Recruiters claim salary caps are rigid laws of physics. They are often simply compliance filters designed to catch people who negotiate like employees rather than investments.
I disagree that recruiters are idiot cashiers that don't have a sense of what corporate greed is and don't have direct access to the larger P&L. I admire your ambition to inspire people to ask for beyond the listed comp, but your readers also must understand that for most positions, even at the C-Suite level, there are backup candidates. When the economy is booming again, we can all get cocky again and sh*t on recruiters but for now, I would proceed with caution. That recruiter may decide to position things in a positive light toward candidate B, and they do have power with leaders and final decision makers.
Fair critique. For most of the market, you are absolutely right.
If you are negotiating for a role where there is a viable 'backup candidate' sitting in the wings who can do exactly what you do, you don’t have the leverage required for power moves.
In that scenario, playing hardball with the gatekeeper is dangerous because you are still viewed as inventory.
However, I write for the top 1% of executives—leaders who solve specific, high-value problems.
At that level, if there is a backup candidate who is interchangeable with you, you haven’t done the work to differentiate yourself as an asset. You are still a commodity.
In a tough economy, companies actually pay more for certainty, not less.
The 'cocky' approach is assuming you deserve more just because you want it. The strategic approach is proving that the cost of not hiring you (or settling for Candidate B) exceeds the extra capital you are asking for.
My advice isn't for the candidate hoping to get picked; it’s for the leader who has positioned themselves as the only logical investment.
If you haven't established that monopoly on value, then yes—follow the recruiter's rules.
I disagree that recruiters are idiot cashiers that don't have a sense of what corporate greed is and don't have direct access to the larger P&L. I admire your ambition to inspire people to ask for beyond the listed comp, but your readers also must understand that for most positions, even at the C-Suite level, there are backup candidates. When the economy is booming again, we can all get cocky again and sh*t on recruiters but for now, I would proceed with caution. That recruiter may decide to position things in a positive light toward candidate B, and they do have power with leaders and final decision makers.
Fair critique. For most of the market, you are absolutely right.
If you are negotiating for a role where there is a viable 'backup candidate' sitting in the wings who can do exactly what you do, you don’t have the leverage required for power moves.
In that scenario, playing hardball with the gatekeeper is dangerous because you are still viewed as inventory.
However, I write for the top 1% of executives—leaders who solve specific, high-value problems.
At that level, if there is a backup candidate who is interchangeable with you, you haven’t done the work to differentiate yourself as an asset. You are still a commodity.
In a tough economy, companies actually pay more for certainty, not less.
The 'cocky' approach is assuming you deserve more just because you want it. The strategic approach is proving that the cost of not hiring you (or settling for Candidate B) exceeds the extra capital you are asking for.
My advice isn't for the candidate hoping to get picked; it’s for the leader who has positioned themselves as the only logical investment.
If you haven't established that monopoly on value, then yes—follow the recruiter's rules.