One of the most heated debates on my blog in 2009 happened on the post called Your Thoughts: Candidates, Salary, and Disclosure.
To recap.
- Nick Corcodilos, of Ask the Headhunter, advises you to never disclose your salary to a recruiter or company during your job search.
- Dave Hardwick disagreed — and he asked for my two cents.
- BN Carvin weighed in on the comments with her opinion. She basically moderated Punk Rock HR for a week!
I lost control of my blog, but it was a good debate. I wonder if you have any additional thoughts on this subject? Were you part of the original debate and changed your mind?
I’ll never talk about my salary history again. I will talk about my salary demands. I want a variable compensation package. Cash. Cats. Bacon. I’m open to discussing the mix.
{ 1 trackback }
{ 68 comments… read them below or add one }
Well I would never hire anyone that would not walk me through their salary history and their expectations going forward. In fact, I tell them that on the first conversation.
What is there to hide? Personally, I have no problems telling a potential client what I have made.
I have never understood what all the fuss is about. I hate the bullshit. Why try to figure out when to say what and what to hide. I prefer straight up conversations and if someone cannot have one with me then there is no reason for me to hire them or for me to work for them.
I’ve always found the real challenge is how do you respond to a company that asks for salary history? Some companies try to be sneaky and say that if you don’t provide salary history in the cover letter or fill out one of their forms you will not be considered for the position.
Many times when asked about my salary during interview process I say let’s talk about the job first and compensation later. Another tactic is to ask them if they are considering an offer to me and is this required for the offer. I prefer that the salary match the job and experience required versus a mark up from my last job. What if I was grossly underpaid for the work?
No one has yet answered the question satisfactorily for me: Why does an employer need a job applicant’s salary history?
In this discussion the point was made that an employer may “use salary history as an easy thumbnail method to qualify a candidate for a given role” (Hardwick). I think that is a fair statement. I also think that—from the candidate’s perspective—providing salary information is only a negative when one has low salary history to report.
Case in point, if one had big numbers to put on the table, and the employer was ironically not asking for salary history, the candidate would likely be perturbed. They’d be thinking, “Hey, c’mon, I made big buck in my last two gigs…ask me how much I made..ask me how much I made.”
It all reminds me of the “college degree” debate, or the “PHR/SPHR debate.” Those being that the usual naysayers of whether a degree or certification has relevancy, are those who do not possess a degree or certification. I always love that.
Salary history IS relevant as it is yet one more way to glean some perspective to a person’s career trajectory…where they’ve been, what they have done, how much compensation they have commanded, or accepted. It should not be used as a single method of screening, but it is relevant. And if someone is reticent to provide their history, it is most likely because they want you to believe it is larger than it is.
I’m employed but am looking for a job in a Charlotte, NC. I have a good job and have worked my way up to a good salary. But I am very aware that I may need to take a salary cut to get started in my (hopefully soon to be) new home. Cost of living is better where I’m going so that will work in my favor. So with all that to think of, I’ll be ok with answering the question when I’m asked during my job search. But to answer it in a way that works for me will be my task. Any thoughts on how to answer why I’ll be willing to take less money?
Also, if they offer bacon, well, bacon has value….
The question is on some of our applications but its not required. Your salary requirement/expectation is required though. Managers like to see the last salary, I guess it makes them feel justified in their attempts to underpay someone. I dont care what you made, I care what you can do and how well you can do it. I base my job offers on your knowledge, skills and I’ll admit, your likeability; you have to come into a job interview with a smile, no one likes a debbie downer.
Charlene, how do you use the information?
I can’t imagine why a rational employer would refuse to hire a great candidate simply because the candidate had a healthy respect for their own privacy. Are you going to require them to tell you about their sex life too, and decide they can’t have a straightforward conversation if they decline?
I ask for salary requirements, not history. I don’t need my competitors to tell me what I should pay you; I’d rather determine your worth to my employer myself.
I agree with Alison. I ask for salary requirements and expectations. As a recruiter I don’t want to waste anyone’s time by presenting a candidate that won’t accept an offer because it it too low.
I think it can be useful but should not be the determining factor. For example, I like to use market data to determine what is competetive and then tweak that based on specific job factors (scope, etc) and the canidates experience (which is usually reflected in their salary). Sometimes this means that we walk away from a canidate and sometimes they walk away from us because the value proposition is not properly weighted…
Wow! Too bad I missed round 1 of this “food fight”.
When determining an offer of employment, I prefer to base it on the following:
1-internal equity-what are similarly situated/qualified employees within the organization making?
2-market data-is the established range for this position allowing us to attract high quality candidates?
3-candidate salary history AND expectation-do these align with items 1 and 2?
Examples of variables that come into play include:
A-new position(s) with the organization. Item 1 (above) is taken out of the equation.
B-unique position to the organization. Item 2 (above) may not be available, or confidence in the available data is very low.
C-Candidate changing field, industry, geography, or level of responsibility. Maybe candidate was a VP 4 years ago, and yet we’re discussing a role as an individual contributor.
Can I make a decision without ALL of the desired information? Yes. I have found that having as much, if not all, of this information along with having an open communication about the information and decision process leads to confidence on both sides of the negotiation. Alternatively, the results of decisions made with less information are increased risk and decreased confidence.
I can’t say that there’s an absolute right or wrong way to go about this. To me, it just makes good business sense for both parties to have as much information as possible, along with a measure of respect for each others requirements, when making this decision.
Hi Alison,
It is Charlane, not Charlene.
No I typically ask about their sex history on the third meeting and when they get my name wrong I ask for their genealogy chart. hahaha! Just kidding. Good points and questions.
I have been in the technology (software) start-up world for about 11 years now so I do not know much about the “corporate” world…..there is not much room for lies regarding money. I have always been upfront about what we can pay in salary and stock when building companies. Now I only advise founders, start-up employees and serve on a few boards…I am not stuck to one particular way for a hiring process regarding salary, I just know that in my experience I prefer hiring people that will walk me through their experience including salary history & what they want. Then I do the same for the company.. I also believe in sharing all financial information with start-up employees once hired until we start preparing to follow SEC guidelines for IPO status…… and I always learn along the way.
