Establish Value System

Are you negotiating to build a long term relationship that will stand the test of time, or are you trying to cut out the other guy's heart and eat it? There are seldom suitable situations for extremes, and usually what you're doing in a negotiation is somewhere between the two.

Employers come and go but your reputation hangs around for a very long time. It's practically never worth stretching the truth about yourself, because the long term value of your reputation far outweighs whatever few extra pennies you might get paid in the short term. People don't forget being lied to and even baseless rumors can kill a career.

Nevertheless, artful negotiation can be managed without lying. Even FootInTheDoor can be used honestly; it's just that most of the time it ain't. Before you enter into a negotiation, make certain you understand what values you're going to apply and stick to them consistently; they have a lot to do with who you really are.

Given my values, I would not be willing to use many of the patterns suggested in the NegotiatingPatternLanguage. A key objective of negotiation (IMHO) is to establish a working trust relationship. In this context, I would suggest that several of the suggested "patterns" are really anti-patterns.

I have been on both sides of the negotiation table and I think that both employees and employers would do well to remember that they have to work together for a long period (with any luck) after the negotiation has been completed. When negotiation becomes the objective (for either party), rather than a step in the journey, things are off to a rough start.

--JeffShelby

None of the patterns mentioned in the NegotiatingPatternLanguage necessarily hurt trust or disturb the quality of your start. None are necessarily dishonest; they manage information and encourage competition, sure, but there's no lying or cheating here. Lying and cheating isn't much of a negotiation technique.

The question most negotiations attempt to solve is price, but when you come down to it, the market for your skills is a figment of the imagination. It simply doesn't exist. All you've really got is a bunch of guys trying to figure out what they're willing to pay. If you accept a shoestring, they'll pay you a shoestring. But if you negotiate strategically you can both build trust and get paid.

Furthermore, in my experience at least, employers themselves use artful strategies to push the deal around their way. "Oh we just love you but the Manager Of Haggling won't pay you that", "you know we think you're just great but we have to fit your salary into our salary structure", "we have just another couple of candidates to interview and then we'll get back to you", "oh our CTO doesn't even get paid that!", "now sure we said a package worth $X, but you understand that $Y of it is going to be in options that will vest only after Z months ...", "I'm sorry to tell you that our GUI programmer just quit, so we really need to apply your magnificent GUI skills there for a short but indeterminate period, and then we'll get you right back on the work you joined us to do ...". If you've been around the traps for a while you've heard all of these and a lot more.

So I think it's vital you be noble and trustworthy at all times, but be worldly with it too. An employer often respects your negotiating skill when they consider that you'll be using it to benefit them now too. And if they accept that you're great at your job and straight in all ways, they'll not be too put out that you're a ravening beast when it's time to cut a deal. --PeterMerel

You don't think that the following passage from BaitAndSwitch suggests lying?

"Don't tell them what you really want up front. Tell them you're amenable to the work they're offering. Come in for an interview. "

I don't think that suggests lying. More often than not, that will be the situation no matter what you intend.

Maybe I am reading too much into the suggestion that you "tell them you're amenable to the work they're offering." If you will allow me to split a hair, I would be much happier lying by omission. If I am interested in *some* position within the company but not the one being interviewed for I would not feign interest (or explicitly deny it) but rather sidestep the subject. Instead of "Yes, I really like programming WingDings? in FlopperDopper?." (which is patently false) I prefer something like, "The <XYZ> project has some roles which look challenging and in line with my skills and interests." If you really know what you want to do and know that they have that need (the only reason I can see for BaitAndSwitch) this strategy seems more in line with SoftlySoftlyCatcheeMonkey

A lot of the struggle in looking for a job is getting to interview in the first place, and very typically your impression of the projects a company has on offer is incorrect. This isn't advocating a lie - it's advocating you don't let a good prospect get away before you get to make a pitch.

True, true. Maybe this would better be called InvestigateAllOptionsThoroughly? than BaitAndSwitch.

Plainly you'll waste everyone's time if you pitch something they might not buy. For example I usually wait until late in negotiations before talking about whether I'll accept a direct hire position. Most employers prefer a direct hire, and in fact I do too if I can get close to what I get hourly. But letting that out up front will kill a negotiation before the benefits of employing me are balanced against the inconvenience of using a consultant. In fact if I stated up front my expectation to a particular client that they wouldn't be able to afford me direct, I often wouldn't get to interview.

"BaitAndSwitch" is often used to refer to dishonest practices, but at least according to my value system I don't believe it is necessarily dishonest. I never misrepresent myself, my abilities, or my price. I just stage manage the negotiation to get all the information considered before an agreement is made. I don't believe that's at all dishonest. --PeterMerel

I agree. In fact, I follow this approach as well. However, I do not think this is what the text of the NegotiatingPatternLanguage items was promoting.

See also DaveHarris comments on MoreThanOneOffer.

I can tell you from experience that it is hard enough to find people who *really* have the necessary skills to do a job without people *playing* the system to get in the door. This type of strategy is not beneficial to either party.

I agree that BaitAndSwitch can be abused to waste everyone's time, and I observe that such nonsense is often conducted by those recruiters who are less than scrupulous. But that isn't what's advocated on the BaitAndSwitch page here. Maybe the name is just a lousy choice - perhaps it's better described as something like SoftlySoftlyCatcheeMonkey. Suggestions?

I don't mind eye catching page titles as long as the text backs them up sufficiently. However, no more beatings for that horse.

I would agree that 'employers use artful strategies to push the deal around their way too' and I am not suggesting that one should not negotiate. However, I do think there is a difference between negotiating in good faith and just 'going for it'.

As for the other abuses by employers that you mention... We have the luxury of working in a very hot field today. Hopefully you do not stay with an employer who violates the trust relationship for long.

Finally, I do agree with your entire last paragraph but, when selecting an employee, I would prefer a confident negotiator over a 'ravenous beast' any day.