6 ms·

I never, ever, ever give anyone a number until the salary negotiation stage of the interview (ie. after I've been given a job offer), and even then I only give

I never, ever, ever give anyone a number until the salary negotiation stage of the interview (ie. after I've been given a job offer), and even then I only give the company a number as a counter to their offer. I always do this negotiation myself, and never let anyone else negotiate for me. Almost all recruiters have been fine with that, but a couple haven't. To such people I wish a good day and go my own way. There are plenty of other recruiters in the sea.

usaar333 5y ago
A particular problem with doing that is discussed in the post; you risk everyone's time being wasted if the company will never be able to meet your target.
- nucleardog 5y ago
  Yep. I won't get to the offer stage without us having discussed money. I don't want to waste either of our time only to find out someone's only willing to pay 70% of my bottom line.
- RussianCow 5y ago
  For a big enough company, you can collect a few data points via Glassdoor[0], levels.fyi, etc to make sure that they pay in the range you're looking for before you even begin the interview process. For smaller companies, you're absolutely right, although I personally tend to give a very broad range[0] at the beginning of the process, and only narrow that down at the offer stage. That's worked well for me in the past. The nice thing about the explosion of remote work due to COVID is that engineering salaries are beginning to normalize across the US, and there is now a lot more salary data available online, so it's easier than ever to see what you're "worth" on the market on average. This at least gives you an anchor when having these conversations, so you're not going in blind, and gives you a lot more leverage if they low-ball you. [0]: Yes, I'm aware of the drawbacks of self-reported data, but it's still broadly useful in aggregate. [1]: I'm making up numbers, but something like $120k - $200k, with the lower number being the minimum you'd realistically take. Usually recruiters are honest up front if they can't even afford your absolute minimum, but it still leaves you with a lot of negotiation room once the offer comes in.
  - pmoriarty 5y ago
    "I'm making up numbers, but something like $120k - $200k, with the lower number being the minimum you'd realistically take. Usually recruiters are honest up front if they can't even afford your absolute minimum, but it still leaves you with a lot of negotiation room once the offer comes in." Why even give an upper limit? It's not like you'd refuse $400k if it was offered to you, would you? Most companies will naturally start negotiation near the lower end of your range, even if they would have started way higher had you let them make the offer first. I really don't see an upside to this strategy.
    - RussianCow 5y ago
      > Why even give an upper limit? Because if you just give one number, even if that's your absolute minimum, the entire salary conversation is going to be anchored around that one number, and you're going to have a harder time asking for 50+% more than that. If you give a broad range, it's easier to justify countering with something closer to the top of that range. > It's not like you'd refuse $400k if it was offered to you, would you? Of course not, but nobody has ever offered me that. :) In all seriousness, yes, you run the risk of your range coming in below what the company would be willing to pay, but in my experience (and those of friends and acquaintances), outside of FAANG, I have found that to be extremely rare if your range is wide enough. The companies that pay super well are generally big, and thus well-known to pay that much, and I wouldn't give them any salary numbers at all because I'll have a pretty good idea of what they'll pay me with a bit of research prior to interviewing. Of course, anecdote != data, so YMMV and all that. This is just my experience interviewing at mostly smaller companies.
  - usaar333 5y ago
    > For a big enough company, you can collect a few data points via Glassdoor[0], levels.fyi, etc to make sure that they pay in the range you're looking for before you even begin the interview process. Agreed though in practice that just moves the pre-interview conversation from a comp discussion to a leveling discussion.
  - tdeck 5y ago
    In my experience Glassdoor numbers are low. They've been low compared to the reality at places I've worked, at least.
- pmoriarty 5y ago
  I don't consider the time wasted because: 1 - I get real-world interview practice, and that always helps me in future interviews. Many companies ask the same or similar questions, and the more I'll be ready for them being asked again. In addition, when I'm surprised by a question I'll research it thoroughly when I get home and won't be surprised by that question again. 2 - I get a bit of an inside peek in to how the companies I interview at work. That's a privilege not afforded to many outsiders, and how some of these companies (some of which are world class) can and has helped me at other companies. 3 - A company might bring me in to interview for one position, but after the interview might determine I'm better suited for another. If I didn't interview with them they'd never know. 4 - As I interview with people I get a chance to make a good impression on them, so even if they don't wind up hiring me for that position they might want me when a different position opens up (whether at that company or another company the people I interviewed with moved to). 5 - By letting companies make the first offer I myself get a good salary survey of the minimum what all the companies I interview with are willing to pay for someone with my qualifications in that position. Of course I try to do my own research ahead of time, but getting salary numbers without getting a job offer is not always possible or reliable. 6 - If I blurt out a number first I'll it may put me at a disadvantage in the negotiation, as they'll just start the negotiation from what I say even if they would have been happy to have paid way more.
  - RussianCow 5y ago
    > I get real-world interview practice, and that always helps me in future interviews. I hear this a lot, but how much interview practice do you really need? After the third or fourth set of interviews, they start to really blur together for me. None of your points are false, but if you're casting a wide net and taking every interview without any idea if the company can even afford you, that's a lot of hours spent. The last time I looked for a job, I interviewed at only four companies and spent an average of probably 5-6 hours on each, and it was exhausting. I can't imagine making a habit out of it while also working full-time.
    - pdimitar 5y ago