Cheers,
Charlane
I’m not a big fan of people having to disclose their salary history. If they have the experience that they need for the job and you can afford to pay it than don’t look back and give them what the salary they ask for (or whatever you negotiate). A close friend of mine was highly experienced in PR, but wasn’t getting paid what she should have been, but after she switched companies (doing pretty much the same job, if not less) she received a significant pay increase. To me the salary history is almost irrelevant.
Sorry about getting your name wrong, Charlane! People always spell mine with two L’s so I know how it irks.
I guess I’m wondering what do you actually do with the salary history info once you have it? And is that something that couldn’t be done without it? I’m not convinced it’s necessary, or that it justifies the privacy violation.
Charlene/Charlane/Allison/Alison My name is Lauren Ruettimann. My family calls me Laurie. I have two middle names thanks to a stupid decision I made to keep my maiden name as a middle name. If I was irked by every misspelling — every Lori or Loren or modification of my surname — I would never sleep at night.
Okay, more soon on the real issue. I just had to quickly weigh in on this one.
haha! i was only joking.
(In my best Alec Baldwin voice:) Sharks! Put that coffee down! Coffee is for closers! Ha ha. I gather the salary history and expectations up front. Why?
1. Might show career progression. Should match career progression. If it doesn’t, that *might* be red flag. Might not. But interesting to compare.
2. I ask after the first screen, and making the determination that the candidate will be moved forward in the process. I also share the broad range for the position, letting the candidate know that, for many reasons, the salary will fall somewhere in that range (experience level, growth potential, budget, etc. etc.).
3. I tell the candidate that their expectations are aligned (or not) with our compensation structure. If we move forward, the company should be able to come up with a package that will make him/her very happy. Or, if their expectations are way out there, I try to figure out why and see if they can be aligned (happened a lot when hiring attorneys from law firms into lower paying corporate counsel positions) Notice the pre-close. Get any other info that might be relevant to creating the perfect package for the candidate. You’re also gathering market data at this point. Part of a shark’s job.
5. I tell the candidate that we’ll have one other conversation about comp, if they get an offer. In the mean time, I’ll be working on putting together the best package possible, and they should begin thinking about their needs monetary and otherwise. I hate drawn out negotiations. If a candidate knows they have one shot to get what they want, they tend to contain the list a bit.
4. Then I use the info to pre-close the manager. If a candidate is going to be expensive, I give them a heads up. Look for creative ways to meet or exceed expectations. Figure out if the candidate is worth it, research where the candidate will rank within the team, etc. ABC. Always be closing!
5. If an offer is made, I tell the candidate that I have put together the best package possible. Anything more will require that I go fight for it. And I’ll fight the battle only once, so they’d better put all of their demands on the table. Now candidates love this. Go fight, they tell me! I return, often victorious, with a bit more stock, an extra week of vacation, or 5K more in cash. Sometimes, I’m not victorious, but they feel that I went to battle for them and often accept the offer anyway.
The point, is no surprises — for either party. If you have found the right candidate, then it’s Peanut Butter Jelly Time. Should be rare to lose a candidate because of salary if you gather the info up front.
oh i hit enter too quick: I do think hiring without the salary history is okay. It is just my preference to have it. I like to see the person be honest and answer questions about their salary history….and I will do the same regarding the company financials (along with other founders/execs). If the start-up is not profitable yet their salary is typically at where they were 4 or 5 years before but the stock is higher…..and in my experience many people have a hard time talking about money so we just get it out there and talk about it. Again, this is just my experience and opinion and it has worked extremely well for me, HR teams I have lead, etc. And it could be wrong for other industries, etc.
Nick is wrong. A recruiter cannot do their job if they don;t know what you earn. Most times the candidate is afraid that if they divulge salary, the recruiter will do everything in their power to get them to accept an offer for the wrong amount. The thing though is that it is in the recruiter’s best interest ( cause their fee is an expression of what it is they accept) to get their client to make not only the best offer they can but get their client to make an acceptable offer and how can that happen if salary is never discussed.
The only time I ask salary history is when we are awarded a government contract and there are incumbents (working for the previous contractor), who basically have the right of first refusal. We want to make the transition as smooth as possible, and knowing how they are compensated by the last contractor makes it easier to establish compensation packages to make that happen.
Outside of startups I never ask the question anymore. It doesn’t give me any information I can’t get more reliably in other ways. Ways that don’t lead to personal bias, or possibly/accidentally co-opting some other companies disparate pay practice.
Assuming past pay has meaning assumes that that they were fairly compensated before. It also assumes that things are a bit static i.e. maybe they needed a job at a certain location or with a certain amount of flexibility, but life has changed and now they don’t. It also assumes that pay equal performance which historically is not the case. We all know tons of people who make a boat load of money, who aren’t worth their check and we also know talented folk who for some reason or other haven’t been paid their worth.
There are also plenty of reason why someone might be looking for a job (which could very well be a good fit) at a rate significantly different than their current/past. Change in need for flexibility, stability, location and or commute, growth, benefit package…
I want to know what their salary expectations are up front, if they aren’t in the same ball park, let not waste each others time. But previous rate shouldn’t be a factor in negotiation, unless you are looking to narrow your candidate pool with information not directly related to past performance and/or ability to do the job at hand and that is just lazy recruiting. It also doesn’t necessarily serve the companies best interest, especially if it leads in inequitable pay practices – save 10k today spend 10,000,000 tomorrow.
I didn’t get to join this discussion last time but i’ll throw my hat in now.
In a vaccum, salary history can say all the things mentioned above. But we don’t live in a vaccum. And I say that basing offers on previous history is seriously undermining fair wages for everyone in this country. The value of the work, the experience and skills of the candidate, the cost of living for the area… those should be the basis of an offer. Not what the candidate has been paid before. You can get career progression information in other, more ethical, ways. I don’t want to beat a “competitor” for this candidate, but I want to pay a fair wage for the work that my company needs performed.
But, if an employer asks for history before asking for your salary expectations, I would advise the candidate to ask why do you need to know?
@peopleshark laid it out very nicely. Playing “I’ll show you mine if you show me yours” is pretty frustrating for both sides. I expect to have an honest and always fair conversation about comp history and expectations. I’m just as up front with the range my client is considering in my initial conversations with candidates.
Salary should be based on the role and the person filling it. My history should have no bearing. Too many factors can affect it…bad boss, tight budgets, good ol’ boy clubs, et cetera. How about this…hiring Manager, put out a range. If we can negotiate into that range, then great. If not, no hard feelings because that is all that you were willing to spend, anyway. Sometimes getting the best person for the job is not an option simply because you can not afford them.
