I'm an 8 year data center network engineer who recently broke 100k for the first time. When I got asked my salary requirements I actually only asked for 90k as my highest previous salary was 80k with lots of travel, then I found out they gave me 100k because it was the minimum they could pay someone in my position. I've read before about people making crazy salary increases (150%-300%) and am wondering if I played it incorrectly and how I could play it in the future. I plan to stay with my company for the next few years and upskilling heavily and am eyeing a promotion in my first year as I've already delivered big projects by contributing very early. I've progressed from call center/help desk/engineer etc (no degree, just certs) so my progression has been pretty linear, are people who are seeing massive jumps in pay just overselling their competency and failing forward? Or are there other fields in IT like programming/etc that are more likely to have higher progression scales?
I usually follow it up with a salary range and they end up matching the lower bound.
Yeah, saying a range makes no sense. You hope for the high end, but all they hear is the low end. I always say a specific number.
A range gives you flexibility. I hope for the high end, sure, but I know they'll go for the low end so I throw a range where I'd be happy with the low.
Since it's a range, it's easy to say No way I'd work for you for less than [low end].
If you give a fixed value they'll low ball it and you'll generally end up in.between theirs and yours, so you'll have to aim high.
Exactly. That's why you say a specific number, which you hope you'll get (which is a high end of your range), but in your mind be prepared to accept a lower offer (which is a low end of your range). If you say a range it's like if you said just the low end of the range, the high end doesn't matter anymore to the recruiter. That's at least what I've been doing recently and it usually works well.