Salary history: Just say no
corcodilos.com
corcodilos.com
I haven't had a change to use this yet, though....
EDIT: information wants to be free etc. http://drop.io/precision_of_the_anchor_etc
Your strategy works if you name a "negotiable" number that is higher than what you really want to make, but near the employer's upper bound for the position. Guess right, and you'll be negotiated down to a number that is mutually acceptable. Guess too low, and you'll be under-paid. Guess too high, and you'll be bounced without further negotiation. No matter what you do, the onus is on you to guess correctly the numbers on the employer's sheet. That's why saying the first number is bad when you're negotiating with a more knowledgeable opponent.
If you've had a lot of success with the "anchoring" method, it's likely because you're not coming close to the upper bound of the pay range that your employers had pre-determined for their positions.
(1) The times you are asking your counterpart to spend "her own money" (from her budget, outside her range, etc)
(2) The times you're asking your counterpart to spend play money.
It's always helpful to remember when you're hesitant to ask someone at a big company to pay you for your product or service that they aren't paying you out of their own pocket.
This hasn't been my experience. My experience has been if they want you then they'll find a way to make it work.
If you don't fit in one grid then they'll just bump you up to the next grid.
The people I was thinking of were the team leads and managers.
These are the people I've dealt with and I am. We do, at least in every company I've worked for, have the ability to say I want this person, lets make it work wrt salary.
Now obviously this has limits; a developer can't come in and expect to be the highest paid person in an established company:). But if the person's demands fit anywhere on the salary grid, and their abilities match, then they are almost assured of getting hired at their desired salary.
We don't create a salary range when we create a position.
But the reply alongside mine nails it quite well - the HR staff has no authority to bump you up. You earn what they pay for that position and that's all the HR people can do.
Those ranges are so large that in most cases they're pretty much irrelevant. If you're a good enough candidate, they'll make it work. Why you would want to knowingly under pay yourself just for this particular job?
"What did you make at your last company" is a valid question, and I know of no employer (at a Silicon Valley Company) that has instructed their employees to _not_ tell future employers what they make. It is, of course, considered good taste not to discuss compensation (Stock or Salary) with coworkers - but it's remarkable that there aren't typically company policies against that. (There are exceptions, I'm sure)
The thing is - you _need_ to color that answer. Don't just say "I made $150K/year as a Sysadmin at my prior company", it's fine to say "They were paying me $150K, but that was probably an outlier, and I'd be very comfortable making $115K." Or, "I was making $90K/year, but I'm looking to make $115K at my next engagement" - You probably know (through salary.com, your colleagues at other companies, etc..) what the market will pay for your skills - and that is the number you need to communicate during the interview, what you are _worth_. It is as destructive and harmful to a career to be paid more than you are worth, than it is to be paid less than you are worth.
The employees being overpaid are always the very first ones to be laid off, while their less skilled, but more appropriately compensated colleagues, are kept on. And, when you aren't being laid off, if you aren't delivering to your compensation level - you are never receiving positive performance reviews - even if you are performing at a much higher level than someone less well compensated - makes for a stressful work environment. (There is more to a job than money.)
Speaking only for myself, any candidate who starts going down the road of "I won't fill out employment application until we are interested in each other", "I won't discuss previous salary", "I won't provide references until there is an offer letter", etc... - just screams "Prima Donna"
That strategy might work if you are a very strategic hire, with very specialized skills, in a very tight job market - but in general, life is too short to have to manage those type of personalities, and I'd rather just take a pass and bring on someone who is willing to work _with_ me, and not _against_ me.
'Speaking only for myself, any candidate who starts going down the road of "I won't fill out employment application until we are interested in each other", "I won't discuss previous salary", "I won't provide references until there is an offer letter", etc... - just screams "Prima Donna"'
This is a matter of trust. Salary history, a detailed employment history, and references are private. In the case of references it would be down right rude, to repay the people who are willing to vouch for you by spamming their contact info to anyone who asks. There is nothing unreasonable about withholding that info until both sides clearly serious about moving forward. If anything, I wonder what your cavalier attitude screams about you?
The interview is a (very poor) proxy for what the work relationship will be like with the candidate in the future. Firing people is such a major, major hassle (particularly as you get bigger) - that unless the person is grossly incompetent or breaches company policy in an unambiguous manner, you typically have to wait for the next round of layoffs to get rid of them, even if they are difficult to work with.
