Rules for Negotiating a Job Offer (2016)
193 comments
·April 5, 2025palata
shalmanese
> reading it, I felt like a child: it only says common sense stuff, but I had been doing everything wrong my whole life
Negotiation is a grammar. The rules of the grammar, when laid out on the page, sound incredibly basic. But like any grammar, anyone used to "hearing" the grammar, it becomes immediately apparently who has command of the grammar and who is making grammatical mistakes.
But the point of the grammar is not to learn the grammar, the point of the grammar is to make beautiful sentences. How far you choose to go down the path is up to your own avocation but learning the grammar allows you to understand and communicate the beautiful sentences of negotiation.
ghaff
One lesson is that you have to be willing to walk away. Doesn't mean you can't negotiate at all otherwise. But you're in the strongest position when you legitimately can go "take it or leave it" if it comes to that.
And you also don't want to throw away a great opportunity because you didn't wring every last dollar out of it.
palata
> One lesson is that you have to be willing to walk away.
That's probably because I did not explain it well enough. I can tell you the lesson, because it is impact it had on me :-).
I was already willing to walk away and was about to. I found the book by chance, in something like a random HN discussion. Without the book I would have resigned without asking for a raise, I know it.
Then I got a few lessons about the way I should prepare for asking for the raise, and the big mistakes I should not make ("don't say this", which seems obvious when you read it, but which I would have done wrong).
Finally it helped me talk about salaries when I was interviewing for other jobs. Again, difficult to say if I would have ended up with a lower salary without the book, but it most definitely gave me the confidence to talk about compensation, and I think it's worth more than the $40 of the book.
the_gipsy
Just understanding how negotiations work removes the frustration.
I read a book about negotiating. It had the usual breakdown of strategies, tactics and scenarios, and a lot of filler, but it was entertaining to read. Today I'm still not a good negotiator. Normally I just don't want to waste my time and just want to get something, or I don't want to "squeeze" the other side for little profit.
But I know that on big key deals, like buying a house, a car, or getting a job, there it is well worth to apply some pressure. And if I don't get to my goal, or if a deal fails, now I understand why and don't feel so much frustration as before.
palata
> or I don't want to "squeeze" the other side for little profit.
That's exactly how I feel! That's why I believe it is important to understand the process. When you negotiate with a company, you're not squeezing the other side for profit. They just won't accept anything unreasonable. But in case they want to squeeze you (which is likely), then you should defend yourself.
mystifyingpoi
Haha, I love it. It's incredible how tables turn once you submit your resignation. I was being outsourced and my boss declined even the smallest raise, saying that his client would have to raise the payment as well, and I cannot skip him as the middleman. So I resigned and found another job. The next day client reached out to me and asked if I want to skip the middleman, because suddenly it's fine and there are no contractual problems. That would probably mean like a 40% raise at the time. I was tempted, but it was too late.
ghaff
As I suggested elsewhere, that's fine but you have to be OK with them saying "Sorry to see you go. Don't let the door hit you on your way out."
mavelikara
Josh Doody, the author, runs a consulting service that helps candidates negotiate. Multiple people in my network have used his services to great advantage.
_rm
I'd say in almost all companies, no other approach works except this. Every other approach is basically wasting each other's time and energy.
In fact for most people, don't even bother, just find a new job.
If you super like the work at your current company, the way I'd roll is:
- work hard in a way that also builds new skills, and get recognized for your performance, widely (and add everyone to LinkedIn, you never know who might be moving on next to somewhere that needs more hires)
- At 2 years absolute limit: "I think I'm senior now" or whatever is next level, or "my salary isn't aligned with market" - at least give them opportunity
- They blah blah. Don't protest, politely nod and let the meeting end.
