AAM: hiring practices & salary discussion epic response

[okla]

Feb 19, 2020 12:49:46 GMT -5 BlondeSpiders said:

Feb 19, 2020 12:40:02 GMT -5 StrawberryBlondie said:

I'm pretty sure this isn't actually true. My old job was sales-adjacent and we had countless trainings about this very aspect of negotiating.

This is what they're teaching in business school as well. Last spring I took a Negotiations & Conflict Mgmt class, and this was the #1 rule.

My Leadership and Negotiation MBA class said the opposite (agreeing with StrawberryBlondie.) We read Getting to Yes and it doesn't follow the philosophy of the person who goes first is in the weaker position. 

[seeyalater52]

Feb 19, 2020 14:43:11 GMT -5 okla said:

Feb 19, 2020 12:49:46 GMT -5 BlondeSpiders said:

This is what they're teaching in business school as well. Last spring I took a Negotiations & Conflict Mgmt class, and this was the #1 rule.

My Leadership and Negotiation MBA class said the opposite (agreeing with StrawberryBlondie .) We read Getting to Yes and it doesn't follow the philosophy of the person who goes first is in the weaker position. 

Is that specific to salary negotiation, though? Because there are some pretty specific factors in a salary negotiation, namely a power differential between negotiating parties, that makes me feel like it is more likely to be true for that circumstance than as a blanket rule in negotiations writ large. 

[jinkies]

Feb 19, 2020 14:30:50 GMT -5 yaga said:

jinkies , what do you do? I work in clinical research at a non profit cancer center and I'm always curious how much more I could be making by moving to industry (but I don't know that I'd ever actually do it).

One thing I really like about working in large non profits is that our salary structure is pretty rigid (and at my level, I'm now able to see the ranges, so I actually know where my salary can max out if I never leave my role). Negotiating for a salary would be a completely foreign experience for me.

Currently I am the managing editor for a peer-review journal, but I have experience in both scientific publishing and healthcare related nonprofit communications. The nonprofits that I've worked for have generally been small to mid size-- 20-50 people. So generally not a huge infrastructure or standardized salary structure. When I mentioned tripling my salary above, the job would have been going from 33 hours/week at a small, underfunded nonprofit, to a full time job within Pharma. 

[shauni27]

Feb 19, 2020 12:50:41 GMT -5 thelurkylulu said:

I agree with PP who said salary range should have to be posted in the job posting or description. I also have gotten really good at saying, “I am open to negotiation. What is the salary range for the position?” The majority of the time they give a range and then I aim higher.

I am curious to know how much people waiver from their ideal range based on benefits and PTO. Ultimately I want to make as much money as I can but I’ve also grown to appreciate flexibility, more PTO, and good health insurance too. It sucks when the salary isn’t great but the other options are.

This is a good question and I am kind of faced with it now. I make decent money in my current job. I would like more, but I also have EXTREMELY flexibly hours. I can work from home, I can create my own schedule, etc. I also have pretty generous PTO. 

Another job that is recruiting me would pay a lower base salary with more bonuses and commissions, but has 100% employer paid insurance (including dental and vision) AND pays for an HRA. It also has unlimited PTO but not quite as much flexibility (though still plenty of flex). So my pay would be a bit less, but the insurance is wonderful, and the PTO is incredibly generous as well. I am certainly considering it.

[BlondeSpiders]

BTW, the OP has appeared in the comments and is doubling down. Quite a nasty boss, if you ask me.

[StrawberryBlondie]

Feb 19, 2020 14:51:35 GMT -5 seeyalater52 said:

Feb 19, 2020 14:43:11 GMT -5 okla said:

My Leadership and Negotiation MBA class said the opposite (agreeing with StrawberryBlondie .) We read Getting to Yes and it doesn't follow the philosophy of the person who goes first is in the weaker position. 

Is that specific to salary negotiation, though? Because there are some pretty specific factors in a salary negotiation, namely a power differential between negotiating parties, that makes me feel like it is more likely to be true for that circumstance than as a blanket rule in negotiations writ large. 

I agree there are some specific nuances to salary negotiation that don't apply to other circumstances (which is why I think job postings should give at least a general idea of salary) but assuming you have that basic info, or if you don't but are willing to anchor yourself high, I don't see why the general idea wouldn't still apply.

ETA: now that I'm not busy and can add - the idea is that whoever goes first "anchors" the conversation. So, if you let the other person go first, you're letting them anchor the negotiation low, and you'll end up dropping down and meet them down there. And vice versa for the high end.

[pugz]

Feb 19, 2020 15:11:52 GMT -5 BlondeSpiders said:

BTW, the OP has appeared in the comments and is doubling down. Quite a nasty boss, if you ask me.

mediocre middle aged white man I assume?

