8 ms·

I hate this question. I frequently dodge or outright deny answering it. I won't lie about it, I just say, no you don't get that information. To dodge this qu

• vivekpreddy 10y ago
  I've been recruiting for a few years now, and I've always hated asking how much someone is making currently. Have always found it better to ask "what are your compensation expectations?" Puts the ball in the candidate's court and I prefer asking this early in conversations as to make sure we're aligned and no one wastes each others time.
  • dudul 10y ago
    Why not disclose the budget you are working with and ask the candidate if it's in line with their expectations?
    • Anasufovic 10y ago
      First person to talk numbers generally has the weak hand in the negotiation.
      • JamesBarney 10y ago
        Most negotiation experts disagree with this advice. The first person who gives a number anchors the conversation to that number. When you name a number you certainly do set a max on negotiation, but you also get to set the starting number. And many negotiation experts think the latter is more valuable than the former. So they can start off trying to negotiate you down from your max, or up you can spend your time trying to negotiate them up from their min.
        • dopamean 10y ago
          That sounds similar to the idea the Overton window[0]. I've thought for a while that I hope I get to say what I want before they say what they're offering. The hope is that if I say a high number then we will be negotiating based on that high number rather than some unknown, possibly lower one. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window
        • erdevs 10y ago
          If you're doing something like selling your startup, you want to set the anchor price, yes. There is such a huge range of outcomes, it's best for you to shoot high (as long as you're comfortable with the risk of scaring the buyer off) as the seller. (Or to start and shoot low as the buyer; with the walkaway risk reversed.) For something like salary negotiation where results are more well-bounded and there is a lot more commoditization (ie replacements are relatively easy to find, or are perceived to be relatively easy to find), you generally don't want to anchor. An anchor that's way out of whack is easy to shoot down (show comp data). Anchoring slightly high/low doesn't buy you much as there is no real anchor... you're just in the established/known range... and so it's more valuable to see where the counterparty starts off an dplay from there. There are unique situations / exceptions of course. For example, you might have uniquely valuable skills for a given company (or be able to convince them you do) and therefore move into a less-bounded zone of negotiation, in which making the ask/establishing the anchor would again be a good idea. But for a normal, well-established position, there is literally no benefit in "anchoring" as the bounded range is already fairly well established and that is the anchor.
        • rogerdpack 10y ago
          I guess the fear is that you'll anchor it "lower" than they would have. Example if they are intending to pay 120, and you say "I'm hoping to make 110" they might just come down to 110. But I suppose if you start at your high range that might be in your favor. Some of us (myself included) just don't know what we're worth so it's hard to know how to start the deal...
          • JamesBarney 10y ago
      • cheapsteak 10y ago
        The other school of thought on this is that the first person to talk numbers has the upper hand due to anchoring power > Just like the word suggests, you want to set a reference point around which the negotiation will revolve. Making the first offer can be to your advantage, as this offer might set the height of the negotiation bar. This anchor is the arena where the two parties will wrangle in a tug and pull negotiation scenario. Interestingly enough, many studies have shown that the first offer has a strong psychological pull, almost a magnetic lure. The resulting agreement is often strongly attracted towards the person who proposes the first offer. http://www.negotiations.com/articles/price-negotiation/ http://www.negotiations.com/articles/price-negotiation/
        • erdevs 10y ago
          This works iff you shoot very high/low and if it's a very fungible range of possible outcomes. In something that is fairly well-bounded like job compensation (or most residential real estate transactions, as another example) it's usually better to let the counterparty turn the first card.
          • cheapsteak 10y ago
            That's a sensible rationale as well, but if you are already familiar with the bounds of compensation, may it not be preferable to throw out a number that's slightly higher than the upper bounds of that yourself? Since employers know the bounds as well, letting them name the first price would seem likely to result in a number that's near the mid range and not take into consideration you as an individual (skills & personality), it would be irresponsible for them not to try to mid-ball you even if they really like you, no?
