3 ms·

By divulging the higher end of the range, the company instantly looses with less experienced candidates that could be content with their work if not for the fac

By divulging the higher end of the range, the company instantly looses with less experienced candidates that could be content with their work if not for the fact, now there are two posibilities: 1. The candidate will ask closer to the upper end of the range but will get declined. Both company and candidate lost because divulging the upper end created unrealistic expectation by the candidate. 2. The candidate will or will not ask closer to the upper end and if he asks, the company declines and proposes more realistic rate. Now, both still loose because the candidate is "tainted" by thinking the company did not think he is worth the money and that he could get so much more. The alternative is to have very narrow range but this is also suboptimal, because it is better to be flexible and once you get to know the candidate figure out where he/she fits. Asking for rate at the beginning also allows to fine-tune the recruitment process. The company should NEVER propose less than what the candidate stated as their minimum. That's just a way to get an unhappy employee from day one. So, by specifying your rate you also specify minimum requirements you have to pass for the company to be interested in you. If you say you are expensive, that's the standard you are going to be evaluated against.

mszcz 6y ago
It seems to me that knowing what a position a company looks for fetches on the market is the recruiter and HR's job. No one said it would be easy. If the range is too wide and the position can be filled by a variety of people then maybe the offer is defined and presented incorrectly. Again, having a flexible rate but not letting the candidate know is better for the company, not for the candidate. Keeping the range a secret instead of defining the range correctly and specifying the job correctly seems like laziness on the part of recruiter/ HR.
- NotPavlovsDog 6y ago
  Excellent points! A note: for some, in HR/R, there is a material incentive to get a candidate to take a lower range, i.e. the lower the one doing the value-generating job gets paid, the higher the commission bonus /imaginary career bonus points for the HR/R. I've spoken with (drunk to be honest?) recruiters that got a lower overall commission the higher the salary for the recruited person got.
  - mszcz 6y ago
    > I've spoken with (drunk to be honest?) recruiters that got a lower overall commission the higher the salary for the recruited person got. Not to be an asshole, but that wouldn't suprise me. Maybe I got more cynical with age but anytime someone I don't know tries to tell me, implies, makes me feel that he/she is my friend and wants what's best for me, without a clear reason or incentive for it being so, I get real suspicious real fast.
- lmilcin 6y ago
  As a counter example, I am working for a large bank now and I am regularly interviewing candidates. We interview candidates first and then figure out if there is a role that would feel the candidate well. I personally like it much better than having rigid positions and have to pass on a candidate just because he/she does not fit a rigid set of requirements.
  - mszcz 6y ago
    That does sound like an interesting approach but I think is only applicable in first-job or entry level positions right? What kind of seniority are we talking about here?

mszcz 6y ago

It seems to me that knowing what a position a company looks for fetches on the market is the recruiter and HR's job. No one said it would be easy. If the range is too wide and the position can be filled by a variety of people then maybe the offer is defined and presented incorrectly. Again, having a flexible rate but not letting the candidate know is better for the company, not for the candidate. Keeping the range a secret instead of defining the range correctly and specifying the job correctly seems like laziness on the part of recruiter/ HR.

NotPavlovsDog 6y ago
Excellent points! A note: for some, in HR/R, there is a material incentive to get a candidate to take a lower range, i.e. the lower the one doing the value-generating job gets paid, the higher the commission bonus /imaginary career bonus points for the HR/R. I've spoken with (drunk to be honest?) recruiters that got a lower overall commission the higher the salary for the recruited person got.
- mszcz 6y ago
  > I've spoken with (drunk to be honest?) recruiters that got a lower overall commission the higher the salary for the recruited person got. Not to be an asshole, but that wouldn't suprise me. Maybe I got more cynical with age but anytime someone I don't know tries to tell me, implies, makes me feel that he/she is my friend and wants what's best for me, without a clear reason or incentive for it being so, I get real suspicious real fast.
lmilcin 6y ago
As a counter example, I am working for a large bank now and I am regularly interviewing candidates. We interview candidates first and then figure out if there is a role that would feel the candidate well. I personally like it much better than having rigid positions and have to pass on a candidate just because he/she does not fit a rigid set of requirements.
- mszcz 6y ago
  That does sound like an interesting approach but I think is only applicable in first-job or entry level positions right? What kind of seniority are we talking about here?