Athletic Trainers’ Experiences With and Perceptions of Salary Negotiation Decision-Making During the Hiring Process
Appropriate salaries for athletic trainers (ATs) have been a contentious topic for decades. Although professional advocacy efforts to increase ATs’ salaries have gained traction, little is known about ATs’ experiences with negotiation during the hiring process. To explore the reasons, influences, and factors influencing ATs’ negotiation decisions. Qualitative study. Individual video interviews. Twenty-eight ATs who participated in a previous study and indicated a willingness to participate in the qualitative follow-up were interviewed (17 women, 10 men, 1 nonbinary individual; age = 37.8 ± 8.9 years, athletic training experience = 15.1 ± 8.3 years). Of the 28 participants, 18 did negotiate, whereas 10 did not. An individual video conference interview was conducted with each participant. After transcription, data were analyzed into themes and categories following the consensual qualitative research tradition. To ensure trustworthiness of the findings, we confirmed accuracy through member checks, triangulated the data using multianalyst research teams, and confirmed representativeness by including an external auditor. Four parallel themes emerged during data analysis: factors for determining salary negotiation, reasons for negotiating/not negotiating, negotiation influencers/deterrents, and experiences with negotiation/impact of not negotiating. Negotiators used a variety of data sources to support their requests, and their decisions were motivated by their own known value, the area’s cost of living, and their current financial or employment situations. Negotiators relied on previous experiences to guide negotiations and provided successes and regrets from their negotiation experience. Nonnegotiators also used a variety of data types but were deterred by fear of not knowing how to negotiate, of losing the offer, or of offending those involved. Nonnegotiators highlighted a lack of confidence in their ability to negotiate and provided the financial consequences and personal regrets from not negotiating. More training, education, and publicly available data are needed to assist ATs in future negotiation attempts.Context
Objective
Design
Setting
Patients or Other Participants
Data Collection and Analysis
Results
Conclusions
Salaries for athletic trainers (ATs) have been a consistent source of strife among those in the profession, with many citing peer health care professions such as physical therapy as the point of comparison, with which athletic training falls short.1,2 Though we have not made nearly enough progress, salaries of ATs appear to have increased over the past few decades. In 1994, the average salary of an AT in the secondary school athletics setting was $19 547 and in the college setting, $24 561.3 By comparison, in 2021, nearly 30 years later, ATs working in the secondary school or college athletics settings make an average of $58 028 and $53 455, respectively.2 This represents a 197% average salary increase across 27 years for secondary school ATs and a 118% increase for collegiate ATs. These numbers, without the context of the concurrent inflation rate, can be misleading. In today’s economy, the $19 547 that secondary school ATs made in 1994 would equate to $37 589 in January 2022, and the $24 561 that collegiate ATs made would be $47 231.4 In December of 2022, the lowest-paid position that included a salary on the National Athletic Trainers’ Association (NATA) Career Center was at a National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I university, and the position was posted at $33 000 to $36 000, less than the 1994 equivalent salaries in today’s economy.5 In spring 2023, another university athletics program posted a full-time (40+ hours a week) “internship” position for an annual salary of $27 500.5 Therefore, despite the appearance of an upward trajectory in salary, when considering inflation, athletic training has remained stagnant at best and, in some cases, has regressed to lower comparative salaries from where we were 27 years ago.
Although the prospective employer maintains the majority of control over the associated salary of a position, the prospective employee bears a modicum of responsibility in negotiating and accepting a given salary for a position. It is necessary for ATs to understand common business practices employed in determining salaries, which involve assessing associated labor expenses, liabilities, contributed capital, and anticipated revenues and earnings.6 Those in a position to hire employees often aim to secure the prospective employee for the lowest competitive wage possible to benefit the employers’ financial circumstances, placing the onus of increasing a position’s offered salary on the prospective employee. Despite existing research that suggests salary negotiation as a general business practice is proven to increase the salary of prospective employees,7 previous researchers have identified that most ATs do not negotiate salary or benefits during the hiring process, and the most common reason for not negotiating was that they perceived the initial offer to be fair.1 Considering that ATs have been essentially accepting the same salary, in terms of buying power, for 30 years, it is unclear how ATs are deciding whether to negotiate during the hiring process. In this study, we explored the reasons, influences, factors, and experiences influencing ATs’ salary negotiation decisions.
METHODS
Design
We used a consensual qualitative research (CQR) design for this study. The CQR approach is well established in athletic training to explore ATs’ perspectives and experiences, and it requires a multianalyst research team to mitigate bias during the rigorous data analysis process.8,9 This study was deemed exempt by the sponsoring university’s human subjects review committee.
