[orderedtree]

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.

[ath0]

“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.

[doktorhladnjak]

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.

[BoorishBears]

You're confusing two unrelated situations.

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.