The GP post about wanting people together has a lot going for it.
> but teams not being together is a huge drawback
Define together? What does that even mean? Together in the same room? I'd have to completely disagree. Teams working together is extremely important. Teams _being_ together, as in co-located, is just a preference.
> Peopleware covered it and it was one of the top detriments
Peopleware has ideas that have stood the test of time. However their opinions regarding remote work have not. The tools available to teams and engineers today are far superior to those in 2000 (not exactly sure on that date)
> Something like a 50% penalty in project schedules when teams were remote
This has absolutely nothing to do with remote work. This is just pure mismanagement. You cannot half-ass remote work. It's either a company wide culture or nothing at all.
> There's also tons of non-engineering stuff that benefits from being together, onsite
Like what?
> Stray comments might lead to huge import improvements
Just because you're not co-located does not mean you're just in silence throughout the day. There are a slew of chat clients and voice applications that allow remote teams to communicate easily throughout the day.
> In my pervious company, there were always large things we'd find out when we'd have team leaders meet up. And this was a small 15 person business!
Just because you're remote doesn't mean you don't have meetings. It also doesn't mean you never meet with people in person.
> It takes a lot of directed effort to make remote work
It takes a lot of directed effort to make any company culture work. And what exactly does "work" even mean? I've seen companies that are a complete mess and they have everyone strapped to their desks. Doing remote work right takes no more effort that doing co-location right. You just have to recognize the difference.
Define together? What does that even mean? Together in the same room? I'd have to completely disagree. Teams working together is extremely important. Teams _being_ together, as in co-located, is just a preference.
> Peopleware covered it and it was one of the top detriments
Peopleware has ideas that have stood the test of time. However their opinions regarding remote work have not. The tools available to teams and engineers today are far superior to those in 2000 (not exactly sure on that date)
> Something like a 50% penalty in project schedules when teams were remote
This has absolutely nothing to do with remote work. This is just pure mismanagement. You cannot half-ass remote work. It's either a company wide culture or nothing at all.
> There's also tons of non-engineering stuff that benefits from being together, onsite
Like what?
> Stray comments might lead to huge import improvements
Just because you're not co-located does not mean you're just in silence throughout the day. There are a slew of chat clients and voice applications that allow remote teams to communicate easily throughout the day.
> In my pervious company, there were always large things we'd find out when we'd have team leaders meet up. And this was a small 15 person business!
Just because you're remote doesn't mean you don't have meetings. It also doesn't mean you never meet with people in person.
> It takes a lot of directed effort to make remote work
It takes a lot of directed effort to make any company culture work. And what exactly does "work" even mean? I've seen companies that are a complete mess and they have everyone strapped to their desks. Doing remote work right takes no more effort that doing co-location right. You just have to recognize the difference.
I've not seen remote meetings or chat clients replicate the kind of talk that goes on casually in person. I've not found them to be smoother at all. Walking around, getting into a different environment, sketching stuff on paper, even the body language and whatnot - it's just not very easy remotely. And while it takes work to make a company go, it takes more work for remote to work, overall.
It's like saying offshoring development is OK because "project management is hard and you have to be on top off things regardless".
But hey, I'm glad it works out for some people. A lot of my work is done remotely. But for core development or engineering on my own project, I'd want to be sure onsite meetings happened with fair regularity.
It's like saying offshoring development is OK because "project management is hard and you have to be on top off things regardless".
But hey, I'm glad it works out for some people. A lot of my work is done remotely. But for core development or engineering on my own project, I'd want to be sure onsite meetings happened with fair regularity.
People work from home from time to time and it's fine. We do have a couple of remote contractors as well. I don't see how free food prevents this.
We don't tell employees what to think about or talk about at lunch. Sometimes it's work related and sometimes it's just shooting the shit. In either case I feel like both employee and company win.
We don't tell employees what to think about or talk about at lunch. Sometimes it's work related and sometimes it's just shooting the shit. In either case I feel like both employee and company win.
I'd like to second this. Where I work we get catered lunch, and it's clearly a win-win. Getting food outside the office is at least a 15 minute round-trip and, amazingly, almost always costs more than catering.
We also have a good culture around it - people who don't feel like socializing frequently take food back to their desks instead of eating with everyone else, which I think removes some of the issues people take with the idea.
We also have a good culture around it - people who don't feel like socializing frequently take food back to their desks instead of eating with everyone else, which I think removes some of the issues people take with the idea.
I agree with this. My employer provides free lunch three days per week and I find myself wishing it was every day. Going out and finding lunch on my own is a huge hassle and takes a long time. I'm happy to quickly pop down to the cafeteria, grab a bite, and head right back to work. Win win.
They've done a number on you!