- You then, depending on your bank balance and risk appetite, either say the next day "ok I need to move on to pursue other opportunities" and resign, or start reaching out to your network for a new job the very same day they do their blah blah
(Goes without saying that saving up a big bank balance is the most important negotiating tool, but catch-22 and all that)
NB: I might add one other technique that can get overlooked: timing. The best time to ultimatum is when the counterparty is least capable of dealing with it. So if you wait until the person who has to decide if you'll get what you want is having an absolutely shit month, e.g. several other people have left recently, or they are bogged down in some other pain, they're far more likely to give in. And due to the ebbs and flows of business, those ebbs will always show up from time to time.
stonecharioteer
While that has worked for me too, I find that negotiating by resignation isn't going to address other issues such as those that bolster the unfair salary. Yes. You got what you wanted, but now they know you played a wildcard and they want you gone on their terms. Or they want to extract the maximum work from you.
palata
Just to be clear: my point is not that the book taught me to negotiate by resignation :-). The book gave me confidence to negotiate, and I did not even mention resigning as part of the negotiation. Only after the negotiation (a few days later), I chose to resign because of the result of the negotiation (which was therefore a failure).
What the book brought to me confidence: I would have resigned without asking for a raise, saying "well it's time for me to move on" and not "I'm leaving because of the salary". Hence my boss would not have made an offer.
The book also helped me understand how salary negotiation works, and how it is "normal": the recruiter does it all the time, they are used to it, and you may actually look more professional if you know how to talk about compensation than if you just accept whatever they say like a junior.
> but now they know you played a wildcard and they want you gone on their terms. Or they want to extract the maximum work from you.
Not at all, in my case :-).
ivanmontillam
One of the sentences at the very start caught my eye:
> I thought to myself: why is there so little actionable advice out there about negotiation?
There's a wealth of actionable negotiation advice if you know where to look, like Harvard Business Review and Harvard Law, First Round Review, among others.
One of the big pieces on negotiation I got from Harvard[0], from their Program on Negotiation. I did not attend Harvard, but reading two or three of their articles a week goes a long way.
--
[0]: https://www.pon.harvard.edu/uncategorized/what-is-anchoring-...
Pooge
For a company I've interviewed with, I've been asked twice a salary range and declined both times. I was even transparent for the 2nd time (which happened months later) and answered that it's not in my interest to give a number first.
Well, I received an offer from them and I would have undercut myself by 30%.
This is perhaps—or perhaps not—an extreme example, but I only applied what I was told in the negotiation articles and books I've read.
When you read a book, you're going to think "It's just fantasy; no way this is going to happen to me" but if you actually apply that knowledge it can truly work in your favor.
I also declined an offer 2 months beforehand because the salary was ridiculously low, despite being unemployed at the time.
Want is fine, need is not.
hummingn3rd
I am a bit confused by not talking about the salary right away, I have seen advice like yours and in this article about not giving the number fisrt but the opposite in other articles saying to leverage the anchoring bias by giving a high number first. That would help raising the following offers. Both approaches seem to make sense so I am not sure what to choose.
Pooge
I think it's fair to give it first if you're a Senior engineer and are able to receive offers quickly.
If you were looking for a $150k salary, you could drop an extreme anchor at $200k and they might even give you $180k.
ornornor
I’m also ambivalent because you risk investing in a time consuming interview process only to find out they’re offering .5 of what you deemed the minimum you’d take.
1oooqooq
are you a vc level with visibility of salaries in all the company orgs? if not, just stay silent or you will undercut yourself. working class never knows their value, by design.
therealdrag0
You can get a lot of data points online though from levelsfyi or blind.
neilv
> Rule #5 of negotiation: don’t be the decision-maker. Even if you don’t particularly care what your friends/family/husband/mother thinks, by mentioning them, you’re no longer the only person the recruiter needs to win over. There’s no point in them trying to bully and intimidate you; the “true decision-maker” is beyond their reach.
It's a very old thing in general, not just in job-hunting.
And sometimes "I have to discuss it with my spouse" is literally for real.
But if someone says it, but the listener doesn't think it's for real, then the speaker sounds like either:
* from a culture in which it's mutually understood as a nicety, not to be taken literally; or
* a bullshitter.
The former is very Californian stereotype, incidentally.
crazygringo
I don't know why a listener wouldn't think it's for real?
A new job can involve relocation, or if it's in the same city, prevent the spouse from a desired relocation.
Not to mention people do tend to evaluate major life decisions with trusted friends etc. Discuss whether to job-hop now or wait to see if something better shows up in six months.
I'm intrigued by your perspective that someone would assume this was non-literal or a bullshitter?