[redheadbaker]

Feb 19, 2020 16:34:54 GMT -5 pugz said:

Feb 19, 2020 15:11:52 GMT -5 BlondeSpiders said:

BTW, the OP has appeared in the comments and is doubling down. Quite a nasty boss, if you ask me.

mediocre middle aged white man I assume?

Doesn't reveal gender, but basically, "I don't care if there are 300 replies saying I'm wrong. I still don't care that what I'm doing isn't fair or ethical."

[redheadbaker]

"OP here again

I apologize for the overly snarky tone. I guess it was just my frustration about always hearing about how employers shouldn’t ask about salary range.
Some points I would like to clarify.

Starting at a lower-than-necessary salary has been very useful especially in order to give raises. We get a new employee (like our fabulous senior one now), realize she is fabulous, and are able to convey that (quite early on) with a raise. Which, if we started at the top of our range, we couldn’t.

Hiring is a negotiation, and each side is hoping to do whatever is in their best interest. And, snarky tone aside, I still don’t think that there is anything inherently evil in that. Our staff is in fact paid a competitive wage, and as i have mentioned we convey our appreciation of them in many ways, both tangible and intangible.

The fact that they have been with us so long (and one even returned after a 1 year hiatus) could mean that they are too scarred and traumatized as many of you have suggested. Or it could mean that they are, in fact, happy, valued and appreciated.

so there ;-) "

www.askamanager.org/2020/02/i-ask-candidates-their-salary-expectations-and-dont-feel-bad-about-it.html#comment-2861226

[BlondeSpiders]

Feb 19, 2020 16:41:18 GMT -5 redheadbaker said:

Feb 19, 2020 16:34:54 GMT -5 pugz said:

mediocre middle aged white man I assume?

Doesn't reveal gender, but basically, "I don't care if there are 300 replies saying I'm wrong. I still don't care that what I'm doing isn't fair or ethical."

Alison revealed in the comments that the OP is a woman.

[goldengirlz]

Feb 19, 2020 12:50:41 GMT -5 thelurkylulu said:

I agree with PP who said salary range should have to be posted in the job posting or description. I also have gotten really good at saying, “I am open to negotiation. What is the salary range for the position?” The majority of the time they give a range and then I aim higher.

I am curious to know how much people waiver from their ideal range based on benefits and PTO. Ultimately I want to make as much money as I can but I’ve also grown to appreciate flexibility, more PTO, and good health insurance too. It sucks when the salary isn’t great but the other options are.

I don’t have any data on this but I have a feeling that this is one of those areas that matter A LOT to (certain) women and very little to men. Flexibility is such a squishy benefit too. PTO has actual value (it pays out in most cases) and so does health insurance (assuming the company doesn’t change plans every year), but how do you quantify the economic value of being able to WFH?

And when women trade cold, hard cash for something that has no value and can be taken away at any time, it only contributes to the salary gap.

[Susie]

Fuck the LW and all his "so there"s.  Also:

(For what it’s worth, we are excellent employers whose current two staff have been with us for about 15 years and eight years and both seem very happy).


I would love to hear from his employees.  It's entirely possible that gig is the best of what's around for them for one reason or another, but I can virtually guarantee they would not say unequivocally that he's an "excellent employer" and they're both "very happy".  

I've been in the same small firm for 14 years, working my way up from student law clerk through equity partner, and as I've transitioned upward it has been eye opening to me to see within a single small organization how much blindness there is on the employer side to employee concerns, and likewise from the employee side to issues employers have to handle that employees never see.  

ETA:  I see LW is a she, not a he.  I stand corrected on the pronoun.

[isabel]

Feb 19, 2020 16:57:52 GMT -5 goldengirlz said:

Feb 19, 2020 12:50:41 GMT -5 thelurkylulu said:

I agree with PP who said salary range should have to be posted in the job posting or description. I also have gotten really good at saying, “I am open to negotiation. What is the salary range for the position?” The majority of the time they give a range and then I aim higher.

I am curious to know how much people waiver from their ideal range based on benefits and PTO. Ultimately I want to make as much money as I can but I’ve also grown to appreciate flexibility, more PTO, and good health insurance too. It sucks when the salary isn’t great but the other options are.

I don’t have any data on this but I have a feeling that this is one of those areas that matter A LOT to (certain) women and very little to men. Flexibility is such a squishy benefit too. PTO has actual value (it pays out in most cases) and so does health insurance (assuming the company doesn’t change plans every year), but how do you quantify the economic value of being able to WFH?

