The Psychology Behind Every Salary Question

How to navigate direct salary questions without leaving money on the table.

Today we explore a reader question from one of our paid subscribers:

Dear Jacob,

I'm a 39-year-old woman interviewing for executive roles, but I'm concerned about being pigeonholed into lower-level positions with corresponding salaries. Recently, a recruiter assumed I was targeting 'low 200s' without me ever mentioning a number. When pressed for my range, I gave $275k, but I'm worried this interaction hurt my negotiating position. How do I handle salary conversations strategically when interviewing at the C-suite level? Specifically, what's the best approach when a hiring manager or CEO asks for my number directly, or when they present an offer that feels low?

This question hits the heart of what every senior executive faces when strategy meets reality.

Nothing about being 39 or female should signal a "cheap hire," yet here we are, navigating a landscape where assumptions masquerade as insights and first impressions become financial ceilings.

And yes, saying $275k does hurt your negotiating position. It's salvageable, but an uphill battle.

We covered the strategic framework in Never Negotiate Against Yourself, where we explored how information and timing control negotiation outcomes.

Today we dive into the specific moments that separate confident executives from those who accidentally limit their own potential.

The stakes couldn't be higher.

Harvard research confirms that due to the anchoring effect, the first figure introduced into salary discussions tends to strongly influence the final outcome.

Women face additional challenges when they negotiate assertively—often being perceived as less likable. This creates a double bind: stay silent and accept less, or negotiate and risk backlash.

Not on my watch.

The difference between executives who command premium compensation and those who accept standard offers often comes down to mastering three critical moments we'll explore today.

As author Chris Voss demonstrates in "Never Split the Difference," successful persuasion isn't about being forceful or smooth—it's about the other party convincing themselves that your solution is their idea.

This principle aligns with decades of influence research from Robert Cialdini and even traces back to Aristotle's understanding of persuasion—the most powerful agreements happen when people feel they participated in creating the solution.

These are key tenants that I use to help my clients overcome highly complex and situational negotiation challenges.

The goal is true empathy and active listening, not manipulation.

This principle transforms how we approach salary discussions from adversarial exchanges to collaborative problem-solving.

Every number you share before having a formal offer becomes part of the narrative that shapes your perceived value.

The Information Asymmetry Problem

Most executives think salary negotiations begin when someone mentions numbers. They're wrong. The negotiation started the moment you entered their pipeline, and you're already losing.

The fundamental imbalance is staggering.

Companies know market rates for your role, your employment history from LinkedIn, your previous company's compensation bands, and they've budgeted specific ranges for the position. You know what you hope to get paid and maybe what a few friends make.

That's it.

The experience gap makes this worse.

Companies negotiate with candidates every single day. Some hiring managers have probably conducted 200+ compensation conversations this year alone. You negotiate for yourself maybe five times in your entire career, and only sometimes effectively.

It's like playing chess against a grandmaster when you barely know how the pieces move.

Here’s a hard truth we all learn sooner or later in our career: in every employer-candidate negotiation, the employer always wins the fundamental trade.

The Truth About Employment

They give you money. Money is infinite and always losing value.

You give them time. Time is finite and always gaining value.

Think about it.

They can print more money, raise capital, or cut costs elsewhere. You can't create more hours in your day or add years to your life.

It's never a fair trade, so forget win-win negotiation dogma.

If you're giving your most precious asset, make sure you're doing it for something you believe in. Your reason can be big dollar signs to support your family, or it can be for causes that matter to you, or any combinations of reasons that suit your fancy.

Either way, own your choice.

This is why Harvard research on anchoring effects is so devastating for candidates.

When you share your number first, you're not just setting a reference point—you're handing them a weapon—and they already have a massive advantage.

Dammit, David—go grab the slingshot!

The first figure mentioned doesn't just influence the discussion; it creates a psychological ceiling that's nearly impossible to break through.

The anchor effect works like this.

If you say $275k, their brain immediately starts working backward from that number.

Not up from it—down from it.

They think, "Great, she wants $275k. Can we get her for $250k? Maybe we do nothing but add some equity?"

You've just become a cost-cutting conversation instead of a value-creation discussion.

However, your ignorance is actually your strength.

To be clear, I don't want you ignorant—I want you hyper-informed. However, we play like it's possible we don't know the limits and ask the other party to advocate for us. We thank them for going to bat for us while never revealing your true number.

We give them a reputation of being your cheerleader and advocate.