I mean yes, it might be buying time, but as a recruiter why would you even care? The person wants extra time, they've given a valid reason for it, so you give it to them within reason unless it's an emergency and the position needs someone in the chair on Monday and there's another candidate who can take it. I don't think they would bother to think about it any more deeply than that.
neilv
Of course most married people considering a job offer would discuss it, but that doesn't mean the person making the claim isn't actually just using a delaying tactic.
(For example, maybe they already discussed it with their spouse. Or they're going to discuss it in the next hour, but they are saying this when their goal is to effectively delay for a week.)
That's just one example of commonplace lying.
A lot of people will openly lie, and think that's normal. Even most of these advice articles for job-hunting are full of habitual corporate-standard lying.
But not all people are like that, and don't want to hire corporate-standard liars.
crazygringo
That's interesting, I'd never thought of it from the perspective of lying. Thanks.
It's funny, because I don't really consider making statements about what I plan to do in the future lies.
Like, if I promise someone I'll do something for them or do something important to them and I know I won't, that's a lie.
But if I'm just sharing a plan or a personal need... I don't see that as a lie. My plans and needs change by minute. I can decide to discuss something with my spouse, then change my mind. To me, it falls under the category of personal autonomy. Frankly it's not even a company's business why I need more time, and if they want a reason to give it to me, and I give them a reason about needing to discuss it, I'm free to change my mind immediately afterwards without telling them. And that being the case, it makes no difference what my reason for needing time actually was.
Also, remember that they're the ones telling you they have a 48h deadline in the first place. Isn't that a lie, too? But you're not going to judge them for extending that for you, because it's in your interest. Same way they won't judge you for your reason for needing more time, because they want to hire you.
I don't know. I just think it's hard to call these things lies when they're merely stating intent, which is constantly changing. But I appreciate your perspective! It comes from a different moral worldview, which is important to recognize.
ordu
> Of course most married people considering a job offer would discuss it, but that doesn't mean the person making the claim isn't actually just using a delaying tactic.
I'm a very bad negotiator, but perhaps because of this I understand that it often doesn't matter what they believe. What truly matter is whether your excuse is plausible enough. If they can make it seem like you are a bullshitter then they will win. To counter this tactic you need to find a way to make it impossible for them to dismiss your need for time.
Think of legitimate reasons to discuss their offer with your friends or your spouse beforehand, and prepare the strong arguments. This way you will make it clear that it is not a "cultural thing, not to be taken literally", and how could you sound as a bullshitter if you genuinely intend discuss it with your spouse or friends?
They can still believe that you are just buying time, but it doesn't matter if they have no polite way to challenge you.
> A lot of people will openly lie, and think that's normal.
I do not lie. I hate to lie. But I can bend the truth a little. For instance, if it is me who making a decision and I plan advice from my friends, I still can decide that I will not accept any offer without discussing it with them. It is a true decision and I do not lie when stating it openly. I just need to be careful with wording to avoid revealing the full truth. Moreover if I need to I can disclose the truth, and explain then that I did mistakes in the past by not taking time to think. Now I strictly adhere to the rule of discussing significant decisions with friends before making them. I can even share a true story about a poor decision I made.
If I have no such a story, I can refer to a book on negotiation, explain that I agree that big decisions need to be weighted carefully, and assert that I won't make any decisions without talking with my friends first. Just stress it, and if it comes to it, be ready to politely decline their offer because you need time to think.
I'll reiterate: it doesn't matter do they believe you, what is matter if they have no polite way to pressure you while sticking to the rules of polite conversation. I hate to lie, so I imposing one more constraint: I must believe what I'm saying. But that's all.
> But not all people are like that, and don't want to hire corporate-standard liars.
Perhaps. I hadn't considered that. However they are likely a minority, and it will be hard to find some of them and to impress them by your anti-corporate-politics stance in a way that leads to immediate hiring. I suspect that even if you do find some, they will take full advantage of your refusal to engage in corporate negotiation tactics. It is sad, I know. The world is unfair.
petesergeant
I've worked as a recruiter, and I have never assumed "I need to check with my spouse" is anything other than real.
null
iamleppert
When negotiating with a startup, especially a founder, always ask for two offers: one with a higher equity offer and another with a higher cash offer.