And when women trade cold, hard cash for something that has no value and can be taken away at any time, it only contributes to the salary gap.

I just accepted a job offer today. During my interview process (they reached out to me, I did not apply, so advantage there), I was brutally honest about my expectations of balance and flexibility. I would have accepted an offer from them for roughly 15% less than what they offered, in large part because they seemed very agreeable to what I was asking for. As it turns out, they offered significantly more than my expectations (and the PTO/401k/medical benefits are all outstanding), so I didn't really even have to think about it, but I absolutely would have flexed a lot on salary to have the assurance of a job that respects my personal time and understands I require flexibility (i.e. being able to work outside the office when necessary, from home on occasion, etc.).

All that to say, I guess I technically would consider myself as someone who contributes to that problem. It's certainly not something my DH really considers with his opportunities. He happens to have a very flexible job now, but I'd be surprised if it's something he really discusses with potential employers. Of course, he's also in an industry  where people work from home a lot, so maybe it's partly that it's a given.

[laurack]

I work in a male dominated industry and have found out on more than one occasion that a male colleague who did not possess superior skills to me, was making significantly more (like 20-30k)

I hate the salary question because like others have said it penalizes the perpetually underpaid. I actually consider my salary very fair but I’m
Guessing part of that is I am a female and tend toward undervaluing myself and always have. I bet none of the men I mentioned ever worry that they’re overpaid or would state my salary as their “range” in an interview, yet even asking for this made me feel like I was being “greedy”. It’s so ridiculous!

Also the whole”but then we can give them a raise soon since they’re underpaid, showing our appreciation !!” Is just complete BS. Oh gee so I’m worth the low end of the market rate to you after all so you’ll generously bestow that upon me after I work hard for a year ?!

😡😡

[Patsy Baloney]

Well, I basically got trapped at a job for 7 years where every day I hoped I would die before I had to go in again because I needed the insurance, so I don’t think longevity necessarily translates to happiness on the job.

This person is an asshole and is happily screwing people.

[scm1011]

Feb 19, 2020 18:09:51 GMT -5 Patsy Baloney said:

Well, I basically got trapped at a job for 7 years where every day I hoped I would die before I had to go in again because I needed the insurance, so I don’t think longevity necessarily translates to happiness on the job.

This person is an asshole and is happily screwing people.

Yup, I had this experience too, but for 9 years. Stayed for different reasons, but they were an incredibly toxic employer.

[BlondeSpiders]

Feb 19, 2020 17:00:58 GMT -5 Susie said:

Fuck the LW and all his "so there"s.  Also:

(For what it’s worth, we are excellent employers whose current two staff have been with us for about 15 years and eight years and both seem very happy).


I would love to hear from his employees.  It's entirely possible that gig is the best of what's around for them for one reason or another, but I can virtually guarantee they would not say unequivocally that he's an "excellent employer" and they're both "very happy".  

I think the best way to show how happy her employees actually are is to show them the letter. How happy would they really be if they knew
their employer lowballed them into a job?

[smock]

This post inspired me to start writing an article on salary history bans. Thanks, CEP!

[lolalolalola]

Feb 19, 2020 16:57:52 GMT -5 goldengirlz said:

Feb 19, 2020 12:50:41 GMT -5 thelurkylulu said:

I agree with PP who said salary range should have to be posted in the job posting or description. I also have gotten really good at saying, “I am open to negotiation. What is the salary range for the position?” The majority of the time they give a range and then I aim higher.

I am curious to know how much people waiver from their ideal range based on benefits and PTO. Ultimately I want to make as much money as I can but I’ve also grown to appreciate flexibility, more PTO, and good health insurance too. It sucks when the salary isn’t great but the other options are.

I don’t have any data on this but I have a feeling that this is one of those areas that matter A LOT to (certain) women and very little to men. Flexibility is such a squishy benefit too. PTO has actual value (it pays out in most cases) and so does health insurance (assuming the company doesn’t change plans every year), but how do you quantify the economic value of being able to WFH?

And when women trade cold, hard cash for something that has no value and can be taken away at any time, it only contributes to the salary gap.

I was offered a WFH job last summer. My DH was pushing me to take it. How great for me to be able to work from home! Think of all the flexibility that provides!

In the end i couldn't wrap my head around the $30K salary reduction to have flexibility and save my commute. It also pissed me off because even though Dh was pushing me to take it, there is NO way he would have taken the cut for a more flexible schedule. I worked hard to get where I was and I didn't want to give it up.