Participants
We recruited participants for the current study through a convenience sample of ATs who had previously responded to a survey on salary negotiation and indicated a willingness to participate in a follow-up interview.1 To ensure that we collected robust data from participants, we recruited participants by group: those who self-reported that they negotiated salary during their most recent employment hire (ie, negotiators) and those who self-reported that they did not negotiate salary during their most recent employment hire (ie, nonnegotiators). We aimed to interview 10 to 15 participants per group to ensure saturation was achieved.
In total, 28 ATs (17 women, 10 men, 1 nonbinary individual; age = 37.8 ± 8.9 years, athletic training experience = 15.1 ± 8.3 years) employed in 8 practice settings across 18 states were interviewed before we achieved data saturation. Of the 28 interviewed, 18 negotiated during their most recent employment hire, and 10 did not. Participant pseudonyms and demographics are available in Table 1.
Instrumentation
Due to the lack of an existing instrument after an extensive literature search, 3 research team members (J.M.C., L.E.J., I.B.W.) developed 2 semistructured interview guides. One interview guide was used for the group that negotiated salary, and the second was used for the group that did not negotiate salary. After development, both interview guides were reviewed for face validity and content validity by 1 other member of the research team (K.R.D.) as well as the individual who would serve as the internal auditor (C.E.W.B.); neither the research team member nor the internal auditor was involved in the original instrument development. After review, minor wording edits were made, and some questions were reordered for better flow and clarity. The final version of each semistructured interview guide included 8 questions, with the opportunity to ask participants follow-up questions for additional detail if necessary (Table 2). Pilot testing of each interview protocol was conducted with 4 individuals (2 per group) who met the study criteria; because no changes were made to the interview protocol after pilot testing, all 4 pilot participants were included in data collection and analysis.
Procedures
Data collection occurred in 2 phases: recruitment and interviews with negotiators, followed by recruitment and interviews with nonnegotiators. The principal investigator contacted potential participants via email. The email included the study description and details of what voluntary participation would involve. Once a participant expressed interest, an interview day and time was scheduled. All individual interviews were conducted by the principal investigator using the Zoom video conferencing platform; the interview duration ranged from 25 to 45 minutes, depending on the thoroughness of responses provided by the participant. All interviews were recorded and transcribed within Zoom and then reviewed by 1 research team member for accuracy. Any transcription errors were corrected, and all personal identifying information was redacted. Once the transcript was transcribed and proofed, it was returned to the participant for member checking. Participants were asked to review the transcript for accuracy and could provide clarification or additional information if necessary. However, participants were instructed not to change or remove any information from their initial responses. Participants provided no additions or clarifications during member checking, and all transcripts were deemed finalized and ready for data analysis.
Data Analysis
The CQR tradition guided data analyses.8,9 Although the process was the same, the transcripts from each group (ie, negotiators, nonnegotiators) were analyzed separately to ensure that, if themes that emerged from the data were unique to negotiators or nonnegotiators, these were allowed to reveal themselves without bias from the other groups’ responses. The data analysis team for the negotiators included 4 athletic training researchers (J.M.C., L.E.J., I.B.J., C.E.W.B.); 2 members were novice qualitative researchers, and the other 2 had expertise in qualitative research and CQR. The data analysis team for the nonnegotiators included 3 athletic training researchers (J.M.C., C.E.W.B., K.R.D.); the third member of this team was a novice qualitative researcher. Before data analysis, all novice qualitative researchers were trained on the CQR tradition and data analysis approach, as outlined by Hill et al.8,9
Each data analysis team conducted analyses using a 3-phase CQR process.8,9 First, each team member independently reviewed 3 randomly selected transcripts, and initial themes and categories were identified. The data analysis team met to discuss each member’s independent review of the transcripts and a consensus codebook was developed. Second, 3 more randomly selected transcripts were analyzed independently by each member of the data analysis team using the consensus codebook. The team met again to discuss the coding process and refine the consensus codebook until all members agreed on the final version. Third, all transcripts within the group were coded by 1 team member using the final consensus codebook and then reviewed by all team members. Edits and revisions to the coding process were made for each transcript until all team members reached a consensus on the final coding. The negotiator group data were coded first, followed by the nonnegotiator group data.
To ensure trustworthiness of the data, we used member checking, multianalyst triangulation, and an internal auditor.8,9 Once the data sets were analyzed, codebooks and finalized transcripts were sent to the internal auditor for review. The internal auditor reviewed the findings closely to ensure the data were appropriately analyzed and multiple perspectives were considered.8,9
RESULTS
Four parallel, or similarly aligned, themes with divergent categories emerged from analyzing transcripts from ATs who negotiated and those who did not negotiate. The first theme, factors for salary determination, provided insight into the mechanisms by which our participants identified what an appropriate salary would be for the position they were pursuing, including the use of both public and private information, self-perceived value (nonnegotiators only), and, in some cases, information not used. The second theme, reasons for negotiating/not negotiating, contained information on the intrinsic rationales as to why our participants chose to negotiate their salary or decided not to. Negotiation influencers/deterrents included a discussion of extrinsic factors that swayed participants’ efforts toward salary negotiation, such as advice they received or previous education or training, or that steered them away from negotiating, such as a lack of education or experience or being intimidated by the person they would have to negotiate with. Last, participants relayed their experiences negotiating or the impact of not negotiating. Within this theme, categories that emerged were unique for negotiators and nonnegotiators. Categories within the experiences negotiating theme from negotiators included previous experience negotiating, employer reactions, and successes and regrets. The categories within the theme of impact of not negotiating from nonnegotiators included long-term financial consequences, regret, and none.