On a similar note, try to align your requisites to the role. I see far too many positions for wrench turners with MBA requests and Six Sigma BB. WTF?!?
I wasn’t part of the original debate and there is a reason for that: there is no debate.
It is a question of balance of power. If the balance of power lies with the employer, they’ll get the information from you or they’ll move on to other candidates who will disclose what they want. It doesn’t matter if it is fair or right or even if it is a valid question. No amount of trickery or word play will thwart a company that has the balance of power. Of course you can still refuse but that means no job. Deal with that and move on.
If the balance of power lies with the candidate, then you don’t have to disclose anything. And you shouldn’t either. You should demand what you are worth and the employer will likely hem and haw but ultimately concede to your requests. Because when you’re an asskicker and when you’re a sure thing, that means employers are competing for your services.
Instead of complaining about why employers ask this question (like it is actually going to change anything), people should use that energy to shift the balance of power to them. Ultimately, people can make principled stands online but I’ve never had a problem obtaining a salary history when I wanted it. The real solution is being part of the group where salary history isn’t a factor. The more of a sure thing you are to an employer, the less this other stuff matters.
I with all the people that say that salary offered should be dependent on the role and responsibilities of the job and the skills that a candidate brings to the table. Sure, you can ask them what their expectations are in order to make a decision on what the offer will be. But I absolutely hate providing a salary history and knowing that my performance or worth will be determined based on that.
There are several reasons why a person’s salary history may not reflect their actual worth, I know more people than I can count who are grossly underpaid for the job they do! Me included!!
I have a double masters degree, over 6 yrs work experience and I only make 45k/yr (I think that is no where near indicative of what I shd be making, I may be biased!). Why? Coz my employer can squeeze me for all I’m worth and not pay me coz they are sponsoring my work visa. In this market especially, an employer that can sponsor your visa is worth a lot, even an underpaid job (that topic is a whole new can of worms though!).
@lance I agree that ultimately it does become a power balance issue whether or not question is answered. But that doesn’t mean the question should be asked or answered. Just because you can do something, doesn’t mean you should. I also don’t see this a complaining about the employer as much as I see it as questioning an outdated HR/recruiting practice that ultimately doesn’t serve the company, and I think PunkRockHR is a great forum for that.
@corey If you’re the best company to work for in the world and people are knocking down your doors to get hired there, people will hurdle a lot of stupid procedures in order to get hired there. Even if you’re not the best (just simply decent with above market pay), people will put up with things like puzzle questions, multiple day interviews and idiotic hypotheticals that make giving your salary history inconsequential.
Do I believe there are legit reasons to ask salary history in certain situations? Of course. Regardless of my opinion though, some employers will always want this information whether they ask for it upfront or get it covertly thanks to a specific release you sign whenever we check references.
Most selection processes are an invasion of privacy and common sense. The focus on salary history is just a tiny portion of a messed up process. And there is such a cognitive dissonance between what people say they do with salary history questions (avoid them, not answer them, try to trick them) and what they actually do (give up the information at the drop of a hat), I think it makes it a very emotional issue. It feels like a bigger deal than it really is.
@lance if your the best company in the world and/or paying above market, well then you don’t really need to ask the question; a question that for many is an emotional issue. Especially for information you could get elsewhere and that can lead you down some dangerous biases. And of course I agree there are some exceptions/situations (I cited one in my earlier post). But generally it does more harm than good. Everyone values their privacy and what is private to them in different ways. And yes people will share the information, even though it might make them emotionally uneasy. But that is not surprising, look at Facebook, twitter and blogs. But to me it comes down to – just because you can get a candidate to do something they are uncomfortable with, doesn’t mean you should. Especially when that something has no real bearing on what you are trying to establish. I do think it is a power issue, and like many power issues it has the potential for abuse. And again I agree people do answer it all the time, even though they find it invasive. But I don’t find that surprising because every day I see people put up with things they shouldn’t just because they never thought they had the option of doing otherwise.
I agree with @corey. People put up with things they shouldn’t just because they don’t think they have the option to do otherwise. And that makes this a worthwhile discussion. To let people know that this is a power struggle, that power can be and does get abused, and candidates shouldn’t stand for that- regardless of what the job market is like.
@corey Your point makes sense if there were some universally fair way to evaluate how much a person should be paid. I just think the only way to determine what the right salary is for a person is to base it on what a person and a company negotiates.
Negotiations are about power struggles and differentials. If we market estimate a position to be a 70k-100k broadband and your salary history shows you’ve never been over 60k (assuming same locale, same industry, etc…), we’re probably going to offer you on the low end of our broadband.
If the person has bargaining power, they can move that figure up. Perhaps they have some industry recognition. Perhaps they have another offer on the table for more money. If they don’t have that position though, they will likely accept that knowing that they have the potential to move up 30k in the band depending on performance.
I just think much more concrete about salary than most. The ideal salary for a company is the least amount of money a person is willing to take and be satisfied with. The ideal salary for employee is the most amount of money a company is willing to pay and be satisfied with. Those numbers typically meet somewhere and salary history can help guide an offer in certain cases because history is demonstrative of what you have worked for, not some made up figure of “expectations.”
Again though, if a candidate has power over the situation, they can refuse it and still receive a job offer. I don’t have a problem with that. But until a candidate is in that position, they should assume that their salary history is going to be asked for and should be prepared to explain why their expectations vary from what they’ve been willing to work for in the past.
Wow. Talk about varying perspectives. It is like there are two world-realities out there. I must say, I totally fall into the Lance, and not Corey camp, on this one.
All this talk about what employers “should do” and “should not do,” it almost has a Millennial Generational ring to it (Praise me, Value me, Coach me, Recognize me), don’t ya think?
I’ve not often been in the situation where I could pick-and-choose what questions I’d answer in a job interview. Not when I was a teenager working at the Grocery Store, not when I joined the USMC, and not in any of the professional roles I’ve landed as an HR practitioner.
Must be very gratifying–as the job candidate–to possess such boldness as to not answer questions directly asked in the interview.
