Salary not being revealed

[D.P.]

Why would they not be the kind of person you want?

If they are more focused on salary rather than the actual work they might do, the team, working environment, opportunities for career progression, expectations and requirements, travel requirements, the companies vision and roadmap, growth of the business unit, technology stack, opportunities for learning , opportunities to take on more responsibility, WFH/RTO mandates etc. then it is a very bad sign. Furthermore, if someone is singularly focused on salary to the point they don't interview without specific details then the candidate would be at risk of either trying to extortion higher pay rises or will simply jump ship as soon as they have a better offer.

Some basic clarifying expectations is fine, maybe a senior engineer applies to a junior job and wants to see if the salary would be flexible given their experience.


And all of this neglects that total Compensation is more import once you get to higher seniority. About half my TC is salary, stock, bonuses, various benefits and payouts for e.g presenting at conferences or patents pay out at least half. Someone can make a big fuss over their basic salary but the company can easily readdress any discrepancies if they think they overpaid in base salary by simply reducing RSU and bonuses. So stating a Salary of X at the start of the interview when the TC averaged per year might be 2X over the first 3 years.

 

[robj20]

Sounds like a delusion a lot of employers have to be honest, glad I work where I do, where they understand what makes people tick. I'd suggest ruling out a lot of good people if salary discussion is off the table.

I can kind of see the reasoning at the top end of jobs, but medium to lower paid not so much.
I'm at the point where it's about the whole package and salary is in there, so if you're willing to disclose "career progression" and "opportunities for learning" you should also and equally discuss salary.
I will and have walked if it's not to be discussed until later in the interview stages.

My old boss wanted to get me to work where he now works, (he knows I'm one of them that put in 110%) but he wouldn't disclose the salary and just said competitive. I said unless I get a ballpark I'm not interested, he eventually said it would definitely be more than I currently got so I went for the first interview and then at the second stage they revealed the salary range depending on experience. It was about half what I'm on and they couldn't match it, they actually didn't believe me at first (thought it nice they basically called me a lier) but I had a payslip to hand.
What a waste of my time, so never again.

I also now try to avoid big companies, where you are just a number.
My immediate and only boss right now is the owner and CEO, they know my children's names and even my pets. So much nicer environment.

 

[jon86]

For a large company like the one that DP works at, I'd have gathered research beforehand from levels.fyi, Blind, reddit, etc, so I would only need to know what grade(s) the hiring manager is willing to hire for. Large (tech) companies in the USA have well known total compensation information, so it's a lot less opaque. I know that I'd never want to work for some companies unless it was through an acquisition (where I'd have significant stock carryover) as the company's normal compensation offers are much lower than I'd be willing to accept.

It's much more important to know ballpark ranges when you're interviewing for smaller companies, but in my experience, those companies are usually a lot more open about what they're able to offer earlier in the interview process, as they don't want to waste time if expectations cannot be met.

 

[dowie]

no, not really. Money is important but time is more important and how you spend the majority of your time is obviously a big factor. If someone only cares about the paycheck then they will likely move jobs as soon as they can get a better offer. Someone who takes pride in their work, is passionate about what they do, strives to achieve their best, wants to actively progress the team, shares the vision etc are far more important.

trying to get clarity on the range up front != "only cares about the paycheck"

It's silly, you can't infer a load of things about someone's motivation for the role simply because they tried to establish some basic financial details upfront any more than some old-school interviewer at a bank can start coming up with narratives in his head based on how firm a candidate's handshake was and whether they committed the sin of wearing brown shoes.

It's pretty standard for people to try to establish the range at the start of the process, sometimes involving giving their target range too, if you're eliminating people for doing that then that's only going to worsen the issues you're having with finding suitable candidates at a particular level.

 

[moogle]

But previous salary is for a specific job. New salary is for a totally new and different role.

If a bin man became a doctor you can't give uplift from starting bin man wage as the doctor role is different level of responsibility

That's why most people find it BS. The salary should be based on what you're expected to be doing and what the rate is for that particular role adjusted to your experience.

Companies that do that are just trying to pay you the least amount because they know you'll take it as you're in a weaker position. Taking an inverse view of what D.P said, it's basically the company not valuing your skills and experience and using your current position to underpay you.

By you playing into it, you allow them to continue this stupid game, but I don't blame them if they do, as some people have an even worse situation so financially they'll still take it even if it's a ridiculous reason.

 

[D.P.]

trying to get clarity on the range up front != "only cares about the paycheck"

It's silly, you can't infer a load of things about someone's motivation for the role simply because they tried to establish some basic financial details upfront any more than some old-school interviewer at a bank can start coming up with narratives in his head based on how firm a candidate's handshake was and whether they committed the sin of wearing brown shoes.

It's pretty standard for people to try to establish the range at the start of the process, sometimes involving giving their target range too, if you're eliminating people for doing that then that's only going to worsen the issues you're having with finding suitable candidates at a particular level.

