6 ms·

>I never consider interviewing and negotiations a waste of time. As an employer, I do. I once made the mistake of spending a lot of time interviewing a candid

>I never consider interviewing and negotiations a waste of time. As an employer, I do. I once made the mistake of spending a lot of time interviewing a candidate assuming that their salary expectations would be around market rates...they weren't. This was years ago and it chaps me a bit to this day that I made such a rookie blunder. I won't make that mistake again. I ask for a range right off and give one in return. This saves a lot of time if expectations are way off.

pmoriarty 10y ago
If it's such a big deal to employers, and they don't want to waste their time, why don't they name a number first? I won't object.
- clavalle 10y ago
  I didn't at the time. I do now.
  - komali2 10y ago
    Problem is, is every potential employee worth the same to you?
    - clavalle 10y ago
      Of course not. But every role has a range, more or less, which is a balance of the value that role creates vs the alternatives in the market. The range is due to factors such as the risk an individual embodies based on previous experience, demonstrable skill, references along with likely ramp up time based on those factors. To take a silly but illustrative example: if I'm looking for a javascript developer, I don't care if the person I'm interviewing also has a law degree from a top tier school and can craft airtight patent applications even if I may have some use for that skill. I am hiring for a javascript developer. That is the role I need filled. I will offer a salary range based on that need. It is a silly example but I see the issue so often: someone will apply for a role and then expect to be compensated for their other skills. While, sometimes, it may be worth it to do a bit of management gymnastics and get someone brilliant through the door and find out how to fully leverage their talents later, most of the time that's just wishful thinking on everyone's part.
      - pmoriarty 10y ago
        When you tell employees your number so as not to waste time, do you name the number at the top of the range or at the bottom?
        clavalle 10y ago
        Both. And I try to give them a rough idea of the things that factor into pushing one into the higher end of the range or lower end.
      - OrwellianChild 10y ago
        Hit thread limit, but I'm asking about @clavalle's ranges here: How often does your eventual accepted offer land at the high end of your offered range? How often at the low end? I ask, because it often seems unproductive to negotiate within-range on merits. If you're willing to pay up to X, I as a candidate am going to expect that amount. Anything less is letting you, the employer, capture the surplus...
        clavalle 10y ago
        You assume there is a surplus. If I tell you at the beginning of our conversation 'The salary for this position is between $80K and $120K depending on your experience, education, and demonstrable skill etc'... Throughout the course of our interview it is revealed that your education is a good fit for the position and your experience, while decent and potentially transferrable, is not a great fit for the position. Also, the technical part of the interview was good in some areas and poor in others (though I suspect through mere ignorance and not raw ability) and you have no public code under your belt that I can examine. But, you seem to communicate well and get along with the team. Well, you are a good candidate but represent a significant risk relative to some other candidates. I could hire you and it turn out that those skills are not as transferrable as I'd hoped. You could take significantly more training than I was expecting for the role which is a cost to me. The 'surplus' goes toward the expected cost of the risk. It is possible that you could find a better fit employment wise and that I could find a better fit employee wise but that carries its own risk. We both weigh all of that call it good and are happy how it turns out. Or we don't and the search continues.
akud 10y ago
Given that candidates are justifiably wary of naming a number first, if you don't want to waste your time, it behooves you to name your range first.
- clavalle 10y ago
  I fully agree. At the time my assumption was that candidates had a pretty good idea what a 'normal' salary range is for a position. I was wrong.
  - Sorreah 10y ago
    And my experience is that never, ever, has a potential employer expressed a "pretty good idea" about what a "normal" salary for a position is.
    - clavalle 10y ago
      That's a bit strange. It's like buying milk. I couldn't tell you exactly how much I could buy a gallon of milk for right now (without looking it up). But I could tell you that it is for around five or six dollars. I could also tell you that organic milk is a bit more and the store brand is a bit less. I could also tell you it is likely to be a bit more in a small, boutique store than a large chain store and cost a bit more in the middle of NYC or SF than it would cost in the outskirts of St. Louis. In short, I know enough about the cost of milk that if it is priced at $16 a gallon or $1.50 a gallon that it is unusual and, despite not knowing the exact 'normal' cost of a gallon of milk, that I can assume I can walk away and get some somewhere else in the market for a 'normal' price. I think most people are in my shoes when it comes to milk and I think most employers in tech have a pretty good idea what a normal salary for a position is, especially those who have written checks for those positions for a while. If you are finding that is not the case, I would wonder why.
      - morgante 10y ago
        You'd be amazed by how vast the range for developer salaries is. I've had employers think that $80k was a reasonable offer for me (when I was making $200k).
batguano 10y ago
> I ask for a range right off and give one in return. I wish more employers were willing to do that. Many that I've talked to want the candidate to state their salary expectation, but aren't willing to say what range they are looking to pay.
shadowwolf007 10y ago
I am also often similarly loathe to apply to positions without posted salary ranges. Unfortunately, in my experience, it's often "taboo" to bring up pay early-on in the discussions. But on the flip side, I've found that people who don't like to talk about pay usually don't want to pay much either, so it almost is a self-selection criterion that has worked really well in the past. But I really like that you approach it this way - practical, sensible, and acknowledges that both parties' time has value.
komali2 10y ago
Companies should name their range first mate, or just interview and accept the fact that the job hunt sucks for everyone. Why do you think external recruiters exist? They work as middleman that have intimate knowledge of a company's range, as well as their candidates' range, without either party knowing. That allows them to find helpful matches without wasting either party's time... at a 20% markup of course ;)
- morgante 10y ago
  > They work as middleman that have intimate knowledge of a company's range, as well as their candidates' range, without either party knowing. That's comically naive. External recruiters routinely share candidate ranges with employers.
  - papabrown 10y ago
    They also routinely share the employers range with candidates. Believe me, if I told an external recruiter I was looking to make X and they sent me on an interview and I got a job offer at 0.5X, not only would that be the last time we ever spoke but wherever I eventually landed would not be using that recruiter or their firm ever again. I can't think of a job I've been contacted about in the last 15+ years where I didn't know what the salary range was before I even agreed to have my resume submitted.
papabrown 10y ago
Well, it wasn't a waste of time if you gained some experience, which I think was the point. As a manager I've made tons of mistakes. Much of my management style today is based on "Well, I won't do that again." Every mistake I've made has made me a better manager.

