But if you're currently making 150, then 210 is a huge jump up!

Sure, you could have asked for 250, and I would've recommended that the candidate ask for 250 (because you would've likely gotten 225 or something like that), but asking for 210 and getting it is extremely ideal IMO.

This is better than "I'm not going to tell them my salary or target so that I can wow the shit out of them during the interviews, and then negotiate up once at the offer stage in hopes that they'll instantly approve it since they're over the moon to have me."

It's not that that doesn't work (it does, sometimes); it's just incredibly risky (what if you get a stump-the-chump interviewer that NO HIRES basically everyone they interview?) and very likely to result in "sorry, but that's not in the range for this role, but you can interview for the Staff role..." and then potentially have to do the already-excruciating interview loop _again_.

Why though? The manager has a budget, you are within the budget, getting into negotiation when the condition is already satisfied can, at most, win 10K per year and lose the whole placement, which will cost much more in the additional search.

>But if he offers 200 and you have not given any number at all, you can negotiate and possibly get more than 210.

You also might get less.

If you say 210, are you going to absolutely refuse any offer that's less than that? If you would, then you picked a bad number: you should have said 220. Or 230. Or 250. You've already hypothesized that the manager's actual range is 200-250; given that hypothesis, you should be targeting at least the top of that range, not the bottom 20%, if you're going to give a number at all. And if your objection to that is that you don't know the manager's range, yes, that's the point! That's why you shouldn't be risking anchoring the conversation in the wrong place.

If you wouldn't refuse an offer less than 210, then the manager is not going to lose the placement by negotiating with you for less. Yes, 210 is "within budget", but that doesn't mean negotiating for less has no benefit. That's still budget he could now use for something else.

In my experience any number you give is not going to be interpreted as your absolute minimum. It's going to be interpreted as the first step in a negotiation--one in which you should have waited for the company to take the first step, but you didn't and the company will feel no compunction in taking advantage of that.

But in any case, even if you get 210, you have, as I said, foreclosed any chance of getting more. See below.

> You also might get less.

But you're not going to get more, and that's what you should be thinking about.

You've already said the manager's actual range is 200-250. If you say 210, then, as noted above, you're restricting yourself to just the bottom 20% of that range no matter what.

If you give no number and the manager offers 200, when his range is 200-250, that probably means he views you as a baseline hire and you wouldn't have gotten 210 anyway if you'd given that number first. In any case you're no worse off not giving a number; the key point is that the manager views you as a baseline hire.

If you give no number and you're a good enough hire that the manager would give you at least 210, he'll probably offer 210. And then you can negotiate from there.

I, for one, tell the number, which if was given to me during negotiation would result in acceptance on my part.

> You've already hypothesized that the manager's actual range is 200-250

And I have not hypothesized the range, in my example I speculate why people believe they would have been offered more than they asked for if they did not ask first, this is the hypothesis, not the actual range.

>But you're not going to get more, and that's what you should be thinking about

It's trivial to raise it if you suddenly decided you can get more, just say you have another offer for $X+10K, but you like the company so much you are willing forfeit 10K. More so if you can actually secure such an offer. This is why negotiating down from already satisfactory for both sides comp is a bad strategy for the HM.

That's not the same as saying you would refuse any offer for less. So you haven't answered the question I actually asked.

> I have not hypothesized the range

Yes, you did. In the scenario we're discussing, you said the manager's range is 200-250.

> this is the hypothesis, not the actual range

In other words, you're moving the goalposts. Sorry, not playing that game. Of course you can make up any numbers you like, but at the end of the day my argument is still the same: it's to your disadvantage to anchor the conversation on a number first. And you don't have to: as I've pointed out in another subthread in this discussion, if the company genuinely wants to hire you, at some point they have to commit to an offer. You don't; you can always go away and talk to someone else. (If you object that you might not be able to, my response is that you're already assuming you might get a better offer, which means you're assuming you can go away and talk to someone else. See further comments below.)

> It's trivial to raise it if you suddenly decided you can get more

I don't see how. You've told them you'd accept an offer from them for 210, but now you're reneging. The fact that you might get another offer for more than 210 is a reason not to tell them the 210 number at all. It's not a reason to go back and revise the 210 number afterwards if you get a better offer.

> This is why negotiating down from already satisfactory for both sides comp is a bad strategy for the HM.

