Slate:
Of all the weird and frankly nonsensical practices that companies use in hiring, probably none are as bizarre as our conventions around negotiating salary. Given that paying employees money in exchange for their labor is what hiring is all about, you’d think that salary would be discussed early, clearly, and directly in any hiring process. But for some reason that approach is more the exception than the rule. Instead, many employers play coy games around salary, hiding what they plan to pay and even taking offense when candidates bring up money.
On the job seeker side of the equation, candidates tend to be very interested in what a gig pays—which makes sense, since most people aren’t seeking jobs out of the kindness of their hearts or a desire to be industrious. But employers frequently refuse to discuss a position’s salary range until late in a hiring process, or sometimes not even until they make a formal job offer. Meanwhile, though, they’re often happy to push—or even require—candidates to show their hand by naming a number first.
As a freelancer, I’ve been in this position many times and my wife, who is researching jobs in anticipation of our move to Australia next year, is getting the same runaround in her searches as well. It’s really frustrating and stressful.
Many position also have widely varying compensation. In my previous position the difference between the highest paid person in that position and lowest was $60,000.
So much for assuming market rates.
If it’s the same job, that’s a dick move (I really mean same, not different grades of the job). That company is criminally underpaying someone or overpaid the outlier at the high end. To that company…if it’s the former, congrats, you’ve effed over a person you claim to value. If the latter, you’re bad negotiators.
For regular jobs, assume they’re paying market rate and interview if you find the company and position attractive. If you get an offer, ask for what you want. Negotiate. If you want $80k and the market for what you do generally supports that, ask for that or more (you can always come down). Ask for more stock if they won’t do salary. If they want to pay you $50k or will if you’re dumb enough to suggest it, they’re unethical.
Basically, stick up for yourself. You’re one half of a negotiation, don’t give away power.
PS: On the flip side, as a hiring manager I’d kind of look askance at someone whose first question was ‘what’s the pay?’. I want someone who wants to work for the company I’m hiring into and wants to do the work because they find it interesting. I’d assume that they are assuming the position’s comp will be competitive. Someone who’s primarily in it for the money is likely to be a short-termer which can be deadly to a smaller company especially.
AS an interviewee, I think it’s fine to ask about comp after the first interview/round of interviews just to make sure the company *is* in the ballpark but not earlier. And I don’t care about it earlier really – I’m not investing that much to send a resumé and do an interview so it’s fine if I do that and find out that they’re paying low later.
PPS: At least in the States, use sites like Comparably that will let you find local market rates for many kinds of positions. AT least then you can negotiate from a position of knowledge (you do NOT want to assume that a salary in Seattle and one in a smaller midwest city are the same).
It’s partly a power game. They’re trying to figure out if you’ll work for ‘exposure’, because modern American finance education has drilled it into everyone’s head that capitalism is a zero-sum game and if you give someone more than absolutely necessary, you lose.
What mdelvecchio says, times a million.
“primarily”. Of course someone should expect fair pay, but if I have the option to hire someone who’s really into what the company does vs someone who only cares about the paycheck I’ll take the former person even though I’m likely to pay them the same.
As a hiring manager, my responsibility is to get the best person for the position.
As a job seeker my responsibility is to find the best job I can which isn’t just money but also what I’m doing, the people I’m working with, etc. Read https://twitter.com/morganknutson/status/1049523067506966529 to see why money isn’t the only thing an intelligent job seeker should care about.
it depends, for non-management job by example, the output of an engineer is affected by its experience for the same job. Thus, more experienced worker should be paid more.
Sometime, a compagny will hire a person and expect his performance will improve (and their salary also)
For regular jobs, assume they’re paying market rate and interview if you find the company and position attractive. If you get an offer, ask for what you want. Negotiate. If you want $80k and the market for what you do generally supports that, ask for that or more (you can always come down). Ask for more stock if they won’t do salary. If they want to pay you $50k or will if you’re dumb enough to suggest it, they’re unethical.
Basically, stick up for yourself. You’re one half of a negotiation, don’t give away power.