pmoriarty 10y ago

If it's such a big deal to employers, and they don't want to waste their time, why don't they name a number first? I won't object.

clavalle 10y ago
I didn't at the time. I do now.
- komali2 10y ago
  Problem is, is every potential employee worth the same to you?
  - clavalle 10y ago
    Of course not. But every role has a range, more or less, which is a balance of the value that role creates vs the alternatives in the market. The range is due to factors such as the risk an individual embodies based on previous experience, demonstrable skill, references along with likely ramp up time based on those factors. To take a silly but illustrative example: if I'm looking for a javascript developer, I don't care if the person I'm interviewing also has a law degree from a top tier school and can craft airtight patent applications even if I may have some use for that skill. I am hiring for a javascript developer. That is the role I need filled. I will offer a salary range based on that need. It is a silly example but I see the issue so often: someone will apply for a role and then expect to be compensated for their other skills. While, sometimes, it may be worth it to do a bit of management gymnastics and get someone brilliant through the door and find out how to fully leverage their talents later, most of the time that's just wishful thinking on everyone's part.
    - pmoriarty 10y ago
      When you tell employees your number so as not to waste time, do you name the number at the top of the range or at the bottom?
      - clavalle 10y ago
        Both. And I try to give them a rough idea of the things that factor into pushing one into the higher end of the range or lower end.
    - OrwellianChild 10y ago
      Hit thread limit, but I'm asking about @clavalle's ranges here: How often does your eventual accepted offer land at the high end of your offered range? How often at the low end? I ask, because it often seems unproductive to negotiate within-range on merits. If you're willing to pay up to X, I as a candidate am going to expect that amount. Anything less is letting you, the employer, capture the surplus...
      - clavalle 10y ago
        You assume there is a surplus. If I tell you at the beginning of our conversation 'The salary for this position is between $80K and $120K depending on your experience, education, and demonstrable skill etc'... Throughout the course of our interview it is revealed that your education is a good fit for the position and your experience, while decent and potentially transferrable, is not a great fit for the position. Also, the technical part of the interview was good in some areas and poor in others (though I suspect through mere ignorance and not raw ability) and you have no public code under your belt that I can examine. But, you seem to communicate well and get along with the team. Well, you are a good candidate but represent a significant risk relative to some other candidates. I could hire you and it turn out that those skills are not as transferrable as I'd hoped. You could take significantly more training than I was expecting for the role which is a cost to me. The 'surplus' goes toward the expected cost of the risk. It is possible that you could find a better fit employment wise and that I could find a better fit employee wise but that carries its own risk. We both weigh all of that call it good and are happy how it turns out. Or we don't and the search continues.