Many candidates are evasive about their salary the first time around and maybe even the second time it’s asked, but when a candidate point blank refuses, that’s a red flag. In our office we don’t hire anyone who will not share salary history simply because of what not doing so reveals about the individual. As for the hiring executives we work with at our client companies, some of the more enlightened ones can overlook it, but most can’t. And when all is said and done, that’s what really matters, isn’t it?
@lance the ideal salary is not always the least amount the candidate is willing to take and be satisfied with, especially if it later turns out that there is inequitable pay practices. New employee LL might be satisfied now, but not when she find out New Employee JS was making 10k more for the same job. Maybe he was a better negotiator or maybe his previous employer came in 10k higher because he was a white male. Playing the low ball game can hurt morale long term and increase you negative. turnover. Employers should also be thinking long term. Right now its an employer market, that won’t last forever, play games with candidates now, pay for it later. And salary history doesn’t always tell the whole story. In fact it often doesn’t when you start to factor race and gender in to the equation. The unemployment rate for college educated black males is about twice that of their white male similarity educated counterparts. Tell me that doesn’t play a role in negotiation, which following your logic will haunt them their entire career.
@dale I have refused to answer questions in interviews. I can think of four examples over my career where I have been blatantly asked an illegal question in an interview. Honestly not caring if I got an offer knowing I would not accept with that company at any rate. Whether or not someone should answer a question they find too personal (though not illegal) in an interview, well that is a personal question. I haven’t actually offered an opinion on whether or not someone should answer the question, only on whether or not it is good HR practice to ask. Past salary history doesn’t speak to fit for a position or equitable pay. Its a crutch for people who either don’t know better or are too lazy to find the best candidate they can afford to pay.
I don’t mind the salary history question because I used to work in a commune so my $200/month really messes with people who review my application. They always think that I missed a decimal point or put the wrong unit of time.
Otherwise, I agree with Lance that it’s really part of the negotiation. It follows the Nordstrom rule which is set your process to the way 80% of the world functions and ignore the 20% that will always be an exception to whatever process you set up. Too many companies set up rules aimed at the 20% who won’t follow any rule and wind up just pissing off the 80% who would follow a normal, respectful rule/process.
@deadhedge but how can you say it is 80% when women and minorities make up the majority of the workforce and are statically paid inequitably.
Laurie (not-Lori) – you know I think that having an office kitteh is a tangible benefit. Alas, bacon is not in the eyes of the wellness committee. (And I know the deep love you hold in your heart for wellness committees!!)
Salaries are like job titles. Everyone has a slightly different idea of what a standard one should look like. You might be able to tweak the numbers a bit, just as you might edit your job title slightly to fit how potential employers classify you.
I think Lance hit the nail on the head. In a utopian workplace we’d all be able to start from the same square one, but no such workplace exists. At one of my prior jobs, I watched the department head and the VP I worked for spend DAYS trying to figure out, by crunching numbers, how best to lowball people. It was both fascinating and hive-inducing.
I’ve never walked into an interview without having at least the ranges of my previous compensation in my head. It’s a must. Yes, my ranges come out on the high end (when averaging several years of pay), but that’s my bargaining tool.
Darlings,
You want a job. Answer the questions. Provide all the information you can provide. Get over your paranoia. Believe it or not most employers are not out to screw you when they make an offer. Try it this way. Suppose you asked your recruiter or the prospective employer what the position paid or the salary range and you were told that they were not going to tell you, no way, private information. Make you wonder what they were hiding? Why would any employer make it a secret what they could or wanted to pay?
They didn’t care what you were asking or your salary history. 2 weeks of interviewing later they offer you 40k less than you make now. who’s the dummy? You are. All you had to say was i make x. i am looking for y.
I move on fast from any candidate who refuses to give me current and asking salary package. No time for cutesy games with privacy obsessed twerps. Too many good serious and qualified candidates who know money is a qualifier both directons if one is serious about a new better spot.
i never met an employer who had a problem with someone looking because they felt they were underpaid. Sometimes the feedback after interview is that my candidate probably isn’t overpaid. ;0
Game playing over money in my opinion is both immature and arrogant. i would not rep an employer who would not give a salary range. The road runs both directions.
Here’s the bottom line. I want someone to give me their salary history. What I need to know is what they expect in salary etc. to take the job if they are the chosen candidate. I can tell you stories about candidates that over inflated their value and clients that thought everyone would take a cut to work for them.
Everyone going into the negotiation believes they have the power. They do. They both have the power to walk away. So, put the cards on the table and start the relationship off right. It’s really not that hard unless you’re dealing with parties that enjoy the game of negotiation more than they love getting to a mutually happy yes.
We ask for salary history at the interview because a number of candidates think we’ll never check that. It’s a very good question for gauging the honesty of the candidate because there’s a certain number of job-seekers who overinflate. Yes, bullshit is easy to detect in an interview, but busting a bullshit wage amount is all the hard data I need to toss the candidate from consideration. Try convincing a hiring manager who’s totally dazzled by shuck and jive that the candidate is dishing crap. Some hiring managers have NO bullshit detector during interviews, and you need black & white facts to back it up. That’s just reality when working with hiring managers who have varying degrees of interviewing skill.
I always ask for salary expectations (not history) when I need a filtering measure if it’s a position that will generate hundreds of applicants. If I’m hiring an admin assistant and an applicant tells me they want to make $60,000 to start, into the No Pile they go. If you know you’re competing with hundreds of other applicants, don’t put “salary negotiable” on your resume if the posting asks for a dollar amount. (Unless you have some direct connection and are handing the resume to the hiring manager.)
Sorry, but, once again, we’re living in the real world. You’re going to have to cooperate with the requests in the job posting, as most of us doing the resume review are completely overwhelmed with eleventy billion other tasks, and we have no choice but to simplify our processes as much as reasonably possible. I know that candidates think it sucks, and we think it sucks, too. But until somebody invents an effective human cloning machine or finds a way to add another 8 hours to every day, these processes will not drastically change in current working environments where HR/Recruiting is understaffed.
Tough crowd, glad I was on VACAAAA this week…It’s a choice to tell or not to tell (shakespare)…But if your not willing too then you have to live with the consequences…and that might just be getting knocked out of a job you need (and probably want…while else are you even in the quandry?)…
pS: IF I ASK IN AN INTERVIEW AND YOU DON’T ANSWER WELL GUESS WHAT HAPPENS???
