It's fairly well known in the tech industry that you stay at a company to get promoted, but you leave that company (with the promotion) to work for another company to cash in on that promotion. Very few (if any) companies will give you as much of a compensation bump for a promotion as what you'd get by joining (almost) any other company.
Agree. Counter offers and boomeranging can also play a part in this. Also might be worth sticking around for longer if you see strong prospects for promotion again in the near future.
I have never found this in ANY role I applied for. It would be an opening interview question for me, without a doubt.
Currently process management / partner management in the IT industry.
The problem with this approach is that you could well be wasting one or both of your time.
For six figure roles, his approach isn't that crazy. The banding will be something outrageous like 130-200k for some roles too, so it is kind of down to you to convince them.
Had my time wasted interviewing recently.
Things have been very very bad at my current place recently and most of the electronic engineers have jumped ship so I've been planning to do the same.
- I had my first Teams interview with HR at a company I really liked the look of, she asked the usual questions along with my salary expectations, so I told her and she said that's fine, OK....
- Second interview with the head of electronics, got on really well, guy really liked me and was impressed with my experience
- Got invited for a third onsite interview with the head of electronics again and a few other chaps, went very well, was expecting an offer, really liked the place
- Then I get an email saying the head of R&D from their parent company based in France is over for a week and he wants a chat. I was a bit miffed by this point as 4 interviews just seems like time wasting, especially with a guy who I would have thought wouldn't really have been micromanaging this. Anyway, got there, the guy's cocky and pretty arrogant (dunno if this is just a French thing) and I got the feeling the rest of the company was treading on eggshells around him, he didn't seem to share the values that the rest of the company had. I got to the end and he asked what my salary expectations were, then when I answer, says it's not within the budget for the role and offers me a number which is ~£5k below the minimum range I specified in interview #1.
I did the usual thanks for the offer but that's actually less than what I'm on now, factoring in commuting costs and they just said they can't push the budget anymore.
WTF did they even bother interviewing me 4 times when they knew within the first 10 minutes of meeting me that they wouldn't be able to offer what I wanted....
Rant over
These two paragraphs are an interesting juxtaposition that I've written about before. Many employees have much higher productivity a year into their job yet this isn't recognised financially. Tacit knowledge at a given organisation is typically undervalued relative to 'industry experience' and suchlike. I'd argue what should happen in relatity is that starting salaries should be lower the curve should be much steeper so pay rapidly accelerates. Promotions are a really interesting case because the learning curve is reduced for people already familiar with an organisation. I'd argue if you have two equally qualified people and one is promoted into role X and another is hired into role X then the former is worth more than the latter in the short term. But what tends to happen is they actually get paid less.
I think he means the salary you want is less than you could achieve, but hard to say. Personally I don't think that's necessarily the case, the thing about validating salary up front is more about avoiding time wasters than actually achieving a higher salary.What do you mean by that?