When you give someone a positive reputation, they can't deny it or they lose face. If you tell someone they're being helpful and advocating for you, they'll continue that behavior to stay consistent with how you've defined them.

Don't reveal what you know about their constraints or market rates.

The moment you start throwing out numbers based on your research, you're playing their game with their rules. When you act like you don't know their range, their constraints, or their alternatives, you force them to reveal information first.

This creates an environment focused on value creation, not fitting into predetermined benchmarks.

And how could you know their specific situation?

Every company and situation is unique.

You should never be so sure of what they can pay you that you wouldn't accept more.

Here's what happens when you share a number early.

Every number you mention before having a formal offer becomes ammunition for their internal cost-cutting conversation.

That $275k you mentioned? It's now a ceiling.

• They use it to justify why they don't need to offer more.

• They compare it to other candidates' numbers.

• They use it to anchor every future conversation about your compensation.

• They never forget—even if they say they don’t recall.

But here's the bigger problem.

When they anchor the entire role at your number, it doesn't just hurt you—it hurts everyone who comes after you.

Your willingness to accept less becomes the ceiling for future candidates.

Weak negotiators beget weak negotiators.

But, a rising tide lifts all ships.

We must work together to help all employees and executives rise. You shouldn't be punished because a peer or previous candidate was a bad negotiator.

Those low anchors become ceilings that hurt everyone.

When you negotiate well, you're not just helping yourself—you're helping every executive who follows. When you accept less, you're not just hurting your bank account—you're making it harder for others to get what they're worth.

You set a poor precedent.

More importantly, sharing a number early changes how they see you.

When they don't know your expectations, they focus on your potential value.

When they know your number, they focus on your limitations.

After you share a low anchor, they think "Why should we pay more than what they already said they want?"

Instead, we want them to think "What can this person help us accomplish?"

And it's your job to create this environment. I'll show you how.

This is why the best-paid executives never give numbers first.

They understand that negotiation isn't about fairness—it's about information control. The person who knows more while revealing less controls the outcome. They've learned to flip the script, making the employer convince them of the opportunity's value rather than the other way around.

Your goal is simple.

Control what information flows out while maximizing what information flows in. Every question you deflect is an opportunity to ask one back. Every number you don't share is space for them to fill with something higher.

The next time someone asks for your number, remember this.

You're not being helpful by sharing it. You're being naive.

The Three Critical Moments

Every compensation discussion boils down to three make-or-break moments.

Your Default Response

A strong default answer when caught off-guard is:

"I'm unfamiliar with the current market for this type of role. I want to thank you for bearing with me while I do more research. Can you help me understand the typical range? Or if you were in my shoes, what would you recommend I ask for?"

This approach accomplishes several things: it positions you as thoughtful rather than unprepared, it makes them your advisor rather than your adversary, and it forces them to reveal information while you maintain control.

Master these three moments, and you better control the outcome. Fumble them, and you've capped your earning potential before you even realize what happened.

Moment 1: The Screening Call Probe

The Question: "What are your salary expectations?"

The Trap: You think you're being helpful by giving a "realistic" range.

The Reality: You're anchoring yourself before they understand your value.

This moment usually happens within the first 15 minutes of your initial recruiter call—especially with more transactional recruiters.

Important distinction: The most effective executive recruiters don't ask about compensation until they're ready to pursue an offer. They spend more time assessing alignment and ensuring the hire is the best fit for the team. They need you to stay retained and be successful or they risk losing a percentage of their placement fee.

Don’t believe me? Get to know a recruiter as strong as Kate Bullis and you’ll finally recognize that you’re dealing with a master. There’s nothing transactional about the best in the business.

Unfortunately, the Kate’s of the world are few and far between. You’re much more likely to come across a slew of questions about compensation and budgeting from lesser experienced recruiters.

Here’s what to do with those folks.

Your Response Framework:

The Partnership Deflection: "I appreciate you asking. I'd prefer to understand the role and impact first. Once we align on that, I'm confident we can find a package that works for both of us."

The Reverse Inquiry: "I'm sure you want to know we're in the same ballpark. Can you share the range the company has budgeted for this position?"

The Context Redirect: "Compensation matters and we'll get into it, but I'm more interested in the scope of impact and our alignment first. Can you tell me more about what success looks like in this role and why I stand out to you?"

Special Case — Online Applications: If a form requires a salary range, enter "Negotiable" or "0" — if it disqualifies you, the company wasn't serious about finding the right person anyway.