[sent]

I am in a similar position as the OP, running a dental practice with no business training so I can totally see this point of view. I have a small office but I was running understaffed since September so I made 4 new hires in December. All part time employees. Two at minimum wage, a third person at $15/hr, a fourth person at $20/hr. The minimum wage people got instant raises the following month when minimum wage went up by $1. The other 2 are due to get $1 - $2 raises within the next 3 - 6 months based on acquiring certain skills and licenses. I am paying for their training and exams for these licenses. I have had several moments where I felt like the $20/hour person is slightly overpaid because she told me she wasn't getting offers of more than $19 at offices similar than mine. And that she was also making $22 at a giant corporation but felt she was severely compromising her ethics to work there. But it is what it is and I've been trying to delegate more onto her to make it worthwhile. $80/week may sound trivial, but multiply that by 4 employees, $320/week plus the payroll taxes I pay on top of it, now we're talking almost $360/week. In my 7 years of doing this, everyone always wants a raise no matter what they start at. I get that, we're all looking out for ourselves. But there is a salary ceiling for each position in my office so I feel I have to give raises carefully based on certain criteria that I set up front when I hire so I can control my overhead.

As the business owner, I couldn't tell you how much money I even make for myself at any point in time. I know there is enough to pay the bills but I don't find out what my profit was until my accountant does my tax return for the year. It's a scary place to be as a small business owner though there are advantages, I can not compete with the bigger employers but I'd like to think my staff are happy too. My longest employee has been with me 6 years and I think she stayed because I have been flexible to accommodate her crazy life as I've grown and she would not have had that flexibility at a more strict big business. My best employee has been with me for 3 years and told me she recently interviewed at a place that was offering her quite a bit more hourly, but she stayed with a $2 raise I offered her because she really enjoys her job - see above for the flexibility thing I gave her as well when she took 3 weeks off to go get married.

[jlt19]

I'm on the midst of applications and interviews so this really rings true. I've had three phone interviews/two in person with big corporations (two international) and one with a big local company. One of the international ones lists the pay range on the listing. I love that.

The local one asked my range on the recruiter call. I tried to deflect, she pushed so I gave a number. Had the interview, went well, got a call the next week that I was a top candidate but the range was significantly less than my expectation. Well, we could have saved everyone a lot of time!

Got a call today about the other international company I applied for 23 days ago (annoying in it's own right) and asked about salary. I honestly didn't even remember the actual position because I've applied to so many since and this wasn't a planned phone interview (again super annoyed). So I have no idea if I over or under shot it. I probably blew it for other reasons though since again I was really unprepared when I answered the phone.

[goldengirlz]

Feb 19, 2020 12:28:49 GMT -5 redheadbaker said:

Feb 19, 2020 12:17:37 GMT -5 carmenere said:

But asking salary expectations isn't quite the same. I guess it's problematic because people with privilege are more likely to make a more audacious ask, and end up being paid more? ETA: I think she was right in her response, but could have been more clear about it.

Practically speaking, I can also see how this practice could disqualify good candidates who might happily agree to the employer's ideal salary once they see the full package, even if they had initially hoped for more. I think AAM also makes a good point about how asking a candidate what they want, when they have very limited context, doesn't really make sense. What does the employer lose by stating the salary range upfront?

The most compelling reason, in my mind, is right in her answer:

"[Y]ou’re far better equipped than your candidates are to know what the job should pay. You’re intimately familiar with the role’s responsibilities, pressures, and challenges in a way an outside candidate never can be. You’re asking candidates to name a number first when they’re not the one with the deep understanding of those factors — which can result in new hires who discover the salary doesn’t match up with the job after they start, which can mean they don’t stick around or don’t go above and beyond in the way they might if they felt fairly compensated."

How am I supposed to name a salary expectation when I have little idea, or even none, of what you envision for the job? MANY job titles could have wildly different expectations.

Exactly! It may be different for a small business, but a large corporation has done tons of due diligence on what their competitors pay and what they need to pay to be in various quartiles. (I know this from all the trainings I had to attend as a new manager.)

Meanwhile, for a candidate, who doesn’t have a small army of internal and external compensation experts at their disposal, it’s a black box.

[wise_rita]

Whatever happened to the person who was offered a director role at a non-profit, part-time at a lower salary than the fuck up predecessor?

Not lower salary but pro-rata. She was offered the job to fix a mess at lower pay (because the budget couldn't accommodate FT). Did she accept?

Maybe this was another board, but it was interesting.

[noodleoo]

Feb 20, 2020 2:43:16 GMT -5 wise_rita said:

Whatever happened to the person who was offered a director role at a non-profit, part-time at a lower salary than the fuck up predecessor?

Not lower salary but pro-rata. She was offered the job to fix a mess at lower pay (because the budget couldn't accommodate FT). Did she accept?

