Just to add an important caveat to the promise of the headline. When you reach a certain point, earning more money usually comes with increasing downsides. Managers at most well-run, larger companies will expect more than just your reasonable best efforts. As you move up the ladder they will demand consistent delivery of specific, tangible results. Sometimes you'll be required to achieve these results with insufficient resources or in changing circumstances beyond your control. And each year the targets will get higher.
Above a certain point, say around 80% of the total comp most employees get, the ground rules start to subtlety change. Getting results in the middle (or below) of your peer pack will no longer just mean you don't get a raise or bonus. The mantra becomes "Up or Out."
Yes there's absolutely a sweet spot. The ratio of pay to stress was best like 5 years into my career. I'd absolutely go back to that level of pay and responsibility if I could.
The problem is if that's your sweet spot, people perceive that and try to push you up. It's like making it look easy to do super well is unacceptable and you must be repositioned until you struggle more.
It's also because the employer has invested a fair bit of time/money into you and would like to see you take more responsibility after doing so. This is most obvious with juniors, where besides the salary cost, there are hidden costs of training. The expectation is that it will pay off in the future.
My expectation as a performer is that you need to also increase my salary if you want me to keep performing at that level. I'm _not_ an investment, I'm a professional, if they want to keep me, they in turn, must keep me happy for them to remain happy.
Employees aren't investments who owe you something. Employment is a contractual agreement of work for pay and that's it. Anything beyond that is corporate blackmail for the naive.
Unfortunately people in 2023 still don't understand this very simple fact, and that's why we constantly have to prove our "value" to the world for no reason at all XD.
The reason they push you up is pretty transparent and it's not to get a pay off on their investment.
It's because they have a really hard time externally hiring and retaining senior people in X job. They can recruit and churn through junior people all day. So they figure it'll be much cheaper to manufacture juniors into seniors internally.
If they lose a junior who fails to convert into senior, who cares? They're relatively easy to replace. It's worth the risk even if only a minority of them convert into senior people successfully, because they're so difficult to hire externally and keep.
The mantra to elaborate is "Up or Out" because at that salary level you have more options available to you as well. You actually know that you can, at any time, quit your job and find another one at a marginally lower or usually the same salary as you're currently making. So if you don't go up in salary, you get out. Generally you start to plan your exit with that salary increase in mine. Every recruiter wants to know they can make you more money, don't lie, tell them "Here's what I make now, and I'm currently employed at that level". Then bounce when the bullshit to money ratio reaches its limit for you.
> The mantra to elaborate is "Up or Out" because at that salary level you have more options available to you as well. You actually know that you can, at any time, quit your job and find another one at a marginally lower or usually the same salary as you're currently making.
Personally, I don't think this is true as companies or people think it is.
Skills+personality fit (tech interview marathons, ad nauseum) into a finite number of companies, roles, teams, expected compensation. WFH isn't quite ubiquitous, so many individuals still have to worry about location, as well. The funnel begins to narrow as you get older and more skilled. The tyranny of the corporate pyramids.
I've never gone more than 12 business days after an abrupt exit in the three times I've convinced myself to do it. That being said one should _always_ keep their employment options open (and available).
> at that salary level you have more options available to you as well
Maybe, maybe not. Most of the out people I know from I-banking, never once achieve the stature that they previously held at their last up or out position.
I don't think this is true. It has more to do with level rather than the absolute pay. Suppose you had two senior hires and one was able to negotiate more pay, the company won't necessarily expect more from the higher paid one.
On a slightly different note, from my experience, companies who pay less actually expect just as much if not more than companies who pay competitively.
“Position in band” is often a factor in performance reviews. Consider a common process - say you’re “senior level” and in your review you’ll be rated on six categories, then given a raise based on where you are overall relative to “meets expectations.”
If you’re senior but at the bottom of the senior band, and you’re mostly “at expectations” for your level but maybe “slightly below” in 1-2 categories, you’ll probably still net out at “meets” with a normal raise. If you’re senior but the highest paid senior - that’s probably going to net out at “below” overall, or zero-to-small raise.
Such systems do exist in smaller companies where leadership knows everyone and their contributions, but I’ve never seen it work this way in big companies.
