In the handful of cases where the company was OK with my non-answer about salary, and I went on to get all the way to a job offer, the salary ended up being entirely miscalibrated to a candidate of my skill and experience, and the overall interview process (which usually included some technical screens, programming tests, take-home tests, and long on-site technical interviews) was a massive waste of my time, not to mention extremely stressful.
Places where I experienced this gross miscalibration: a large U.S. food retailer's digital analytics team; a small pharmaceutical research software company; a 25-year-old multinational scientific computing and supercomputing consulting firm; and an FFRDC research lab attached to a university.
In one of these places they even went on at length about how much the hiring manager liked me, how I fit all the skills they were seeking, and many team members remarked that I would "mesh instantly" with the team, and so forth. I had walked away from those interviews knowing that I had done a good job and feeling very confident.
Then they made a job offer than was around 75% of what I had been making before in a similar job in a similar cost of living area, and the new job's other benefits were far worse.
When I told them what I was making before, they just said, "it just looks like there's a bit of a gap here that we are unable to make up, but we think you'll be very happy on this team so we hope you'll consider our offer despite that." The people interviewing me in that company had even gone on at length about how successful their business unit had been recently, signing a new important contract, and how their biggest challenge was recruiting good people and staffing up to support some projects that had important deadlines looming towards the end of 2016.
I still continue to avoid sharing salary info, because I'm not convinced that sharing it would be better.
But I think what you might not be accounting for is that almost every single candidate in the tech world does share salary, freely and openly, from the very first minute they are asked, without even realizing it might have any side effects.
A lot of corporate recruiters are conditioned to expect this, and the minute someone fails to share salary, they flag them as "not a dope, can't hire them cheaply" and they just move on. Constraint number one, above any and all talent requirements, is that they must be cheap to hire ... for a lot of firms.
My reply to the 'our company is doing so well, you will ALSO do very well once you bed in' is to remind them that most notable pay rises you ever get during your career is when you switch job. So negotiate your pay NOW because for all you know, you'll be stuck to that sort of level for X years to come if you are unlucky.
As for 'shares' I flatly refuse to even consider that as part of a package. if they want to /add/ them it's wonderful, but I've been so many time multi-millionaire in 'options' that it's not even funny.
As for 'yes but the work/team is so rewarding' point I counter that it's a lot better if there isn't a sour note about being underpaid mixed in. Pay me well, and I'll be the one pulling the team to be all shinny and dynamic.
However, ultimately, you STILL get underpaid unless you go to the usual suspects like GG and such. That's why I gave up 'career' and went off contracting. Turns out being a mercenary is rewarding in many ways, including monetary !
Well, it's a matter of knowing a few people most of the time; a few agents you can 'trust', and then a small pool of returning clients who'll ask you to do stuff once a year or so...
The networking is always important, even as an employee -- always brush up your network, it might save your ass next time there is a shakeup at the company you work for, and might also give you the occasion to slam the door and move on if necessary.
I think there is nothing worse in life than waking up realizing you have to go to work to a job you hate, with people who are beepheads for a product that is a failure and going to the wall.... while knowing you don't have the freedom to just go.
Perhaps one strategy would be to give them a baseline salary (higher than your current salary, of course). You could tell them that in general based on the kind of work you are doing, responsibilities, etc. you would expect more, but under no circumstances would you consider any offer less than that.
It's tough to decide where to leave this reply, and this seems like a good place to address a few things I've seen in the replies to my comment.
Usually, my advice is "don't share you current or desired salary", but the one exception I've discussed with some people is when they're concerned they'll be low-balled. In those cases, I've suggested it might be better to just disclose your desired salary.
I've been rethinking this lately. I think a better tack might be to ask the company to share the salary range they're offering for the position. (You're only doing this if you're concerned you'll go through the interview process and get an offer so low you can't even counter with anything reasonable.)
In this case, you have virtually nothing to lose: either they'll tell you the range and you'll know if you're wasting your time, or they'll refuse and now you're both refusing to disclose the "desired" salary component. In the latter case, you can choose to continue with the process or not, depending on your general feeling about the opportunity.