You're assuming that the company will interpret your giving them the 210 number up front as a sign that your negotiating position is strong. I think they will assume the opposite: that your negotiating position is weak. Someone who already has good offers on the table, or expects to get them soon, doesn't have to commit to a number up front. They can just say "Give me an offer you think is competitive and I'll consider it in the light of my other options".

The question is ambiguous, in some cases I stood on my number and would not take anything less, in other cases I renegotiated for other compensation e.g. less base, for much higher sign up bonus. Don't see how is this relevant though.

Essentially, after each side called a number, no matter the order, you are either in agreement or with the employer's number lower than yours. The final outcome in the latter case will be either rejection, or a number between these two. You claim that if the employer calls the number first, the final number will magically be higher than if the candidate called the number first. I don't see how is this feasible unless the employer always calls the maximum possible number or close to it.

>In other words, you're moving the goalposts.

Not really, I did not edit my message, just read it again, the goalposts are still there.

>I don't see how. You've told them you'd accept an offer from them for 210, but now you're reneging

I just wrote how, say you've got another offer. In your model, if employer said 200 first and you, using your strategy responded with 250, and while the employer is thinking or negotiating further, you've got an offer for 260 from another company, how is this different? Are you going to take 250 if offered even though you have 260 on hand?

>You're assuming that the company will interpret your giving them the 210 number up front as a sign that your negotiating position is strong. I think they will assume the opposite: that your negotiating position is weak.

I think you are personalizing things too much, nobody really cares. The HM has a vacancy that needs to be closed ASAP, not a need to demonstrate who is strong and who is weak.

No, I claim that, on net, you will end up with a better final deal if you do not give any number until after you have an offer and you are ready to respond to it. See further comments below.

> In your model, if employer said 200 first and you, using your strategy responded with 250, and while the employer is thinking or negotiating further, you've got an offer for 260 from another company

My strategy would be to not respond with a number to any offer until I have all of the offers I expect to get on the table (either that or those companies have told me definitely that they are not interested in going any further, so I can cross them off my list of possibles). My only response to an offer before that point would be to say "Ok, thanks very much for your offer, let me do some thinking about it and get back to you".

> I think you are personalizing things too much, nobody really cares.

It's not a matter of "personalizing", it's a matter of recognizing that, just like you, the company is trying to get the best deal they can. I'm not saying they will always try to negotiate you down if you give them a number before they've made you an offer. They might, as you say, decide it's not worth it to do that and just write you an offer at that number. But if they do do that, you are almost certainly leaving money on the table that you could have gotten if you had not given them a number and waited for them to make an offer.

And if, in that scenario, you then come back and tell them you want more because someone else made you a higher offer, you're, as I said before, reneging on what you already told them, and you're now saddling them with additional work they didn't even think they would need to do--they thought it was just a matter of writing you an offer at the number you said and you accepting it, boom, done. If you expected that you might get a higher offer, you shouldn't have given them the lower number in the first place.

> The HM has a vacancy that needs to be closed ASAP

Yes, but "ASAP" doesn't have to mean "as soon as you give them a number that's within their range". They might prefer that, but that doesn't mean you should. If they are genuinely interested in hiring you, they will be willing to negotiate if they have to. And it will be to your advantage to make them have to by not giving them a number up front.

This is kind of untrue. The company may "want" to get the best deal possible, but you aren't dealing with the company. You're dealing with one or more individuals at the company that have incentives that do not align perfectly with what the company "wants".

In most cases, the hiring manager has a budget for the role and they do not care if you come in at the bottom of budget or near the top. They don't make extra money for getting you as cheaply as possible. Sometimes they even have incentive to pay you more, to close you quickly or even just prestige.

Okay, so you don't respond with a number at all, do I understand correctly? I think you overestimating your negotiation skills a bit but if it works for you, best of luck.

No. What you quoted from me doesn't say that. It says I don't respond with a number to any offer until I have all the offers I expect on the table (or those leads have otherwise been crossed off). It doesn't say I don't respond with a number after that point.

Once I have all the offers I expect on the table, I respond in whatever way seems best. If one of the offers is good enough, I might just accept it and be done with it. Or I might decide to negotiate with one or more of the companies who have made offers, in which case I will be responding to them with some kind of counter that might include a number. The point is that I'm not making any substantive response until I have all of the information I need to weigh my options.

> if it works for you, best of luck

I have used the process I've been describing every time I've had to do a job search. It has worked out reasonably well.