This is terrible, outdated advice for anyone with more than a couple years experience. The value you get out of it is not wasting everyone's time when the salary available isn't even close to high enough. Decide what your minimum compensation requirement is, increase this by some percentage that would make you happy, and give that to recruiters. You will get far more out of avoiding bullshit than you will potentially leave on the table.
Additionally, remember that most independent recruiters work on some form of commission. It's in their best interest to get you more money because then they also get more money.
I am an old guy who is a better-than-average negotiator (top 20%, not top 1%) and I’d like to hear more about that. In my view, it is never advantageous to come up with the first number in any kind of business negotiation and I have done tens of millions of dollars in negotiations for myself over the last couple of decades. But I haven’t interviewed for a job in 20 years. I would like to hear more about why that concept is outdated. Not arguing, just genuinely curious.
LinkedIn makes it pretty simple to get many recruiter contacts a day. These are not qualified leads, and many are dialing for dollars -- hoping to fill a vacancy with a warm body long enough to get the agency fee.
Most people ignore these contacts, so it does kinda work to match needy recruiters with underemployed IT pros. But when you're already at FAANG making 400k a year, it can take a recruiter phone call, two tech screens, and an onsite before compensation comes up, and you're now invested like 10 hours into a negotiation where your BATNA exceeds whatever budget they have written down. I've had one recruiter get a bit angry even over it, as if my number was unrealistic (I assume they were unprepared to make a competitive offer).
Since there are so many of these lowball recruiters, some people resort to screening them out up front with a salary negotiation.
The issue (I think) is that what one company and another might consider 'competitive' might vary wildly depending on the candidates they are used to and the space in which they work.
If you don't set some kind of expectations with a recruiter then you might end up in processes where the 'negotiation' happens at the back-end, when you've been through the hoops, and the company has no chance in meeting what you're looking for.
This can waste a large amount of your time. Which is probably valuable if this is a situation you're concerned about :-)
It's not so much that as a negotiation technique it's outdated, it's more that you need to pre-select positions in some manner so you don't waste your time. If you are being paid X and a company pays their best employee X/2, but think they are paying 'really well', you're never going to not be wasting your time.
Price anchoring is a pretty well researched/understood phenomenon though - as in, whoever comes up with the first number sets the tone for what's "acceptable". Someone who negotiates down from that number feels like they got a better deal than someone who was negotiated up to it.
I admit it's not exactly applicable to salary negotiation, but IMO leading with a high number can help cement the counterparty's perception of your value. I think it really depends on what type of company (and what level of its food chain) you're applying for.
> Additionally, remember that most independent recruiters work on some form of commission. It's in their best interest to get you more money because then they also get more money.
They may get more money total, but less money per unit time spent. Their ideal scenario is getting their commission instantly, even if it leaves some money on the table.
Additionally, remember that most independent recruiters work on some form of commission. It's in their best interest to get you more money because then they also get more money.