You'll have a good chance of getting "we can't pay that, sorry, see you" back. Then if you actually want that job you'll have to walk it back and negotiate down. Not always possible, so it may not be the greatest idea to start at x2.

If they don't counteroffer then they don't want you. This is a negotiation. The starting offer is about anchoring. Neither side should expect the starting offer to be accepted immediately. If it is accepted then one side didn't anchor properly and lost the negotiation. Start with a number you think is too high but still leaves room for the company to negotiate down to an acceptable number for you. I usually don't go for double my target but others might. I usually start out at 150% of my target.

> I usually don't go for double my target but others might. I usually start out at 150% of my target.

150% is far more reasonable than 200%. Let's say you won't take below 100k, Co. won't take above 120k, you offer 150k. From the Co.'s perspective, that's 25% difference, it's worth negotiating. If you offer 200k, that's 66% off what you'll take. Co.'s probably thinking, okay, this guy will take 160 maybe 140 but no way they'll really think they can negotiate down to 120.

At bigger companies there aren't incentives to spend tons of time negotiating a candidate down to the top of your acceptable range, so even if they think they can get you down 80k you're out.

You don't counteroffer a candidate you can't afford. And I think you understand intuitively 200% is too much, which is why you go 150%.

Yeah, I should've expanded the comment more. 150% is more reasonable. A crazy high initial request is not a request, it's just "I want you to say your price first". It almost doesn't matter if you say 200% or "50 bazillion, your turn now". It's not that they don't want you, the hiring people may just assume you're not serious and not counteroffer at all - then it's up to you to come back and update your own offer.

So why not skip that step and start more reasonable?

If they want you, they want you.

If they balk, then you know where you stand and that information is probably valuable.

It's definitely acqui-hire, too. That makes sense! Thanks for the perspective. I'm just wondering what arguments to bring to these types of conversations.

This reminded me of a 30 Rock episode in which Jack Donaghy applies insights from negotiating with his nanny to negotiations with the cable company acquiring NBC.[1] Basically, if you're vital for the acquisition to succeed, you have (some) leverage.

[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7-eoiY4bOo

The only argument that matters is I-have-other-options.

A negotiation is not an argument. It is an agreement.

Either you reach one or you don’t.

And if you agree to something that you don’t want to live with, you’re already halfway out the door.

Or they could counteroffer.

Lets say you want $250k. Ask for $500k. They might be relieved, because they thought you would want $800k.

So you would say to set an anchor as high as possible?

What is your 2nd best option?

If your 2nd best option is a job making 200k.. and you ask for 800k and they just say no? Well, being cocky just lost you 200k (you could have asked for 400k).

True that

I don't want to be cheeky with them, but at the same time I expect something more than industry standard. The problem is that I have never worked as an employee before and salary negotiations are new territory for me.

Do you still have equity after the acquisition?

No equity of our company but I will get some RSU's and since they are a public company they are limited how much they can hand out and the majority will be in cash and some of it combined with a earn-out.