Moment 2: The Hiring Manager's Direct Ask

The Question: "Before we go further, what's it going to take to get you?"

The Trap: You think you're being strategic by sharing your "real" expectations.

The Reality: They're testing whether you'll negotiate against yourself.

This moment typically happens during second or third-round interviews when the hiring manager wants to "get real" about compensation.

They frame it as efficiency and mutual respect, but it's actually a psychological test. This is where most executives lose the most money—because they mistake directness for partnership.

Your Response Framework:

The Value Flip: "That's a great question. Based on what you've shared about the role, what would you consider appropriate compensation for someone who can deliver these results?"

The Scope Clarification: "I need to understand the full scope of impact before I can give you a meaningful answer. Can you walk me through where I can best show up for you and the value we must create to be successful?"

The Sophistication Signal: "You and I both know every company compensates differently. Can you help me understand how your team prefers to compensate?"

Optional addition: "In the past I've been compensated through competitive base, performance bonuses, equity, retention packages, etc—what's your typical framework?"

This shows you understand complex compensation structures and signals you're a professional who's been there before. It triggers more desire to secure you.

The Collaborative Approach: "I'm confident we can find a number that works. What's your compensation philosophy at this level?"

Advanced Deflection: "I've found that when executives share numbers too early, it creates artificial constraints. I'd rather understand your vision for the role first."

Moment 3: The Offer Preparation

The Question: "We're preparing an offer. What would make you say yes?"

The Trap: You think you're finally negotiating.

The Reality: You're doing their job for them.

This moment feels like you've won—they're making an offer!

But this question is the most dangerous because it feels collaborative. They're not asking for your input; they're asking you to negotiate against yourself one final time before they even present numbers.

Don't respond with haste.

You need to be incredibly disciplined at this moment.

Research shows that when people feel "included" in the decision-making process, they're more likely to accept suboptimal outcomes because they feel ownership of the result. Don't aim to be included—instead create the environment for your own success and lead to the outcome you need.

Your Response Framework:

The Excitement Redirect: "I'm excited to see what you put together. I'm confident you'll present something competitive based on what we'll build together."

The Comprehensive View: "I evaluate opportunities holistically—base, equity, growth potential, culture fit. What's your typical framework for someone at this level?"

The Professional Patience: "I appreciate you asking. I prefer to review a formal offer and then have a productive conversation about any adjustments."

The Trust Play: "I trust your judgment on creating a competitive package. What excites me most is the opportunity to contribute to [specific company goal you learned about]. I'm ready to get started."

The Playful Deflection: "Oh come on, you know better than that. I'm not sharing a number right now. I have no hesitation that we'll put together a great deal for both of us—and I have a sneaking suspicion that one of the reasons you're interested in me is that I'll be a strong negotiator on our behalf and teach our team to do the same. Let's cross that bridge when we’re ready to move forward."

This approach requires incredible tact and situational awareness but has been very effective for clients who have built meaningful personal brands and industry reputations.

Why These Work

Each response does three things simultaneously:

1. Deflects the number question without seeming evasive

2. Gathers intelligence about their constraints and priorities

3. Positions you as collaborative rather than difficult

The key insight is that people need to feel heard and understood before they'll consider changing their position.

When you acknowledge their need for information while redirecting to value creation, you're demonstrating understanding without surrendering your position.

The Common Thread

Notice that in all three moments, you're turning their question into your question.

This isn't about being clever—and you best pay heed not to be annoying—but it's about recognizing that whoever is asking questions is controlling the conversation.

When they ask about your number, you ask about their framework. When they ask about your expectations, you ask about what defines success for them.

But don't stop there.

Lead with your value hypothesis. I want my clients to have a strong opinion on the value they can provide the employer. Instead of expecting employers to have all the answers about what success looks like, take the lead:

"I anticipate in the first few months I'll be motivating the team, closing new key clients, and preparing our growth strategy for the next phase. Is there anything I missed that's top of mind for you?"

This approach, inspired by negotiation expert Jim Camp's philosophy, helps expand the conversation beyond predetermined budgets.

You're not just fitting into their existing framework—you're helping them see additional value they hadn't considered. Camp called this "painting the pain" and "creating vision" for your counterpart.

It’s also necessary intel so that you can “sell the vacation” to them later.

You're not avoiding the compensation conversation.