Table 3 provides the breakdown of themes with participant and quote frequency counts. Categories were deemed general (17–18 negotiators, 9–10 nonnegotiators), typical (9–16 negotiators, 5–8 nonnegotiators), variant (4–8 negotiators, 3–4 nonnegotiators), or rare (1–3 negotiators, 1–2 nonnegotiators). Additional supporting quotes are provided for each theme and category in Tables 4 through 8.
Factors for Salary Determination
Publicly Available Information
Regardless of whether they chose to negotiate salary, our participants described gathering data through publicly available repositories to determine what salary was appropriate for the position they were being hired into. For example, Meredith, who did not negotiate, said,
I had actually looked up some publicly accessible salaries for other folks, although [employment location] is not a state school, state employees have public records of what their salaries are. So I looked up some folks that I knew had very comparable positions in the state of [State] and took it from there.
Similarly, Maggie, who did negotiate, clarified that publicly available information might be more geographically relevant when she stated,
… and so I dug into that on individual level and knew what my peers were making at other state institutions. Just to make it more region-specific than just the NATA salary data, and then I look at links, yeah, I mean, I did a lot; looked at contract lengths and that kind of thing.
Private Information
Participants also described data gathering mechanisms through private means, such as their own compiled data, reaching out to peers to ask, or using the NATA salary survey data to determine appropriate salary levels if they were NATA members. Stephanie, who did negotiate, revealed that she relied on her patient care value when she said,
Although my EMR [electronic medical record] system, we use Sportsware, and they have a way of running reports … Like for example, like we can’t bill in my state, but I can still run it if I could tell this was what I could bill for. And my contract started August 1 and that’s when I first, I believe I had my first patient contact. So, we’re only looking at patient contact there. We’re not looking at your phone calls or meetings or anything like that. August 1 to yesterday, I have had more, the billable amount is already higher at quite a bit at what my salary is. And I use that before to walk in and be like, if I could tell you, this is how much I can bill you for. You are getting literally 3 times my salary worth of treatment. And I’m seeing none of that.
Meredith, who did not negotiate, stated,
I looked at the NATA salary survey … and then I asked around for some friends and colleagues that had recently started new positions to see what they were offered and what they were making, and what they thought was fair, and went from there.
Self-Perceived Value
In a category that was not present for those who did attempt to negotiate, nonnegotiators identified assumptions that they made about their perceived value that influenced their determination of what a fair salary was for the position. Katherine predetermined what she thought would be a fair salary based on what they had been making at their previous jobs, stating, “So to be honest, I went off of what my salary was at my previous position and added another $5K for good measure.” Subsequently, when Katherine received an offer that exceeded that amount, she did not negotiate. Derek felt that the chaotic circumstances surrounding his hiring led to making assumptions about how his role would be valued when he said,
I looked at what the NATA had to offer on their website, and I was also working on a survey project at the same time, so it was … my mind was all over the place, and if I would’ve been solely working as a clinician, I think I would have spent more time on, you know, like following that model. But I just, I guess I was more hopeful that they would understand my value after working during a pandemic, but I was … incorrect.
Meredith concisely summarized this by saying, “So, maybe that was a little naïve. Maybe I could have done more … but I just had my own ideas before I went into this process.”
Information Not Used
Although this was a variant response, some of our participants responded to questions about determining a fair salary by discussing information they did not have available or did not use. April, who was hired into her position in the late 1900s, did not have resources to use, saying, “I had not looked at any of it, and you have to remember that in those days, we didn’t have the internet,” whereas Adison simply said, “Yeah … I didn’t do any research.” Isobel expressed that she did not think salary information was available for her setting, saying, “It didn’t even come to my mind for DME [durable medical equipment setting]; I have used that before for other clinical jobs, but not for DME.”
Overall, some of our participants identified sources of publicly and privately available information that assisted them in determining the appropriate salary for the position they were seeking. Some participants identified that there was information they either did not have access to or chose not to use. In the group of nonnegotiators, they identified assumptions about their value that influenced their perception of what the salary should be.
Reasons for Negotiating/Not Negotiating
Fair Offer/Offer Exceeded Expectations (Nonnegotiators)
Nonnegotiators identified scenarios in which the offer they received seemed fair, either in comparison with what they were currently making or based on their research. Katherine simply noted, “[The offer] was actually significantly higher that what I had actually anticipated.”