      I agree it's exhausting. And it can feel very bad and demotivating for the whole thing to end up without an offer or some half-assed "culture fit" "explanation" that is likely copy-pasted from an online script collection. But, in my case, doing many interviews helped me understand what negative signals I am emitting during interviews [according to the interviewers]. There's nothing like an outsider's perspective, even if you disagree with it. --- Example: in one of my last interviews I was told that I am too "cocky" and "over-confident" because when I was given real-time modifications to a homework assignment (that I completed before) I was smiling and saying "oh, that's easy!" and proceeded to make the changes live in my editor -- while sharing screen. This feedback left a very WTF feeling in me. Dude, I am (a) enthusiastic about the task and (b) have enough experience to show you, in real time, that I can modify the code right there and then to suit the new requirements, and (c) chatting with the interviewing team while doing it... and all you can gleam from that is that I am overconfident and cocky? Seriously, get a grip. For the record, I strongly disagree with their take. But it gave me a very interesting perspective -- namely to scan for the more introverted / likely-insecure people in the interviewing dev team and try and act a little more modestly to not rub them the wrong way. It's a fact of life that most people suck at interviewing -- as I hope that I demonstrated here. One of the guys in that team simply dislikes certain kinds of people and he lets this go against his better professional judgement about my abilities. Not cool, right? Especially when you also take into account that the CTO who also attended all interviews agreed that my tech acumen is top-notch and they seriously couldn't catch me with my pants down no matter what they did. So again, this helps me gather experience and culture and makes me more adaptive in the future. Does it hurt your ego? Absolutely. Does it shake your preconceived notions? Much more than one would think beforehand. Is it exhausting? Hell yes, sometimes after an interview I didn't want to do another one for a week. But, is it also very valuable to help you improve your interviewing and negotiation skills? Yes! That's why I did lot of interviews the last time around. And I'd do it again.
- bigiain 5y ago
  Why should it always be the candidate's problem to reduced that risk and not the companies? That time would not be "wasted" if the company had done due diligence on what the position and candidate were "worth" and revealed their target (or target range) to the candidate. The real reason, I'm sure, is that companies think they hold the upper hand in the negotiation. And a lot of time with a lot of candidates that's true. It's clearly _not_ true for the class of candidate who's realistically got a $300k+ target. You are totally not going to successfully headhunt anyone in the top 1% or 5% of FAANG engineers if you try to dick them around with recruiting power imbalance power plays. _They_ don't need your bullshit. They will totally walk away from whatever time you've "wasted" so far trying to recruit them. You need them _way_ more than they need you. (And I'm pretty sure that generalises a lot further down the experience/renumeration food chain than most devs realise. Fresh grads or devs with only a few years of experience might need to play the stupid recruiter games, but most companies trying to fill a mid level or senior role need the right candidates way more than those candidates need any one specific job. You can and should be able and willing to walk away from any potential job offer over stupid games like this...)
- ivalm 5y ago
  That’s why the company should say their range and the candidate can say if that’s satisfactory.
slownews45 5y ago
On hiring side we screen folks out pretty quickly who can't discuss money. I used to be much more relaxed about this, but if you get burned doing a few rounds of interviews and it was a waste you wise up pretty quickly - teams do not like time wasted. I've also found that folks who can't / won't talk money - usually not great hires for a bunch of reasons. We're happy to talk through the different positions, levels, progressions and comp ranges for them all. But you have to have a clue about what type of comp would work for you (early on in initial call or two) or it's just not worth continuing forward.
- pmoriarty 5y ago
  Sounds like we wouldn't be compatible. You say "I've also found that folks who can't / won't talk money - usually not great hires for a bunch of reasons." The same goes in my experience for companies which insist on talking salary before the job offer. It's a red flag. "you have to have a clue about what type of comp would work for you (early on in initial call or two) or it's just not worth continuing forward" Of course I have a clue, but I'm not going to put myself at a disadvantage in the negotiation by revealing it before I've been given a firm job offer and heard a number from the company first. Also, in my experience recruiters are the ones who push hardest to hear salary expectations up front. They know it'll give them a leg up in negotiations, and some of them are even paid specifically to get that number (as one recruiter was brazen enough to reveal to me).
- ishiz 5y ago
  Why can't you simply ask the candidate "We offer $min to $max for this position, is that acceptable?" That lets you and the candidate know whether proceeding further is a good use of time.
  - cutemonster 5y ago
    Maybe because there's a chance the job applicant will suggest < $min
- duxup 5y ago
  Why can't you just tell them a range you're offering?
andrew_ 5y ago
conversely, I discuss compensation immediately. In the segment of the market I'm in, I've wasted too much time going through interview processes only to get to the end and find out they're incapable of even matching my current comp. I've found being candid more successful.
- sgerenser 5y ago
  Yeah I think it’s worth giving at least a range if you suspect the company can’t even meet the minimum. Like “at this point in my career I’m targeting positions that pay from $150-$200k.” If they balk and basically say the aren’t authorized to offer over $100k, you don’t have to waste your time. This probably makes more sense with smaller companies where they tend to have more limited budgets.
jabits 5y ago
Seems to me that you would waste a lot of your personal time this way. They know enough about me before I even step in the door and I want some idea of whether the money can work. I ask for more than might be typical and I haven’t time to waste on companies that just want to show me what a great place they are to be at.
KptMarchewa 5y ago
In my country it's common for companies to have public salary range, at least for IT positions - see https://justjoin.it/ https://justjoin.it/ for example board, Linkedin recruiters do the same thing. It seems to be terrible waste of time going through interview process to learn that they won't even come close to what you want. I would not do that to myself.
jiveturkey 5y ago
that used to be true universally. now only true for entry level at big companies. at senior levels especially, you should know what you want. comp bands are informed by huge data troves now and any edge you may have gotten before is gone due to the fixed and tight bands. just state your requirements and insist on “turnabout is fair play” ie they need to tell you the band. do this during the prescreen and save everyone’s time. if you kill it in the interview you still easily can negotiate to top of band.