But it just isn't that useful because the salary range can often be adjusted upwards for the appropriate candidate, and likewise, just because the employer has pre-budget a salary range doesn't mean the candidate will get an offer anywhere near the top (nor even the bottom).

Getting a baseline understanding is fine, but then this really is mostly on the candidate to do their homework. They can check on Glassdoor or whatever to get an idea.



To me the biggest problem is not job adverts that don't list a salary but those that list a massively inflated salary that no one will get.

In the end, you only know the salary you will be offered once you actually receive the offer. Getting anything more detailed than an estimate you can do yourself is usually a waste of time

 

[Removed User 345456]

Sounds like a waste of time, espesh if they're clearly trying to low ball you and give away what you think they should pay you.

 

[mid_gen]

The idea that having a discussion about salary between a candidate and an interviewer should somehow blackball the candidate is laughable. Smacks of poor communication skills, and the willingness to pour time and resources into an exercise that may be moot without establishing certain prerequisites whiffs of a lack of management experience. The sort of guff that comes from people in these large companies that are more concerned with their LinkedIn profile than actually getting work done.

 

[AndyCr15]

Maybe you'd get paid more if you read whole sentences and didn't cut the important part off my quote

Tbf, your comprehension of what is said doesn't seem to be great IMO

But then any candidate demanding explicit salary information at the strat of the interview process would likely be rejected anyway as that is simply not the kind of person we would on our team

The idea that having a discussion about salary between a candidate and an interviewer should somehow blackball the candidate is laughable.

What you say and what DP says look to be different to me. (Or at least my understanding of what is meant)

I get both sides. Obviously you want an idea of what the pay is, but at the same time, personally, that has never been the only thing that attracts me to a job. In fact, it would probably be second or third on my list. I've always said I would never work for a competitor in my area as they are just run a very different way, to the point that when I was looking at redundancy, I started looking for a different career.

 

[mid_gen]

I get both sides. Obviously you want an idea of what the pay is, but at the same time, personally, that has never been the only thing that attracts me to a job. In fact, it would probably be second or third on my list. I've always said I would never work for a competitor in my area as they are just run a very different way, to the point that when I was looking at redundancy, I started looking for a different career.

There isn't a 'both sides' exclusive discussion here.

Yes you want an idea of the pay is so no-one is wasting their time. All it takes is two grown-ups to have a 10 second discussion "I'm looking for something in this ballpark for remuneration" "Yes that's within the range for us". Job done. Proceed with interview process. Getting that cleared up front is just being a competent professional, it doesn't mean it's the ONLY thing you care about.

Besides that, I don't know why a hiring manager would be having these discussions, I expect my recruiters to have already had this perfectly normal conversation with candidates during the filter stage before I even get to the point of spending time interviewing them.

 

[AndyCr15]

There isn't a 'both sides' exclusive discussion here.

You're saying everyone is in agreement? How is this dragging on then?

 

[aspiring]

Sounds like a waste of time, espesh if they're clearly trying to low ball you and give away what you think they should pay you.

Precisely why I am thinking why have a final round interview?

 

[aspiring]

That's why most people find it BS. The salary should be based on what you're expected to be doing and what the rate is for that particular role adjusted to your experience.

Companies that do that are just trying to pay you the least amount because they know you'll take it as you're in a weaker position. Taking an inverse view of what D.P said, it's basically the company not valuing your skills and experience and using your current position to underpay you.

By you playing into it, you allow them to continue this stupid game, but I don't blame them if they do, as some people have an even worse situation so financially they'll still take it even if it's a ridiculous reason.

Exactly pay should reflect role.

They have said they will pay according to benchmark for this role too but that has not been revealed either

 

[D.P.]

The idea that having a discussion about salary between a candidate and an interviewer should somehow blackball the candidate is laughable.

no one said though. Salary negotiation is very important and should be very open and honest. But there is no possibility of the employer providing precise information before conducting the interviews and doing an internal estimate based on the candidates profile and interview report.

Asking for the salary range is fine, but then is largely worthless as explained. The actual offer could be higher or lower, and the range itself could be quite broad, and the range might be dependent on whether the candidate is willing to relocate or not.

As i said above, we have had 2 positions opened in the last 18m and the offer was outside the initial estimate of 120-150K CHF. in one case we got someone more senior at near 200k, another someone more junior at 110k. if someone asks what is the salary then we would have said it depends on experience and interview performance, but salaries are reviewed do there is no balance. We would have said 150k is the max for the intended grade but if it was clearly a more senior candidate then we would say that we can see what finance comes back with if we make you an offer, but have a look at levels.fyi.

