This is actually part of the recruiter's script when trying to overcome a candidate accepting a counteroffer. I think the line I was taught was "you only got a raise because you held a gun to their head". This isn't a line I would use, just telling you what recruiters are trained to say.
It's true though, isn't it? Another thing to consider: "Will you have to hold a gun to their head every year?" Interviewing is a pain, and I wouldn't want to have be doing it continuously in order to keep myself at market rate. Let's say (conservatively) you need to interview at an average of 20 companies to get an offer, and that it takes an average of 4 days to prep, conduct each interview, and follow-up. That's 80 days of your life each year just to stay on the treadmill. I've been in situations where I use all of my year's vacation days interviewing at other companies. It's not fun.
Counteroffer as a tool to get a raise is only useful once per employer, in most cases. The second time you try to leverage a counter for a raise, you're much more likely to get shown the door unless you were underpaid.
> (1) 20 companies to get an offer is very high for software engineering / related work in major hubs (eg NYC, bay, etc)
Not everybody lives in a major hub, and for those who don't it can be really hard to get a company in one to notice you exist, let alone make you an offer.
Thank you. I've noticed your username come up a lot in these kinds of threads, and you're one of the only people I've seen whose experiences matched mine.
Job-hunting in Dallas is hard. I've been unemployed twice. The first time was long-term (to the point where it was affecting my sanity) and during the Great Recession. The second time, which was earlier this year, wasn't that long but still harrowing. After I got laid off, it was two months before I got an in-person interview. I got the job, but I'm fairly sure that a good part of the reason I was even considered for an interview was because one of my best friends works here and put in a good word for me with HR.
Also, on at least three occasions I've tried job-hunting while employed. Only one time did I actually find a new job before giving up.
Maybe it's better to spend several weekends to read algorithms books and practice topcoder, and then you'll need to interview at something like 1.5 companies before you get an offer.
For me, it just wasn't worth the hassle for a sub-market raise. Not giving me a raise in N years is sending me a message "You aren't valued."
I found it much easier to just go someplace that would value me. I worked for wonderful companies and I liked working there but business is business.
Looking for work elsewhere has a much higher success rate. The vast majority of programming jobs are simply at companies that cannot pay a really high salary for their developers. These companies just aren't big enough or profitable enough per developer to support it. My last job hop was like this, moving from a small company in a market niche to the big leagues. I'm making more now than anyone at my previous company except for maybe the owner. Asking for raises doesn't get you far for most programmers who are working at companies for wages that are roughly appropriate relative to their profitability.
Or to look at it another way, the same programmer with the same skills is going to make more profits if they're working at, say, Amazon, than if they're working on some backend IT system at a regional bank. So the former has correspondingly higher remuneration.
There is great political risk in requesting a raise. Many employers would take offense and consider it an insult, and for some reason, after you've gone to that substantial political risk, a lot of employers seem to think that their employees should be content with raises of 2-5%. If you do get a raise, the counteroffer issue is still valid; your employer is given cause to question your loyalty and may be more suspicious of your contributions moving forward. This sentiment has been expressed by MS CEO Satya Nadella and I'm sure it's popular in other management circles.
Ironically, it's generally less offensive as well as much more effective at getting a real increase in take-home pay to go out and get an offer from an external employer.
>your employer is given cause to question your loyalty and may be more suspicious of your contributions moving forward. This sentiment has been expressed by MS CEO Satya Nadella and I'm sure it's popular in other management circles.
Haven't they laid off around 20,000 people in the past few years? Seems like MS as a company wants to have it both ways, as I'm sure many do.
Easy to say, but not how it works in the real world. If you walk in to your boss's office and accuse him of underpaying you, he's going to feel hurt. That's the natural reaction. Telling him "business is business" is not likely to improve his feelings.
Business would be better named "pampering giant babies", because that's what it is. Despite the mythology that we're programmed with, most of the work of being in charge is managing peoples' feelings so that they stay favorable to you. There is a ton of room for mistakes as long as everyone likes you, and very little if nobody does. Thus, the whole of business training can be summarized with "be as popular and well-liked as possible". They try to dress it up fancy and act like they do something better than that, but they don't.
The most important thing in anyone's career is what their boss and their boss's bosses think of them. Only slightly less important is what their peers think of them. Work performance is essentially a non-factor in career advancement, so it actually is really important to manage this kind of thing carefully.
Asking directly for a raise is confrontational and inelegant. Subtly demonstrating that you deserve a raise and making your boss believe it was his idea is how you actually get one without alienating anyone. That's a lot of work, so most people just jump to another employer instead.
I assure you that you're frighteningly wrong about everything here and that your own personal insecurities are reinforcing a flawed opinion about how business works. I'm not sure how to communicate that to you, though. I'm genuinely at a loss about how to explain that your comment is extremely bad advice and is the type of outlook that most people who can't assert themselves develop.
