4 ms·

I don't understand people who give ranges. If a company gives a candidate a range, of course the candidate will pick the highest end of the range. If the cand

by dheera 5y ago

I don't understand people who give ranges. If a company gives a candidate a range, of course the candidate will pick the highest end of the range. If the candidate gives a range, of course the company will pick the lowest end of the range. Just give one number and then negotiate.

sokoloff 5y ago
If I have to publish a figure before I’ve even talked to anyone for the job, how can I avoid giving a range? When we get to the point of an offer, I’m not going to say “@dheera, would you prefer to be paid X or 1.25*X? It’s up to you.”
- dheera 5y ago
  What that realistically mean? "If you're a white male you'll get 1.25X and if you're a black female you'll get X?" More specifically, why can't someone who meets the JD get the stated number? If they interview and don't demonstrate the ability to meet the JD then don't give them an offer, it's that simple.
  - sokoloff 5y ago
    Do you think that all salespeople are equally productive? Do you think that all waitstaff or customer service people are equally productive? Do you think all software engineers (at a given level) are equally productive? I think there's large spreads of productivity in many of those types of workers and if you pick a single number for a range of possible productivity, you either overpay some people or you cut yourself off from the most productive workers. (Some people argue that there's a 10x spread in SWEs, others that there's a -10x spread, but I don't think anyone thinks there's realistically less than a 2x spread at a given level among competent SWEs.)
    - mitchdoogle 5y ago
      Perhaps, but you won't know their productivity before you hire them
      - sokoloff 5y ago
        Why spend all that time interviewing and reference checking then?
        frumper 5y ago
        That's a great question and the answer is probably why a lot of companies don't spend a huge amount of time interviewing and reference checking.
    - dheera 5y ago
      So you set an expected productivity level. If they don't meet it, pip them and then pip uninstall them. If nobody is meeting it, adjust your expectations. If they far exceed it, give them a bonus.
      - sokoloff 5y ago
        Do you think that having a single set wage helps you have the flexibility to land both those employees whom other companies find to be the most valuable as well as land the broad middle performers that are so needed to build a scale up company? I can’t see any way that “everyone, no matter their interview performance and relevant experience in what we need done, either gets an offer of exactly $X/yr or gets rejected” is an optimal strategy.
brushfoot 5y ago
Think of it as a symbol of what range of experience the company is willing to accept. Example: A .NET shop uses Oracle. The salary range is $100K–$150K. - Candidate 1 knows .NET but is new to Oracle. They know RDBMS concepts so they can be brought up to speed, but they start closer to the $100K end of the range because they're less valuable to the company initially. - Candidate 2 has a long track record of .NET and Oracle work, has spoken at conferences, writes about it on their blog. Candidate 2 is closer to the $150K end. The company may want a Candidate 2 more than a Candidate 1, but Candidate 2s are in short supply. The range acknowledges that the real candidate may not match the ideal.
- ThalesX 5y ago
  > - Candidate 1 knows .NET but is new to Oracle. They know RDBMS concepts so they can be brought up to speed, but they start closer to the $100K end of the range because they're less valuable to the company initially. How long would the ramp-up be? Are we talking an increase from $100K to $150K over a year, two, three? I've yet to encounter an employer ramping me up at even a remotely decent market rate, whereas I can give myself tens or sometimes hundreds of % increases every 2 - 3 years by shopping around.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- dheera 5y ago
  "Candidate 1 knows .NET but is new to Oracle" "Candidate 2 has a long track record of .NET and Oracle work" These should be two different JDs with different stated salaries. Or explicitly say "+$50K for candidates with a long track record of .NET and Oracle work".
  - jjav 5y ago
    > These should be two different JDs with different stated salaries. But I'm only hiring one person. Ideally, the one with all the perfectly matching experience. But I'm not going to wait around forever for the unicorn to show up, so I may likely settle for someone promising who doesn't quite have the experience. > Or explicitly say "+$50K for candidates with a long track record of .NET and Oracle work". That's the same as giving a range.
mitchdoogle 5y ago
As a candidate, if I'm giving a range for salary, it means it depends on other factors, like insurance, 401k, paid time off, family leave, etc. I may be willing to take the lower end of the range if the other benefits are attractive.
- dheera 5y ago
  > insurance, 401k, paid time off I mean, if the pay is high enough I can deal with the benefits on my own? I'd rather take a 500K job with no benefits than a 300K with full benefits, since the benefits can easily be procured for 200K as long as they're okay with unpaid time off [that prorates the 500K].
mywittyname 5y ago
I always give a range, I've never gotten an offer at the bottom of the range. Generally, it's the top of the range, or very close to it, or top of their budget (which is below the range). Granted, I tend to interview for roles I'm already demonstrably good at. So less experienced/suitable people might have different experiences. But this kind of negotiation clearly doesn't follow the "obvious" path. Remember, hiring managers are spending their own money and people do get excited for candidates. When you spent 20 hours interviewing people, and you finally get that unicorn, everyone is going to push for them.

