If I had asked for $100K in the salary-negotiation stage for any of these jobs, I would not have considered $60K a serious counteroffer. Either the company had a serious misunderstanding regarding my skills and responsibilities (maybe we need to discuss further what I am bringing to the table), or the company doesn’t have a lot of cash and is offering extra-sweet equity packages instead (that might be a good offer for some people, but not for me), or they’re just lowballing everyone (FAIL).

Sorry - the real world just isn't this simple.

First - if you are talking to a company that really is trying to screw you down to the lowest possible number - ask yourself why you would want to work for such a company? If they are going to start off the relationship by nickel and dime-ing you, what do you think they are going to do once you're in the door?

The reality is that any company that is worth working for is going to want to bring in good developers at a salary that works for both parties. It is way more expensive in the long run to bring in a developer for less than they are worth and have them leave in a year when they realize it, than it is to just hire them at the right salary in the first place.

If a company hires good developers and treats them well, not only are they going to produce more for the company, they are much more likely to help you bring in other good developers.

I don't know about you - but I prefer to work with good companies who are looking beyond the next P&L statement.

I prefer a more honest approach. 1) Do your homework. Talk to people you trust and figure out what you are worth in the market 2) Do your homework (part 2). Figure out how much you need and how much you would like. This (and step 1) will give you solid salary range to work with. 3) Do your homework (part 3). Decide where you are flexible - maybe your spouse has good benefits and you don't need any, maybe you're willing to trade salary for equity (or flexible hours, or something else).

The bottom line is - no tricks or tips are going to give you better results than knowledge and preparation will.

Once you've done your homework you don't need to rely on tricks to get what you want. There isn't anything wrong with putting a number out there first if you've done your homework. Sure you anchor the conversation - so go ahead and anchor it in your favor. You know what you need and what you want - so use that information to benefit you. If you know that you need 100K but are ideally looking for 120K, and know that your market value is around 115K, then use that information to inform what you put out there as your first number. If you think you're talking to someone you trust, then maybe you just put your numbers out there. If you think the recruiter is going to negotiate down from your number then add X% to your real numbers.

The other real answer is that nothing works better than having a real plan B. Don't just talk to one company. Go out and get several offers. Let the other companies do your work for you ;-)

In larger companies, it's likely that the people that want to hire you are not the people doing the salary negotiation. The "company" is probably not trying to pay you the lowest amount, but the HR person doing the negotiation might be.

In that case the HR person has a low number and a high number he can give you without authorization. You don't know what those numbers are. You are at a disadvantage, and your goal should be to get information about those numbers.

Perfect example is a recent hiring for my deputy, where HR didn't make a lowball offer, but offered the low-end of what we were willing to pay. HR would have been crazy not to. The candidate countered with something much higher. We really wanted to hire that person, so we countered with the highest we were willing to pay. All "plays" in this game were completely rational, but the candidate found out what our highest offer was by not mentioning the number first.

Turns out that our highest offer was STILL not enough for that candidate so she declined. But notice how the whole time she held all the cards and was able to find out our best possible deal. That's the best you can do in a negotiation.

Now, if it actually were an advantage to state a number first, companies would be falling all over themselves to do it. You'd walk in the door and they'd be shouting numbers at you. That never happens.

Clam up and find out your actual value to that company. That value might be well above the going market rate. Put the shoe on the other foot and see how nice your life would be if the MAXIMUM you had to pay your employees was the average market rate.

I definitely agree that the scenario you are in exists, and isn't necessarily uncommon. My wife is a recruiter - and I have been both sides of the technical side of the hiring table - so I have a pretty good idea of how it works.

I just disagree that refusing to give the first is really either all that effective a tool.

First - I think the two best things you can to as a candidate are to (1) do your homework so you're not at a knowledge disadvantage and (2) do the extra work to have several competing offers.

With your example, it sounded like the candidate had a solid understanding of what they were worth. What would have really changed if they had simply named their number first? The candidate clearly had confidence in the number (since they walked away from your best offer) It might have saved both of you some time if they had been up-front about it.

Anyway - I think I was making two primary points:

1) The best way to improve your negotiating position is to do your homework so you have knowledge and options. Knowledge and options will give you way more power in the negotiation than any trick will.

2) Negotiating for salary is fundamentally different than other types of business negotiations. A salary negotiation is (hopefully!) the beginning of a lasting relationship. I think it needs to be approached - from both - sides with more focus on "win-win" than would be appropriate for other negotiations where a more hard-nosed approach would be appropriate. Personally, I am wary of both potential employers and potential hires that don't approach it this way.

Sorry - one last point from talking with my wife...

A recruiter is not simply trying to get you in the door at the cheapest salary possible (neither, really, is a good company). There are definitely companies and recruiters that work that way. A good recruiter/employer is trying to get great developers in the door for a salary that will make them happy. A good recruiter/employer will know that having to re-hire someone in a year because they left for a better offer or because you low-balled them at the beginning and didn't adjust is much more expensive in the long run.

When negotiating with the recruiter - don't think in terms of convincing the recruiter. Think is terms of given them the ammunition they need to convince the person who will approve the offer. Give them facts, data. information - help them build the narrative that will convince the hiring manager/director/etc that has to approve the offer that they need to hire you for the amount you want.

To me, going in with knowledge about what you need and what you are worth and being prepared to help the recruiter sell you to the decision makers is a much better strategy than anything as simple as "clamming up" :-)

In the first example, if the company was willing to pay 100, why would they say 60? As the article mentions, typically the person on the other side of the table is much less invested in your salary than you are. If that's the case, I can't see them going from 100 to 60.

I dunno. I think there are a lot of ways to approach this and the main thing is not getting caught doing the dumb stuff patio11 talks about, like shying away from the entire process. But these smaller issues like mentioning the number first could more likely go either way.

Because you've told them you want 100k, and they think by offering 60k, they might be able to (easily) get you down to 80k. If they were willing to pay 100k, this is a win for them.

Because if the company can get away on spending under budget for you, they can either spend more of that fixed number on someone or something else - anything from the manager's own salary ("Hey, I saved the company 25% of my budget this year, give me a raise!) to adding additional staff to buying that long needed server.

If you aren't spending as little as possible on all your costs, you're doing the business thing wrong.

I think the recent trend in hiring software engineers is to pay what they ask, because if you don't (e.g. offering $60k instead of $100k), you're going to have to hire again in 6 months to a year when they leave. Just searching for a software engineer can cost $30-50k in downtime, recruiter's commissions, and learning curves.

This needs to take into account the costs of turnover (including the cost of training a replacement) and hiring. There is an inverse relationship between the salaries that a company pays its employees and turnover costs.