The more I think about it, the more I suspect you should _never_ reveal your desired salary because it can basically only cost you money. When you do reveal your desired salary, you're basically guessing and gambling. You're guessing at the range they're offering, and gambling that you don't undershoot and cost yourself money. (See this clip on why I think it's so important to protect the few pieces of information you have in a negotiation: https://youtu.be/ndrY2UI-fyU TL;DR, you have only two or three unique pieces of information that the company doesn't have; the company has oodles and oodles of information that you don't have; they have a significant informational advantage in your negotiation and this is bad for you, but it's worse if you give away the few pieces of unique information that you have.)
This is a worse gamble than simply interviewing to see what they're best offer is, IMO. If you go all the way through the interview process and find they can't afford you, you wasted a few hours of interview time. If you guess and gamble by disclosing your desired salary, you're risking thousands of dollars of base salary over several years. Odds are, the opportunity cost of your time isn't anywhere near the potential downside of guessing wrong with respect to the base salary they're willing to pay.
(I'm going to sleep on this, but it feels right) So, my suggestion is don't disclose your desired salary, even if you're afraid their offer will be way too low or if the recruiter says they won't continue without it. If you're dealing with a very persistent recruiter OR you're afraid they can't afford you, ask them to tell you the salary range they're offering so you can tell them if it meets your requirements. If they won't tell you, then you can choose to continue and possibly get a low offer, walk away, or the recruiter may end the conversation (this is rare, in my experience, but I'd be open to seeing data to change my mind).
All of these outcomes are preferable to the alternative, which is risking thousands (or tens of thousands) of dollars of base salary by guessing at their range and gambling by disclosing your desired salary.
The bottom line is the company has something you need: a job. BUT you have something the company needs: skills and experience that can help them make money. Don't be fooled into perceiving a salary negotiation as a one-sided affair.
This is actually an excellent point, and I can't believe I didn't think of this.
If I am the first one to bring up salary, and I request a range because I want to make sure that nobody is wasting their time, then they clearly get the message that I am expensive to hire, and they can efficiently reject me if needed. If they give a number and it's too low, then I can politely tell them it's best for everyone to discontinue the interviews.
But, if they don't want to give a range, presumably because they might be willing to pay a high wage if they liked me, then it puts me in a much better position to avoid stating what I am seeking.
Then I could say, "OK, it's alright with me if you don't want to explicitly tell me the range ... I just want to be sure that the position is offering compensation in the range that I am seeking. If you prefer to leave the salary discussions for later, that is perfectly understandable."
Now, if they press me for salary info, I can say the same thing they said and refuse to answer.
A, but there's a catch! I've asked for a company's range many times, and they have yet another non-answer answer: "we don't have a firm range in mind, we're confident compensation won't be an issue for a top candidate".
It's a game of chicken. The best counter I have is "what is the top of your range if we have a perfect fit?", but even that doesn't always work.
At this point, I'm sick of games. If a company refuses to disclose a salary range and/or insists on getting me to quote a number, I lead with $2X0 and see what happens. 80+% of companies aren't willing to hit that high, and the other 20% have been more interesting roles at higher quality companies.
Honestly, I still don't see a problem with stating a high number.
In my experience, refusing to agree on a range will inevitably lead to some lowball offers.
The strategy I've been using is to give out a range that is 1.5-2x what I'd be happy with. This anchors the conversation and quickly sifts out the employers who are not serious about attracting top talent.
Realistically, I never expect to get that 2x number and am certainly not leaving money on the table.
There are a couple of us here in the weird position of being senior enough that companies don't recruit for us through normal recruiters.
On the one hand, that screws up the usual "don't give a number" advice, including this advice -- there's usually not a defined salary range for a startup's catchall "we want somebody who does backend" poorly-defined job req.
On the other hand, I suspect "don't give a number" isn't the biggest mismatch happening there.
In past I have asked "What's your budget for the position?". In companies usually everything is budgeted during planning phase from new hires to promotions, bonuses etc.
So lets say you've asked them what is the normal range for the job and they've replied. What if their "normal range" is below the amount you desire? What then?
I know it's anecdata, but to confirm your experience I have had recruiters and hr reps tell me explicitly that either they will not continue without salary information or that the software their company mandated that they use would not allow them to continue with no salary or a $0 salary
"Strange, that kind of restriction must make it very difficult for you to find good talent. OK, how about you enter $999,999. It's an such an obvious placeholder that it won't fall through the cracks and it'll be easy to fix it later."
