I think it was good for one context. As comments here mention, there are many other contexts:
1. Many jobs have fixed pay grades and no leverage.
2. There are buyers and sellers markets. Most of the advice was horrible for a recession.
3. Many jobs have other value. If you're a soft money researcher, lower salary may actually help you. If you're working for a not-for-profit, you need to consider where your salary is coming from.
I'll also mention: Exploding job offers aren't always b-llsh-t. If I have a 3 person startup and need a fourth person, and two strong candidates, I'll want to extend the offer to candidate number 2 if candidate number 1 doesn't accept. They're sometimes hardball negotiating tactics, but sometimes, business reality.
> I'll also mention: Exploding job offers aren't always b-llsh-t. If I have a 3 person startup and need a fourth person, and two strong candidates, I'll want to extend the offer to candidate number 2 if candidate number 1 doesn't accept. They're sometimes hardball negotiating tactics, but sometimes, business reality.
This point only serves to validate the article's point though. If you already have an acceptable alternative, negotiating with you is far less likely to be rewarding than negotiating with someone who doesn't have one.
Let me give a concrete (not real-world, but close enough) example:
I am running a small startup. I'm cash-flow negative, but slowly growing. I signed my first major contract which will put me in well in the black, and lets me hire a 4th employee to execute on that contract. My current employees are tapped out with existing commitments. If I don't hire a full-time lead for my new contract, my business is dead or on life support (startups are fragile).
I interviewed a dozen candidates. I have one who is clearly an excellent fit, and one who might work out but might be the wrong hire. They're clearly not in the same class.
I'll bend over backwards to get the right candidate hired right now, but I won't wait.
If all the businesses on the other side of the table were like that, the right negotiating tactic is to follow the 37% rule, and not any of the stuff in the article: https://plus.maths.org/content/mathematical-dating
I'll mention my last job search was a very different context, but the 37% rule made sense too. I have a very specialized skill set, which means an inefficient market. Good jobs come up once every few years. Conversely, if you're hiring, good candidates come up once every few years. Getting multiple job offers at the same time is not really an option, but if someone wants to hire you, they generally REALLY want to hire you.
I'll also mention in smaller markets, people know each other, so you find jobs through connections. That's a different dynamic too.
I know there are a lot of folks who think (or, to be fair, maybe know) that they can have their choice of highly paid jobs in a week. That's not true for a lot of people in a lot of roles (or a lot of ages).
Sometimes people who are not in a great situation currently get an offer that looks pretty darned good. It may make sense to take the position that trying to wring out a bit more is really not worth the risk as opposed to making it happen now.
1. Many jobs have fixed pay grades and no leverage.
2. There are buyers and sellers markets. Most of the advice was horrible for a recession.
3. Many jobs have other value. If you're a soft money researcher, lower salary may actually help you. If you're working for a not-for-profit, you need to consider where your salary is coming from.
I'll also mention: Exploding job offers aren't always b-llsh-t. If I have a 3 person startup and need a fourth person, and two strong candidates, I'll want to extend the offer to candidate number 2 if candidate number 1 doesn't accept. They're sometimes hardball negotiating tactics, but sometimes, business reality.