Unaware That Negotiation Was Possible (Nonnegotiators)
Although this was a variant response, a few participants who did not negotiate indicated that it was partly because they were unaware that negotiation was an option. April said, “… it was really not even understanding that I could or knowing how. They just told me what they would pay me, and I wanted the job, so I said yes.”
Perceived Lack of Leverage (Nonnegotiators)
Almost all of our nonnegotiating participants described circumstances in which they lacked leverage, leading them to not negotiate during the hiring process. For example, Miranda based her decision on the stage of her career, declaring, “As a young professional, at the time I was in my late 20s I think, I just was happy to be out of there and I was happy to be making more, so I just kinda didn’t think about much else besides that.” Avery was focused on the employment setting, asserting,
I didn’t want to mess up this opportunity to get back in college athletics. And so, I was basically just … not pushing [the] envelope. I didn’t want to, like, try really hard and then they turn me down and move on to the next.
Low Initial Offer (Negotiators)
Many of our negotiating participants identified that an initial offer that did not align with their expectations led them to attempt the negotiation process. Erica succinctly addressed this, proclaiming that she negotiated “because the salary was low for the position.”
Cost of Living (Negotiators)
Our participants frequently brought up the cost of living of the area where their prospective employer would be located as one of the reasons they negotiated. Ellis did research before approaching negotiations and described,
And so, we took the cost of inflation and then multiplied that for my position and where I should be, and also with an admin[istrative] position, how that all wrapped up … I also was moving from a fairly large city but to an even more expensive city, so I did the cost-of-living calculator to determine the differences and what I knew I needed for the cost of living here.
Adele added, “You know, I knew what it took for me to be comfortable and not have to feel like I was living penny to penny every month.”
Safety Net (Negotiators)
Some of our participants indicated that the fact that they already had a job, or had multiple offers for jobs, made them feel more confident in their ability to negotiate, as they had a safety net if the current position fell through. Adele said, “You know, I had other offers at the time … And I was feeling comfortable and willing to walk away from it at that point.”
Known Value (Negotiators)
Most of our participants pointed to their education and experiences when highlighting that they knew their worth, which motivated them to negotiate. Ellis stated, “So yeah, it was basically like, I knew what my worth in a position was, and what I could bring to the program.”
Change in Responsibilities/Title (Negotiators)
In a few instances, negotiating participants indicated that the job that they were hoping to secure involved increased expectations relative to job responsibilities or job title, and that was why they chose to negotiate. Maggie described an increase in administrative duties within her academic institution,
Yeah, and the nature of the position that I was accepting was different than what I had been in and so it had increased. I was going from a program director within a department to being a program director and department chair. We were our own department and that makes I think people think that that’s, those roles are the same but they’re not at all. And so the responsibilities were increased, the contract length was increased, and so I knew my salary needed to be higher.
Low Benefits Package (Negotiators)
Although this was a variant response, a few participants indicated that the low benefits package of their position motivated them to negotiate higher salaries to compensate for the increased burden of paying for benefits themselves. Owen detailed how transitioning from a state university with state benefits to a private university made him consider the value of the benefits package:
Yeah so, I was leaving a state university to [go to] a private university and a lot of it came down to the benefits of a, of a large state university system with health care. Dental, vision was much cheaper from a premium standpoint than what I would be going into as far as looking at not just the premiums, but deductible prescription plan, the eye and dental, we’re pretty much a wash but the health care premium … But just looking at evenly, even the retirement contribution was significantly less than what the state system offers. And being in [State], if you have any history with [State], that’s a constant topic and in the press about how lucrative the state retirement system is in [State].
Arizona balked during the hiring process when employers tried to describe the benefits package misleadingly, saying,
And then also like the benefits package was significantly different. At my current position, I have like an 8% retirement match and this new role, there’s going be a 0.5%. So I, yeah, what was even better about it is that they listed it as 50% of 1% of your salary and I was like just say that’s the 0.5%, like stop trying to make it sound fancy.
Current Financial Circumstances (Negotiators)
Some of the participants who did negotiate pointed to their current financial circumstances as the reason they were motivated to negotiate their salary. Stephanie indicated that student loan amounts contributed to her need to negotiate, stating,
We also took into account that I have student loans and I was in school, and what did I need to be able to live? Then I would go, “You know what, I need to be able to live comfortably and start building some savings,” because I was so young out in my career.
Student loans and other financial circumstances, including their current savings, prompted some participants to negotiate salary.
Overall, our participants had varying reasons for negotiating or not during the hiring process. Both negotiators and nonnegotiators had situational factors that influenced these decisions. Still, nonnegotiators tended to either be unaware of negotiation as an option or felt that the offer was fair enough to accept. Negotiators seemed to rely upon external data or motivating factors to justify their reasons for negotiating.