"Too open-ended? Then how about you just put in the lowest/highest amount YOU'D be willing to accept and we move from there."
Your experience with small to mid-sized firms does sound depressingly typical and I've experienced it too, but I think it's worth mentioning that Amazon specifically won't reject you for not saying a number.
State the one you want, not the one you're currently making. They won't (and legally should't be able to) check.
And if they do and somehow, your previous employer disclosed this to them (a big no no), you can always say "I was underpaid then and what I was making there is not relevant to the position I'm applying to with your right now. I also think I've learned a lot in my past position, which justifies this jump in compensation".
I've only ever done this (caveat: in the US, where they can't legally check by calling the company directly). Increase your previous salary by 20-30%, even more if it's the norm. I've even countered with "my current co just countered to keep me..." Gotta have some chutzpah.
Shoot thats a good one I need to add to my list! Fake counteroffer from own employer. (Fake competing offer from a different company probably wouldn't work, because they would ask for an "offer letter". A counteroffer from current company isn't going to require proof)
I always find it amusing when people refuse to lie on certain things based on some sort of moral-code or principle and then spew out lies for tons of others.
> I'm all for solid negotiating tactics, but if you consider telling an untruth, you are not welcome on my team.
Do you seriously think your team is made of 100% people who only ever tell the truth?
Let's get realistic, we all tell lies here and there. What matters is what you lie about and why you do it.
I couldn't care less if a developer joins my team and lied to get a higher compensation. All I care about is whether they are a good hire and if they'll do good work.
If I'm doing the hiring, I wouldn't expect a candidate to let me talk to their current manager--that's just insane.
If I thought the employee was worth the extra money they were asking for, I'd give it to them. If not, I'd let them walk. Whether their current job is considering matching their offer doesn't really matter to me.
If a candidate asks for a specific salary, I don't care why they want it. I only care whether I think they are worth it, and whether I can afford it.
I think the OP means they can't legally access this information other than by getting you or your previous employer to disclose it.
Most large companies won't give out your past salary information, so if they don't force you to provide proof, it's not very likely they will be able to verify it.
>via background checks
Background checks are normally done via a 3rd party background check company, and they don't have access to this kind of data.
When I was hired by Merrill Lynch, in Dublin, they asked for my bank statements for the last ten years in order to verify that I was indeed making what I said. (The only annoying thing was that I had to scan 75 pages... boooring.)
In the US, this is a legal minefield and when a potential employer calls a past employer for references, that past employer will very often not reveal anything more than "We can confirm that this person was employed by us from date1 to date2" and that's it.
They will not disclose your salary, what you did, your organization, who you reported to and who reported to you, your performance reviews and anything else of that nature because all of this extra information is grounds for you to sue them later if you don't get the job you're currently applying to.
The only way The Work Number has access to your salary information is if your employer has given it to them. If your employer is willing to give that out then yes a hiring company can verify your salary.
We are back to my original point that the only way a hiring company can verify salary data is by asking your employer (or having 3rd party ask for them) or forcing you to verify it.
Why is it that "What are you making are your current job, we will verify it." is acceptable but "What was this companies net revenue last quarter" is not. The game is so clearly rigged.
The company bears far less risk than the employee. The company can easily fire you if it doesn't work out, whereas most employees can't suddenly leave a job that treats them badly.
So employees can ask lots of questions about company financial health, as part of trying to reduce the far larger risk they are taking.
Meanwhile, a company doesn't need to know your salary history to make an informed opinion of whether they want to hire you and for what amount of pay.
That's true but far more than 1% of employees are employed by publicly traded companies. Most of the 27 million businesses have no employees at all--there are only around 5 million businesses with employees.
What do you mean that this is a big no-no? Can you provide a source for that? I was under the opposite impression and I'd be interested to learn more.
The reason I ask is I've certainly worked at companies that shared salary info if asked about your tenure there. In fact, it was one of the very few things they would share (in addition to start date and end date). Maybe it varies by state?
"I'm not comfortable sharing that information [my current salary]. I'd prefer to focus on the value I can add to your company and learn more about this opportunity.
I want this to be a big step forward for me in terms of both responsibility and compensation."
You can obviously adjust it for your own situation, but the idea is "I'm not comfortable telling you my current or desired salary. Let's keep going, please."
