Asking this question from two angles...

1) As a Candidate... other than being blunt and asking about the salary range for a job, or being up front and saying "my current salary is "X", or saying "my salary expectation is "X"... are there any strategies you've used to find out if you are in the ballpark salary-wise before getting too far along in the interview process? I am pretty far along in the interview process with a company, and the topic of salary has not come up, which is not ideal. I considered being blunt, but second guessed it b/c the interview went well and I didn't want the question to come across the wrong way. The job title is same as what I hold today, but no two titles are always alike from one company to the next... I guess I figured if they really want me, they'll find a way to make it happen.

2) As a Hiring Manager... I always ask the "salary expectations" question during the phone interview b/c I don't want to waste time getting far along in the process with a candidate that ends up wanting 1.5x what I have budget to pay, or is out of the salary range entirely. Some candidates are up front with me, but most avoid the question like the plague. I always stress that I want to get the right candidate what they want to make the move, and I'm not trying to low-ball anyone... but that often does not get the candidate to provide any info...

The job search and hiring process is such a time-suck, it seems like clearing these hurdles early in the process would save everyone time and frustration... but it often seems like such a taboo subject... and now some cities/states are banning the question altogether...

Thoughts? Any HR folks wanna weigh in?

I know it's not perfect, but is there any information on Glassdoor?

As a candidate:
"I would expect to be compensated fairly as any professional with my experience and qualifications would be."

"Compensated" leaves it open ended and I don't just consider the salary. Obviously it's like the largest piece of the puzzle, but compensation is the entire package and certain things offered by the new employer that I didn't have at the old employer can offset some money expectations. Have to account for vacation, bonuses, insurance premiums, stock grants, vehicle allowance, etc..

ChrisTAMU said:

---

I know it's not perfect, but is there any information on Glassdoor?

---

Glassdoor seems okay but when I spot checked it against my current employer, it seemed a bit off. And some job titles listed don't exist at my company, which was odd.

IrishTxAggie said:

---

As a candidate:
"I would expect to be compensated fairly as any professional with my experience and qualifications would be."

"Compensated" leaves it open ended and I don't just consider the salary. Obviously it's like the largest piece of the puzzle, but compensation is the entire package and certain things offered by the new employer that I didn't have at the old employer can offset some money expectations. Have to account for vacation, bonuses, insurance premiums, stock grants, vehicle allowance, etc..

---

I get it, and those are the typical answers I get from those that want to be vague. Doesn't help me much if I have a budget of $75k, and the salary range for the position I am hiring is $55-$90k. I can have a great candidate that gave me the vague response, and when I offer $75k (my budget) and he/she wants $105k... that's too big of a gap to close. And typically bonus is tied to grade level so no flexibility there.

If the range is posted, the person that makes 105K won't apply. I've seen a lot of hiring managers post "salary up to xxx based on experience". Obviously people you interview will push for the ceiling, but it will at least prevent you from having the awkward moment of knowing your company's compensation package may suck compared to market.

IrishTxAggie said:

---

FOMO

Don't want to leave money on the table as a candidate.

The same could be said about a company not willing to disclose what they'll pay because they want to be cheap.

---

Like it like it or not, your current salary is the most relevant piece of market data to calibrate your worth... most of us aren't NBA players coming off of rookie deals. I understand the reasoning... I just find the reasoning incredibly silly and puts you in a poorer position to make a real deal and move roles. It is an incredibly unproductive tactic that people think is smart business.

IrishTxAggie said:

---

FOMO

Don't want to leave money on the table as a candidate.

The same could be said about a company not willing to disclose what they'll pay because they want to be cheap.

---

The last thing I want to do is get a "deal" on a candidate. I want to hire a badass within the range I have to play with, and if I have to fight for a number that stretches my budget, I'll do it, but there are limits... but obviously, if we are too far apart, it's a waste of everyone's time to play the "I want to be compensated fairly based on my skills and experience" game.

ATM9000 said:

---

I don't understand the strategy of being cagey about salary for a candidate or hiring manager. People get weirdly personal about what they are offered and paid... so put it out there. 'I currently make X and it would take X for me to move'. If you are applying for a job both X's should be known in your head... so ask for what will make you happy and then if it can't be met... well, you just saved a bunch of people a good amount of time.

I think a lot of times people worry so much about maximizing the salary so they don't critically think about what it would take and wait for the employers to offer a number and hope to be not disappointed. The problem with that approach is that you have no plan and it leads to suboptimal career moves. Always have a plan and don't be shy to tell people exactly what it is. Frankly, when I get a response like 'I expect to be paid what I'm worth for my experience', I see it as a weak signal because from my standpoint if you can't give me a number and say that you are either telling me you aren't quite sure what your skills are worth or you haven't really thought through the possibility of actually leaving your current role.

---

Well said.

Then offer your range or an "up to" number in your posting.

IrishTxAggie said:

---

Then offer your range or an "up to" number in your posting.

---

Personally, I always offer ranges for jobs... big time saver.

But I think the obligation is more on the prospect to say 'this is my worth' then go prove it than it is on an employer to figure out your worth for them because at the end of the day, you accepting an offer is a unilateral decision and you are the ultimate final decision maker on it.

IrishTxAggie said:

---

Then offer your range or an "up to" number in your posting.