Honestly, my only point is why people care so much about an upfront salary offer before you have even been interviewed. You will never get specifics, and if you do then i would be very cautious because it means they can't be flexible and have a tight budget, so your chances of pay rises and fat bonuses are low. Rather than an upfront salary what is more important is total compensation and progression thereof, over say 3-4 years. More pertinent questions will be how the average salary has increased y/y, how long might it take to get promoted and at what salary will that bring me to, how often are stock grants awarded and what is the vesting period, for annual bonuses are there things like company performance factors and if so what if the historic average. it just seems quite short sighted to be so focused on something that cannot be accurately answered until after the interview.

 

[dowie]

Asking for the salary range is fine, but then is largely worthless as explained. The actual offer could be higher or lower, and the range itself could be quite broad, and the range might be dependent on whether the candidate is willing to relocate or not.

As i said above, we have had 2 positions opened in the last 18m and the offer was outside the initial estimate of 120-150K CHF. in one case we got someone more senior at near 200k, another someone more junior at 110k.

But that explanation is based on both you not being able to get suitable candidates at the level you were hiring and there being some flexibility in being able to change the budget for the role.

That's not necessarily the general case, in plenty of cases the headcount is already budgeted for and there is an actual range, It's not some hypothetical thing that doesn't really matter and ends up being changed anyway which is why a good recruiter tends to ask about a candidate's current salary or salary expectations in the first call, in part to avoid the situation where you've got a mismatch.

While not all companies are happy for recruiters to communicate the range to candidates they'll generally be quite happy to confirm that a candidate's declared target range is compatible or that their current salary isn't way outside it in either direction.

 

[BennyC]

Current salary has little bearing on the role you're interviewing for, other than validating to your new employer what your current employers values you at.

If you have relevant industry qualifications and experience then as a benchmark they will know what is a fair market rate for the role they're offering, so it's up to you to evidence and convince why you deserve more.

I'd be put off too by the lack of a range being given but as other posters have said it's not always below what you might expect.

Don't invest too heavily in the process if you think or feel you're going to be disappointed or they aren't being transparent.

 

[HangTime]

Someone who takes pride in their work, is passionate about what they do, strives to achieve their best, wants to actively progress the team, shares the vision etc are far more important.

Plenty of people that want that also want to know how much they will get paid so they know if it is worth doing or even financially viable to do all that.

Progressing the team, realising the shared vision etc is much easier if you are in a position where you feel valued and won't have to pivot to a different team and vision because there is a more realistic offer from another organisation.

To some extent you can think of salary like a hygiene factor; if you don't meet that base level of reward then all the other wonderful stuff about a job becomes somewhat moot. People want to know the salary on offer not just because they are greedy and pursuing the biggest paycheque bit but also because they just simply don't want to have their income drop below a certain level, have to take a pay cut, or suffer the mental debilitation from feeling undervalued. The latter is something I think is not well understood, I've had situations in the past where feeling underpaid has weighed heavily on my mind despite the fact I didn't 'need' more money.

 

[D.P.]

Plenty of people that want that also want to know how much they will get paid so they know if it is worth doing or even financially viable to do all that.

ehhh, no one said you shouldn't negotiate salaries nor except anything under market rate, so your post is entirely irrelevant

 

[HangTime]

I'm sorry you feel that way, let me attempt to surface some morsel of relevance.

The point I'm making is that someone wanting to know the approximate remuneration on offer up front isn't necessarily solely / primarily motivated by money. They might be a great prospective employee that can bring all the qualities you mention. But they also might be unwilling or at the very least resentful about working below a certain threshold. It's about whether there is even a window within which a negotiation is feasible and that's a two way street, the employee might have a minimum level they would consider offers at and the employer might have a ceiling which it will be difficult to exceed. Sometimes the former is above the latter and hence it's better for all concerned that this is identified early in the process no matter how well aligned their (non-monetary) values may or may not be. In some cases this may be a recurring pattern that educates the employer about how they are positioning the role (package) against the wider market.

I understand the point that determining fit for both parties is more than just agreeing a number, but the approximate size of that number is a very important factor and a common factor in all jobs. As I said, to some extent it operates like a hygiene factor, a base need that has to be met or all the other wonderful stuff goes out of the window.

 

[dowie]

ehhh, no one said you shouldn't negotiate salaries nor except anything under market rate, so your post is entirely irrelevant

It isn't irrelevant if people don't want to waste their time, what @HangTime has said is quite relevant to that.

It's better to get an idea of the range upfront before going through a potentially lengthy interview process only to realise that what you want is way outside the range they're looking at.

The scenarios you've presented where budgets don't matter much for headcount and a range can simply be adjusted by tens of thousands isn't the reality for a lot of companies.
Typically you can't necessarily just conjure up 60k more because you've not attracted any suitable candidates for the role but some person more experienced than you were looking for has applied or been sourced by a recruiter. If anything some issues with recruitment perhaps need to be addressed if that's happening.

Also in some cases, companies will have widely different pay ranges for some level of experience based on the profitability of their business or how well-funded they are.