Negotiation Influencers/Deterrents
Individuals Involved in the Negotiation Process (Nonnegotiators)
For nonnegotiators, there were scenarios during the hiring process that involved other people that ultimately deterred them from attempting to negotiate. This was more commonly described when the person on behalf of the prospective employer was known to the prospective employee. For example, Adison described a situation in which they were uncomfortable approaching their supervisor to ask for more money,
I was kind of shy to actually ask for more money. Like, that’s a hard thing to do especially coming into this new position—me knowing and having experience with my boss, like knowing him when I was a student and knowing him as a resident, and like I’ve known this man for 10 years and being like, and he’s kind of the scary dad figure of my department. It’s like, “Man, I need to go ask Dad for more money?” Like that’s not … That’s uncomfortable. That’s a hard thing to do.
No Previous Experience, Training, or Education (Nonnegotiators)
Our nonnegotiating participants indicated they had no negotiating experience, which deterred them from attempting to do so. Miranda stated that she had been taught about negotiation but had no applicable practice in doing so, declaring, “I mean, they talked about it in school, but we really didn’t practice it.” When asked why he did not negotiate, George said, “If I had more training, or if I had more experience with it [negotiating] and, you know, that might change the answer.”
Similarly, nonnegotiators described the lack of training or education as a deterrent to negotiating. Katherine recalled, “… But at the pay side of it, it was nothing that I ever was taught. It was a side that we didn’t see when we were in school.” Similarly, Meredith remembered,
I didn’t really have any. I feel like we talked about it a little bit in graduate school, but it was never, it was this is what you should be. At one point I remember somebody saying this is what you should be making in your first position coming out of graduate school, the PhD. But it was never taught or explained like how to get to that point if they offer you less, and some of it was like well just say no, well, I need a job, right? So, like, and if they’re close, how do you, we were never taught how to make that ask to go, to go higher. I think that we did a lot of prep[aration], even just with each other, on like job interview questions, but never like once you’re offered how to take the next step. So I wasn’t really prepped on that at all.
Poor/Inadequate Advice Received (Nonnegotiators)
Some of our nonnegotiating participants acknowledged that they may not have received great advice in their education or professional mentoring. April recalled,
I had gone to grad school at [University] and [Colleague] was my advisor but [Colleague] really was my advisor. And they really, they really laid it out. They said if you want to be an athletic trainer you’re not going to get rich. So if you really want to do this, you’re going to struggle economically. If you want to be rich, go get a master’s in something else. So I just figured I could do it. That’s all the training I … was accept the fact that your salary is going to be low.
Support System (Negotiators)
Conversely, our negotiating participants emphasized the support systems, in the form of family, mentors, or peers, that guided their decision to negotiate their salary. For example, Owen described how his support system was inside his home:
I have the benefit of having a wife that is in the financial planning world and helps me understand a lot more than I typically do about not just salary, but you know that the other factors that go into a compensation package and so we, we sat down together and kind of put, put the numbers out on the table.
Training/Education (Negotiators)
Rarely did our negotiating participants acknowledge some salary discussion in their formal training or education. Ellis recalled some level of education in this area, saying, “We had it as part of the concentration in my PhD, we had that in a course that I took. So it was kind of formal through that education point.”
Overall, our participants had many reasons for negotiating or not negotiating. Mostly, they attempted to support those decisions with data from publicly available sources or privately accessed data. Nonnegotiators cited more external deterrents to negotiation, and negotiators highlighted their support network and, in some cases, past training that allowed them to feel comfortable approaching negotiations.
Experiences Negotiating/Impact of Not Negotiating
Previous Experiences Negotiating (Negotiators)
Almost all negotiators in our study indicated they had attempted negotiation in the past before attempting to negotiate their current position. Most negotiators indicated that they had had no formal training in negotiation before attempting negotiation for their current position, indicating that they based their negotiations on past experiences they had personally had. Preston shared, “I felt like I was pretty well prepared just because I’ve done it before … I gained experience on the fly and gained confidence in how to do it.” Several respondents indicated that their past experiences also included preparing to negotiate, and that had increased their comfort level when initiating negotiations.
Employer Reactions (Negotiators)
Negotiators discussed both positive and negative reactions from potential employers when attempting to negotiate. Several participants said that during negotiations they felt confident the employer was interested in hiring them for the position, which made them more comfortable negotiating. Others expressed that once they had shared their desired terms of employment, the employer maintained a supportive and collaborative disposition. Christina shared,
In addition to some moving expenses and an increase in salary, I asked for a little bit more than she said her maximum was … and then the next day, calls back and says, “Okay, well, this is the max I can go to … but we can do everything else,” and so I said “Okay, that sounds good.” She was super supportive and she was like, “I wish I could give you more.”
Occasionally participants indicated that their employer provided positive reinforcement after accepting the position, commending them on their professionalism in the negotiation process.
