Everyone of us is familiar with the proverb, “all that glitters is not gold.” The best contemporary example of this proverb might be the word “negotiation.”
It is no more a fancy word now because it has been labeled as a skill in modern days and regarded as a part of the recruitment process in private-sector jobs. People consider it a healthy professional practice as it gives candidates a voice in establishing their worth.
There are many career advisers who encourage job seekers to “negotiate confidently.” Theoretically, negotiation manifests empowerment. It indicates equality, confidence, and the freedom to initiate a dialogue rather than passive acceptance.
However, theory does not always mirror reality in Bangladesh.
In professional terms, negotiation is a process where both the recruiter and the candidate hold some degree of power in a discussion.
Each side must have alternatives and the ability to say “no.” It works only when both employer and candidate can walk away from the table without severe disadvantage.
But the Bangladeshi job market is intensely competitive. When hundreds of applicants compete for just one position, the balance of power inevitably shifts toward the employer.
In such an environment, how realistic is it for a candidate to negotiate?
For many young job seekers, especially fresh graduates, unemployment is a real and immediate fear. When someone has been searching for a job for months, facing family expectations and financial pressure, their ability to bargain becomes limited or invalid.
In such a situation, the opportunity to “negotiate” can feel like a risk they cannot afford to take.
The discussion may look professional, but the imbalance of power often determines the candidate’s “no-go situation.”
In fact, many candidates silently accept the first offer, even if it is below their expectation. The fear is simple: If they ask for more, the employer might withdraw the offer.
Under such conditions, negotiation becomes less of a dialogue and more of a gamble.
We have to accept that not all candidates are equally comfortable negotiating. Confidence is shaped by social and economic backgrounds.
Graduates from elite urban institutions often have exposure to corporate norms, professional networks, and communication skills that support negotiation.
On the other hand, first-generation or rural graduates often do not have the same guidance, confidence, or information about salary standards.
So, even if they are equally skilled, they may fall behind.
Gender also affects bargaining outcomes. In many cases, women who negotiate strongly are perceived as “demanding,” while men are seen as confident and competent.
Because of this subtle bias in the job market, many women hesitate to negotiate fully, which eventually contributes to salary gaps.
What does this bargaining culture ultimately produce?
First, negotiation has become a tactical game. Candidates may feel like they have to exaggerate competing offers to get a better deal.
Employers may also start with a lower offer thinking the person will ask for more money. This culture normalizes strategic manipulation from both sides, resulting in distrust even before employment begins.
Second, negotiation may unintentionally widen inequality. Candidates who are more confident, financially secure, or socially advantaged often secure better packages. Others, who may be equally competent, can settle for less just because of their social background.
Over time, employees in similar roles may earn significantly different salaries, not because of performance, but because of negotiation advantage during recruitment. Since pay structures are often not transparent, these disparities remain hidden or an open secret.
Third, if employees discover that colleagues in the same role earn more, dissatisfaction grows. Even high-performing individuals may suffer from reduced morale and trust.
Such disparities can create silent resentment, reduced morale and trust within organizations. In the long run, a system based on unequal negotiation normalizes insecurity instead of fostering professionalism.
In the end, negotiation is not inherently negative. In fair markets with transparent pay, it can be constructive. But in Bangladesh, where unemployment is high and power is uneven, negotiation favours those already advantaged.
To ensure fairness, organizations should focus on clear salary ranges, objective criteria for increments, and standardized policies. Employment should feel more like a fixed-price store than a bargaining market. It should be predictable and fair, not a test of who can argue best.
Md. Inzamul Haque is a lecturer at the Department of English, Southeast University.