Maybe this was another board, but it was interesting.

I remember that one.  I'm pretty sure she didn't accept and got more information about what a shit show that place was.  

[foundmylazybum]

I think the letter writer's logic that bringing in a person low, so there is room for raises is faulty logic and false motivation. I think there are a few other problems with this model including that the review system could begin to screw you over so you may never reach this mythical salary cap.

It also suggests that the pay might not be competitive to market value.

I want the highest pay available as early as possible BC you are looking at lifetime earnings!

[jinkies]

Feb 20, 2020 9:10:47 GMT -5 noodleoo said:

Feb 20, 2020 2:43:16 GMT -5 wise_rita said:

Whatever happened to the person who was offered a director role at a non-profit, part-time at a lower salary than the fuck up predecessor?

Not lower salary but pro-rata. She was offered the job to fix a mess at lower pay (because the budget couldn't accommodate FT). Did she accept?

Maybe this was another board, but it was interesting.

I remember that one.  I'm pretty sure she didn't accept and got more information about what a shit show that place was.  

That is my recollection also. I was invested in that one! (even though I can't remember who the poster was...)

[seeyalater52]

Feb 20, 2020 10:38:33 GMT -5 foundmylazybum said:

I think the letter writer's logic that bringing in a person low, so there is room for raises is faulty logic and false motivation. I think there are a few other problems with this model including that the review system could begin to screw you over so you may never reach this mythical salary cap.

It also suggests that the pay might not be competitive to market value.

I want the highest pay available as early as possible BC you are looking at lifetime earnings!

I agree. While I'm always happy to get a raise, I think if I got a raise immediately following hire (within the first 6 months) I'd feel like I'd been low-balled in initial salary. It's not flattering - not puzzling. Did they not believe I was worth that until I "proved" myself? It's a weird dynamic to foster. 

[Michelle]

I see all the sides of this.

As a hiring manager, it really peeves me out to get through several interviews with the same candidate and then find we are off on salary expectations by 20k. Even a 10k difference isn't a bridge i can cross because we have strict hiring rates per years of experience for the role. When i've hired people in the past who were offered lower than what they initially wanted, they have resigned much earlier than would be expected - for jobs making what they really wanted in the first place.

When a candidate puts their salary expectations and we see that big of a gap, the recruiter can do a quick screening call and say, "The hiring manager thinks you have fantastic experience listed on your resume and wants to interview you, but also wants to respect both of your time. Based on your years of experience, our range for hiring would be about $x-y depending on competencies demonstrated in the interview. That is quite a big jump from where your expectations are. She wants to be sure you would be interested at the range we can offer."

We have strict ranges to ensure internal equity. You could have been making $40k and interviewing for an $80k job based on our market data and your resume. If your salary expectations were way lower we would wonder if you overstated your qualifications but would interview you and find that out. If you were a good fit, you'd still get the $80k offer.

I realize most employers don't do that though, so I like what someone else stated up thread - the person who gives the number first has the competitive advantage.

[redheadbaker]

Feb 20, 2020 13:24:12 GMT -5 Michelle said:

I see all the sides of this.

As a hiring manager, it really peeves me out to get through several interviews with the same candidate and then find we are off on salary expectations by 20k. Even a 10k difference isn't a bridge i can cross because we have strict hiring rates per years of experience for the role.

So post your range in the job description, and people looking for more will self-select out of applying.

[rupertpenny]

Feb 20, 2020 13:24:12 GMT -5 Michelle said:

I see all the sides of this.

As a hiring manager, it really peeves me out to get through several interviews with the same candidate and then find we are off on salary expectations by 20k. Even a 10k difference isn't a bridge i can cross because we have strict hiring rates per years of experience for the role. When i've hired people in the past who were offered lower than what they initially wanted, they have resigned much earlier than would be expected - for jobs making what they really wanted in the first place.

When a candidate puts their salary expectations and we see that big of a gap, the recruiter can do a quick screening call and say, "The hiring manager thinks you have fantastic experience listed on your resume and wants to interview you, but also wants to respect both of your time. Based on your years of experience, our range for hiring would be about $x-y depending on competencies demonstrated in the interview. That is quite a big jump from where your expectations are. She wants to be sure you would be interested at the range we can offer."

We have strict ranges to ensure internal equity. You could have been making $40k and interviewing for an $80k job based on our market data and your resume. If your salary expectations were way lower we would wonder if you overstated your qualifications but would interview you and find that out. If you were a good fit, you'd still get the $80k offer.

I realize most employers don't do that though, so I like what someone else stated up thread - the person who gives the number first has the competitive advantage.

If you have a strict pay scale why don't you just put a range in the job listing?