It's not always just about the savings. While it may not be the tactic that yields different result than just straight shooting, the concept of negotiation teaches you about the person and the way they deal with controversy and conflict. As a hiring manager I use salary negotiation to learn oodles about the candidate.
It was salary negotiation that made him take the second job (or so you think), but what do you think how would that person respond when you (or his peers) disagreed with his approach to development, architecture or other difficult people on the team (assuming that there are some). How did he react in other situations?
Don't get me wrong. I think that paying people what they are worth is very important. I recall a conversation with a manager from whom I inherited my team about a potential raise for one of the team members.
Me: Claire didn't get a raise in a year a half. Can you tell me why?
Former manager: She didn't ask for one. Why would we throw money at people.
Me: Because I value her work and given inflation and cost of living, she is technically making less now than she was when we hired her.
Former manager: I don't work that way. I don't give raises unless people ask for them.
She was let go and I inherited her new team as well.
In a nutshell, neotiating initial salary can teach you a lot about the candidate and the way they deal with difficult situations. If we, as managers, don't walk away from the table and hire the person, it is our job to be proactive and pay them what they are worth and what market will bear.
With certain individuals, I believe that makes sense. My experience with a majority of engineers I've encountered is that the task of negotiation is a necessary evil, but not one they wish to engage in.
> It was salary negotiation that made him take the second job (or so you think), but what do you think how would that person respond when you (or his peers) disagreed with his approach to development, architecture or other difficult people on the team (assuming that there are some). How did he react in other situations?
Very good question. We certainly conducted code reviews and we had some strong discussions about approaches to problem-solving, in which he was no shrinking violet.
For this given individual, he was confident in that type of negotiation (defending development code design.) I believe he wasn't interested in negotiation around compensation because he really was interested in the problem set and opportunity we presented, and was simply trying to keep his cost-of-living steady.
You're right. And for that individual, he was probably not interested in the negotiating game. However, if you were convinced that he was indeed just trying to keep his cost of living, if I were in your shoes, I would have put my foot down with the CEO and told him that I am not going to back to insult the candidate with the low-ball offer. Sure, he could have fired you, but I highly doubt it. If he asked let's see how badly he wants the job, I would have said. "I disagree, it's against what I stand for, and if you want to negotiate like that, you can do it yourself." (perhaps not verbatim, but absolutely the gist). How badly did he want to keep you in your job.
People like that are bullies. He was bluffing. He would have folded like a cheap camp chair. Point proven by the fact that you ended up at 90K, but not before the candidate got the bad taste of the CEO antics.
As a middle manager, I learned that sometimes it is absolutely necessary to beat my superiors for the sake of my subordinates. It's harder, but if you stand for nothing, you'll fall for anything.
Maybe it will cost me my job some day, but I highly doubt it will be a job I would want to keep for the long run.
You took the high road. I choose to fight fire with fire. :-) In the end, neither of us would probably be in that position for much longer, either way.
I left out the full conversation, but I did tell the CEO he was making a mistake by attempting to low-ball the candidate. To no avail, though -- it was simply the CEO's chosen way of doing business. Very strange, as my negotiation had been quite easy.
Your take is right -- the CEO was merely trying to exert some level of influence, for reasons I fail to understand to this day.
I'm now in an engineering-centric organization, and comp negotiations are the least of my concerns. Finding the best people continues to be the hardest to do.
I'm happy to offer confidential negotiating advice to anyone I help recruit for a company. ;) Because my responsibility lies with them, and not the corporation.
It was salary negotiation that made him take the second job (or so you think), but what do you think how would that person respond when you (or his peers) disagreed with his approach to development, architecture or other difficult people on the team (assuming that there are some). How did he react in other situations?
Don't get me wrong. I think that paying people what they are worth is very important. I recall a conversation with a manager from whom I inherited my team about a potential raise for one of the team members.
Me: Claire didn't get a raise in a year a half. Can you tell me why?
Former manager: She didn't ask for one. Why would we throw money at people.
Me: Because I value her work and given inflation and cost of living, she is technically making less now than she was when we hired her.
Former manager: I don't work that way. I don't give raises unless people ask for them.
She was let go and I inherited her new team as well.
In a nutshell, neotiating initial salary can teach you a lot about the candidate and the way they deal with difficult situations. If we, as managers, don't walk away from the table and hire the person, it is our job to be proactive and pay them what they are worth and what market will bear.
And that is what makes loyal employees.