This allows the other party to still feel in control of the negotiation process but tells you two important pieces of information: the first is what the “top” number is for both equity and cash. The second is how much they really are valuing the equity portion.
Depending on the response, you can argue for both higher cash or equity, or both. I often ask what is preventing from giving both higher cash and higher equity? Often times I’ve gotten both.
madebylaw
This is good advice. As a technical founder I have been through many offer ceremonies and I would always make 2 versions of an offer, one equity weighted and the other base salary weighted. The math should be easy if you’ve already had a priced round and you should be telling the candidate the price and fma of your equity anyway. I would say 90% took the higher base. And I wouldn’t up both unless they were a truly great candidate.
pjdemers
I've always asked for better non-monetary things in writing: title, spot on the org chart, automatic promotion soon, which parts of the product and stack I will work on, even as trivial as whether my desk will have a window. I state with constant certainty that those things are more important to me than a bigger paycheck. Most of the time I was offered far more money (in one case, 2 years pay signing bonus) in return for my agreeing to accept an offer with none of those things in writing.
stared
I have been recommending this post over and over - in a blog post from 2016 on going from academia to data science (https://p.migdal.pl/blog/2016/03/data-science-intro-for-math...), via email, in person.
It helped quite a lot of people - especially women, who had a mindset that they should accept they should accept the offer. A thought that one can (and should) negotiate was a game-changer. Sometimes they were shocked that an ask for 25% more was accepted with no questions.
1a527dd5
The best advice I found was in 'Never Split the Difference'. The rest is me being honest and direct.
mizzao
Yep, I've read a lot of negotiation books and that's the one that explains all the other ones.
Everything else (including this article) is a specific case of the models described in that book.
Kerrick
Also, Never Split The Difference is basically a negotiation-oriented, machismo-tinted version of Nonviolent Communication by Dr. Marshall Rosenberg. I highly recommend both books.
3eb7988a1663
I bounced on that book pretty quickly, so maybe I need to give it another attempt. It started off so generic and, "Here are my expert qualifications and anecdotes".
Seattle3503
Yeah I rolled my eyes at that, but publishers basically require the front 10% of non-fiction be like that. It's for the people walking through book stores and picking up books to browse.
sharmi
[dead]
whall6
Having worked in investment banking (a job where your only true value add is your network and ability to negotiate) I would like to say two things:
1. I second everything in the article.
2. You would be surprised to learn how important rule #7 is. We would build entire presentations that we would provide to the other side of the table in negotiations just to reinforce our points. Basically putting ourselves in the position of “hey we’re on your side, but look at the numbers; our hands are tied!”. Having a non-confrontational attitude and providing specific reasons for why you are asking for things makes a big difference in negotiations.
(Definitely don’t need to be building presentations for potential employers though… unless it’s for contracts large enough that you’d need a lawyer and wouldn’t need OP’s advice anyways!)
madebylaw
Classic banker tactic, I love it. “Overwhelm them with data”
pkdpic
He's not a perfect figure but I always really valued Haseebs perspective and energy. I used to have access to an old lecture of his explaining memory management through whiteboard sketches of original mario that I really loved in addition to dozens of energetic insightful lectures on foundational computer science concepts that he basically did for free before his AirBnB position.
I think he played a big role for a lot of pre-pandemic bootcamp imposters like me.
But seeing this pop back up on HN I'm wondering how radically the tech world / job market has changed. I've been hiding in kushy underpaid remote jobs basically since the pandemic so I have no real idea whats going on out there.
How applicable is this perspective to the present day market for software engineers? How much have things fundamentally changed?
parpfish
I wish I could take this advice, but my imposter syndrome is just too strong and you cant just turn it off with logical explanations.