What this means, is that you are looking for all the danger signs you can during an interview - and hiring someone who is going to "Stand up for their rights" or "as a matter of principle, not share detailed employee history", is fraught with risk. Both of those actions are entirely reasonable in and of themselves, but, for better or worse, they portend, for the potential employer, risk.
And I guess that's what I was trying to get across (from the perspective of an employer) - that rightly or wrongly, your actions in holding back information or challenging the employer in an interview, will be sending clear signals.
If you are a strategic hire, or if the job market is tight, or if you have some very, very specific skills - then you can probably afford to negotiate hardball, and be as difficult as you want - they aren't hiring you for the person that you are, but the things that you can do - but, in the 95% of the time a hiring situation is taking place, that is not the case.
[added: And as far as spamming references - ask anyone who hires; actually getting around to calling references of people you are _hiring_ is hard enough - I don't know if I have _ever_ contacted a reference unless a salary, start time, and position where pretty much agreed upon. And I'm better than most at getting around to that task. ]
If the answer is no, then withholding their previous salary isn't hardball negotiation, it's simply negotiating on the same terms you are.
And yes, I immediately tell all applicants at the conclusion of the interview process precisely what I think they can command in the peninsula economy, and at our company (65th percentile), based on what I know about their experience, the listed (and back door references), the local economy, and what our needs are. I don't negotiate salary - that's the number we offer them, and they can either take it or leave it. The information they provide on their salary, and the reason they are leaving their last position, just happen to be two pieces of information that feed into that final number.
The difference, of course, being that I know very little about how smart they are, and how much they can get things done, whereas the candidate knows almost _everything_ about themselves. And having the candidate hold back that information just makes my job more difficult, rather than easier. Certainly not what I'm looking for in an employee.
They should be able to walk into the interview and tell me to within $5K precisely what they should be making.
Remember - I'm a hiring manager, not an HR staffer. I see my job in life to maximize my employee's compensation, ensure that they are making more at my company than they would anywhere else. Every single day consists of me trying to increase what my employees make by giving them more training, more tools, more projects, more guidance, more time to focus on what interests them.
Also remember - it hurts an employee just as much to be overcompensated as it does to be undercompensated.
Why? Can you expand on that?
On a technical track, the typical valley growth pattern is from a low level helper, to a developer/technician, to an engineer/sysadmin, to an architect/Sr.Sysadmin.
But, from time to time, something gets out of whack, and either an employee was poorly interviewed, lied about their previous salary, or was grossly overpaid, and they come into a job with far higher expectations than they are going to be capable of delivering on.
Let's say that a solid Jr. Sysadmin, who's comfortable working around DNS zone files, configuring startup scripts, placing IP addresses on interfaces, and writing rudimentary scripts to automate all of this, should be making around $80K/year in the valley right now.
Now, let's say they got hired into a Sr. Sysadmin role, at $120K/year and, in their first couple months, were expected to architect/engineer/deploy a global loadbalancing DNS architecture, complete with performance and redundancy capability, documentation, etc...
This isn't unreasonable to expect of a $120K/year performer, so, when the individual failed to accomplish this, they are placed on a performance improvement plan, seen as an underperformer, and are taking up a valuable head count where someone else could have been performing those functions. They are mostly likely the first people to be laid off, and will be very unlikely to see a repeat of that salary, and will need to adjust to that fact. In a worst case scenario, it takes them 9-12 months to adjust to the fact that their next job will include a $40k/year pay decrease.
On the flip side, if they had come in as an $80K/year Sysadmin, and performed well, they would have been seen as an asset to the team, and would have continued to have enjoyed both career as well as salary growth. Ideally they manage to dodge layoffs, and then, 3-4 years later, they are making $120K/year based on merit.
But what's his previous salary got to do with what he's actually worth, now?
If you tell a potential employer what you're currently getting, doesn't it set an upper limit on how much you can get from the new job?
If no one knows what you're getting now, you could get a 50% 'raise' when changing jobs, and still happen to be worth just that.
Is there any way that a potential employer knowing your current salary can work to your advantage as an employee? I seriously doubt it.
If by "back door references", you mean that you check references that the applicant doesn't give, then you, sir, are a scumbag, and that'll be $25 for this consultation.
The _best_ references I can get for a candidate are the dozen or so people that worked with him/her for the last five years. If I read you correctly, you are suggesting I roll the dice and not contact them.