usaar333 5y ago

A particular problem with doing that is discussed in the post; you risk everyone's time being wasted if the company will never be able to meet your target.

nucleardog 5y ago
Yep. I won't get to the offer stage without us having discussed money. I don't want to waste either of our time only to find out someone's only willing to pay 70% of my bottom line.
RussianCow 5y ago
For a big enough company, you can collect a few data points via Glassdoor[0], levels.fyi, etc to make sure that they pay in the range you're looking for before you even begin the interview process. For smaller companies, you're absolutely right, although I personally tend to give a very broad range[0] at the beginning of the process, and only narrow that down at the offer stage. That's worked well for me in the past. The nice thing about the explosion of remote work due to COVID is that engineering salaries are beginning to normalize across the US, and there is now a lot more salary data available online, so it's easier than ever to see what you're "worth" on the market on average. This at least gives you an anchor when having these conversations, so you're not going in blind, and gives you a lot more leverage if they low-ball you. [0]: Yes, I'm aware of the drawbacks of self-reported data, but it's still broadly useful in aggregate. [1]: I'm making up numbers, but something like $120k - $200k, with the lower number being the minimum you'd realistically take. Usually recruiters are honest up front if they can't even afford your absolute minimum, but it still leaves you with a lot of negotiation room once the offer comes in.
- pmoriarty 5y ago
  "I'm making up numbers, but something like $120k - $200k, with the lower number being the minimum you'd realistically take. Usually recruiters are honest up front if they can't even afford your absolute minimum, but it still leaves you with a lot of negotiation room once the offer comes in." Why even give an upper limit? It's not like you'd refuse $400k if it was offered to you, would you? Most companies will naturally start negotiation near the lower end of your range, even if they would have started way higher had you let them make the offer first. I really don't see an upside to this strategy.
  - RussianCow 5y ago
    > Why even give an upper limit? Because if you just give one number, even if that's your absolute minimum, the entire salary conversation is going to be anchored around that one number, and you're going to have a harder time asking for 50+% more than that. If you give a broad range, it's easier to justify countering with something closer to the top of that range. > It's not like you'd refuse $400k if it was offered to you, would you? Of course not, but nobody has ever offered me that. :) In all seriousness, yes, you run the risk of your range coming in below what the company would be willing to pay, but in my experience (and those of friends and acquaintances), outside of FAANG, I have found that to be extremely rare if your range is wide enough. The companies that pay super well are generally big, and thus well-known to pay that much, and I wouldn't give them any salary numbers at all because I'll have a pretty good idea of what they'll pay me with a bit of research prior to interviewing. Of course, anecdote != data, so YMMV and all that. This is just my experience interviewing at mostly smaller companies.
- usaar333 5y ago
  > For a big enough company, you can collect a few data points via Glassdoor[0], levels.fyi, etc to make sure that they pay in the range you're looking for before you even begin the interview process. Agreed though in practice that just moves the pre-interview conversation from a comp discussion to a leveling discussion.
- tdeck 5y ago
  In my experience Glassdoor numbers are low. They've been low compared to the reality at places I've worked, at least.
pmoriarty 5y ago
I don't consider the time wasted because: 1 - I get real-world interview practice, and that always helps me in future interviews. Many companies ask the same or similar questions, and the more I'll be ready for them being asked again. In addition, when I'm surprised by a question I'll research it thoroughly when I get home and won't be surprised by that question again. 2 - I get a bit of an inside peek in to how the companies I interview at work. That's a privilege not afforded to many outsiders, and how some of these companies (some of which are world class) can and has helped me at other companies. 3 - A company might bring me in to interview for one position, but after the interview might determine I'm better suited for another. If I didn't interview with them they'd never know. 4 - As I interview with people I get a chance to make a good impression on them, so even if they don't wind up hiring me for that position they might want me when a different position opens up (whether at that company or another company the people I interviewed with moved to). 5 - By letting companies make the first offer I myself get a good salary survey of the minimum what all the companies I interview with are willing to pay for someone with my qualifications in that position. Of course I try to do my own research ahead of time, but getting salary numbers without getting a job offer is not always possible or reliable. 6 - If I blurt out a number first I'll it may put me at a disadvantage in the negotiation, as they'll just start the negotiation from what I say even if they would have been happy to have paid way more.
