In that situation, don't ever take the counter-offer. Seriously.

Everything else you were unhappy about before will still be true. They will now have a chip on their shoulder about you. And furthermore, part of the reason why they will pay more is that they don't have a replacement for you. But now that they know that you are a risk for leaving their top priority will be to have you transfer your knowledge, to hire a replacement, and then to fire you as soon as they feel that they are in a good position to.

Be very wary of taking the counteroffer.

They don't have a chip on their shoulder. Necessarily. But they have a very rational concern that you, unlike your peers, are particularly likely to bolt. Many forms of compensation, including bonuses, training, and senior positions on teams, are viewed in terms of investments that pay off or lose depending on whether you're retained.

I wasted a year and a half or so of my career by accepting a counteroffer (I didn't really want to leave that badly) and getting marginalized.

That doesn't mean every counteroffer is bad, but I would be up-front and overt about the concern that the "counteroffer" you've been offered is really more of an "option" on you, so that you'll leave on the company's terms and not your own.

I had a scenario a few years back where I interviewed with another company in which the person I interviewed with was friends with someone I worked with.

As part of their due diligence, they asked that person about working with me, and that person then proceeded to tell my boss that they heard I was looking for another job.

My boss then spent the next few months transitioning all of my responsibilities away to other managers, basically leaving me with no responsibilities.

Thankfully, I transitioned back to being a consultant, and all of them were fired; but you don't even need a counter-offer to be marginalized. Sometimes, just talking to another company is enough to do it. So be wary.

Did you write on your resume, "Do not contact my current employer without my permission?"

I did. I also explained that the place I worked had a very strict policy forbidding any employee from serving as a reference (the only thing we're allowed to do is give them an 800 number to call which will verify employment)

The person I worked with was apparently a really really good friend of the person I was interviewing, so I assume it just came up in conversation, like "Hey, do you know so-and-so. They're applying for a job here."

Amusingly, the guy actually did speak well of me to his friend, he just then proceeded to notify my boss that I was interviewing at another company.

I'm surprised you're so calm about it. I would have been furious!

I was annoyed when it happened, but it was a few years ago, and I try not to dwell on negative experiences. Usually about a day after something happens, I process it and move on.

Also, it tangentially led me to go back to doing technical work, which I much prefer. Having all my responsibilities as a manager removed forced me to decide what I really wanted to do at that point in my career. On the whole, I'd say it worked out for the best.

That's a passive-aggressive mindset. We're all beautiful snowflakes but salary isn't based on how special you are, it's based on what you're worth, which is very closely related to what others would pay for you. Don't be all offended because your boss doesn't want to pay what you feel like you're worth, you know, in your heart.

"Boss, I'd like to make $x."

"No."

"Boss, I'd like to make $x and Y will pay it."

"You got it."

It's very simple. You can't negotiate without options. Nothing personal. You won't hurt someone's feelings by standing up for yourself (unless he is very insecure).

Without digging into whether you're right or wrong about this, there is a common pathology that happens where someone decides to leave, secures a strong offer, informs their manager, receives a counteroffer, and accepts the counteroffer instead of leaving. Many such counteroffers aren't really good-faith counteroffers (even if the company thinks they are); they are effectively "options" for the company to have you leave on their terms instead of yours.

So many managers are too stupid/lazy to value devs based on their output, and instead do so based on what other managers are willing to pay? Excellent.

> but salary isn't based on how special you are, it's based on what you're worth

Sorry, but that's just bullshit. Salary and skills are correlated very loosely. The salary spread among (roughly) equally skilled developers is enormous. It's up to you which side of spectrum to be on.

Did I say anything about skills?

I think this is a fallacy, for the simple reason that I've yet to come across a company that had their shit together enough to make it happen. In 6 months you'll be on a different project with a different manager possibly even in a different office, and the HR people will have had similar turn over.

Everyone says, "don't take the counter offer."

Here's what I'm wondering: Why can't rank-and-file employees negotiate some type of agreement where they get paid to stay? It doesn't make any sense that companies put a "value" on retention, but don't put a $$$ value on it.

I think employers are missing an opportunity by not doing this. In a high-tech business, an employee with several years' experience with the company's products can be worth several times as much as one who has been around only a few months to a year, even if the latter is qualified and talented -- some of these products are just so complex it takes years to learn their ins and outs. It only stands to reason that retention bonuses for the long-time employees would be money well spent. And I mean substantial retention bonuses, on the order of 100% of salary. I don't mean for every employee, but for the stars.

> Why can't rank-and-file employees negotiate some type of agreement where they get paid to stay?

It's called salary and other compensation.

> It doesn't make any sense that companies put a "value" on retention, but don't put a $$$ value on it.

You're missing the point. Once someone has accepted an offer from somewhere else, they're very likely to leave soon even if they accept a counter-offer. As a result, money spent on them is wasted.

Effective retention spending happens before people decide to leave.

I don't think that's they point they are missing. They know that an employees who shops is "damaged goods", but they don't know why employers don't give pre-emptive raises to everyone, and avoid the confrontations altogether.

The point they are missing is, that companies know they can skimp on 'retention bonuses', because only a few employees will shop for a better offer.

Would you rather hire a hard-working, but downtrodden slave; or a hired gun who's only staying because you are paying them what you are worth? Exactly.

The only solution is for enough employees to churn their way to decent positions, so companies are forced to assume that an underplayed employee will quit.

In unusual cases they do. Around the end of the dot-com boom (2000+) the company I was working for for offered a bunch of us bonuses of 20-25%, paid each paycheck, as a "retention benefit." IIRC, they did it for about 3 years.

There was no written or verbal agreement to stay, they just made it very clear that they realized that our job options had increased considerably and wanted to give us more incentive to stay. Some people probably negotiated higher amounts, but since I was already being paid more than I knew what to do with and the job was really a lot of fun, I just happily pocketed the money.

You can; it's called "yearly performance review".

It's true that your negotiating power is at its zenith when negotiating in a seller's market for a new job, and at its nadir when negotiating for a raise in a job you already have.

But if you want to keep your job, you still might as well play the game right.