Not op, but I’m guessing the answer is because Meta is showing that they are more than willing to be the abuser in an abusive relationship if/when the labor market gives them the leeway to do so.
Maybe this is some sort of hiring strategy to select extremely compliant employees, but if so, I imagine it will backfire over the long term since overly compliant employees typically just do what they are told and don’t really lead or innovate.
I’m guessing a lot of this behavior is driven by internal KPIs (esp. at recruiting and hr), some/many of which may not have the incentives aligned optimally with overall org goals.
That said, I would never put up with this sort of treatment, especially from a company with a scarlet letter reputation like Meta.
My “negotiation” rebuttal (after their offer) would be something like “here are the teams I am willing to work with, and here are my minimum total comp requirements”, and most importantly, I would have a compelling BATNA (best alternative to a negotiated agreement).
I’m pretty sure I would never get hired at a place like Meta except via a high-priced acquisition, and I’m totally ok with that. I am very content running my own company.
> My “negotiation” rebuttal (after their offer) would be something like “here are the teams I am willing to work with, and here are my minimum total comp requirements”, and most importantly, I would have a compelling BATNA (best alternative to a negotiated agreement).
This is generally how most people approach the negotiation, no?
> This is generally how most people approach the negotiation, no?
Definitely not, or if they do, they cave to whatever the counter is.
Edit: I see many people state their preferences in negotiations, but they rarely take non-negotiable stances with large corps when negotiating working conditions. To be fair, I’ve seen the other extreme, where people have non-negotiables that are not feasible or realistic (e.g., reserved parking in a building with no parking, 2x-3x market rate for entry level positions, etc.). That said, I think these are rare, and these excessive asks reveal the wackadoodles fairly efficiently.
I’m guessing a decent percentage of those hired take the team they are assigned to at roughly the total comp that they were initially offered (e.g., maybe a few thousand more rather than 100k more… or maybe just the initial offer).
People default to being bad at negotiation, and many aren’t willing to walk when an offer is insulting. There’s some room for discussion about accepting offers and then bolting when the labor market shifts towards labor, but I’m not sure that’s optimal.
Not op, but I’m guessing the answer is because Meta is showing that they are more than willing to be the abuser in an abusive relationship if/when the labor market gives them the leeway to do so.
Maybe this is some sort of hiring strategy to select extremely compliant employees, but if so, I imagine it will backfire over the long term since overly compliant employees typically just do what they are told and don’t really lead or innovate.
I’m guessing a lot of this behavior is driven by internal KPIs (esp. at recruiting and hr), some/many of which may not have the incentives aligned optimally with overall org goals.
That said, I would never put up with this sort of treatment, especially from a company with a scarlet letter reputation like Meta.
My “negotiation” rebuttal (after their offer) would be something like “here are the teams I am willing to work with, and here are my minimum total comp requirements”, and most importantly, I would have a compelling BATNA (best alternative to a negotiated agreement).
I’m pretty sure I would never get hired at a place like Meta except via a high-priced acquisition, and I’m totally ok with that. I am very content running my own company.