8 ms·

I'm not sure your post deserves to be downmodded -- it seems honest and on topic. I can see how one bit in particular could come off as slightly offensive: 'S

• ghshephard 18y ago
  So, In a world of Networks that need to be built, customers that need to be deployed, ticketing systems that need to be improved, Post Mortems that need to be completed, and Network Architectures that need to be visioed - I simply don't have time/energy or, even the _ability_ to deal with someone who isn't going to throw themselves 100% onto the team. And that starts at the interview. Perhaps it's a reflection on how I perceived the employer/employee relationship. The interview is a (very poor) proxy for what the work relationship will be like with the candidate in the future. Firing people is such a major, major hassle (particularly as you get bigger) - that unless the person is grossly incompetent or breaches company policy in an unambiguous manner, you typically have to wait for the next round of layoffs to get rid of them, even if they are difficult to work with. What this means, is that you are looking for all the danger signs you can during an interview - and hiring someone who is going to "Stand up for their rights" or "as a matter of principle, not share detailed employee history", is fraught with risk. Both of those actions are entirely reasonable in and of themselves, but, for better or worse, they portend, for the potential employer, risk. And I guess that's what I was trying to get across (from the perspective of an employer) - that rightly or wrongly, your actions in holding back information or challenging the employer in an interview, will be sending clear signals. If you are a strategic hire, or if the job market is tight, or if you have some very, very specific skills - then you can probably afford to negotiate hardball, and be as difficult as you want - they aren't hiring you for the person that you are, but the things that you can do - but, in the 95% of the time a hiring situation is taking place, that is not the case. [added: And as far as spamming references - ask anyone who hires; actually getting around to calling references of people you are _hiring_ is hard enough - I don't know if I have _ever_ contacted a reference unless a salary, start time, and position where pretty much agreed upon. And I'm better than most at getting around to that task. ]
  • brlewis 18y ago
    Do you always tell the people you're interviewing what the maximum budgeted salary is for the position? If the answer is no, then withholding their previous salary isn't hardball negotiation, it's simply negotiating on the same terms you are.
    • ghshephard 18y ago
      "maximum budgeted salary" is probably a more relevant concept to large 1000+ employee company. I typically only know what the _minimum_ budgeted salary is - that is, the lowest skilled employee I can justify bringing into a position. At the top end, sky is the limit - if you can justify $200K/year based on contribution, we'll be lucky to bring you on board. And yes, I immediately tell all applicants at the conclusion of the interview process precisely what I think they can command in the peninsula economy, and at our company (65th percentile), based on what I know about their experience, the listed (and back door references), the local economy, and what our needs are. I don't negotiate salary - that's the number we offer them, and they can either take it or leave it. The information they provide on their salary, and the reason they are leaving their last position, just happen to be two pieces of information that feed into that final number. The difference, of course, being that I know very little about how smart they are, and how much they can get things done, whereas the candidate knows almost _everything_ about themselves. And having the candidate hold back that information just makes my job more difficult, rather than easier. Certainly not what I'm looking for in an employee. They should be able to walk into the interview and tell me to within $5K precisely what they should be making. Remember - I'm a hiring manager, not an HR staffer. I see my job in life to maximize my employee's compensation, ensure that they are making more at my company than they would anywhere else. Every single day consists of me trying to increase what my employees make by giving them more training, more tools, more projects, more guidance, more time to focus on what interests them. Also remember - it hurts an employee just as much to be overcompensated as it does to be undercompensated.
      • prakash 18y ago
        Also remember - it hurts an employee just as much to be overcompensated as it does to be undercompensated. Why? Can you expand on that?