You're ensuring it happens from a position of maximum leverage—after they've decided they need you, but before you've limited their imagination about what you're worth.

When They Push Back Hard

Your initial deflections worked in the moment, but now they escalate.

Now what?

Research from Harvard Business School professors Deepak Malhotra and Max Bazerman shows that when negotiators encounter resistance, they instinctively increase pressure through "hardball tactics"—ultimatums, threats, and emotional manipulation.

These approaches succeed far too often—not through logical merit, but by exploiting psychological vulnerabilities. Such tactics strike me as intellectually lazy, manipulative, and beneath contempt.

Kellogg professor Jeanne Brett's research on global negotiations reveals that aggressive tactics trigger our fight-or-flight response, making us want to end the discomfort quickly rather than think strategically. This is exactly what they're counting on.

Here's how to handle the warfare.

The Multi-Person Pressure

"I've spoken with the team, and we all agree we need your number to move forward."

They're using group consensus to make you feel isolated. Multiple voices create artificial urgency and social pressure.

Your Response: "I appreciate everyone's interest. When you're ready to present a formal offer, I'm happy to discuss it with whoever makes the final decision."

The Withdrawal Threat

"If you can't give us a range, we'll have to move forward with other candidates."

This is the nuclear option—threatening to end the process entirely. Most executives panic and give in here.

Your Response: "I understand. Perhaps we can reconnect if your preferred candidate doesn't work out."

Call their bluff.

If they're serious about ending the process over this, they were never serious about you.

The Deadline + Authority Combo

"The CEO needs a number by Friday or we can't include you in the board presentation."

They're combining time pressure with authority to create maximum stress.

Your Response: "That's a tight timeline. If the CEO needs to discuss compensation, I'm available to speak with them directly."

The Relationship Damage

"You're making this difficult for me personally. I'm trying to help you here."

They're personalizing the conflict, making you feel guilty for their "difficulty." This targets your desire to be liked.

Your Response: "I don't want to create problems for you. What alternatives do you have available?"

The Competitive Intelligence

"Other candidates are giving us numbers in the 200s. Are you in that range?"

They're sharing (possibly false) information about competitors to anchor your expectations downward.

Your Response: "That's interesting. It sounds like you have a good sense of the market. What's your assessment of fair compensation for this role?"

The Expertise Challenge

"With your experience, you should know what this role pays."

They're questioning your market knowledge to make you prove your worth through numbers.

Your Response: "Every company structures compensation differently. I'd rather understand your specific approach than make assumptions. What’s most important is that we’re aligned on the work we need to do together"

The Psychology Behind Escalation

These tactics work because they exploit deeper psychological triggers:

• Isolation: Making you feel like you're the only one being "difficult"

• Urgency: Creating artificial deadlines that force quick decisions

• Authority: Using titles and hierarchies to create compliance pressure

• Guilt: Making their job harder becomes your fault

Recognizing these patterns helps you respond strategically rather than emotionally.

Your Mental Framework

When facing escalated pressure:

The harder they push, the more they want you. Companies don't waste time pressuring candidates they can easily replace.

Every threat to end the process is negotiable.

If they could actually walk away, they would have already.

The person applying the most pressure usually has the least authority. Real decision-makers rarely need to resort to these tactics—especially the ones you would enjoy working with.

The Ultimate Circuit Breaker

When all escalation fails, use this:

"I can see this is important to you. I'm confident we'll find a solution that works for both of us once you're ready to present a formal offer. In the meantime, what other questions do you have about my background?"

Remember: How they treat you during negotiation predicts how they'll treat you as an employee. Companies that respect your process early will respect your judgment later.

A Final Caveat

Their negotiation approach typically isn't malicious. It's usually well-intentioned.

You don't have to be cutthroat or assume animosity—you need to create a safe environment, recognizing positions, but guide the conversation from warfare to collaboration.

Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

Picture meeting your counterpart in a big empty room with an imposingly large conference table.

You're face to face with your new boss.

Now picture physically getting up, walking awkwardly around the table, and sitting next to your boss, working on a solution in front of you both—not between you both. A problem to be whiteboarded and solved together so we can maximize the value for everyone.

How can we make a great deal even better? Let's explore that.

Nobody says no to getting a better deal.

The Psychological Warfare

Every salary negotiation operates on two levels simultaneously.

There's the surface conversation about compensation, and there's the deeper psychological assessment happening beneath.