by dheera 5y ago

sokoloff 5y ago

If I have to publish a figure before I’ve even talked to anyone for the job, how can I avoid giving a range? When we get to the point of an offer, I’m not going to say “@dheera, would you prefer to be paid X or 1.25*X? It’s up to you.”

dheera 5y ago
What that realistically mean? "If you're a white male you'll get 1.25X and if you're a black female you'll get X?" More specifically, why can't someone who meets the JD get the stated number? If they interview and don't demonstrate the ability to meet the JD then don't give them an offer, it's that simple.
- sokoloff 5y ago
  Do you think that all salespeople are equally productive? Do you think that all waitstaff or customer service people are equally productive? Do you think all software engineers (at a given level) are equally productive? I think there's large spreads of productivity in many of those types of workers and if you pick a single number for a range of possible productivity, you either overpay some people or you cut yourself off from the most productive workers. (Some people argue that there's a 10x spread in SWEs, others that there's a -10x spread, but I don't think anyone thinks there's realistically less than a 2x spread at a given level among competent SWEs.)
  - mitchdoogle 5y ago
    Perhaps, but you won't know their productivity before you hire them
    - sokoloff 5y ago
      Why spend all that time interviewing and reference checking then?
      - frumper 5y ago
        That's a great question and the answer is probably why a lot of companies don't spend a huge amount of time interviewing and reference checking.
  - dheera 5y ago
    So you set an expected productivity level. If they don't meet it, pip them and then pip uninstall them. If nobody is meeting it, adjust your expectations. If they far exceed it, give them a bonus.
    - sokoloff 5y ago
      Do you think that having a single set wage helps you have the flexibility to land both those employees whom other companies find to be the most valuable as well as land the broad middle performers that are so needed to build a scale up company? I can’t see any way that “everyone, no matter their interview performance and relevant experience in what we need done, either gets an offer of exactly $X/yr or gets rejected” is an optimal strategy.

brushfoot 5y ago

Think of it as a symbol of what range of experience the company is willing to accept. Example: A .NET shop uses Oracle. The salary range is $100K–$150K. - Candidate 1 knows .NET but is new to Oracle. They know RDBMS concepts so they can be brought up to speed, but they start closer to the $100K end of the range because they're less valuable to the company initially. - Candidate 2 has a long track record of .NET and Oracle work, has spoken at conferences, writes about it on their blog. Candidate 2 is closer to the $150K end. The company may want a Candidate 2 more than a Candidate 1, but Candidate 2s are in short supply. The range acknowledges that the real candidate may not match the ideal.

ThalesX 5y ago
> - Candidate 1 knows .NET but is new to Oracle. They know RDBMS concepts so they can be brought up to speed, but they start closer to the $100K end of the range because they're less valuable to the company initially. How long would the ramp-up be? Are we talking an increase from $100K to $150K over a year, two, three? I've yet to encounter an employer ramping me up at even a remotely decent market rate, whereas I can give myself tens or sometimes hundreds of % increases every 2 - 3 years by shopping around.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
dheera 5y ago
"Candidate 1 knows .NET but is new to Oracle" "Candidate 2 has a long track record of .NET and Oracle work" These should be two different JDs with different stated salaries. Or explicitly say "+$50K for candidates with a long track record of .NET and Oracle work".
- jjav 5y ago
  > These should be two different JDs with different stated salaries. But I'm only hiring one person. Ideally, the one with all the perfectly matching experience. But I'm not going to wait around forever for the unicorn to show up, so I may likely settle for someone promising who doesn't quite have the experience. > Or explicitly say "+$50K for candidates with a long track record of .NET and Oracle work". That's the same as giving a range.

mitchdoogle 5y ago

As a candidate, if I'm giving a range for salary, it means it depends on other factors, like insurance, 401k, paid time off, family leave, etc. I may be willing to take the lower end of the range if the other benefits are attractive.

dheera 5y ago
> insurance, 401k, paid time off I mean, if the pay is high enough I can deal with the benefits on my own? I'd rather take a 500K job with no benefits than a 300K with full benefits, since the benefits can easily be procured for 200K as long as they're okay with unpaid time off [that prorates the 500K].

mywittyname 5y ago

I always give a range, I've never gotten an offer at the bottom of the range. Generally, it's the top of the range, or very close to it, or top of their budget (which is below the range). Granted, I tend to interview for roles I'm already demonstrably good at. So less experienced/suitable people might have different experiences. But this kind of negotiation clearly doesn't follow the "obvious" path. Remember, hiring managers are spending their own money and people do get excited for candidates. When you spent 20 hours interviewing people, and you finally get that unicorn, everyone is going to push for them.