4 ms·

I never ask what people make; it's irrelevant. Instead, I ask them what they want and then I try to figure out how to justify at least 5% more. Why? Because I

I never ask what people make; it's irrelevant. Instead, I ask them what they want and then I try to figure out how to justify at least 5% more. Why? Because I want people to be happy and productive coming in. Salary and benefits should be the last thing on their mind. I've hired a few people who refused to give me a number up front even though I explained the basic rationale. More often than not that lack of trust shows up in their work and their effectiveness as part of the team. Not always but more than 50/50. So now I use the question as a qualifier as well. Don't get me wrong though, I know why people do this and I respect their choice. It's a bit mercenary and the corporate world is a mercenary place. Personally, I just place a higher emphasis on teamwork. Also, it's worth mentioning that despite what many hiring managers believe, budgets for positions are rarely set in stone. There are many creative ways to bump positions up, even in the most rigid of corporate hierarchies. So when someone in HR (or your boss) asks what a person is making tell them it's irrelevant and then tell them why the person you want to hire is worth what you're asking for.

rlpb 12y ago
> Don't get me wrong though, I know why people do this and I respect their choice. It's a bit mercenary and the corporate world is a mercenary place. Personally, I just place a higher emphasis on teamwork. You seem to be assuming that candidates somehow know that you are not going to attempt to fleece them, unlike every other prospective employer. If candidates don't know any better, and it's fair for them to assume that you are the same as all the others, then I don't think you can draw any conclusions about "trust" and "teamwork" from them refusing to state a figure. > More often than not that lack of trust shows up in their work and their effectiveness as part of the team. Not always but more than 50/50. I think you're probably just seeing a correlation with the sort of people who either negotiate well already, or have read up or received advice on what to do. But if you still choose not to make an offer on this basis, I suppose it's win-win - the candidates you turn down probably wouldn't want to work for you anyway.
- hownottowrite 12y ago
  That's a fair assumption on your part. However, I think if you open the topic with, "The position is budgeted at X, but what would you like to make?" You're being about as open as possible, and that's what I try to do.

rlpb 12y ago

> Don't get me wrong though, I know why people do this and I respect their choice. It's a bit mercenary and the corporate world is a mercenary place. Personally, I just place a higher emphasis on teamwork. You seem to be assuming that candidates somehow know that you are not going to attempt to fleece them, unlike every other prospective employer. If candidates don't know any better, and it's fair for them to assume that you are the same as all the others, then I don't think you can draw any conclusions about "trust" and "teamwork" from them refusing to state a figure. > More often than not that lack of trust shows up in their work and their effectiveness as part of the team. Not always but more than 50/50. I think you're probably just seeing a correlation with the sort of people who either negotiate well already, or have read up or received advice on what to do. But if you still choose not to make an offer on this basis, I suppose it's win-win - the candidates you turn down probably wouldn't want to work for you anyway.

hownottowrite 12y ago
That's a fair assumption on your part. However, I think if you open the topic with, "The position is budgeted at X, but what would you like to make?" You're being about as open as possible, and that's what I try to do.