Alternatively, some participants dealt with a negative response from their employer. Adele stated,
I do think that my initial asking being that firm that it did leave a bad taste in some people’s mouths here … But again, I was sick of being broke and I had started to learn my worth … there have been comments made about money, both from him [the dean] and some other people of you know, “You were really brave and that was really bold.” I just didn’t get the vibe of those were meant in a positive way.
Participants also shared that in some settings, there were inherent limitations in the hiring classification or structure of the department that limited the ability to negotiate.
Successes and Regrets (Negotiators)
For ATs who did attempt to negotiate their salary, many expressed some level of success in their negotiation. Ellis stated, “They gave me exactly what I asked for.” Although she was successful, she expressed some regret about not being more assertive in salary negotiations, sharing, “I always wonder how much more aggressive I could have gone before they would’ve been like, ‘Pump the brakes.’” A common sentiment among many negotiators was regret for not attempting to negotiate additional terms of employment in addition to salary. Erica shared,
I thought I knew how to negotiate and then kind of started the job and realized there are all these other things in addition to start-up, travel, CEU [continuing education unit] money, all those things. I didn’t know I could negotiate.
Several negotiators indicated they wished they had been more confident or more prepared and less afraid to ask for what they really wanted.
Long-Term Financial Consequences (Nonnegotiators)
Although this response was rare, 1 participant who did not attempt negotiation expressed that her desire to be in a specific location resulted in choosing not to attempt to negotiate and that ultimately resulted in a low salary. April explained,
I just really wanted those jobs and I believed that I could survive on very little money, which is what I got. I took the jobs not realizing that one of them would lead me into a really low-income situation. So it was about the desire to have the job. And then with [University], it was the desire to get back to [State] and that job was the best job.
Starting a career with a low salary can have long-term impacts on an employee’s earning potential, and our participants highlighted that their lack of negotiation had done just that. George shared, “I’ve practiced for 10 years and I never got over 40 [$40 000] where I was.” Another long-term consequence nonnegotiators described was “bitterness” and low morale in the workplace, not just for themselves, but among all AT staff, who perceived they were not being compensated fairly. Adison explained,
I think I could have been happier and more comfortable … All my coworkers are complaining all the time about their salaries and those kind of things … If we had an employer, a boss who would negotiate to our employer for us that we need more than a super base-level salary, then maybe we all would have been happier as a department kind of thing. So, it’s less of a negative impact on myself, but like hearing my coworkers complain about salary all the time was a negative impact.
Some nonnegotiators also feared their reputation might have been compromised in their new role if they had attempted to negotiate, indicating concerns about being resented or “labeled” for attempting to negotiate.
Regret (Nonnegotiators)
Nearly all participants who did not attempt to negotiate expressed regret about their decision. Miranda shared,
Maybe I should’ve negotiated my salary a little bit more with that first opportunity because I know from talking to a coworker who was hired after me, she did negotiate her salary a little bit and she got paid a little bit more at the start.
Several nonnegotiators also indicated that they had underestimated the cost of living, which led to regret about not negotiating a more livable wage.
None (Nonnegotiators)
A few participants indicated that they had not perceived any negative effects from their decision to not attempt negotiation. Katherine stated, “No, I have had no problems,” and Richard simply responded by saying, “Well, I’m still here.”
DISCUSSION
To address the historically abysmal salaries of ATs through salary negotiation practices, we must first understand the perspectives of those who do and do not negotiate during the hiring process. Our findings highlight the data needed for participants to identify an appropriate salary range for the position they seek, the motivations behind whether to negotiate, and how some external factors can encourage or deter a prospective employee’s negotiation attempts. Athletic trainers who attempted to negotiate salary reported feeling happy about their successful negotiation and expressed regret for not having attempted negotiation of other terms of employment in addition to salary. Nonnegotiators reported regret and negative long-term consequences from their decision not to attempt negotiation.
Notably, many of our nonnegotiating participants indicated that the offer they received was higher than what they had hoped for or expected, so they accepted outright. This confirms previous research in athletic training and other professions that suggests that most people who do not negotiate choose that approach because they feel that the offer they received was fair.1,10,11 In medicine, researchers suggest that this approach, while assuring that you will likely receive the lowest amount the employer is willing to pay for the position, could be particularly harmful to women or non-White applicants, populations that already face wage gaps in the employment marketplace.12 All prospective employees should gather as much data as possible to fully understand their relative employment value as they enter into negotiations.
Our study’s findings emphasize that both negotiators and nonnegotiators rely on data from various sources to determine whether the offer is fair or appropriate or to convince prospective employers of their value. Interestingly, several of our participants indicated not relying on the NATA’s salary survey for this purpose either because it is not current or updated frequently enough to be relevant or because it is not specific enough to their job responsibilities or personal characteristics. One important finding relative to privately available data, such as in the case of the salary survey, is the lack of public access to it.