More specifically, you are almost _never_ working for your current employer in Silicon Valley - your contributions and abilities are typically intended to impress your executive team, manager, and colleagues to position you better in the _next_ company - which is where you really see a strong stock and compensation package.
No Sr. candidates are hired without a strong combination of listed and back door references. And, the valley is strong enough that no candidate who has worked in the valley for 8-10 years won't have at least half a dozen colleagues in common with me.
I think this only works for average hires. People who are more competent than average often don't understand that they are; to them, it just seems like they've had the bad luck to work with incompetents so far. If you're actively looking for average people to fill up a roster, that's fine, then, but if you really want the most competent people you can find (as evidenced by your "if you can justify $200K/yr" comment), you're either going to have to pay what they're really worth independently of what they think they're worth, or risk losing them to the first hirer that is willing to do so.
In this case, why do you need these references before that point? A matter of principle?
To avoid this the hiring company would simply have to obtain this information at a later stage. As you mention, they would have been in contact anyway to discuss compensation & such. A pretty minor detail.
Some things are unavoidable: Writing a job application is more emotionally draining & time consuming then reading one. Interviewing less then being interviewed.
But things like these really put to light the asymmetry: A major inconvenience for the applicant is acceptable to avoid a minor one for the employer.
I think the reason you get such seemingly strident positions from the applicant side of the street is that it feels a lot like abusing the asymmetry.
That's about it. When I get a call, it's usually because a job offer is about to be made, and both myself and the individual I'm providing a reference for are happy to have that call go out.
Re: Filling out application forms - the first one is a pain as you try and figure out who your emergency contact is, what your home phone number and mailing address is, the dates/names of your last 5 years of jobs, and what the contact information for your references is. Once that's done, it is fairly straightforward, as the information typically doesn't change for the 4-6 months you'll be looking for a job.
Also, If you've made it to the point at which we are interviewing you, you probably have a > 33% chance of being hired. You've been phone screened at least twice, and your resume has been reviewed carefully a few times. You are filling in that application letter because there is a good chance we want to hire you, and we need the information you are filling in.
Just to be clear - I haven't personally ever had an applicant not fill in the section on references on the application form, so it's a non-issue for me. I bring it up only because we did have a candidate in another department indicate they wouldn't provide references unless a job offer was going to be made - not the end of the world, but it would be important that that was the only "No, I won't cooperate" moment in the interview process.
I'm just trying to rationalise the undertone all over this thread which I naturally sympathise with. As an applicant, you are expected to meet whatever terms are presented. This leads to a convention favouring employers that feels belittling to employees. You are to provide whatever information is asked. You are to take whatever information is given. Otherwise, it is a strike against you. Maybe one point (providing salary info) is strategically important to take a stand & take the hit. As you say, they can get away with one. But you start on the back foot.
I have experienced & have heard from friends & family of many many situations where the employer did not reveal the salary level until the point where they were really looking for a yes/no. In many cases, I've known people to take jobs without knowing (but having a good guess). This is probably out of their timidity & new graduates workforce returnees etc. are more prone to it then technical employees that find it easier to find jobs. But it's not uncommon & it is abusive to an extent.
It's not uncommon not to hear back for months or ever. It's not uncommon to be told you're being considered, & being left to stew for weeks.
I imagine that asking for reference equivalents (can i speak to some recent recruits?) would be seen similarly to asking to provide references at a later date: uncooperative. Asking about previous salaries is just another point. But (whether this is true or not) will seem like it puts you at a disadvantage in negotiating where you would not be able to gain the same. (how much do your last three hires earn?)
Many employers try hard to maintain their names as good employers. But it seems that the marketing stops once you have put in an application.
Look at it this way. Most potential employees are very intentional in the questions they ask. They are not intended to evaluate the employer. They are intended to make an impression by showing you care about the right things. It doesn't seem that employers try to sell themselves at all during the interview process. That is not a pleasant situations. Reality says you deal with it(& blog in defiance). But Noone likes it.
In Finland, it's accepted that your salary is none of anyone else's business.
Potential employers understand that private matters are private, and so they practically never even ask.
It's common sense, isn't it?
After all, your current salary is information that will only be used against you, so it's logical that you don't want to tell.