It's also a social signal for social animals: "We are doing well, we have ample necessities, you should be with our group."
I once had a major tech company tell me during negotiations that "you can't really put a price on free meals", which I thought was a truly absurd thing to say.
I have heard this line enough with regards to Google that I believe it is Standard Operating Procedure. Your counterparty knows they are in a negotiation. They have been in thousands of negotiations. They have a written list of words to say because they win negotiations.
You can adapt to this environment, for example by coming in with prepared messaging of your own, and not meekly acquiescing to their first offer when their second offer is their first offer plus the food they were going to give you anyhow. (News you can use guys: this is also Standard Operating Procedure.)
You can adapt to this environment, for example by coming in with prepared messaging of your own, and not meekly acquiescing to their first offer when their second offer is their first offer plus the food they were going to give you anyhow. (News you can use guys: this is also Standard Operating Procedure.)
Why come in with a prepared message? You don't have to counter their message, when you can just dismiss it. Focus on the numbers.
"That's valid, and that's why I'm going to consider them as $0 when calculating my total compensation".
You may be right that it's not a win for the developer. But when talking about perks like this one, I don't understand why people approach analysis as if it's an adversarial relationship. A good deal for the company may also be a good deal for the developer. Why should I only accept a perk if I think I'm screwing over the company? However much they benefit from it, outside of assessing my negotiating position, is none of my business. To put another way, why would I expect to be offered a perk if it didn't benefit the company as well?
It becomes adversarial when its used as a substitute. E.g. companies who push the line that lower than market wages are compensated for by pizza, table football, beanbags, stock options...
I feel like this is something that only inexperienced people fall for though. It's nice to get food, but perks like agency, autonomy, and trust are so much more important than free soda and pizza. Especially when I can get paid more and buy the kind of snacks I like.
Agency, trust, and autonomy are great, but they're no replacement for rock solid health, vision, and dental benefits, plus a matching 401k. Now that's sexy.
Disclaimer: I'm married and a father.
Disclaimer: I'm married and a father.
However, the absence of those can make you sad and bitter.
I work at a company with rock solid health, vision, and dental benefits, very good working hours, and I can't wait to get out.
It's full of married employees with children that hope to retire here. It is an excellent place for pregnant women, but no good if you're young or have any kind of ambition.
I work at a company with rock solid health, vision, and dental benefits, very good working hours, and I can't wait to get out.
It's full of married employees with children that hope to retire here. It is an excellent place for pregnant women, but no good if you're young or have any kind of ambition.
It's not an either/or. Ideally, I prefer the both/and.
Ha, touché. I was coming from the assumption that those things are a baseline that you'll get at most salaried programming jobs, but you're right for calling out that assumption.
The hilarity of maturing. At 19, pizza, soda and video games after work were sexy. At 31, a stable retirement plan is what gets me revved up.
The hilarity of maturing. At 19, pizza, soda and video games after work were sexy. At 31, a stable retirement plan is what gets me revved up.
It is a bit more complex than that, a generation of geeks have been socialised to believe that eating free pizza at work is "living the dream". Even guys who are well experienced in the industry can fall for it. There are a whole bunch of tricks a savvy employer can use that cost next to nothing compared to the overtime the workers do in return for it.
Well, there's all sorts of factors involved, but I've found that the more you know about the company, the better you are at negotiating. That sounds like a no-brainer, but that's probably just as important as market value.
For example, I was contracting a company that had most of their software development teams working as contractors. About 6 months into contracting there, I learned that they had made a strategic decision to try and hire everybody instead of contracting and the reason they did that was to save on money and more importantly, retention.
So they would ask me to convert, and I would pretty much blow them off for a couple months, and they would ask me again a couple months later. So after a few times of this routine, I knew I was in a better position to start the negotiations. Also, I had waited for several other contractors to convert and got some tidbits from them.
At the end of the day, I negotiated for much more than average salary in my market.
If you're contracting, it pays to be contracting with a staffing firm that knows the decision makers in the company.
For example, I was contracting a company that had most of their software development teams working as contractors. About 6 months into contracting there, I learned that they had made a strategic decision to try and hire everybody instead of contracting and the reason they did that was to save on money and more importantly, retention.
So they would ask me to convert, and I would pretty much blow them off for a couple months, and they would ask me again a couple months later. So after a few times of this routine, I knew I was in a better position to start the negotiations. Also, I had waited for several other contractors to convert and got some tidbits from them.
At the end of the day, I negotiated for much more than average salary in my market.
If you're contracting, it pays to be contracting with a staffing firm that knows the decision makers in the company.
A tech employer in Vancouver once told me that if an engineer tries to negotiate for a higher salary that is a signal that they care only about money and that they wouldn't be good hire, regardless of their experience and skillset. This is one of the "big" tech companies in Vancouver, BC. Never mind the hundreds of small sweatshops here.