PS: On the flip side, as a hiring manager I’d kind of look askance at someone whose first question was ‘what’s the pay?’. I want someone who wants to work for the company I’m hiring into and wants to do the work because they find it interesting. I’d assume that they are assuming the position’s comp will be competitive. Someone who’s primarily in it for the money is likely to be a short-termer which can be deadly to a smaller company especially.
AS an interviewee, I think it’s fine to ask about comp after the first interview/round of interviews just to make sure the company is in the ballpark but not earlier. And I don’t care about it earlier really – I’m not investing that much to send a resumé and do an interview so it’s fine if I do that and find out that they’re paying low later.
PPS: At least in the States, use sites like comparably.com that will let you find local market rates for many kinds of positions. AT least then you can negotiate from a position of knowledge (you do NOT want to assume that a salary in Seattle and one in a smaller midwest city are the same).
Shareholder value uber alles.
Hiring is a transaction in which one side has indeed become very coy about being clear with what it’s offering—a development which has paralleled the requirement of existing employees to justify their existence each year in painfully specific “self-review.” As if your supervisor wasn’t fully aware of everything you’ve done for the company over the previous year.
Any employer that isn’t willing to disclose a potential salary range for a position—without needing to commit to a specific number for a specific candidate, mind you—is requiring a lot more information from a prospect than they should have a right to expect.
If you’re going to require a dog and pony show from all interviewees, only to reveal that the job pays dick with little or no benefits, you’re wasting applicants’ valuable time and effort while playing power games. Demanding employee loyalty—up front—for—surprise!—starvation wages will get your company exactly the turnover rate it deserves.
But of course, your new CFO likely believes that high turnover is a great thing, and not at all wasteful of resources. She’s only sticking with this job for another three or four years, anyway. Plenty of time to find another company to drive into mediocrity.
You were doing good until the PS. Being “in it for the money” is why 99% of the world works. Yeah it’s nice to pretend we’re all noble beasts in it for self-improvement, learning, passion, yada yada… But the return is money. Period. There is absolutely no more shame in asking “What’s the pay” than their is asking a potential landlord “What’s the rent?” Or a sales person “How much does it cost?”
What’s the rent? How much does this car cost? What does your job pay? They are all exactly the same.
Read the PS again – slowly. “As a hiring manager…”. I think it’s important understand both sides of the process when you’re negotiating. A hiring manager doesn’t want someone who’s going to jump off just for more money – there’s real cost to bringing an employee up to speed and if I have the choice to hire someone who is enthused about the company and what it’s doing vs someone who only cares about their paycheck I’ll hire the former even if I pay them the same.
It also shows the prospective employee hasn’t done basic research – any candidate worth their salt at a mid level position or higher should have a grasp of the market salary of the job for which they’re interviewing and, if they’re really good, they’ve hit up Comparably or Glassdoor to see something about the company in question.
Finally, two points. First, as I noted, it’s perfectly fine to ask after the first interview. My point is that someone who leads with that is going to raise flags with most hiring managers. Second, don’t condescend to me again. You aren’t good enough for that.
Oh and… PS: read the DF post about a designer’s experience at Google to see why intelligent candidates care about more than just the money.
It remains stupid, and I say that as a hiring manager. You must realize people aren’t going to work for you due to your amazing personality. You’re in denial. And you seem to be making a straw man. Just because one asks what the job is paying up front, does not mean they are “someone who only cares about the paycheck!”
It is no different than asking a home-seller what the house costs before you even see it. Cost and pay are perfectly reasonable things to understand from the get-go.
It’s even covered in the article:
Of course it doesn’t always mean the person is mercenary. But it heightens the risk.
Your examples don’t apply – the house has a published price attached. The rent, likewise.
Now, if you are advocating for positions to advertise a salary range so a candidate doesn’t have to ask… I agree. But sans that, a candidate both has other means of finding out the likely range and really isn’t, no matter what the article says, investing all that much time. An interview? Please, that’s nothing. (I’m specifically talking about a single upfront, screening interview, not a day long deep dive).