M
I like asking for expectations, not history. Two reasons, we may think things look suspicious – like a large drop – but what if the candidate switched gears and took a step back, what if they had to take a lower paying job because of recession? I agree that using salary history to determine compensation leads to a lot of people being undercompensated for what they do. In my company, new hires are being paid $10K more than expereinced staff in the same position because the starting salary changed. If those experienced people go out to get new jobs and their new compensation is based on the fact that this company was too cheap to raise their compensation to the new market rate…it is just ugly for the experienced people who stuck it out and have a good work history.
So I guess Gen Y’s tendency to job hop really is prefferable in these scenarios. I fear showing salary history because my company handed out large pay cuts this year so I make a pittance for what I do and the pay cut actually took out my previous two raises, including the raise I got with my promotion…
Great dialogue and interesting perspectives. Laurie, thanks for booting this perennial discussion back up!
I still have not seen one good reason why an employer needs a candidate’s salary history. Wants, maybe. Needs? Nope. As some have pointed out here, a hiring decision can be made without that information.
@teresahrgirl: Kudos for putting it so well! (“The value of the work, the experience and skills of the candidate, the cost of living for the area… those should be the basis of an offer. Not what the candidate has been paid before.”) Why is this simple concept so difficult to understand?
@teresahrgirl (“You can get career progression information in other, more ethical, ways.”) Bingo. I’ll use an old analogy. You go to a car lot to buy a car. Before you negotiate price, the salesman asks to see your checkbook register to find out how much $$ you’ve got in the bank. Do you show it to him? The ethical way to determine what the prospect will pay is to negotiate the price — not the prospect’s “money history.” There are other ways to assess career progress — if the employer isn’t lazy or inept.
Someone else said: “Too many factors can affect [your salary history]…bad boss, tight budgets, good ol’ boy clubs, et cetera. How about this…hiring Manager, put out a range. If we can negotiate into that range, then great. If not, no hard feelings because that is all that you were willing to spend, anyway.” Bingo again. All that matters is what a candidate will accept. Then it’s up to the candidate to justify the requested range — THEN we have something to talk about.
@ Lance Haun: “If you’re the best company to work for in the world and people are knocking down your doors to get hired there, people will hurdle a lot of stupid procedures in order to get hired there.” Think about that. How is it the best company in the world if it puts a lot of stupid procedures in front of the professional community it is trying to recruit? Come on — this “angle” betrays another agenda. Rationalizations.
@Lance Haun: “Your point makes sense if there were some universally fair way to evaluate how much a person should be paid.” That’s the point. There isn’t. That’s why we conduct interviews — to figure out what person A is worth on job X.
Why would any employer want to rely on the judgment of a competitor about a job candidate (in the form of what that competitor paid the candidate in the past)? Isn’t the idea that we have a competitive edge when we hire, and that this edge is our ability to judge a candidate better than the LAST employer did? That we can see what someone else cannot? Isn’t this the basis for making any investment in a free market? YOU DO YOUR HOMEWORK BETTER THAN THE LAST GUY so you can invest wisely. Find value. The value is in the candidate, not in what someone else paid them.
I’m proud of the fact that lots of folks in the Ask The Headhunter audience politely but firmly walk away from employers who demand salary history “or else.” As for the “power” issue Lance Haun refers to, I don’t think a decision about a job has anything to do with power. It has to do with integrity. When a job candidate senses the employer doesn’t have any, she walks away.
I suppose, as some have pointed out, that full disclosure on both sides could be an interesting exercise, though I still don’t see how it’s useful. As someone suggested on Ask The Headhunter, if you want to find out how sincerely “useful” the employer believes your salary history is in assessing your “quality” as a hire, ask the employer for HER salary history and that of everyone on her team — so you can assess whether they’re worth working with.
Cuts both ways, but employers want to cut only the applicant.
I love this dialogue.
I looked back at the old batch of comments and I didn’t really respond to everyone because it became too much and the comments fell into four camps.
- Keep it confidential.
- Give it up.
- Sorta want to keep it confidential but it’s not realistic.
- Sorta understand where the recruiter/company is coming from but it’s really none of their business.
I think those four categories apply. Maybe one more: the I prefer not to give a direct answer comment. That’s my style.
I’ve read every comment here. You guys are an awesome community. I’m a lucky woman.
Let me share three experiences in my career where HR approved all final offers.
Company 1: Find out the previous salary and offer no more than 8% above their previous annual income. Get a paycheck stub and verify it.
Company 2: Lowball but do your homework — and do it based on internal equity. No one gets paid much. Ask for the salary history and keep everyone in line with very measured expectations.
Company 3: Use the salary survey and internal equity benchmarks. Ask for salary history or don’t — there’s no internal consistency on this practice. Just use your best judgment.
Go match those companies up to my LinkedIn profile.
Also, offers are different for VPs who generally have very structured pay packages. Often times, previous salaries don’t matter because you’re offering options, benefits, equity, and perky perks from a menu of stuff. This includes a $40K office redecorating budget. Oh snap, did I just type that?
@Nick Wow, you are hired to moderate all of my comments. Forever.
Yes a hiring decision can be made without salary. There are more no answers over money on both sides than any other one objection. There is another old adage when it comes to money.
“Never believe your candidate and never believe your client”. There is always room to make it work if it’s a fit…unless..the candidate wants 250K was making 150K and the employer wants to pay 100K..
There are many classy ways to discuss money, why be an ass?
Where do benefits enter into the equation, though? Salary/wages are the most important parts of compensation, yes, but they are far from the only factor. Many people are willing to accept lower pay in exchange for better benefits, and vice versa. I think it’s interesting that these aren’t asked about, or aren’t as frequently negotiated.
Can I just be a jerk about it and point out that candidates have no choice in the matter? Y’all make it sound like we have the option to NOT disclose salary history, but nearly every company I’ve ever applied for insists that it’s required and won’t process the application without it. If you’re earning wages rather than getting paid as a consultant, that’s how it is.
@Ray, The pickiness of application processing will depend upon the stage of interviewing process. I have found that they become less picky the further you are into the interview process. If you can get into the interviews and salary expectation discussions before completing the application; many times you can change the application from a screening tool to an administrative formality. Once it becomes an administrative formality, you can give the bare minimal information. I have done this several times.