The first is fairly ridiculous, and I can understand not wanting to hire such a person. The second makes perfect sense; you should at least respect that he's honest enough not to flat-out lie to you, as most people would do. (In finance, every banker got the top bonus for his level of seniority.) The third is sketchy-- it sounds like he's trying to hide something-- but I can understand his not wanting to provide a current reference, lest he jeopardize his current job.
Also, the self-righteousness of claiming "privileged information" is patently absurd. I'll tell anyone who asks what I make. More transparency gives power to employees. Companies want you to keep your salary a secret for their own reasons.
(a) HR's job is to hire you for the lowest possible price.
(b) By telling them your previous salary, you've conceded a great deal of information about what your negotiating floor is.
Two very basic rules of salary negotiation, which process could not be further from market research:
* Don't name a number first (whatever number you give is the highest number that will occur during negotiation, even if their range went higher).
* Don't give up your "invoice price" --- the cost for them to move from your previous job without you taking a pay cut, or, worse, if you're unemployed, the price at which you'll think they're still doing you a favor.
(1) You can convince HR that it's not worth negotiating with you because your salary demands will end up too high.
(2) You can convince HR that it's worth lowballing you and then waiting you out as long as possible because your salary history demonstrates your negotiating floor is much lower than you think it is.
It's that simple. Of course, you don't have to take a crappy offer, but part of the point of salary negotiation is not to get crappy offers.
Why would you want to work somewhere for less than you've earned in the past?
Let's look at what I can expect if I screw someone over with the lowest possible salary:
* An employee who can justify doing the bare minimum it takes to get the job done, because after all, he's being paid the bare minimum
* Low morale. Can I not expect the individual to bitch about how poorly the company treats its employees?
* High turnover / no loyalty. How much money am I going to waste bringing people up to speed, only to see them hop to the next job as soon as possible? How can I expect to retain valuable employees when I don't treat them as valuable from the start?
It's a poorly run business that screws over it's employees, customers, and / or partners just because it can. I like to think most good business people recognize that that sort of approach does not yield the best results over the long term.
Frankly, I have no concerns about revealing salary requirements or providing salary history. If a company doesn't treat me fairly during negotiations that's a huge signal that it's not the sort of company I want to work for.
The problem isn't top-down corporate strategy; it's the concept of HR departments. When you:
* establish an entire business unit apart from the real work of a company,
* give it a mandate to meddle in the affairs of every other business unit in the company, and then
* measure its performance in raw numbers,
you get the systemic inefficiency almost every large company sees. It's not the people or their ideas that are messed up, it's the system.
However, apart from all that --- if you think what I'm saying is "jaded", try being a vendor to large companies sometime. Prospective employees deal with HR. Vendors deal with Purchasing. At least HR tries to pretend to be nice to you. Purchasing departments (for consultants, or for products) are overtly intended to screw you.
Finally, this isn't about whether you feel like you're being treated fairly. It's about whether you're best representing your interests during negotiation. The idea is not to lose leverage by conceding an advantage in information to your counterparty.
An HR person would be fired if they revealed the salary history of the last 20 people hired into your group in the company. Under no circumstances would a company ever reveal that kind of information. But you concede it willingly. Why?
It sounds like you've worked often (mostly?) with larger companies. Companies staffed with people who think life / business is somehow a game. That in order to win, someone else must lose.
I don't doubt that such companies exist. They may even represent a majority. But, not every company is run that way, and I hope you are fortunate enough to work for a better sort of company someday.
A company that treats its employees like interchangeable parts will invariably begin compensating them as such.
If you're earning above market rates you want to disclose your salary both to show the company how much your previous employer values you and also to get you a higher salary at the new company.
Hence the people who aren't disclosing their salary are implicitly informing the company that they're currently being paid below market rate. While it might not be true for everyone who refuses to disclose salary, it's true for a large enough percentage of applicants that it's safe to assume.
It sets the dynamic and expectations. Obviously if it's crazy, it also provides an immediate opportunity to correct an unreasonable expectation.
If you know what the market is paying and are comfortable with a particular wage, what the hell does it matter if you're under everyone else?
What a hypocrite! When he's interviewing, he asks for salary history. When you're interviewing him, he just says no.
I'd never say, though, that I refuse to divulge pay based on a company policy. That makes the position seem weak. "I'm not telling you, because I'm not allowed." I'd make it clear that I'm not divulging it because I don't want to, and any company that wouldn't respect that desire on my part is a place where I wouldn't want to work.