How to Negotiate 40%+ Above Any Salary Band

What if the salary benchmarks you trust were designed to limit your career, not reflect it?

What if the salary benchmarks you trust were designed to limit your career, not reflect it?

We’ve all seen the reports. Radford. Pave. Carta. Glassdoor.

When a recruiter cites “comprehensive market analysis,” it sounds authoritative.

Final.

But consider the motives.

The recruiter citing the report? They’re using a tool designed for scale, not specialization.

The platforms selling the report? They’re not paid to find your unique value. They’re paid to compress the entire market into a predictable band.

The result?

Your value gets flattened into an “acceptable range.”

It’s a range you’re pressured to accept, simply because everyone before you has.

Compensation benchmarks don’t measure what you’re worth. They measure what companies want to pay people like you.

You’re negotiating against data that was never designed to capture your value.

It exists to contain it.

As a senior leader, your job is to be the outlier, not the average.

Why are you letting them negotiate you back into the box?

Your salary benchmark isn’t a mirror.

It’s a cage.

Why Smart People Accept the Cage

Robert Cialdini’s research on influence explains why benchmarks work so well.

Authority triggers automatic deference.

When information arrives with impressive credentials, people often stop questioning whether it’s relevant to their specific situation.

That’s exactly what happens when you see any stated range.

The data feels more credible than your instincts about what you’re actually worth.

But the highest-paid leaders don’t position themselves against salary surveys.

They price themselves like consultants who solve expensive problems.

Last year, an advertising executive I worked with received a disclosed range of $209K - $359K. We didn’t argue for the 75th percentile. We didn’t present counter-benchmarks.

Instead, we asked about the challenges of scaling advertising across the $30B company, an endeavor that was recently made a top priority by the new CEO. It also happened to be the unique area of expertise for my client. He’d previously led a 9-figure advertising P&L.

We leaned into his strengths.

When leadership quantified how mission critical the advertising initiatives were to the company’s financial trajectory—the conversation shifted entirely.

We didn’t negotiate against the salary band. We ignored it.

Instead, we led with a solution-selling approach, focused entirely on their goals. We sold the vision of a future state—the ad team firing on all cylinders, the CEO’s priority achieved—and removed the pain and risk from the hiring manager.

Final offer: We increased the base, bonus, and restricted stock grants — plus added severance and a signing bonus for good measure.

Total package: $1.1M annually. A 206%–426% increase from the disclosed range.

The pattern repeats.

High-compensation outcomes happen when you refuse to be compared. When you stop positioning as a replaceable resource and start pricing like a bespoke solution to their specific expensive problem.

I know what you’re thinking.

“That’s a fantastical outlier. My target company is a mature corporation. Their pay bands are rigid. HR would never allow it.”

You might be right. But the keyword there is might.

Yes, internal constraints like pay bands and equity bands are real. But treating them as your absolute limit is giving up. And senior leaders just like you break them all the time. Why not you?

Don’t do the company’s job of rejecting you for them.

Your goal isn’t just to get the job; it’s to become the “expensive problem” their current structure can’t solve—the one they can’t afford to lose over a standard offer.

The value-based approach is how you do it.

It stops you from fitting their box—and makes you the person they build a new box for.

You’ll never get the outlier package unless you have the courage to ask for it.

Your Benchmark Breaking Playbook

Value-based positioning requires three shifts in how you approach compensation conversations.

Run Discovery

Before anyone mentions money, understand their expensive problems. Not the job description—the actual pain keeping leadership up at night. You must have a strong opinion about the problem and how to solve it.

Ask questions like: “Walk me through the biggest challenge this role must tackle in the first 90 days. What’s that costing you now—and what happens if we do nothing about it?”

Or:

“If this problem disappeared tomorrow, what metrics would improve and what do you anticipate we will focus on next?”

You’re not making conversation.

You’re gathering intelligence on quantified pain, timeline urgency, and what they’ve already tried that failed.

When someone quantifies “$15M in annual waste” in their own words, your compensation isn’t about matching a benchmark—it’s about solving a $15M problem.

Never Share Your Number First

When they ask “What are you looking for?” — most people panic and throw out a number. That’s negotiating against yourself.

Instead:

• I’d love to understand the full scope first.

• What’s the range you’ve structured for this level of impact?

• Can you help me understand the value this role generates for the business?

• Alignment is my first priority—and all companies use different levers to compensate. I won’t discuss compensation until I can review all of the nuances in detail. Will that be a problem?

You’re asking them to anchor while you gather intelligence on their reasoning. The person who speaks first loses negotiating power—not because of tactics, but because of psychology.

The question “how much money do you want?” is designed to cost you money.

Reframe from Role to Results

Once you understand their pain and their initial range, reposition the entire conversation.

“You mentioned customer churn is costing $12M annually. In my last role, I reduced churn from 24% to 11%, recapturing $8M+ in recurring revenue. Are you open to working with me on how to best align compensation that reflects solving a $12M problem?”

Notice what just happened.

You’re not arguing percentiles. You’re collaborating on structuring compensation around the specific value you’ll create for their specific expensive problem.

If the base feels constrained, expand the architecture.

• Structure a performance bonus tied to the outcomes they desperately need

• Propose a signing bonus that bridges the gap without disrupting internal bands

• Reframe equity around the enterprise value you’ll create

• Expand the role scope if the problems span multiple traditional functions

• Understand how salary transparency can help you navigate these constraints

Frame everything as collaborative problem-solving, not demands. You’re not asking for more money—you’re solving a structural challenge together. This approach defuses tense conversations and creates opportunities to expand the pie for everyone.

Collaborative framing matters especially for women and immigrant executives who’ve often been conditioned to believe negotiation is adversarial—or that asking at all makes them seem difficult, or worse.

Research shows women are penalized for direct salary demands but rewarded when they frame negotiations as problem-solving.

The value-based approach gives you permission to ask in the first place because you’re not making demands—you’re collaborating on a structural challenge.

Your diligence during this process also creates a rising tide for the leaders who follow you later.

These steps don’t just apply when switching jobs—they’re the foundation for performance reviews, compensation alignment meetings, and promotion conversations.

The Cage Has One Door

You’ve been negotiating against the wrong thing.

The benchmark was never the real constraint—accepting comparability was.

The executives who land 40%+ above disclosed caps understood that compensation benchmarks compress outcomes into predictable bands.

Premium pay goes to people who refuse to be compressed.

What changes now:

Stop asking “What do similar roles pay?”
Start asking “What does this problem cost them, and what’s solving it worth?”

Stop sharing salary expectations before understanding their pain.
Start running discovery processes that quantify the value you’ll create.

Stop negotiating percentiles.
Start pricing the solution, not the title.

While others negotiate against benchmarks, you now understand how to escape the comparison entirely. You’ve learned the same value-based pricing psychology that allows consultants to command premium rates.

Your salary benchmark isn’t a mirror. It’s a cage.

And remember—never be so sure of your worth that you wouldn’t accept more.

Need help applying this? Upgrade to paid for monthly live sessions with Jacob.

Stay fearless, friends.