For instance, for the NATA’s salary survey, the website requires membership to access the search feature that allows specific input, such as gender, highest degree earned, or job title, to achieve specificity in results.13 Similarly, as participants described private surveys conducted within their athletic leagues or high school associations, these data are not available to those outside the organization, making it difficult for prospective employees entering the district or organization to view and consider this information when attempting negotiations. Business journals and websites recommend contacting people in positions who know the data to obtain private information relative to salary amounts.14,15 This might include reaching out to current or former employees of the organization or contacting peers to the position being sought,14 such as other ATs in the athletic league or from peer institutions or organizations in the same geographic area.
Publicly available information for employees in the public sector, such as federal positions or within state-funded educational institutions such as public secondary schools or universities, is more readily available and thus easier to access. This is partly due to tax codes that require nonprofit entities to release salary information, although some effort may be required to find this information. In some cases, the publishers may charge interested parties to access it.14,16 The Bureau of Labor Statistics also provides public information about specific jobs, including ATs.17 As of May 2022, additional geographic details were added to make the data provided more location specific to interested parties.14,17 Lastly, employment websites such as Glassdoor or Payscale9 can provide searchable ways to determine appropriate salary amounts for positions in specific geographic locations.14,18–20 It is also important to note that, along with publicly available salary information, our participants relied on public data to understand the cost of living in the geographic region of the position.
Once prospective employees have secured the data needed to support their requests, they will need to engage in discussions with the prospective employer to discuss the data they have to support their requests for salary or benefits. Our nonnegotiating participants identified a lack of knowledge of or experience with negotiating as part of the reasons they did not negotiate, and our negotiating participants often identified the opposite. The lack of knowledge or confidence in negotiations has been identified previously in other health care professions.21 Although ideally, salary and benefits negotiation would eventually be covered in professional education, current ATs can prepare themselves for these experiences independently and potentially role-play the negotiation conversations with a trusted individual in their lives. Specific to the strategies that should be employed to support salary and other negotiable contract requests, the Harvard Business Review and Medical Economics have recommendations that can assist in this process. First and foremost, individuals should take the time to consider the entire offer.12,15 Salary negotiation and job negotiation are not synonymous terms, and although salary is frequently the most significant consideration, other job factors will ultimately affect job satisfaction.12,15 The Harvard Business Review explicitly identifies the need to negotiate all items of importance associated with a job offer at one time, as opposed to serially, in fairness to the prospective employer, but also emphasizes that prospective employees should make clear which items are most important.15
Our nonnegotiating participants also highlighted concerns over the people involved in the negotiation, fearing the interaction would sour a future working relationship. Negotiation experts suggest tackling negotiations differently depending on who is conducting the negotiations on the employer’s part. When negotiating with human resources, they may be less emotionally or professionally invested in ensuring the offer meets your expectations to get you to accept the position; therefore, a more objective and data-driven approach may be more successful.15 Conversely, a more personal appeal is warranted when negotiating with a prospective supervisor.20 Still highlighting data, prospective employees are encouraged to justify requests. Experts suggest that this type of negotiation requires the employee to balance being likable and avoiding sounding arrogant or demanding while ensuring priority needs are met.15,22
Negotiators relied on their past experiences in negotiating to guide their negotiations, which was poignant given that both negotiators and nonnegotiators identified that they never received formal training on salary negotiation. Essentially, our findings highlight that currently in the field of athletic training, the only training that the majority of ATs experience in salary negotiation is the experiential training of attempting to do so, and once they have attempted negotiations, they are more likely to do so in the future. This finding is supported by the limited literature in athletic training, in which ATs were more likely to attempt to negotiate and were more successful in negotiations, if they had more experience with past employment hiring processes.1 One remedy for this would be the inclusion of negotiation strategies within educational curricula to prepare new graduates for the negotiation process. Other health care education programs may include content specific to the financial management of a practice setting, such as billing and third-party reimbursement,23,24 but none require the instruction of negotiation tactics during the hiring process.23,25,26
Another way to broadly address this across the profession would be to offer continuing education opportunities to improve ATs’ knowledge and comfort with the negotiation process. Our participants from both groups indicated that they desired additional training as a resource that would benefit them in this process. Athletic trainers typically prefer hands-on or professional networking types of continuing education,27 so a learning laboratory to practice actual negotiation skills with an experienced partner or a panel discussion with novice and experienced negotiators would likely be the best approach. Ideally, if negotiation strategies were taught in entry-level education and broadly disseminated to current ATs through continuing education, this would address this desired resource and increase comfort with the negotiation process for both new graduates and seasoned professionals.