@RayButlers: SalesComp is right and my audience confirms it. Obviously, you must be diplomatic and deft about it. You can be polite, professional and firm: Just say no. Most of my readers who have attempted this tell me the employer is often startled, but usually backs off as long as the candidate is prepared to discuss what he or she wants – a salary range. A savvy candidate should be ready to express a desired range and be ready to justify it. Some “negotiators” believe that whoever states a number first “loses.” I think that’s bunk. People fear they will leave a ton of extra money on the table. But that’s very unlikely to happen. I can hear the employer now. “Wow! She said she wants $70k-$80k! We were ready to offer $120k! Think of the money we’ll save!” That just doesn’t happen. You might be a few bucks apart at best. If you couch your range properly, you can still leave room to negotiate upwards — again, only if you can justify it.
I know some employers will boot you out of their office if you won’t disclose prior salary. So what? You can turn on your heel on your way out the door if you have second thoughts, and say to them, “Tell you what — if it’s so important to you, I’ll disclose my salary history if you’ll disclose the salary history on the position you’re trying to fill. That way, we’re all on the same page. What do you say?”
I compliment the managers here who say they don’t play the salary history game. There are so many other better ways to assess a candidate’s value to your business. Good for you for using them.
@Nick – Look at the best companies to work for lists and look at their hiring procedures. Google uses puzzle questions and Microsoft does the same with some arduous procedures to hurdle. Government agencies are starting to crack that list as well and wouldn’t you know that they have a ridiculous hiring procedure.
Making the disclosure of salary history an integrity issue is simply nonsensical. You say you don’t want to use a competitor’s data point as a basis for hiring? What the hell are we using salary surveying for if it ISN’T to gauge the competition? The very idea of researching what you should be paying requires researching the market. The market = competitors. Salary history is a form of benchmarking. That’s it.
If you can find the magical formula where you don’t base your pay bands on salary surveys or consultants that rely heavily on them, please let me know what it is. Otherwise, let’s stop pretending like this salary issue is an question of morality, ethics and integrity. It’s intentionally bombastic.
@Lance there is no magical formula. You have to do you homework. There is a huge difference between using salary surveys and asking expectations versus demanding salary history. Yes, you want to know what you competitors are paying, but that data has value as an aggregate, not on on an individual basis. You can get to the same place without unintentionally introducing racial and gender biases.
I think it is important to bring this up at one point in the discussion because you don’t want to be presented for jobs that are outside of your expectations. I am more practical about this and believe it is best to know what you are being considered for and what to expect in terms of comp. Negotiating once an offer is extended is another story.
@Lance: “What the hell are we using salary surveying for if it ISN’T to gauge the competition?”
Good point. I have no idea. What does a company’s spending have to do with how good its products are or how well it performs?
I think it’s just another way for HR consultants to generate revenue. HR has this terrible habit of basing corporate policy on comparative analyses of this and that. Meanwhile, the chairman of the board is proclaiming to shareholders that, “We think out of the box!”, “We are on the leading edge!”, and “People are our most important asset!” Meanwhile, HR shoves resume data through a software meatgrinder and turns out sausages that fit nicely on the fat part of the salary and performance curve.
“The very idea of researching what you should be paying requires researching the market.”
I don’t believe in researching the market. I believe in producing something new under the sun and blowing the competition away. I believe that individual initiative is the fount of all human progress. Companies merely get in the way of individual action when they use policy to eject the stray data point on the performance curve — they don’t really like to hire (or keep) people who cost more than the average or who rock the boat.
Pay bands crack me up. Here’s the hole in the logic. Companies use salary history to set job offers. Why don’t they allocate vacation time to new hires based on vacation history? I mean, if you show up having earned 5 weeks’ vacation and $100,000 in salary, and the offer is based on the $100k, why doesn’t the new vacation allowance start with that 4 weeks? Why does the rational company bust the new hire back down to 2 weeks’ vacation?
It’s kooky. It’s counter-productive. It encourages managers to support policy rather than to hire and support outstanding workers who produce more than they cost.
Here’s the idea: Figure out what the candidate can contribute to your bottom line. Pay accordingly. Companies can project how much toilet paper they will need each month. They can’t figure out how Joe in the marketing department contributes to profit? Then fire Joe’s manager and/or the CFO. Something is wrong. If a manager can’t assess a candidate’s worth without salary history, then the manager is incapable of assessing acumen and has no idea what the job contributes to profit (much less his employees).
Take 75% of the HR budget and use it to figure out profitability. Hire accordingly.
PS – If you’re a job hunter and you read this far, here’s the pay off. Most people I know sign employee policy agreements when they accept a job. The policy almost always states that company information is confidential. That includes salary information. (That’s partly why an employer will not divulge a former employee’s salary history during a reference check.) For many companies, what they pay is confidential — they consider it their competitive advantage. Why then do HR departments that demand confidentiality from their own employees demand that job candidates disclose confidential salary information?
My answer to anyone who interviews me and insists on my salary history is simple: “Sorry, that’s company confidential. I’d be violating my former employer’s policy. I can’t tell you. But I’d be glad to discuss the salary range I’m looking for, and to show you how I’ll contribute to your bottom line.”
(HR spends an awful lot of time developing policies. Sometimes those bite HR in the ass.)
Sorry, I have come to this late and not read all the comments but thought I must have misunderstood the original post. Salary history? Are you kidding? I am not aware of any country other than the States where you would be expected to provide your salary history as part of a job application or negotiation process. In EVERY other country in the world it would be considered a gross invasion of privacy and not relevant to the job. Discuss salary expectations by all means but surely the market dictates what an employer pays, not what the individual has previously earned? This really is the dark ages of employment relations you guys are living in. As a candidate, it is no one’s fucking business what I was earning five years ago. End of.
@nick I want to agree with you on the salary surveys, but I don’t quite. I agree with innovation being essential and in having the right people that can assess a candidate’s/employe’s value. But your not going the have the whole story without knowing their value on the open market value. Even innovators can be left behind if they ignore their competition. I just think you can do that by asking expectations and doing market research. That research also shouldn’t be limited to pay, it should be total compensation. Heck I want to know about the competitions culture as well. Innovation is a wonderful thing, but you don’t want to always have to reinvent the wheel.
