
Should Tech Firms Ban Salary Negotiations? - SunTzu55
http://news.dice.com/2015/04/15/should-tech-firms-ban-salary-negotiations/
======
Nadya
So instead of empowering women to negotiate better - they drag everyone else
down (including the women who CAN negotiate!)

The way to equality should be lifting everyone to the same platform. Not
dragging everyone into the mud.

~~~
proksoup
I have not negotiated my salary or equity ever.

I find difficulty building healthy relationships with the people, men and
women, that do negotiate.

I would rather work with other people who want to work somewhere where
negotiation for salary is not assumed to be done.

Like, we both got the same offer. They negotiated for a higher salary ... why
didn't the employer offer more to start if they thought I was worth more?

If it's too low, say no. If it's enough, say yes.

Why do you want to hire people who negotiate?

~~~
Nadya
Negotiation shows that you believe you are worth more than the company
believes you are worth. Your job is to convince them to make a transaction
that, until you prove your worth, is a bad transaction for them.

The ability to successfully negotiate that is similar to a sales pitch. The
product you are selling is yourself. Business is about selling an idea,
product, or service. If you are incapable of selling yourself - you are not as
good an asset for business. Even if hiring into a technical field - what if
you make your way to management? What if you end up having to deal with
clients directly?

The person who shows they can negotiate is better equipped for those
scenarios. They are a better company asset. They are worth more to the company
because they offer a skill that is useful for business: negotiation skills.

~~~
proksoup
I think I did an okay job selling myself if we get to the offer stage.

I don't understand why overselling oneself, or convincing the business to make
a bad business decision is a valuable trait.

I don't want to work with Alec Baldwin, coffee is for closers, dude seems like
a difficult person to work with.

~~~
Nadya
If you get to the offer stage - you met the bare minimum requirements.
Depending on the field and other number of applicants - that could mean you
have "5 years experience" and not much else. It doesn't always mean you sold
yourself best in your resume & cover letter.

It's a bad business decision from their starting perspective. The ability to
change their minds and onboard them to invest their time/money into your
business is good for your business (or your employers' business). Therefore,
companies look for people who are good at negotiation. It's a large part of
how business/companies operate. Ever try giving an elevator pitch? A person
who can successfully onboard someone in under two minutes is a very, very
valuable employee to have because they will be good at winning your business
more business.

Overselling yourself or convincing a business to make a bad decision happens
sometimes. Not necessarily on purpose! But if a salesman/marketer does this
often enough, people stop doing business with them. People prefer to do
business when it is mutually beneficial.

Given a choice between two employees of equal merit - the one who can
negotiate will always be the more valuable asset to the company. (But then
that isn't really equal merit... is it?)

~~~
proksoup
My gripe is that I have no leverage negotiating.

Salary is like the last thing I care about in which employer I choose.

If I like the company, I would take less than they offered probably.

If I don't like the company, I would probably not want to work there no matter
the offer.

If I ask for more money, but am unwilling to walk away, I feel like I'm
starting the relationship off on a bad foot.

I feel like favoring negotiators favors people who don't care who they work
for, and are most interested in money.

~~~
Nadya
It sounds like you should work on your negotiation skills. I'm willing to bet
you do have leverage - and if you truly don't - why do you think you deserve
as much money as someone who does? If they have more to offer then surely they
should be paid more for being better qualified and able to offer more value to
the company?

> I feel like favoring negotiators favors people who don't care who they work
> for, and are most interested in money.

Why not both? I love who I work for and would not leave to any other company
that offered equivalent or even slightly better pay. Even if offered much
superior pay, I would consult first with my company about a raise to match the
offer given before making a decision to leave or not.

If the company I am working for doesn't think I deserve the pay the other
company does - chances are I'm going to choose the other company. Simply
because being _valued_ is nice. Not being valued or deemed "worth keeping"
would make me think I am not wanted at my current company, making leaving for
a company that _does_ want me sound rather appealing.

------
geebee
I don't see anything wrong with this at all. I certainly don't think we're
dragging anyone down, considering that it's just one company's policy and
people who don't like it are free to work elsewhere. It's hardly coercive,
like there's some legislation banning the practice of negotiating salaries.
This is a choice made by the CEO of a company. It may turn out to be a
competitive advantage, it may turn out to be the opposite.

Perhaps people are responding to this in the context of gender equity. That
makes sense, especially considering that this is the context Ms Pao chose to
use to present the policy.

But consider this

[http://www.salary.com/why-women-don-t-negotiate/](http://www.salary.com/why-
women-don-t-negotiate/)

Now, that's just a link on the web, I do need to dig into this more. But
here's the quote:

"Forty-six percent of men always negotiate salary following a job offer,
compared to just 30% of women. And while 39% of men are apprehensive about
negotiating, that number jumps to 55% for women."

So a small minority of men sometimes accept an offer without negotiating, a
slightly larger minority of women do the same. Similarly, a narrow majority of
women are nervous about negotiating, whereas a very large minority of men are.
There is a huge amount of overlap here. Things like this really shouldn't be
presented as "men do this, women do that", but they almost always are.

Truth is, there are probably a lot of men who would be attracted to a company
policy like the one Ms Pao has proposed, and there are probably a lot of women
who wouldn't be. It may turn out that there is a large pool of highly talented
people who aren't good at negotiating salary but don't like getting paid less
than their comparably talented coworkers, and that Ms Pao will get them to
work for her. Other companies will get the people who are talented at getting
paid more than their coworkers.

Or not. It's up to her to decide if this is worth a try.

------
marssaxman
Seems like a great idea. Why should people be paid more just because they have
and are willing to use a skill (negotiation) unrelated to the skills they are
being hired to use (engineering)?

Letting engineers who feel like negotiating get higher salaries makes about as
much sense as letting engineers who happen to have paddled to work on a sea-
kayak get a higher salary.