Perhaps this is why many leaders talk about looking for the intangibles — the soft skills —that don’t always fit nicely in a formatted column on your resume.

While you're focused on demonstrating your qualifications, they're studying your behavior for entirely different signals.

They're not just evaluating whether you can do the job—they already know you can. They're assessing how you handle pressure, whether you believe in your own worth, and most importantly, whether you'll advocate for yourself with the same intensity you'll bring to advocating for them.

This creates a peculiar dynamic where the conversation about money becomes a proxy for evaluating leadership potential.

Executives who fold under compensation pressure often struggle to negotiate effectively for their teams, their budgets, and their strategic initiatives.

Companies understand this connection intuitively, even if they can't articulate it explicitly.

The psychological pressure you feel isn't accidental—it's diagnostic.

When they push for your number, they're not just trying to save money. They're testing whether you'll negotiate against yourself, which predicts whether you'll do the same when representing their interests.

When they create artificial urgency, they're observing how you respond to stress, which previews how you'll handle board presentations and crisis management.

Your awareness of this dynamic changes everything.

Instead of feeling defensive about your negotiation approach, you recognize it as a demonstration of the strategic thinking they're hoping to hire. Your calm deflection isn't obstinacy—it's evidence of the composed leadership they need.

Advanced Tactics

Once you've mastered the fundamentals, these techniques separate competent negotiators from exceptional ones.

Intelligence Gathering

Every question you ask reveals constraints. Turn your inquiries into research.

"What's driving the urgency on compensation discussions?"

→ They're under pressure to close quickly.

"How does this role fit into your broader hiring plans?"

→ You learn about team dynamics and growth trajectory.

"What's the approval process for offers at this level?"

→ You map the real decision-makers.

Their answers expose timelines, budget constraints, and internal politics. Listen for what they emphasize and what they avoid.

Creating Scarcity

Scarcity drives urgency. When companies believe you have alternatives, they move faster and offer more.

The key is projecting options without lying. "I'm evaluating several opportunities" works better than "I have three offers." Specificity invites verification; generality maintains mystery.

Research shows that people fear missing out on something unique more than they desire gaining something common. When you are selective, they want to be selected.

My favorite way to frame this is:

"I'm considering several options and will make my choice by the end of [timeframe]. To be honest, I'm most excited about working with you because [specific reasons that align with their growth]."

This approach is critical because if they feel like you're simply playing the field to juice an offer, they won't negotiate with you at all. People need to feel like they have a fighting chance, otherwise they won't go to battle for you.

Ultimately, your number one priority is becoming the ONLY option they can see themselves working with.

You must distance yourself from your competition throughout the process. Pushing back on compensation while negotiating with compassion and empathy is a powerful way to stand out from the crowd.

Anchor Disruption

When they finally share a number, resist the urge to accept or counter immediately. Their anchor works by creating a reference point.

Disrupt it by asking questions:

"Walk me through how you arrived at that figure."

"What flexibility exists within that framework?"

"How does this compare to your typical packages at this level?"

These questions force them to justify their position while you gather information about their real constraints.

Package Expansion

Most negotiations get trapped in base salary discussions. Expand the conversation beyond their initial framework.

"What's your total compensation philosophy?" shifts from salary to packages.

"How do you typically structure deals for high-impact roles?" introduces performance incentives.

"What other components should we consider?" opens entirely new categories.

“What’s one thing I didn’t ask but I should have?” my favorite question of all time.

Companies often have more flexibility in equity, bonuses, and benefits than in base salary. By expanding the conversation, you create value that doesn't exist in narrow salary negotiations.

Alternative Leverage

The strongest negotiation position comes from having real alternatives. But alternatives aren't just other job offers—they're any option that reduces your dependence on this specific opportunity.

Consulting contracts, advisory roles, sabbaticals, or even staying in your current position all qualify as alternatives. The key is that you must be willing to pursue them.

When you have real alternatives, you negotiate from abundance rather than scarcity. Your willingness to walk away becomes credible, which transforms every conversation.

Timing Control

Control the pace of negotiation by controlling information flow. Share updates on your timeline strategically:

"I plan to make a decision by month-end" creates gentle pressure.

"Another opportunity is moving quickly" introduces competitive urgency.

"I need time to consider the full package" slows rushed decisions.

Never reveal your real timeline or constraints. The party with the most flexible timeline usually wins.

Intelligence gathering reveals constraints. Scarcity creation exploits those constraints. Package expansion creates new value. Alternative leverage makes your position credible.