By the time I get an offer, I already feel like I’m already uncomfortable about all the bragging I’ve had to do to hype myself up. Asking for more in a negotiation is just a recipe for even worse guilt during the onboarding process (which is already a fraught time for feeling like an idiot).
jaggederest
The simple thing I tell people to do who are uncomfortable with more complex negotiation is, just before you're about to accept the offer, just ask if they can increase it any. Just straight up say "Is there any room to increase this offer?" If they say no, just accept it. If not, let them increase it, then accept that increased offer. I've gotten an increase at a significant majority of companies doing this and it's essentially zero cost.
dockerd
How many different companies have you worked for?
jaggederest
Close to 20 now I believe all time.
sgustard
Imagine meeting co-workers on your first day: "This is parpfish, a rock star who is making twice what all of you make. He is one of those 10x engineers you all hear about. Just stay out of his way while he re-architects all our systems!" I think I should have taken the lower offer?
parpfish
The hope would be to get an intro like “This is parish, a normal 1x coder that makes a normal amount of money so please be forgiving when he doesn’t understand something”.
neilv
Dated 2016.
I think the 2025 rules will be different, for most US tech job-seekers.
soneca
Which rules would be different in particular, you think?
Cerium
The information landscape has changed a bit - several large states now require posting clear salary bands, which many companies comply with in good faith. Some like Netflix post something useless (eg: "The range for this role is $100,000 - $720,000").
packetslave
Netflix is a weird case, in that they let new hires pick the mix of stock vs. cash in their total compensation. Since the CA law requires posting the cash salary in the job offer, it really can be that wide of a range.
zerr
When given the range, overshoot the max so they can negotiate you down close to the max.
lotsofpulp
That isn’t useless, the $100k bottom number provides a lot of information to labor sellers.
neilv
Sorry, that was a confusing choice of term by me, when the article already used the term "rule". I mean the courtship dynamics.
When it's a buyer's market -- or the buyers think it is -- some of the candidate tactics are going to play differently.
Even the old advice that, once the company decides they want you, that changes the dynamics, and now opens up negotiation. The dynamics maybe don't change as much as they used to. If candidate A doesn't take the offer, B, C, D, etc., are lined up and waiting, and probably not going anywhere.
I suspect that a lot of techbros who only know/remember the sellers market of a few years ago are going to be hit by the pendulum swing, when a lot of employers will be similarly cocky and fickle.
reset0684
Midwest, not Silicon Valley, but that's my current experience. I've already got a job and just got an offer which would be a small pay cut. So, I told them I'm excited about the work, etc but I just can't take a pay cut.
They remained firm that they couldn't budge on salary even a little. Then remained firm as I asked for a signing bonus (denied) and reduced hours (denied). This company doesn't do stock at all and they've already got unlimited PTO so no room to negotiate there.
Meanwhile, their interview feedback indicated I did very well. They unanimously wanted me, and I slightly exceeded their technical expectations for the role.
Seems tougher than I remember from before covid.
(Throwaway since I don't want this tied to my name for my current or future employer to find.)
reactordev
This has been true since 216, let alone in 2016 or now in 2025. It will still be true in 20,216.
ivanmontillam
I agree, if you extract the "timeless fundamentals" from each one of these paragraphs, it will remain relevant anytime, anywhere.
As long as human nature remains, the advice will still be valid.
nmd
I just went through the job hunting (labour selling!) process for a tech role in a HCOL city in US and every point in the article matched with my experience. As another commenter mentioned, the difference is these days you have bands on job listings and then levels.fyi and blind (for larger tech companies) balances out some of the information asymmetry.
CharlieDigital
Author's points are all still valid and worth the read.
I looked for resources a few years ago and found a post by a software engineer talking about "Fearless Salary Negotiation" [1]. The engineer said: "it's a small book, cost me around 40 bucks which were immediately compensated by the fact that I managed to negotiate a higher salary".
I wanted to ask for a raise: I had been working in that startup for 4 years and had never had a raise. I thought "if that book helps me get a raise of a few bucks per month, that will pay for it".
It didn't go as planned: I followed the instructions in the book, my boss spent an hour bullshitting me and I didn't get a raise. So I sent my resignation the next day. The boss called me back, and I got a substantial raise and a bonus (to compensate for the shitty salary I had been having before, it was not a miracle).
All that to say that this book did not make me a pro negotiator. But it made me understand how salary negotiation works (reading it, I felt like a child: it only says common sense stuff, but I had been doing everything wrong my whole life). And it gave me the confidence to actually ask for a raise.
Totally worth it.
[1]: https://www.amazon.com/Fearless-Salary-Negotiation-step-step...