Hacker News Reader

I'm not sure your post deserves to be downmodded -- it seems honest and on topic. I can see how one bit in particular could come off as slightly offensive:

'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?

So, In a world of Networks that need to be built, customers that need to be deployed, ticketing systems that need to be improved, Post Mortems that need to be completed, and Network Architectures that need to be visioed - I simply don't have time/energy or, even the _ability_ to deal with someone who isn't going to throw themselves 100% onto the team. And that starts at the interview. Perhaps it's a reflection on how I perceived the employer/employee relationship.

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. ]

Do you always tell the people you're interviewing what the maximum budgeted salary is for the position?

If the answer is no, then withholding their previous salary isn't hardball negotiation, it's simply negotiating on the same terms you are.

"maximum budgeted salary" is probably a more relevant concept to large 1000+ employee company. I typically only know what the _minimum_ budgeted salary is - that is, the lowest skilled employee I can justify bringing into a position. At the top end, sky is the limit - if you can justify $200K/year based on contribution, we'll be lucky to bring you on board.

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.

"They should be able to walk into the interview and tell me to within $5K precisely what they should be making."

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.

Also remember - it hurts an employee just as much to be overcompensated as it does to be undercompensated.

Why? Can you expand on that?

As a manager, when we do both our employee reviews as well as rankings, we always take into account what an employee is making. Ideally, an employee is performing slightly above their pay grade at all times, so their is a consistent track record of pay increases, punctuated every so often by significant changes in job responsibilities.

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.

Obviously it's a good thing if an employee gets what he's worth, and it's nice if you can actually accurately determine that.

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.

based on what I know about their experience, the listed (and back door references)

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.

Why would googling a potential hire make him a scumbag? I've never hired anyone I didn't already know, but it seems to me that I wouldn't be willing to hire someone without actually doing a little research on them. Candidate-supplied eferences are supposed to be about character, but all they can really tell you is if the candidate was smart enough to only give references who would say good things about him, it would seem.

To have any component of the decision-making process that the candidate is not aware of is unethical, because it denies him the opportunity to improve his application in the future and successfully seek employment elsewhere.

Right. :-)

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.

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.

In this case, why do you need these references before that point? A matter of principle?

Having everything on the application form just makes life so much easier. I realize for the candidate that getting to the point of being hired is a major event, that happens only once every 3-4 years, and so providing references is a big deal. On the other side, we're doing reference checks, even in a small company, with around 20-30 references/month. Keeping everying on an application letter means that we don't have to delay the process and do (even more) back and forth with the candidate to track down their references.

When an applicant is expected to provide references, they probably call first to let these references know or ask permission. Since these are often not close friends, that isn't something you want to be doing multiple times. He/She must also reveal that they are applying for a job, something they may not want to discuss given the likelihood of rejection. If you are going to 5 - 10 interviews over the course of several months, that's a reasonable inconvenience to juggle.

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.

I don't buy this - When someone who wants to use me as a reference starts interviewing - they call me and say "I'd like to use you as a reference, is that OK? Can you give me a call if anyone contacts you"

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.

Look. I'm not particularly experienced in this. Honestly, I probably would provide whatever was asked & not make a big deal & be cooperative.

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.

This discussion feels strange, and a bit amusing to me.

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.

Perhaps it is a result of the fairly liquid and rapid moving environment in silicon valley. People change jobs frequently, and trying to figure out what to pay someone can be challenging when age is not a proxy for ability/experience. It's not exceptional to see someone on a team with 30 years of experience making $75K/year, whereas another contributor, with perhaps 8-10 years of experience, making $130K. The interview is so short, you typically only get 5-6 hours of conversation with the individual, and you want to make the right decision. Salary numbers are only one component of that deciding factor, but a useful one.

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"

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.

You can't really lie about your salary - too easy to get caught, particularly in Silicon Valley. And, if you claim to be a $130K/year Network Engineer, but are really a $85K a year Network Engineer - you'll not only get caught, but fired for poor performance as well - there is just no upside in lying about making more money. Their might be some incentive to claim a _lower_ salary, but most people just say "I made way too much money at my last job X$, I'm willing to work for much less"