Fascinating dialogue between folks that definitely live in different parts of the forest. This got me thinking about possible scenarios that could arise if candidates were able to pick and choose which policies and practices they wanted to observe while applying for employment with a company. Tongue in cheek, of course…
So, let’s say for the sake of argument that the candidate has all the power, makes a principled stand protecting his/her privacy (and salary history) even though the company has a policy/practice of requiring it, the manager decides that they’re so kick-ass that an offer is extended anyways. At least we’re pretty sure the candidate is kick-ass. Because they were under an NDA at their previous employer, they weren’t able to describe their work in the interview, nor provide a resume which detailed any of their (confidential) accomplishments.
With their newfound power, the candidate decides that professional references really aren’t germain to the company’s evaluation and selection process. You really don’t need to speak to any of their previous supervisors in order to confirm that they are a diety with a super strong personal brand…just count their followers on Twitter.
And then the candidate decides that pre-employment criminal background checks are stupid. That’s an outdated HR policy, foolishly designed to reduce the number of axe murderes and pedophiles in the workplace (rarely works, by the way). Since we’re pretty sure that our kick-ass candidate has a clean history, and because he/she objected to it so eloquently, we’ll overlook that one.
Mr./Mrs./Ms. Kick-Ass candidate comes onboard and quickly realizes that the expense reimbursement policy is a joke. At their last place of employment, in-room movies were reimbursed without question. WTF is up with the asshole from Finance telling me what I can and can not watch in the privacy of my company paid hotel room?
And BTW, that internal communication/internet usage policy was either a) written in the stone ages, or b) written for someone else, because homey surfs whatever sites homey wants to surf.
Anarchy is a fun discussion, but I have yet to find a successful organization that uses anarchy as a decision process. I completely agree with anyone that says, if you don’t like the policies and practices of the company you’re applying to, GO WORK FOR SOMEONE ELSE! But, please, as a candidate: DO NOT TELL THE COMPANY HOW TO RUN THEIR BUSINESS!
I own a small firm. We hire people. And every single cent that we pay for a new hire (and we’ve hired several people this year, unlike many companies) comes out of my business partner’s and my pocket. So we pay attention. Here’s what we don’t pay attention to: What a person used to get paid.
We care about what a person can contribute. We pay accordingly. I mean, what if we hired a person who hasn’t worked for 10 years, but could kick ass in their role. Should we pay them $0 based on that? Or what if they worked for a not-for-profit for the last 5 years? Do we discount? Hardly.
We really care what a person’s pay expectations are. And we have a budget for positions. In our company, we’d rather overpay than underpay, so that’s a slight difference from the “pay as little as possible to get them in the door approach.” (We want people to be delighted when they arrive — not feeling blah.
Lance is right — there is an imbalance of power when a person is asked for a salary history. Like he says, if you’re the best in the business, then it’s no issue. Tell them it doesn’t matter and walk away if they insist. To me, looking at salary is a little bit of HR trying to get a peek at someone’s underwear when they cross their legs — titillating, but not going to get you anywhere. It’s gossip stuff asked for by amateurs.
If companies are serious about job value, internal equity and pay for performance IN THEIR COMPANY, then salary history is meaningless. What matters is total comp requirements.
What’s at the heart of this is some HR types defending a stupid policy, like asking for salary history. What do you do with it? If you use it to make pay decisions, say hello to the EEOC. Imagine for a minute that you have 100 equivalent positions and hire 50% men and 50% women. And imagine further that all the womens’ salary history was 20% below the mens’ salary history for the same job. Do you simply pay the women less because they used to make less? What about African Americans? Gays who worked for a LGBT cause before coming to you?
Be careful what you wish for when you ask for information that will influence your pay decisions. And keep good records. The EEOC will want those.
As a side note: Aren’t the people who ask for salary history the same ones who care about GPAs? Never work for a company that cares about your GPA. Seriously.
@Nick – I think you may be spinning that salary confidentiality agreement that you signed to favor what you want it to mean and not what it is truly meant for. That is typically an agreement that is used to deter potential salary discrimination suit within a company. For example, Jane Smith has been with the company for 20 yrs and due to her loyalty and/or complacency is getting paid 50k and has been for the past five years. The company brings Jen Smith into that identical position, with less experience, at a higher salary that aligns with the going market rate. They don’t want Jen disclosing that rate, in fear of Jane either demanding more money or just getting up and walking out.
I digress.
The question will most likely ALWAYS come up in an interview for a number of different reasons.
1) Lazy HR professionals use their salary range, whether outdated or not, as a screening tool. The art of the negotiation is all but gone in this economy due to the simple fact of supply and demand. Unless of course, the uniquity of the intellectual capital required is high. I agree with many of the previous posters, if a candidate refuses to answer, they look arrogant and like they are hiding something, and the employer moves on.
2) With the current market flooded with JOB seekers (and I stress JOB), there are more overqualified candidates considering positions that are “beneath” their experience level. And this will only get more common with the aging baby boomers losing jobs. A good employer needs to know this information to know the risk/reward value of hiring that candidate who may be able to hit the ground running and positively impact the organization better than hiring someone who is “worth” the money the company wants to pay. Heck, they want to squeeze blood out of a turnip if possible, so pursuing someone that was making 10-20k over the salary offered is becoming more common.
This is a valid topic in a market that is driven by the candidate, but not in a market driven by the employer. It’s simply a law of leverage, 90% of candidates today have zero leverage because there is someone right behind them that is qualified for the job and willing to disclose this information. This allows companies to get lazy and reduce salaries offered, based on company performance…not the performance they expect out of the position. Simply put, unless you bring a unique skill to the table that is like finding a needle in a haystack, you best answer the question, and answer it honestly. Otherwise you are shooting yourself in the foot.
i agree with Charlane Brady. Be honest and upfront. I think women especially should be comfotable wtih talking about how much money they make and how much more they want to make. Men do it all the time and make 20 cents more an hour than females. I feel it should be like talking about the weather: it is what is is: I make $250K and if you want to hire me it will cost you $300k. I just don’t see what the problem is. I just had a talk about this with a great candidate and I told her: If we don’t pay you want you want, don’t work for us! I have always said: YOu pay peanuts you get monkeys!
