Loading...
Ava had spent three years as a software engineer at a mid-size fintech company, consistently earning top performance reviews. When a recruiter from a larger firm reached out with an offer of $145,000, she decided it was time to talk to her manager about a raise from her current $112,000. Before the meeting, Ava did her homework. She discovered through Levels.fyi and conversations with former colleagues that engineers at her level typically earned between $130,000 and $155,000 in her city. Her manager, Sol, almost certainly didn't know she had this data — the company culture discouraged salary discussions, and HR kept compensation bands deliberately vague. Ava also knew something Sol didn't: two other senior engineers on the team were quietly interviewing elsewhere. Ava opened the conver...
Popular framing: Ava was just a better negotiator than her colleagues.
Structural analysis: Asymmetric information — Ava knew the market band and her teammates' interview activity, the manager didn't — combined with anchoring the conversation on the outside offer rather than the current salary, shifted the reference point. Loss aversion on the manager's side (losing a high performer) and scarcity framing (the recruiter's deadline) made the raise the lower-regret move. Information geometry plus framing did the lifting, not personality.
Framing negotiation as primarily a skill problem obscures that the skill's value is gated by structural position. Teaching negotiation tactics without addressing information asymmetry and labor market access gives workers better tools for a game they are still playing on an unlevel field. This matters because it directs policy and organizational attention toward training rather than transparency — optimizing individual performance within a system that structurally underpays workers who cannot replicate Ava's conditions.
