[15155]

"Don't name a number first" is advice that really only pays dividends to those who don't know their worth.

Those who do know their relative worth are already playing a different game than the former, and will probably be able to reap more advancement and value than someone "getting lucky" by having a company mess up and issue a highball offer.

When entering a negotiation, you should know your worth and be able to articulate your reasoning behind it.

In my experience, it's much easier for me to articulate how I am going to create value and justify my compensation than it is for the counter party to justify their beliefs I am not worth what I say I am.

Usually, if diplomacy fails, it's because the entire team is anchored at a comp range that I would never consider. In that event, though, the counter party has done me a valuable favor: I do not want to work with individuals who are paid less than me.

[tedmiston]

Your worth does not necessarily equal what value a company places on a given role they are trying to place you for.

[15155]

Correct! But this is exactly the definition of "fit."

When I was speaking about "worth" before, naturally one must scope their estimation to the market they're trying to sell to. Market worth is only what the market is willing to pay for something.

If you've got a broad, valuable skillset, but a company can only use 10% of it, they can rightfully scope the role and issue an offer or decline to issue an offer.

What isn't okay, though, is taking the scoped offer and then performing in a far wider capacity - that is the very essence of being undervalued and/or underpaid.

[tedmiston]

Is it?

I've always looked at fit more from company culture, team dynamic, overall team skill level (A players, B players, etc.) vs. something that's directly associated with a certain compensation package.

[15155]

Refining: it's a mutual combination of factors, but relative compensation is certainly a strong proxy for some of those factors (skill level, in particular).