I call this "The Dreaded Salary Question" and you can see a better clip and a lengthy Q&A on this specific question in this salary negotiation workshop I did in Orlando last week: http://bit.ly/21zFG5q
I have practiced that part and read just about everything I can find about it.
Generally I say something like, "I appreciate the need to consider salary as an important part of the process, but since we have only just started talking about the position I feel it would be best to make sure that I really am the sort of technical and cultural fit you are looking for. If we can determine that I am the right fit for the role, then the salary information will fall into place at the appropriate time. But if it seems that I am not the right fit for your team, then no amount of salary discussions will be able to help us."
I have a few variations on that kind of description that I use. It's entirely possible that the way I say it can come off as rude, and I think that did happen to me especially a few times when I first started doing this.
But I have practiced it, asked friends for advice about how to say it better, how it sounds, etc., and researched a lot about this online. So I have some confidence that it is coming off as strong and assertive, but not rude, and it is communicated clearly in good-faith because I truly am primarily interested in whether the cultural fit is a good one.
Even so, these kinds of HR-approved ways of talking only ever result in about a 95% chance of immediate rejection.
Whenever I have made it past the initial question about salary, and eventually salary comes up again towards the stage when an offer is made, I have a different way of talking about it.
At that stage, if they ask me again, I will usually say something like, "I have spoken with the team and had a great chance to learn about your company and how I could fit in with this role. If you have a particular salary range that you'd like to share with me, I can definitely let you know how it will match up with my expectations."
Again, I have some slight variations on that, but it's more or less the same idea of changing their question asked of me into my question asked of them. They can't keep coming back and specifically asking me for a number without seeming very awkward, and if they do that it's sometimes a red flag and I would usually be happy walking away if they were to heavily press me at that point.
Unfortunately, as I mentioned above, when people have been OK with all of this and they have actually come back with their offer, it has been not just a tiny bit below my ideal, but way, way off base from what I was previously earning, let alone what I was actually seeking to earn in the new role.
Never "decline". I say I consider the entire compensation package because I realize they are a startup and need to sweeten their offer with stock because they don't have the revenue to pay a market rate.
It's important to neg them a little when you guess what they will offer. Male them self consious about lowballing you without insulting them.
I actually am beginning to think that its weak to ask them to throw out a number. Why not state a deal that's 10% better than what you want? Are you really going to be heartbroken if you get more than you want?
> Why not state a deal that's 10% better than what you want? Are you really going to be heartbroken if you get more than you want?
Because you might be leaving money on the table. What if the company was prepared to offer you 20% above your desired rate? Once you tell them +10% is your floor, they have no reason to offer above that.
That's why I think its weak. It's driven by fomo rather than going for what you want. Throwing out the first number let's you anchor the negotiation. It puts you in control.
Places where I experienced this gross miscalibration: a large U.S. food retailer's digital analytics team; a small pharmaceutical research software company; a 25-year-old multinational scientific computing and supercomputing consulting firm; and an FFRDC research lab attached to a university.
In one of these places they even went on at length about how much the hiring manager liked me, how I fit all the skills they were seeking, and many team members remarked that I would "mesh instantly" with the team, and so forth. I had walked away from those interviews knowing that I had done a good job and feeling very confident.
Then they made a job offer than was around 75% of what I had been making before in a similar job in a similar cost of living area, and the new job's other benefits were far worse.
When I told them what I was making before, they just said, "it just looks like there's a bit of a gap here that we are unable to make up, but we think you'll be very happy on this team so we hope you'll consider our offer despite that." The people interviewing me in that company had even gone on at length about how successful their business unit had been recently, signing a new important contract, and how their biggest challenge was recruiting good people and staffing up to support some projects that had important deadlines looming towards the end of 2016.
I still continue to avoid sharing salary info, because I'm not convinced that sharing it would be better.
But I think what you might not be accounting for is that almost every single candidate in the tech world does share salary, freely and openly, from the very first minute they are asked, without even realizing it might have any side effects.
A lot of corporate recruiters are conditioned to expect this, and the minute someone fails to share salary, they flag them as "not a dope, can't hire them cheaply" and they just move on. Constraint number one, above any and all talent requirements, is that they must be cheap to hire ... for a lot of firms.