- RussianCow 5y ago
  > I get real-world interview practice, and that always helps me in future interviews. I hear this a lot, but how much interview practice do you really need? After the third or fourth set of interviews, they start to really blur together for me. None of your points are false, but if you're casting a wide net and taking every interview without any idea if the company can even afford you, that's a lot of hours spent. The last time I looked for a job, I interviewed at only four companies and spent an average of probably 5-6 hours on each, and it was exhausting. I can't imagine making a habit out of it while also working full-time.
  - pdimitar 5y ago
    I agree it's exhausting. And it can feel very bad and demotivating for the whole thing to end up without an offer or some half-assed "culture fit" "explanation" that is likely copy-pasted from an online script collection. But, in my case, doing many interviews helped me understand what negative signals I am emitting during interviews [according to the interviewers]. There's nothing like an outsider's perspective, even if you disagree with it. --- Example: in one of my last interviews I was told that I am too "cocky" and "over-confident" because when I was given real-time modifications to a homework assignment (that I completed before) I was smiling and saying "oh, that's easy!" and proceeded to make the changes live in my editor -- while sharing screen. This feedback left a very WTF feeling in me. Dude, I am (a) enthusiastic about the task and (b) have enough experience to show you, in real time, that I can modify the code right there and then to suit the new requirements, and (c) chatting with the interviewing team while doing it... and all you can gleam from that is that I am overconfident and cocky? Seriously, get a grip. For the record, I strongly disagree with their take. But it gave me a very interesting perspective -- namely to scan for the more introverted / likely-insecure people in the interviewing dev team and try and act a little more modestly to not rub them the wrong way. It's a fact of life that most people suck at interviewing -- as I hope that I demonstrated here. One of the guys in that team simply dislikes certain kinds of people and he lets this go against his better professional judgement about my abilities. Not cool, right? Especially when you also take into account that the CTO who also attended all interviews agreed that my tech acumen is top-notch and they seriously couldn't catch me with my pants down no matter what they did. So again, this helps me gather experience and culture and makes me more adaptive in the future. Does it hurt your ego? Absolutely. Does it shake your preconceived notions? Much more than one would think beforehand. Is it exhausting? Hell yes, sometimes after an interview I didn't want to do another one for a week. But, is it also very valuable to help you improve your interviewing and negotiation skills? Yes! That's why I did lot of interviews the last time around. And I'd do it again.
bigiain 5y ago
Why should it always be the candidate's problem to reduced that risk and not the companies? That time would not be "wasted" if the company had done due diligence on what the position and candidate were "worth" and revealed their target (or target range) to the candidate. The real reason, I'm sure, is that companies think they hold the upper hand in the negotiation. And a lot of time with a lot of candidates that's true. It's clearly _not_ true for the class of candidate who's realistically got a $300k+ target. You are totally not going to successfully headhunt anyone in the top 1% or 5% of FAANG engineers if you try to dick them around with recruiting power imbalance power plays. _They_ don't need your bullshit. They will totally walk away from whatever time you've "wasted" so far trying to recruit them. You need them _way_ more than they need you. (And I'm pretty sure that generalises a lot further down the experience/renumeration food chain than most devs realise. Fresh grads or devs with only a few years of experience might need to play the stupid recruiter games, but most companies trying to fill a mid level or senior role need the right candidates way more than those candidates need any one specific job. You can and should be able and willing to walk away from any potential job offer over stupid games like this...)
ivalm 5y ago
That’s why the company should say their range and the candidate can say if that’s satisfactory.

