It is hard to work up more than 15-25%.
if the number they give is way too small you understand what you're dealing with
This is where stating the number first can help you. Companies don't necessarily know your value and can't usually tell just from your resume. So when you are so far apart, you are suggesting the company just sucks. It could be that they just don't know what you're worth.
Bottomline: If a company has $70,000 set aside for the position, if you ask for $120,000 before they tell you the $70,000, you have a better shot than after they have shared and associated $70,000 with you.
Well, if you work is top of the market, your average base will be higher to begin with. It is already factored into the market avg.
The 10-25% flexibility is something you can extract purely from negotiation IMO.
Original poster said top, not average.
To illustrate my point, I will give you an example.
Let's say market range for a position is 60K - 80K. To me, that means that the best people are getting 80K to start with and those who are really good at what they do and have been in the same company for some time can be making up to 90K for the same job.
So, if someone comes off the street and asks me for 96K for that same job, it is going to look a little bit off. It tells me a few things: they do not know what is actually going rate for their job or that they have been overpaid in their previous position, or that they are pushing to see how far they can go, or that they don't actually want 96k, which goes against the original point of being honest.
My point is, none of the thoughts that pop into my head are positive about you. And I am not sure that it is the message you want to give a potential employee.
The reason is that, in 2012, 80k is a fair starting salary for a developer fresh out of a good college with no experience. It is not the top of a range for people with experience unless the company is third rate, pulling from the discards that couldn't find work at a decent firm.
(Two year old article on starting salaries for college grads: http://www.networkworld.com/news/2010/022210-computer-scienc...)
As far as the situation goes with being able to tell whether someone is in the top 10% or so, that's pretty easy since bottom 90% can't code at all and fail at fizz buzz. Slightly more tricky is separating the top 1% that are really good from that top 10% who can develop and design at all. Distinguishing these two levels of competency is easily and accurately accomplished by an interviewer who is a competent developer himself. And yes, it is much better to pay the top rate for the small number of developers that are competent and efficient rather than pay a few percent less than that for people who can contribute little to a project, which is unfortunately the case for most of the talent pool.
Numbers I used do not reflect the salaries I pay. Such is the definition of an example. Also, at no point did I say that these are examples of developers' salaries.
I actually purposefully used the example so far removed from developers' salaries because geography and availability affect the range. And I did not want to get into what should the salary actually be, since it was completely irrelevant to the point. So, instead, I used numbers I can quickly do in my head, if you are really goint to quibble about this.
I say this from experience. I asked 100K for a job and the company came back to me turning it down and stating they only have 60-70K allocated for it. I countered with 90, told them how I am different from the other candidates, and got a favorable offer ... too bad it was a few hours after I had just accepted another offer.
However, even if I determine you're worth it, I will counter with a trial period and say (in writing) that you will get your top offer when and if you prove your worth to me and to the company. I am curious to know how would you react to that type of counter, if you don't mind sharing.
The original comment, though, lead me to believe that the poster does this as a rule, asking for 120% of the top and expecting to get 90%. And while it is often the case that these hiring managers do play the game, I am merely drawing the attention that there are people out there like me (albeit probably not very common) who are not going to look favourably at ridiculous salary requests.
I can't help my gut reaction. I do, however, make room to change my mind and if there is meat behind your request, I will readjust my thinking. If I catch you in a bluff, however, because you think it's what you're supposed to do...outcome - not so good. :-)
Remember that the negotiation is the 5-minute tip of the iceberg. I try to build the negotiation by knocking your socks off at every point of contact, using whatever resources I can muster. (Want to see code? Then I'll apply all the professional spit 'n polish. Want me to present something to your team? Then I'll consider all angles, including business angles and software engineering analysis, trying to make it as intellectually interesting as possible.)
If you give me the chance and a premium, I'll continue that game to your trial period. (Though I'd maybe try to slip in a higher number, because I'm assuming more risk. ;)
But yeah, if you accept my first offer immediately, then I'll feel I've failed at negotiating. (I believe there's something absurd and horrible about the whole situation, but that's the madness of a market economy, with its built-in antagonism between buyer and seller. Graeber's _Debt: the First 5000 Years_ explains why so many people are repelled by salary negotiations.)
However, if you prove with all the stops that you are worthy of the premium, I will know what you are capable of when push came to shove and that is what makes you worth it.
This can conflict with most management styles, those which favor uniformity. Hence my choice of companies I work with.
You say "We can work up" and "they can work you down" - you'd much rather be worked down from a high number than work up from a low number.
I need to know first-hand if we're in the same ballpark. If the candidate's comp expectation exceeds the range we've selected, we can either move on or adjust our pay scale for the position. If the candidate's comp expectation is lower than the pay scale we've set, we need to evaluate if the candidate really meets the position (assuming lower pay = less qualified candidate.)
Not to say the strategy doesn't work for some people, but it definitely fails with me.
When someone insists on a number "up front" with me, they get a high range. If they insist on a specific number, the get one in the stratosphere. They've forced me to price in all the risks. Without the interview I have no idea what your organization is really like on the inside (I'm interviewing you as well). By insisting on a number before the interview starts you send a very strong "bargain shopper" message. So I'm pricing in the likelihood of:
-crappy benefits -unpaid overtime -future trouble with raises -my peers will only be people who fell for your tactics
Ask yourself if you want employees that think ahead, and evaluate a situation like I do. You won't get them with your current mindset.
These aren't tactics, they're filters to see where candidates are in line with our evaluation and what we expect to pay them.
I can tell from your comments that you already assume I'm trying to screw you over and repress your compensation. If you ever dealt with me, you would know that's not the case.
Given the team we've constructed, I'm pretty sure we've got the right folks. Thanks for the suggestions.
You should be hiring someone to do a job, not guess a magic number like a game show contestant.
It's not a game, it's a filter to ensure we're on the same page and to keep the process of candidate evaluation a waste of time.
Don't you think it's possible it can work the other way as well? An engineer could just as easily say to himself, and using the same reasoning, "If a company won't tell me what the position pays to start, there is no possibility I can interview there."
We could have a standoff with both sides adopting this philosophy. We could have transparency where both sides state their requirements. Or we could have a power hierarchy in which one person is required to disclose his hand and the other one gets to keep their position secret.
It makes the other guy squirm.
He's worried not just that you'll get more chips, but that the whole deal that he's worked hard to put together will fall through.
If you throw some number out at this point, they can just work you down. If they throw out a number, you can typically work up, and if the number they give is way too small you understand what you're dealing with.