I once had a interviewer ask me "How much would it take for you to work for us"?
I told him that I didn't understand the question and so he said "How much do you need to live on?"
I asked him how much does it take for him to live on? He walked out and so did I.
I told him that I didn't understand the question and so he said "How much do you need to live on?"
I asked him how much does it take for him to live on? He walked out and so did I.
I don't understand your objection to his original phrasing - he asked you what your salary requirement is?
Its almost never in your (an employee/interviewee) best interest to disclose that. You are essentially saying "here is the minimum I will work for" (and that's usually what you'll get) - let them try to figure that out!
What if you say your {last salary + 50%} is your minimum?
Ah I see. I still don't see the point of playing it stupid instead of answer with something like "what were you thinking of?"
"First, can you tell me what you have in mind? After all, you have a better idea exactly what you need done, and your company regularly hires people and possesses an HR department dedicated to that sort of research and negotiation. I, on the other hand, am an individual who--because I'm very good at what I do--am seldom on the market."
I haven't tried that one yet, but I find it's still handy to think about as a way to reassure myself that refusing to be the first to name a dollar-amount (baaaad idea) is reasonable.
I haven't tried that one yet, but I find it's still handy to think about as a way to reassure myself that refusing to be the first to name a dollar-amount (baaaad idea) is reasonable.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
The last person to leave an interview isn't really "walking out".
And yet that's exactly what company is trying to do.
"If they can’t pay you what you’re worth, consider being paid in part in stock, but only if you truly believe in the product, the management, and the company as a whole."
Successful "techies" never work at companies they don't believe in.
It's quite telling that the author includes this "only if" clause.
Successful "techies" never work at companies they don't believe in.
It's quite telling that the author includes this "only if" clause.
> Successful "techies" never work at companies they don't believe in.
This is an odd application of No True Scotsman: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
There are many nonobvious reasons for choosing to work at a certain company, even if you don't believe in the company (e.g. salary to support a family as the highest priority)
This is an odd application of No True Scotsman: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
There are many nonobvious reasons for choosing to work at a certain company, even if you don't believe in the company (e.g. salary to support a family as the highest priority)
> Successful "techies" never work at companies they don't believe in.
1) This is from 2011, it was slightly less of a seller's market for engineers back then. It was still a seller's market, but not as crazy as it is now.
2) The author is one of the top 10 all time contributors to HN. #3 in fact. And I don't think he deserves the snark from the last line of your comment. He's done some pretty cool things and I'd definitely count him as a successful techie.
That said your lackadaisical use of infinity is worrying. You shouldn't just throw it around like that. Most things have nuances. Life in particular.
1) This is from 2011, it was slightly less of a seller's market for engineers back then. It was still a seller's market, but not as crazy as it is now.
2) The author is one of the top 10 all time contributors to HN. #3 in fact. And I don't think he deserves the snark from the last line of your comment. He's done some pretty cool things and I'd definitely count him as a successful techie.
That said your lackadaisical use of infinity is worrying. You shouldn't just throw it around like that. Most things have nuances. Life in particular.
I'm sure he's a very prolific Hacker News contributor. My point is that people who optimize for short-term financial compensation ahead of employment with a company they believe in which is generous with its stock are the least successful in this industry—particularly financially, ironically.
Citation needed for the statistics you're drawing from. Obviously if you want to make millions you need to get that from stock, but that comes from taking risk. How many people ended up with way below market compensation by working for peanuts + stock for a company that went nowhere (or just went somewhere just for the preferred shareholders) compared to those that made had a legitimate payout that put them above market salaries?
Despite what TechCrunch and the VC industry would have us believe, it's nowhere near as clear cut as you make out.
Despite what TechCrunch and the VC industry would have us believe, it's nowhere near as clear cut as you make out.
The industry is also littered with the broken husks of all who believed in the wrong company.
That's nice in theory, but the techies' dilemma is that it's often difficult or impossible to put a hard number on the value they have added.
How many customers were retained because you decreased response times by 100ms? How many customers were gained because of that slick UI you created? How many discounts were not handed out because of downtime that wasn't suffered because of your cautious error handling and exemplary testing? How much money was saved because of that documentation you made that helped the new hire ramp up faster?
Even when you can put a hard number on work you've done, like decreasing hosting costs by $15k per month, isn't that why you're paid so handsomely already? How are you going to do that again next year? (Why haven't you done it already?) Wasn't it a group effort?
The reality is, you're basically going to get paid based upon what your employer has deemed everyone else in your position is earning, plus or minus some % based upon experience level, your reputation, and how badly the company needs the position filled. If you don't like that, time to go into management or sales.