            • erdevs 10y ago
              Yours is a good thought too. Here is my perspective/experience: Scenario 1: You start at the high end of the range or just a bit above it, I think you risk the employer coming in low as a counterplay, expecting to meet in the middle. Now, it's up to you whether you do actually meet in the middle, or hold firm and move them way up, or just end the negotiation entirely. But I think this opens up their strong counterplay and establishes their ability to take the reasonable-seeming ground that it's fair to meet in the middle (even if it isn't). Scenario 2: They throw out the first price. Scenario 2a: They throw out the first price, and it's low for the range. Now you can counterplay by going high. You also can take the strong moral high ground here by showing comp data and basically saying that it seems like they're not being fair or don't value your experience and skills correctly, which is a concern to you. Often, this will be enough to get them to offer a higher price, and you can then spring from there to continue negotiations from this higher spot. Whether they offer a higher price or not, you can start high and employ meet-in-the-middle even from the low starting point. So, Scenario 2a is no worse than Scenario 1, and has some chance of being better. Scenario 2b: They throw out the first price, and it's mid- or high for the range. Hey! Free money! Now you can safely shoot higher and hopefully end up somewhere between where they started (already on the good side of the range) and where you countered. :-D So, again, Scenario 2b is at least as good as Scenario 1. Very rarely will a company demand no negotiation whatsoever (and maybe you want to tell them kiss off if they do, unless they have a very good philosophical / values-based reason for doing this, and they do it consistently with all candidates), so you're only bettering your position by opening the possibility for them to start somewhere above the low-end of the established market range. By combining all the above logic, you don't want to go first. In practice, I think this works a lot better for prospective employees too. :-) I personally think companies should offer first, for this reason (even though it's bad "negotiation" on the company's part... I actually don't think employing people is a zero-sum game, let alone a one-turn game... so I think you're better off trying to position them well. But of course not all employers think this way, and it seems in fact most do not.)
    • drdeadringer 10y ago
      I ask what the budget is when I'm asked what about my salary history.
    • vivekpreddy 10y ago
      I don't mind giving a range, but that results in a tricky situation that isn't always easy to handle. If you give a range of let's say $130k-$150k for a role, candidates' expectations are now set that if they get anything below $140k, that they're not as valued as a potential new hire.
  • gozur88 10y ago
    I like that much better. You do need some way to determine, early on, if expectations are so divergent there won't be a match.
• lukejduncan 10y ago
  I've followed this advice in the past with mixed results. Some companies do a great job of either respecting this or not asking in the first place. When I interviewed at Uber (a little more than a year back), the recruiter was super persistent. I told them "I understand why you're interested, but it's my personal preference at the advice of personal mentors, not to disclose that information. If we both like each other I'm confident we can find an arrangement that is mutually beneficial." To which the recruiter replied, in person face-to-face, after the 5th time asking: "OK, we can do that. But we have a policy of always making the lowest possible offer to candidates who won't share their compensation information. I just want the best for you." In the end, they very clearly made the lowest possible offer they could and weren't willing to negotiate. It was a cool team, and regardless of if you think they're over-valued a cool company, but it was a very easy "no thank you" for me. That's probably the hardest part of the advice -- you need to be comfortable saying "no" if the negotiation doesn't work out.
  • rev_bird 10y ago
    > "OK, we can do that. But we have a policy of always making the lowest possible offer to candidates who won't share their compensation information. I just want the best for you." This makes absolutely no sense to me. "Oh, we can't use previous compensation to effectively lowball this candidate we like, so we'll ineffectively lowball them instead."
    • rpgmaker 10y ago
      When I read that I immediately pictured a (very) pissed mob boss. What an asshole.
    • hobs 10y ago
      Because that person values you jumping through hoops to train you to accept future hoop jumping you will inevitably do, and test your hoop jumping ability. If you dont play ball with bureaucracy, you are punished in the only way they have available.
    • pluma 10y ago
      It makes perfect sense. If an applicant doesn't want to disclose their previous salary and disclosing it is the cultural norm, that indicates a) they're troublemakers (very privacy conscious or what have you), or b) their previous salary was very low. You probably don't want troublemakers so there's no point in making them a generous offer. And if the previous salary was very low the lowest possible offer is probably not too far off. It actually incentivises disclosing your previous salary because unless it was lower or as low as the lowest offer, you'll have a better bargaining position. I'm not saying the reasoning is particularly ethical or nice, just that it is entirely rational.
• jghn 10y ago
  This can be easier to say than to do, depending on the person. I am now at a stage in my career/life where if anyone tried to force me to give me a number, I'd say no. If they pushed the issue, yes I'd walk away. That wasn't always the case, there were times where I needed to be the one to fall into line. In those cases I universally got screwed as the company would always quite obviously base my offer on my current salary, even when they claimed otherwise.