Some participants indicated that the structure and hierarchy of the department they would be working in made a fair salary unavailable to them because their prospective employer would not hire a new AT at a salary that is higher than that of existing employees. These comments highlight the problem of salary inversion in our profession. Salary inversion is when salaries of newly hired employees are higher than salaries of current employees despite the current employees having more skills and experience.28 This often results from changes in inflation and cost of living over time. To avoid salary inversion, either employers can refuse negotiation offers that allow a new hire to be paid more than existing employees, or they must assume an advocacy role in which they leverage new-hire negotiations to promote salary equity adjustments across an entire body of employees.29
During the process of negotiating salary, negotiators experienced varied reactions from their employer, some negative and some positive. Interestingly, only women described negative responses from employers during or after the negotiation process; the men had only positive interactions when negotiating. Previous research has demonstrated that men and women are approaching equal likelihood of initiating negotiations, closing a decades-long gender gap in which women were less likely to attempt to negotiate when being hired, which is also true in athletic training.1,30,31 Unfortunately, despite planning to negotiate and attempting to do so, women are less successful than men at achieving their desired negotiated outcome and are also more likely to be viewed negatively after negotiations.1,32,33 Researchers have determined that despite women planning specific strategies to employ during negotiations, they are more likely to experience discomfort, anxiety, and fear of judgment during the process and therefore revert to a less assertive approach and acquiesce to subsequent counteroffers more readily.1,34–36 Although some of our participants experienced positive interactions during negotiations, the gender disparity in this aspect of negotiations persists. This highlights a need for more opportunities for women to engage in professional development that incorporates experiential training in negotiation tactics.
Nonnegotiators who participated in our study described the impacts of not negotiating, which primarily influenced their financial well-being. This perception is validated by many financial experts. In an interview with National Public Radio, Linda Babcock, professor and economist at Carnegie Mellon University, stated,
I tell my graduate students that by not negotiating their job at the beginning of their career, they’re leaving anywhere between $1 million and $1.5 million on the table in lost earnings over their lifetime.37
This is because most employers provide raises as a percentage of an employee’s existing salary, so starting at lower salary results in compounding earnings losses across the career lifespan.38 To emphasize the impact of this finding, our nonnegotiating participants did not highlight any successes during our interviews with them, expressing only regret at not attempting to negotiate when they had the chance to do so. Conversely, negotiators highlighted many successes in negotiations, and the regrets that were primarily expressed among this group were that they did not negotiate for more.
Another interesting finding from our participants is that those who did negotiate often identified the existence of other offers or their current job that provided a safety net as giving them the confidence to negotiate, knowing that a backup existed. Conversely, nonnegotiators sometimes indicated that desperation for the position or fear of not having a job at all reduced their desire to negotiate for fear of losing the opportunity altogether. In this case, negotiators appear to have the correct approach. Experts recommend seeking alternative job options to ensure having multiple choices to select from11,15,39 and further encourage job seekers to disclose their alternative options during the salary negotiation process.11,15 These same experts also indicate that prospective employees have little to fear relative to losing a job due to negotiating but caution that jobs can be lost based on how negotiations are conducted.11,15,20 Negotiators should avoid ultimatums, threats, or other aggressive approaches to negotiation, as these will likely result in the rescindment of potential offers, not because more money was asked for, but because the approach turned the employer off to the prospective employee.12,15 Those who approach negotiation professionally face very little chance of losing a job offer and increase their likelihood of a successful negotiation.12,15
Limitations and Future Research
Like all studies, ours is not without limitations. Our interviews relied on honest responses from participants to drive the findings of this study. Additionally, our study focused on the prospective employees’ perceptions of negotiations during the hiring process, and our findings were not corroborated by their prospective employers. Future researchers should examine the experience of employers in determining salary for ATs and consider employers’ perceptions during the hiring process. Additionally, researchers should aim to explore the importance and benefits of negotiating terms of employment, such as medical insurance packages, retirement benefits, stipends, or contributions toward other professional expenses, including liability insurance, professional organization membership, or professional development.
CONCLUSIONS
Regardless of whether they negotiated, our participants relied on various data types to determine what salary was appropriate for the position they sought. Reasons for negotiating circled the known value of the participant, the cost of living in the area the job was located, the expectations of the offer, and the current circumstances of the prospective employee, including current financial and employment circumstances. Reasons for not negotiating often included participants’ fear of not knowing how to negotiate, fear of losing the job offer, or fear of offending the person with whom they would have to negotiate and then later work. Given the potential for a lack of experience or confidence to deter an AT from negotiating, additional efforts to prepare ATs to negotiate are warranted. Professional athletic training program educators should consider including the concept of negotiation within content directed toward graduating ATs’ preparations to join the employment market. For seasoned ATs, continuing education providers should consider this a topic worthy of consideration for delivering to their stakeholders. Athletic trainers need to gather appropriate data to empower themselves in negotiating salary needs and desires. Before negotiating, they should prioritize their needs and wants, practice the negotiating process, and adjust their negotiation tactics to the person they will be negotiating with.
Contributor Notes