Companies that dramatically underpay are often out of touch. So naturally they expect more effort than their already out of touch compensation would indicate.
But in companies with competitive comp, you almost certainly will be expected to meet a higher bar after negotiating a higher salary.
Once you argue for a higher salary than "the other guy" the implication is you can deliver more value. People don't just forget that on your start date.
Really good point. I feel really lucky making the money I do with the responsibilities I currently have. But posts like this make me feel some amount of FOMO. Responses like yours add good perspective these posts seem to be missing
Honestly this sounds to me like a "you" problem. Tell your bosses what you can accomplish and do it. Do you really think your CEO is the most productive person at the whole company?
When the buck stops with you, yes you either get it done or step back
Are execs the most productive people at the company? They can be. They have a whole org attached to them so they can multiply their efforts through others. That’s one thing. Then there is the fact they I see execs consistently putting in way more hours to deliver on promises and responsibilities.
I realize this isn’t always the case but high performers in top positions do exist. It’s seeing the required levels of dedication that actually made me decide not to pursue a career like that. It would exhaust me. I’m fine playing second fiddle. Not third, maybe, but second is fine.
There's also opportunity which can quickly bring more money and promotion at IC level. Some big companies just have budgets for the hiring role and can't step outside it no matter how the hiring manager fights for you. You need to weigh up the pros/cons in such a scenario if the role is about more than just money to you. Sometimes it's pure $$$.
There's an infinite amount of words to be written on the topic about hypotheticals and techniques. The perspective change I can recommend is to set a new goal: I would like to find the highest quality agreement we can make.
Also, read some damn negotiation books. No, I'm not going to link them here for you because unless you decide this is something you want to learn about and track them down yourself, you don't value them. I learned by collecting the syllabi of a bunch of ivy league school courses on negotiation and then reading the common books. I like to say I didn't recieve an education in this so much as I stole it, so I don't have the prestige, but that's just the part that isn't worth anything. That's just the very beginning of the knowledge you are across the table from if you haven't read any books.
You can't collaborate, cooperate, align or choose freely in any situation unless you have done so with the knowledgable consent to what you are willing to do and not do. Further, you cannot be considered a peer or equal to anyone who you have not actively decided how to relate to based on a negotiation of your respective interests. I hear "but, X people aren't good negotiators because Y," to which I call bullshit. If their survival strategy has been based on acquiescing and being agreeable on the way in and then reneging or turning on people once they gain some leverage, the only thing they are not-good at is negotiating in good faith. It is the one thing that all people capable of language and cognition are almost equally equipped to do, and it divides people who take responsibility for themselves from the careless. It's a moral competence.
It also changes how you relate to the world. It can effect your relationships when suddenly you take your own health and interests into consideration and begin to express and satisfy them, so test slowly. That said, find some books and read them, they change peoples lives.
Negotiation is all about leverage. More often than not leverage is on the employer side.
People look for a job because they most likely need one; unless they are in the fortunate position of working for fun and they don’t want to retire just yet.
Negotiating means you should be ready to walk away: let’s be honest … how many with their first offer at their dream job (e.g: FAANG) would be ready to walk away from it?
Unless you have very specific skills and knowledge, you are rarely in the position of bumping the numbers much.
That said, you must negotiate the first offer (usually low), then you counteroffer much higher with the goal of usually settle somewhere in the middle.
Recruiters know how to play the game.
Also, I believe everyone should have a good idea on how much they should be paid. I usually give the first number, if asked (high) I don’t see anything wrong with that.
I already know they will lowball me and then we will settle somewhere halfway.
Having multiple job offers is probably the most achievable way to negotiate for the average SWE. Its a clear signal that you can walk away to the recruiters.
It also gives you the psychological safety to be more aggressive in your negotiation.
This is why one should never look for a job and just let the job find you; and where linkedin works so damn well. In my own case I just let jobs find me and I tripled my salary in 5 years.
Ya our first job should be to find jobs and make ourselves the most employable we can be. Our second job is our current job.
