|
|
|
|
|
by run4yourlives
4763 days ago
|
|
>You really don't need to have another job offer or a current job to negotiate. No, but if I know that you don't have another option, I'm not going to be as willing to give up more. A known secondary option puts pressure (sometimes, tremendous) on your negotiating partner. The absence of such an option does not. That's what the article is saying. |
|
That doesn't really make sense. The candidate has at least this much in their favor:
1. A recruiter has had probably 2-3 phone calls with them, a technical person (or two) has done a phone screen, and they've taken up the time of, say, 4-6 people for in-person interviews. The company has already spent a not-insignificant amount of time (aka money) evaluating this person, and losing them over a (reasonable) salary increase would be foolish.
2. Having evaluated the candidate, the company has decided they want this person to work for them. Assuming the candidate is great for the position, but the only sticking point is salary, why would the company go back to square 1 to save a little money? Hiring is hard.
Available comp for a particular position is usually a range, and the initial offer will rarely (if ever) quote the top of that range. If the budget is available, and the candidate is good, whether or not they have a competing offer isn't relevant, unless you know that they'll be forced to take your offer even if you don't budge (which in tech, at least, is pretty rare, I'd think).