slownews45 5y ago

On hiring side we screen folks out pretty quickly who can't discuss money. I used to be much more relaxed about this, but if you get burned doing a few rounds of interviews and it was a waste you wise up pretty quickly - teams do not like time wasted. I've also found that folks who can't / won't talk money - usually not great hires for a bunch of reasons. We're happy to talk through the different positions, levels, progressions and comp ranges for them all. But you have to have a clue about what type of comp would work for you (early on in initial call or two) or it's just not worth continuing forward.

pmoriarty 5y ago
Sounds like we wouldn't be compatible. You say "I've also found that folks who can't / won't talk money - usually not great hires for a bunch of reasons." The same goes in my experience for companies which insist on talking salary before the job offer. It's a red flag. "you have to have a clue about what type of comp would work for you (early on in initial call or two) or it's just not worth continuing forward" Of course I have a clue, but I'm not going to put myself at a disadvantage in the negotiation by revealing it before I've been given a firm job offer and heard a number from the company first. Also, in my experience recruiters are the ones who push hardest to hear salary expectations up front. They know it'll give them a leg up in negotiations, and some of them are even paid specifically to get that number (as one recruiter was brazen enough to reveal to me).
ishiz 5y ago
Why can't you simply ask the candidate "We offer $min to $max for this position, is that acceptable?" That lets you and the candidate know whether proceeding further is a good use of time.
- cutemonster 5y ago
  Maybe because there's a chance the job applicant will suggest < $min
duxup 5y ago
Why can't you just tell them a range you're offering?

andrew_ 5y ago

conversely, I discuss compensation immediately. In the segment of the market I'm in, I've wasted too much time going through interview processes only to get to the end and find out they're incapable of even matching my current comp. I've found being candid more successful.

sgerenser 5y ago
Yeah I think it’s worth giving at least a range if you suspect the company can’t even meet the minimum. Like “at this point in my career I’m targeting positions that pay from $150-$200k.” If they balk and basically say the aren’t authorized to offer over $100k, you don’t have to waste your time. This probably makes more sense with smaller companies where they tend to have more limited budgets.

jabits 5y ago

Seems to me that you would waste a lot of your personal time this way. They know enough about me before I even step in the door and I want some idea of whether the money can work. I ask for more than might be typical and I haven’t time to waste on companies that just want to show me what a great place they are to be at.

KptMarchewa 5y ago

In my country it's common for companies to have public salary range, at least for IT positions - see https://justjoin.it/ https://justjoin.it/ for example board, Linkedin recruiters do the same thing. It seems to be terrible waste of time going through interview process to learn that they won't even come close to what you want. I would not do that to myself.

jiveturkey 5y ago

that used to be true universally. now only true for entry level at big companies. at senior levels especially, you should know what you want. comp bands are informed by huge data troves now and any edge you may have gotten before is gone due to the fixed and tight bands. just state your requirements and insist on “turnabout is fair play” ie they need to tell you the band. do this during the prescreen and save everyone’s time. if you kill it in the interview you still easily can negotiate to top of band.