akud 10y ago

Given that candidates are justifiably wary of naming a number first, if you don't want to waste your time, it behooves you to name your range first.

clavalle 10y ago
I fully agree. At the time my assumption was that candidates had a pretty good idea what a 'normal' salary range is for a position. I was wrong.
- Sorreah 10y ago
  And my experience is that never, ever, has a potential employer expressed a "pretty good idea" about what a "normal" salary for a position is.
  - clavalle 10y ago
    That's a bit strange. It's like buying milk. I couldn't tell you exactly how much I could buy a gallon of milk for right now (without looking it up). But I could tell you that it is for around five or six dollars. I could also tell you that organic milk is a bit more and the store brand is a bit less. I could also tell you it is likely to be a bit more in a small, boutique store than a large chain store and cost a bit more in the middle of NYC or SF than it would cost in the outskirts of St. Louis. In short, I know enough about the cost of milk that if it is priced at $16 a gallon or $1.50 a gallon that it is unusual and, despite not knowing the exact 'normal' cost of a gallon of milk, that I can assume I can walk away and get some somewhere else in the market for a 'normal' price. I think most people are in my shoes when it comes to milk and I think most employers in tech have a pretty good idea what a normal salary for a position is, especially those who have written checks for those positions for a while. If you are finding that is not the case, I would wonder why.
    - morgante 10y ago
      You'd be amazed by how vast the range for developer salaries is. I've had employers think that $80k was a reasonable offer for me (when I was making $200k).

batguano 10y ago

> I ask for a range right off and give one in return. I wish more employers were willing to do that. Many that I've talked to want the candidate to state their salary expectation, but aren't willing to say what range they are looking to pay.

shadowwolf007 10y ago

I am also often similarly loathe to apply to positions without posted salary ranges. Unfortunately, in my experience, it's often "taboo" to bring up pay early-on in the discussions. But on the flip side, I've found that people who don't like to talk about pay usually don't want to pay much either, so it almost is a self-selection criterion that has worked really well in the past. But I really like that you approach it this way - practical, sensible, and acknowledges that both parties' time has value.

komali2 10y ago

Companies should name their range first mate, or just interview and accept the fact that the job hunt sucks for everyone. Why do you think external recruiters exist? They work as middleman that have intimate knowledge of a company's range, as well as their candidates' range, without either party knowing. That allows them to find helpful matches without wasting either party's time... at a 20% markup of course ;)

morgante 10y ago
> They work as middleman that have intimate knowledge of a company's range, as well as their candidates' range, without either party knowing. That's comically naive. External recruiters routinely share candidate ranges with employers.
- papabrown 10y ago
  They also routinely share the employers range with candidates. Believe me, if I told an external recruiter I was looking to make X and they sent me on an interview and I got a job offer at 0.5X, not only would that be the last time we ever spoke but wherever I eventually landed would not be using that recruiter or their firm ever again. I can't think of a job I've been contacted about in the last 15+ years where I didn't know what the salary range was before I even agreed to have my resume submitted.

papabrown 10y ago

Well, it wasn't a waste of time if you gained some experience, which I think was the point. As a manager I've made tons of mistakes. Much of my management style today is based on "Well, I won't do that again." Every mistake I've made has made me a better manager.