---

Not sure if HR would let me post a range in the job description, but I will almost always communicate a range during the phone interview process. Sometimes that helps open the discussion, but often times it does not.

I should add that I also approach this differently than a lot of others I assume. I'm a director with a very deep sales background. Hardball and keeping things close to the vest is something we feel we pride ourselves on in a lot of cases.

As a candidate:

It will take at least x to get me. That number likely goes up depending on what I learn about the position, company, and total package. I understand what you're willing to pay depends on what a candidate brings to the table. What is your range?

And x is a true minimum. I walk for a penny less. Last jump, I ended up 7% above what I told them was the floor. Turns out they paid 40% more for me than they had ever paid that position and they battled to get that number for me. I know this to be true because of the role I now have with them. Point is, I did not leave money on the table. In fact I squeezed blood from a turnip and gave them a lot of time to talk with the right people early on.

As a hiring manager:

I understand your number can and likely will change based on what you learn about the position, company, and total package. That said, everyone has a minimum they're looking for and I'd like to make sure we're at least in the same ballpark. So what's yours?

If they ask for the range, I give it. And if they're out of range but anywhere close, I tell them the range and explain the ways we've gotten creative with meeting candidate expectations and leave the decision to continue the interview with them. This is why I do not list the salary with the posting. We can get very creative for the right person. On the other hand I have full on stopped interviews when we were nowhere close. I have made initial offers at what was asked for. I have made initial offers above what was asked for. I have never made an initial offer below what was asked for because the instant I believe your skill set does not support your minimum it's game over. I have made initial offers that already included creative things because of conversations held early on. My initial offers are based on what I think you are worth. Nothing more, nothing less. Hiring is not fun and is disruptive to what we are trying to accomplish, I try to do it as infrequently as possible. That means paying people what they're worth. Some companies do believe it's easier to keep good employees than it is to recruit new ones. Find one of those companies.

As a hiring manager, I usually ask the question "What is the total compensation you want?" Before I ask that question, I mention all the benefits that I consider part of the compensation package like:

401k match
Bonus
RSUs/Stock options/etc
Tuition reimbursement if applicable
Cost of benefits
etc

I just tell them to give me their number. If I think they are in the range and worth it, I make a deal. I don't try to squeeze them or anything. I am just transparent and avoid the confusion. I consider pay to be equal to the work being done and people working with or for as part of the 'three legged stool' of happiness. Why quibble over$100/week if the difference is $5000? Either they are worth it or not. That is the real quandary for a hiring manager.

Interesting thread to read.

My industry is heavily reliant on recruiters, and they often seem like used car salesmen for everyone involved. Upselling candidates to meet a quota and get paid, upselling companies to get those candidates in the door for an interview.

I've had a few recruiting experiences like that. they kept claiming that they had exceptional benefits we agreed on a salary I got the offer letter and the benefits information call them up and immediately declined.

Whenever I see a salary range I automatically look at the beginning number and add about 15% to assume roughly what the actual position pays. I love it when I see a range of 50k dollars and the actual salary a few thousand above the lower number.

Great_I_Am said:

---

Whenever I see a salary range I automatically look at the beginning number and add about 15% to assume roughly what the actual position pays. I love it when I see a range of 50k dollars and the actual salary a few thousand above the lower number.

---

I see that a ton in Govt. job postings.

The company I currently work for is really bad about doing this, I've learned now to reach out to people I know and get a real range before applying.

I am a lot more concerned about position responsibilities than I am purely on comp. The correlation between these two things is strong. When I get recruiter reachouts, they are typically 1) for positions with materially less responsibility than I would want, and they pay a lot less, sometimes as much as 1/5 of my current comp. No surprise, but I'm always a "great fit" for these roles. 2) positions beyond what I'm qualified for and where there are 95% odds of failure. This gets unearthed really quickly in the discussion.

My advice to anyone is to answer the question of whether a new position fits with your career North Star. Also, being cagey about what you want is just dumb. There is a right time to bring it up, but it ought to be fairly early on. If you're dealing with an entity that's cagey or not transparent in this way - run.

$30,000 Millionaire said:

---

If you're dealing with an entity that's cagey or not transparent in this way - run.

---

I think it depends on how you define 'cagey'. Ike I said I always ensure my postings come with ranges, but I've gone over and under those and gotten candidates because I talked to people and realized I could make things work and benefit my team strategically with the hire... it happens.

I always look at it as requirements. Both sides need to be forthright abt their requirements to enter into a relationship. The candidate's primary requirement ahead of responsibility is almost always going to be 'how much an i going to make?' ... so I expect them and they should expect to be forthright about what it will take because only they know their situation and whether the work is worth it or not. The company's primary requirement is 'can they do the job' so that's why they should absolutely be forthright about job requirements. Salary ranges should be the second consideration in filling a role not the primary one so I understand why a company might not state a range. Personally, not doing so is wasting everyone's time in my opinion though.

Both times Ive been placed by a headhunter I received a much higher than expected offer. They knew the absolute max that the company was willing to pay and fought to get me that number. If I had not used the headhunters I would have probably shot for a slightly lower offer, not knowing their absolute max.

However, both times the companies weren't the right fit for me and the headhunters obviously tried to up-sell the company/opportunity so that I would take the offer. So proceed at your own risk, but headhunters can be a valuable tool for negotiating offers in my experience.