Game Theory, Salary Negotiation, and Programmers
When you get a new job, you can breathe a sigh of relief, but not for long. You have an offer letter in your hand, and it is easy to miss one of the most important opportunities of your life: the starting salary. Here's the tale of two programmers. When getting a job, Goofus didn't negotiate. Gallant asked and got an extra $2500. They both get yearly raises of 3%
Year | Goofus | Gallant |
---|---|---|
1 | 45000 | 47500 |
2 | 46350 | 48925 |
3 | 47740 | 50392 |
4 | 49172 | 51904 |
5 | 50647 | 53461 |
After five years, Gallant has made an extra $13272, enough to get his car paid off, or keep his Macbook software up to date.
Goofus is in prison because he had to become a spam lord to pay child support for his six kids.
Everything in life is negotiable. C.E.O.s and corporate executives are simply people that learned this at an early age. The things that are most negotiable are the things written in black and white in indelible ink. They are engraved in silver, carved in stone, simply to trick you into thinking you cannot negotiate. "Just sign here. It's a formality." "It's a preprinted form, it can't be changed."
Do not be intimidated. Salary negotiation is a game, and the first to give a number loses.
When it goes wrong?
A friend once confided in me one of the biggest mistakes of his life.
He broke the golden rule of salary negotiation. If you say a number, you lose. If you are asked on a form, leave it blank. If someone is pressing you for a number, just repeat: "I expect to be paid fairly based on my skills." The chances of you mentioning a number and getting it right are low.
Let's prove it using some game theory. In this the rules of this game, there are two possible salaries: high and low. You and the company's recruiter both write your salary expectations separate cards, and then you each flip them over one at a time. Sounds simple, right? Here's the catch: The second person to go gets to change their vote after the first move. If both cards match, you get the job at the agreed upon salary. Here are all possible outcomes if the job applicant goes first:
You only get the high salary 25% of the time, and in one unfortunate case (HL) they have security escort you from the building. Let's look at what happens if the company reveals their card first:
When the company is the first to give a number, you always get the job, and you have a 50% chance of getting a high salary.
Another friend of mine was working in a job that didn't challenge her, so she applied around and was interviewed for a much better position. The problem was, it wasn't paying that much more than her old job. For the same money, she could keep her old job and play on the Internet much of the time.
She called the recruiter and said she would love the position and was very excited about it, and looking forward to the new challenges, except for the trifling little detail of the salary, wasn't there anything they could do about that? A few hours later she got the job -- at much higher pay.
The manager trying to hire you has chosen you over all the other candidates, and this give you the upper hand. In a larger company, the person you will be working for often has no idea what happens after the interview, since you are now dealing with an HR person. If you get away, this HR person has failed, and it will be disappointing to the manager. Use this to your advantage.
The economy is turning around, and more jobs are popping up. The fact that you are reading this blog means that you have an interest in your craft, and this puts you in the top 10% of candidates. If you are on the hunt for a job, remember these tips:
Your expectations Company's expectations
Low High Low LL LL (changed)
High HL HH
Company's expectations Your expectations
Low High Low LL LL (changed)
High HH (changed) HH
When it goes right
Final tips
Further reading
Example (your 40K friend)
He asks for $65K
Now what is a reasonable counter?
Your game theory is correct, but salary negotiations are not done with 2 cards :)
I said a salary of €65536 would be very round. I work elsewhere now, because round and realistic need not be room mates.
What I have discovered is that employers are just as emotional as they are "rational". I have actually found that first to say a number does not necessarily loose.
If you, the prospective employee, shoot off a fair number, the employer might counter with y which may end up being y = x/2. Rather than trying to do x++ why not instead say okay why not y++ and after 90 days x. try it. It worked for me.
Your friend is the perfect example of this. When the employer chose to take advantage of his inexperience setting and negotiating a salary, they eventually left him in a position of dissatisfaction and he left them. They didn't win, they lost, potentially more than he did in the long run.
Had they instead chosen to find a point of satisfaction for their new hire instead of "winning" they might still have him. Salary negotiation is only a win/lose game if the person you are hiring is willing to accept just about anything. In which case they probably are not the kind of talent you were looking for in the first place. Real talent is the first to move on when they don't feel satisfied or appreciated.
What if the applicant does give a number first and it is the right number? Or maybe it's too high? How do they lose?
Mike (Four Pillars)
However, people who do this have lost jobs at my company. In short, the attitude is, "This guy is playing games. It is annoying. We're trying to get work done, and we don't need guys like that on the team."
Would love to, however I got backstabbed this year by a political manager and am recieving an Underperformed for not lying for him. I have done my best to give this company a chance, but at this point I see little option other than moving to the competition. It's sad because I do love the company.
"There" is way too big for one culture. I am talking about my own experience. I tend to not work in places where politics are encouraged &| compensated.
I had/have quite a few 64-66s working for me who were incredibly bad at politics, but were kick-ass coders.
Incidentally, I have an opening in this range right now :-).
Bottom line - I don't like playing games with potential hires. When I ask you for your desired salary, I'm asking honestly. I want to compensate you fairly and make you happy and motivated. If you refuse to give me a salary, you should expect nothing but an offer on the low side of what I was looking to spend for the position. Then, when you come back and say "well I really want xyz", I'm going to be a bit peeved at you for not just telling me that in the first place.
Corollary - I also want to know we're playing in the same ballpark. If I am looking to spend strictly up to 85 max, and you want a minimum of 120, that would be an incredible waste of everybody's time to go through an interview process.
Better advice - give out the first number and make it on the high side of what you want but in realistic range.
That only works if you are recruiting lvl 60/61. Sure they will fail if you bring them in at a higher level (and there is negotiation within level for salary). But when you are dealing with 64-67, you are now dealing with someone who know all of their technology and whose job is is playing politics. At this point, it's completely up to their manager whether they get a 70 or a 20 and has very little to do with what they know. The better ass kisser will get the raise. It is much better that they negotiated the 64 to a 66 up front rather than spen 5 years making up the difference and trying to find a manager who likes them.
You're probably the smartest guy in this down elevator.
Ah! This is my floor. If you think programmer salaries are bad, try working in muppet theatre...
(1) Everyone has a level. There is a skill set attached to a level, and a salary range.
(2) Yearly review measure you against your colleagues within the same level band.
Say, you have negotiated, like that article suggest, and got yourself into level X + 1 where X is where you really deserve to be. Your performance sucks relative to your peers, and you get lower grades on the performance reviews. Review grades is something that stays with you for a while, so a couple of years of being underqualified, and you career is essentially finished.
Let's say you did not negotiate and were assigned a lower level than you deserve. Well, relative to your peers you are doing great! Your performance absolutely rocks, and in a year or so you get promoted. Meanwhile you get a bonus that erases the unfairness of the first year comp.
If you land on the same level, there is still a spread. By negotiating you might get into the higer part of the spectrum. But the yearly merit increases are structured in such a way that people at the lower level of the spread are bigger, and towards the very top they peter out. Which means that you might enjoy your extra money for a little bit, but it's not going to be a lot, and will not last forever.