I have to agree with many points Nick made. Especially in highly-competitive startup world, salaries are as guarded as IP. I have spent my entire career in startups and I will never be able to divulge what I made in any of them. Not only did I sign NDAs that require that, but I also make sure that all the employment contracts companies I work for include compensation confidentiality clause (I now consult and used to head business operations for startups). It is none of our competitors’ or general market’s business to know how we compensate. Mix of base comp, incentives, benefits, options, etc. is a proprietary and takes much planning and negotiations to make it work.
I realize lack of that disclosure will prevent me from working for government or a large backwards-thinking organization. But that is OK, since I do not plan on working for anyone who would insist on me breaking agreements.
My ethical and integrity standards are not for sale, no matter your explanation why I should.
@Corey Feldman, the Nordstrom rules is about running your processes and procedures for the way 80% of the people behave. For example, if you are asking for pay stubbs to catch the 5% of the people who lie about salary history, that’s designing a rule for the exception rather than the norm.
It’s that 80% of the people get paid the same or what not. It’s about not designing processes around the exceptions because you just aggravate the majority of people who do things the right way.
Good points from the two Franks. There was, and will be again, a war for talent. Just look at the demographics. As an HR pro, my job is to make my organisation as attractive as possible and the recruitment process as simple and effective as possible so we can move quickly to secure the people we need and want. Letting dumb policies get in the way that don’t add any value is not partnering the business.
The next time I get the rare call from a in-house recruiter about a job that looks like a really good match, I’ll just refuse to give them my salary history when they ask for it. Then, they’ll thank me for my time and move on to the next candidate. I’ll just move on to the next good opportunity in my huge stack of really good opportunities… But wait. They’re aren’t any other really good opportunities right in front of me. I guess I’ll just have to keep picking and shoveling until I find another one. Maybe I’ll play the game with the next recruiter and provide them with my salary history. And maybe this time I’ll get as far as a face-to-face interview with the hiring manager, who will ask me, twice, to tell him how much I made at my last job. (Drawing from personal experience now.) Then he’ll inform me that, to his way of thinking, I made too much money, he’s not going to pay me as much and he knows I wouldn’t be happy making less money. End of interview.
No problem, I’ll just move on to my next good opportunity.
People that made decent salaries in the past are being hammered in today’s job market. But, nine times out of 10 you don’t get very far in “the game” unless you provide your salary history. At least that’s been my experience.
@PRMan250: “The next time I get the rare call from a in-house recruiter about a job that looks like a really good match, I’ll just refuse to give them my salary history when they ask for it. Then, they’ll thank me for my time and move on to the next candidate. I’ll just move on to the next good opportunity in my huge stack of really good opportunities… But wait. They’re aren’t any other really good opportunities right in front of me.”
I feel your pain. I know there aren’t many good opportunities out there. But your comment is perhaps the most important one on this thread, because it points out that if you take control of your job search, you don’t disclosure your salary history BUT YOU ALSO are responsible for developing the next opportunity. THAT is the work required.
When HR boots you out the door because you have refused to compromise your negotiating position, you’ve been given a gift. Yah, that sounds arrogant, some will say stupid. I don’t think it is. In my experience, when people go looking for a new job it’s because they took the wrong job to begin with. They compromised themselves for a paycheck. (You NEED to do that? I understand. I don’t put you down for it. But please understand the potential consequences and don’t pretend you were not complicit in the problem you have created for yourself. You’re working at the wrong job, probably for the wrong company, because you made a concession that adversely affects your ability to negotiate your compensation.)
It’s painfully true: The job you get next is up to you. Don’t like the demands HR makes? Then make a choice. It’s up to you. But please don’t rationalize that a person who asks you for private information that compromises you IS JUST DOING THEIR JOB. They’re doing more: They are compromising YOU.
PRMan250, the challenge you face is always having your next step arranged in advance. You can only walk away from a questionable deal if you have another deal to go to.
Note to that company’s board of directors: Your HR folks are compromising YOU and your stockholders, too, because HR doesn’t know how to evaluate a candidate’s worth without first knowing how someone else valued them. Good luck with your company’s future, because HR is telling you that you do not have a competitive edge when it comes to hiring the best people.
Last year I looked at a new employer having been at my current employ for 10 years. Before that, I dropped out of my chosen trained profession (teaching) to go back into science.
10 years ago, my salary, and prospects were a case of public record. As such, I struggled to get in the door for an interview as even when not asked for last salary, everyone new, and no-one could match the future prospects. In the end, I went to an agency, got a job in a glasswash facility at a science institute, for slightly above minimum wage, and then badgered the HR department until they helped me get interviews there.
Since then, I changed my focus, learnt PERL, and got into the software side of the job. Got nice pay rises, but last year hit a snag. My current employer pays me a non-contributory pension scheme, Life Assurance and BUPA. This totals quite a tidy sum, however, I don’t get it first in my gross salary. When I went to a different company, they struggled to deal with that as part of my remuneration package (as they didn’t offer it), only interested in my basic salary. Which, on paper, made their offer look fantastic, but only just a small amount more than I currently earn once I paid out for everything I currently get for free (and for a few months probation, I’d actually be on less income).
This annoyed me a bit, since their argument was, look at what we are offering to what you earn. How can you turn us down?
I’m all for them making an offer, based on what they feel I am worth to them, but not to use my salary as a basis for arguing why I should join them on it.
In the end, I have stayed where I am, since the location is better. But it has left me wondering why I should tell them my salary? And what do I tell them? I have seen on application forms the request for salary details, plus a statement saying that if ‘anything on this form is filled out incorrectly, then this may be a disciplinary matter should employment be taken’ (or words to that affect).
Trying to make some way in the world.
Andy
I saw this and had to comment. My last phone interview ended quickly when I gave the person my previous job’s salary. Maybe I was paid very well or over-paid, or maybe I was applying for a job at a smaller company, but I am convinced that my answer to their salary question ended the interviewing process early. I didn’t lie, inflate, or anything like that. I was honest, and because of that, I think I was passed over. I plan to never reveal my previous salary unless we’re at the point of negotiating an offer.
I think all of you in the “applicants who don’t want to focus on salary history are hiding something” camp are the reason regular people find HR people so utterly confounding. There is much more to compensation than a dollar amount, and when I see a message like “include your salary history up front or we won’t talk to you” in a job listing it’s a clear signal to me that the company’s values are narrow and small. I have never disclosed my salary history to a potential employer or client, even when asked, and I have always enjoyed the privilege of doing interesting, challenging work at a rate I am worth.