The most important thing in anything, not just business, is not what people think of you. The whole purpose of your employment is to exchange your value for their value; why would feelings get involved if you recalculate your own value? You're asking poorly if people get offended, or the person you're asking does a poor job of separating emotion and business (literally step one of succeeding in business).
Do you really think Tim Cook gets up before sunrise to manage his SVPs' feelings? Your observations about what business actually is speak more to you than they do "the real world"; speaking of, since your opening retort was a slightly condescending explanation of that real world which I assure you I live in as well, I suspect the problem with your outlook reflects on you. But I don't mean that to belittle you. Just that perhaps the outcomes you experience come from how you approach things and not a firm understanding of business.
Might be worth some introspection here. Maybe I'm totally wrong but if I am, a whole lot of people who aren't you are too.
>Do you really think Tim Cook gets up before sunrise to manage his SVPs' feelings?
Partially. His primary job is managing investor's feelings.
>Maybe I'm totally wrong but if I am, a whole lot of people who aren't you are too.
You believe the version of the world that they want you to believe, not the world as it is. That's understandable. The powers-that-be project this narrative specifically because if people know their job is to manipulate feelings, it'll be much more difficult to do that effectively.
Good managers want to make themselves sound like self-sacrificial superheroes and inspire hero worship so that it's easier to manage the subordinate's feelings. That's the narrative they project.
However, it doesn't take an intelligent person much reading or experience to realize that things don't line up with the narrative. Management is all about managing feelings. Yes, it's true that management has to make decisions that won't bankrupt the company, but that's the easy, minor part. The difficult part is pushing those decisions through the organization with as little feeling-damage as possible, and running programs of feeling-grooming to keep your employees cooperative.
That's because they way you ask for a raise is not by "accusing him of underpaying you", and saying "business is business", there are nicer ways to bring it. You don't have to be confrontational and inelegant.
Typically, you wait for your yearly or quaterly review, tell him what great stuff you did for the company, how you will contribute again in the future then tell him you feel like a raise of x percent or n dollars would be appropriate. You don't say "you're underpaying me", but "the value I bring to the company increased, so I deserve more than I did last year"
I've never seen a boss get offended for it, at worst he'll make excuses like "sorry I can't right now, but at soon as things get better I'll think about you".
And nowadays in many companies, if you never ask for a raise you never get any. Your boss assumes you're happy with your pay, so why give more?
Yeah, annual employee reviews are undoubtedly the sanctioned time to bring it up. The boss won't be offended if you wait until then because they're expecting your compensation to be a point of discussion in that meeting anyway. However, you'll find that since they're expecting it, they have their hand-wavey excuses ready and won't take the request seriously. I'm sure a lot of people "ask for raises" in those routine reviews.
So if you do sit on your hands for 11 months so that you only ask your boss at the time when he won't find it offensive, you're still most likely going to walk away with nothing or a pittance, since as I said, bossess appear to believe any raise in excess of 5% is outrageous (again, a large bump is like an admission that they're cheapskates, so they don't like doing it).
On the other hand, most programmers can go out and get a new job offer within 2-4 weeks, and unless they're at the top of the pay scale for their industry and area, probably get a 20-40% pay bump. Which option is more attractive?
I don think it applies to all levels of employment. As a software developer in a team, with a junior manager, you have a lesser ability to do this demonstration. The junior manager doesn't decide your salary anyway, and this feedback loop of 2-3 hops takes too long.
Most employment contracts do not consider loyalty. Typically, either side has the explicit right to terminate the relationship at any time, for any reason.
Sometimes I wonder if some tech employees would be better off with managers who took a cut negotiating for them, at least until their value is established.
In my experience, all raises are based off your hiring salary. You start at $100K, you gets several 10% raises, you end up at $100Kx1.10. If you start at $75%, same thing. $75Kx1.10. Rinse and repeat. After 5 years, you are significantly behind based on that initial negotiation. Also, I've read never take the first offer. YMMV.
Not necessarily. In my case, I was one level too low in a strong organization. I had just done a geographic transfer and they hadn't quite slotted me into the kind of job that would have delivered all the good stuff (projects, recognition, pay, etc.) that I wanted. Plus I'd been assigned to a timid boss who wasn't going to make things change.
It was amazing how much everything improved once I had a higher-paying offer from a leading competitor. Boom! Better title. Boom, more money. Boom, a lot more face time with VP level folks who became my de facto bosses and boosters. I ended up staying at that place for another 13 years and had a great ride. My timid "boss" was gone from the organization within two years. The guy never caused me a bit of pain after that.
I'm glad other posters are saying that in the end, it's the agency recruiters who really hate counteroffers. The economics for them are so disastrous that they can't help but try to tug talented employees over to their point of view. From my experience, it all comes down to whether you can get your current employer to make your working situation a lot better, as well as bump up the money. If they are capable of delivering a whole new situation, then you're in a good place.
Then you should just say, "hey, I'd like a raise, and I can prove I'm worth more to others". If you have to go as far as, "I am quitting!", you've got a problem.