The Long-term Strategy

Mastering salary negotiation isn't a one-time skill—it's a career-long practice that compounds over time.

Before Your Next Job Search

Start building your negotiation position months before you need it. Audit your digital footprint for salary signals. Remove specific compensation details from LinkedIn, bios, and public profiles. Build relationships with executives who've recently changed roles—they're your best source of real market intelligence.

Most importantly, develop multiple revenue streams.

Consulting contracts, advisory roles, board positions, or even passive income reduce your dependence on any single opportunity. The executives who negotiate best are those who genuinely don't need the specific role they're pursuing.

During the Process

Document every conversation.

Note what information was shared, what questions were asked, and what responses worked.

Surprisingly, AI notetakers are often automatically added to even the most confidential of company planning and hiring meetings. And I’m eternally grateful when I can get access to those logs because I can craft significantly more nuanced strategies for clients with full recordings, tone, body language, etc.

This intelligence becomes invaluable for future negotiations and helps you recognize patterns.

Don’t underestimate the tone and energy used throughout.

Research the company's compensation philosophy through recent hires, press releases, and industry reports. Understanding their approach helps you speak their language when discussions begin.

Public officers have public salary data published, though be mindful that all of the hidden levers aren’t always revealed.

Oftentimes, top executives such as Steve Jobs, Mark Zuckerberg, Meg Whitman, and Elon Musk accept a nominal $1 salary. Obviously these are the extreme outliers, but if they do it—recognize that not all public salary data is going to be the true ceiling.

Nominal compensation is often a calculated public relations maneuver, a 'ruse' designed to deflect scrutiny from the true, multi-million-dollar total remuneration derived from vast equity holdings, lavish perks, and deferred compensation for taxation purposes.

While SEC filings disclose these elements, the sheer scale and strategic intent often remain obscured, revealing that public transparency doesn't always equate to true clarity.

Everyone might have a baseline precedent of $350k base at the C-suite level in a particular organization, but don’t be surprised if one executive has all compensation tied to complex performance targets they can never hit—and another only accepted because a $4 million bonus was agreed to off of the payrolls.

This opacity extends beyond corporate disclosures into other professional contexts—such as salary negotiations, where information asymmetries similarly disadvantage individuals.

To level the playing field, build relationships with multiple stakeholders, not just the hiring manager. The broader your network within the organization, the more advocates you have when compensation decisions are made. You need a coalition.

After the Offer

Take time to consider every offer, regardless of how attractive it seems initially. Rushed decisions often lead to missed opportunities for optimization.

Evaluate total compensation, not just base salary. Equity, bonuses, benefits, and growth opportunities often matter more than the initial cash number.

Build in future negotiation opportunities.

Establish clear performance metrics, review timelines, and advancement criteria. Today's negotiation sets the foundation for tomorrow's.

Why This Matters Beyond Money

Your approach to salary negotiation ripples far beyond your bank account.

Your Professional Reputation

How you negotiate signals how you'll perform as a leader. Executives who advocate effectively for themselves typically advocate effectively for their teams, budgets, and strategic initiatives. Companies recognize this connection, even if they don't articulate it directly.

Future Opportunities

Today's negotiation becomes tomorrow's reference point. Recruiters share information. Companies benchmark against each other. Your willingness to accept less or demand more becomes part of your professional reputation and market positioning.

Industry Impact

When executives negotiate well, everyone benefits. We must negotiate effectively and encourage others to do the same. Your compensation ceiling becomes the floor for those who follow. We're collectively responsible for fair distribution of wealth and opportunity.

Personal Confidence

Knowing you can advocate for yourself changes everything. It affects how you approach board meetings, budget discussions, and strategic decisions. Executives who negotiate well for themselves negotiate well for their organizations.

The Ultimate Test

Can you walk away if the terms don't work? If not, you're not negotiating—you're hoping. The strongest negotiation position comes from having alternatives and the willingness to pursue them.

Your Call to Action

Practice these scripts with a trusted advisor before you need them.

Audit your current negotiation leaks—places where you're inadvertently sharing information that limits your position. Build optionality before you need it through alternative revenue streams and professional relationships.

Remember: You're not asking for a favor. You're ensuring fair value exchange for your most precious asset—your time.

The moment they ask for your number is the moment you discover whether you're a buyer or a seller in your own career.

Choose wisely.

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

Stay fearless, friends.