If you have to work on many bugs or some not so critical tasks instead of working on some hard tech stuff. It’s bad. Or you see it as an investment and hope that the managers will like it and (truly :)) reward it down the road. Or else it’s a waste of your time and ressources because after X amont of time you will become a lot less valuable that what you could have been. And that will hurt you for your next job and the next and the next..
No you have to do the total opposite. Blitz search and pursue 20 job offers at the same time all packed in a month. Then start to pick and chose the few best ones and make them compete against each other on salary, stock options, career opportunities, perks…
That’s how you get the leverage back at the table.
And if you like your current company you talk to your employer about the oh so much better job offers you got. With real job offers, or they come with a better offer or in the worst case you will end up in a better company with a better salary, perks, tech stack, etc…
First and foremost there are many times when leverage is not on the employers side, today it often is not as there are more open jobs than people to fill them. Given the current population decline this trend will likely continue unless we see massive reduction in the number of employers.
Then there is the assumption that the dream job is working at a FAANG company. Many people, myself included, avoid large companies like the plague. Even if a large public company wanted to pay me 2x what I make now I would infact turn that down.
Finally there are multiple studies that show there is a wage curve which in today's dollars any salary above around 80-90K (average US COL, Adjust where needed for high COL regions) there is a reduction in how much the base salary factors into job choice. Instead other things start to play larger factors in the choice to accept an offer.
This is one of those things that 'having a network' helps with. Get a reputation as someone who gets things done while being pleasant to work with, and people you've worked with in the past will recommend you to folks they current work with or have worked with in the past. I got my current position that way. A former boss introduced me to the hiring manager at the new company (folks he'd worked with somewhere else) and basically told them "You want to hire this guy."
That said, I'm not sure it helped with _salary_ that much (I had considerably better offers in hand), but it was a great fit for both the company and myself, so I went with it.
Write a blog (history is valuable here, speak on Podcasts, Present at Conferences, be active on social media.
This can lead to people offering you positions that aren't publicly posted, because via your engagement they feel they understand you enough that you should be able to fill the role they have in mind.
For example - I write 20 blog posts going in depth on some topic - there's a decent chance I may actually know that topic. When that skill set becomes critical to someone - the odds are higher they'll contact me for that skill set because chances are, I'll be top of mind through sheer volume or quality of information I have written about that skill.
Much easier way to negotiate, have someone else do it for you.
Seriously, get on linked in, splash your resume around to headhunters, post about stuff on the internet and get noticed. I call it "Job Fishing" because it's very similar to actual fishing. There are lots of ways to get a job, but if you can get someone else to negotiate for you, your chances of making more money than you would have on your own go up substantially.
Banking industry where I had four or five offers and one of them wouldn't meet the final $2k of difference. That would have been the most interesting opportunity but I followed the money and was young and foolish.
I was interviewing with Canonical in 2020, and I aced all interviews. The hiring manager began the salary discussion. He said he could offer 80k USD. He asked how much I wanted. I said 110k USD but was negotiable (I'm based in India), He agreed and said it was fair and said he could make that offer. Just had to get back to me. I got a form rejection letter a day later. I later discovered Canonical hates candidates who ask for more money. I learnt very early on that you never accept the first offer made to you. Ask for a little more than you'd have accepted, and see what move they make. I felt shitty since I would have taken 80k too, back then. But I'm glad I asked for what I felt I was worth. But yeah, steer clear of all roles with Canonical.
Interesting, this reddit thread from a number of years back says something very different about Canonical and salary negotiation. Who knows what happened in the background in your case:
"all coworkers i've talked to who are comfortable with talking about salaries have said canonical is their highest paying gig to date. each employee salary is negotiated and some have a lot more perks than others. without going into any detail canonical provided a significant salary bump over my previous position."
Exploding offers suck. Not much you could do about it aside from knowing the culture beforehand and having a number you're not willing to go below. Even the recruiter didn't give you any hints, that's on them.
I once took an 8% drop in pay to have stock options worth more than that. Suffice it to say, the stock options never materialized. I should have stuck to my guns and asked for what I was asking for with the stock options on top.
Above a certain point, say around 80% of the total comp most employees get, the ground rules start to subtlety change. Getting results in the middle (or below) of your peer pack will no longer just mean you don't get a raise or bonus. The mantra becomes "Up or Out."