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?
I am not opposed to that. I'm not the decision maker on that though. One key concern I have heard is how competitive salaries are in our market vs our "total reward" philosophy. Like others mentioned, there are benefits other than salary that our recruiters communicate to candidates such as our generous PTO policy (which rolls over year over year, never use-or-lose, and pays out up to 408 hours when you term), generous family and medial leave policies, bonus potential that we offer that others don't, adoption assistance, tuition reimbursement, etc.). Our base salary is generally between the 60th and 75th percentile depending on job group (with nurses at the 75th percentile) but we offer a lot of performance-based fringe benefits other employers like us don't, so when you compare your total reward statement between us and competitors you are likely to be getting the most competitive offer, especially the more experienced you are. We also offer a lot of "trainee" opportunities that once completed skyrocket your pay increases.
All of that's not evident when you publish the salaries, and if you publish all the detail, you are giving away your secret sauce so your competitors can copy it. And certain competitors get sooooo many donor dollars through their foundations that they can "see our rate and raise us $2/hr" every time we go up. - And they do!
But we do have a calculator that a recruiter can use to estimate the job offer based on experience and the job code, and they can share that limited range. [edit - we also have a tool in which they plug in the offer, and the fringe benefits associated with the job and the salary rate get published, so the person gets a "total reward package" to consider.] The reason there is a range even there is depending on the timing for market increases, the incumbents in the department may not have received a market adjustment for their roles and we look at a combination of experience and internal equity. Sometimes that results in compression, and other times in results in inflation, especially in highly competitive job categories.
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.
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.
YES - i have had this dilemma just this year and it wasn't for what the person initially issued.
For my situation, it was because the person was hired in April and then based on compensation's evaluation of the market data, the job was re-graded and increased 7.5%. So the person got a 7.5% increase associated with the market movement in late July. It felt to her like it was at the end of a 90 day probation period, and i was never before so thankful for the compensation communication template that explains that the grade moved, the new grade is XYZ and as a result her pay was moved along with the grade.
WHEW!
But i have also had the opposite where someone negotiated really well on her pay and oversold her experience, and then she really underperformed compared to others in her same job code. the job was evaluated and priced to market, and the others were payed according to the pay scale for market, performance, and experience. She was still paid more and therefore there was an internal inequity. I didn't feel THAT badly because she was Latina and i figured it sort of made up for systemic pay inequities... but it also inhibited her merit increase which looks at where you are in the range of the position and performance, so she was getting less than the "target average" pay increase for the year.
...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’m going to quote myself here. This $15/hr employee informed me today she is moving back to her previous state due to her husband’s contract work. She will have been with me for 3 months total. She had asked for $17, I offered $15 with a raise to $17 when she got her license. As part of her benefits, I paid $850 for the licensing course because I know most $15/hr employees don’t have an extra $850 to pay up front for something like that. I was nervous because English is her second language but she’s been taking it seriously and doing well. I didn’t see this coming. I’m out $850 with no recourse. We are going to offer the course to one of the minimum wage employees so I get to pay $850 again. That’s a large chunk of money basically out of my pocket to help make sure my employees are compliant with the requirements set by the state because there are so few candidates out there with this license if we run an ad and do another search.
...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’m going to quote myself here. This $15/hr employee informed me today she is moving back to her previous state due to her husband’s contract work. She will have been with me for 3 months total. She had asked for $17, I offered $15 with a raise to $17 when she got her license. As part of her benefits, I paid $850 for the licensing course because I know most $15/hr employees don’t have an extra $850 to pay up front for something like that. I was nervous because English is her second language but she’s been taking it seriously and doing well. I didn’t see this coming. I’m out $850 with no recourse. We are going to offer the course to one of the minimum wage employees so I get to pay $850 again. That’s a large chunk of money basically out of my pocket to help make sure my employees are compliant with the requirements set by the state because there are so few candidates out there with this license if we run an ad and do another search.
What does this have to do with the conversation?
Also, many companies have a policy that if you leave the company within a period (say, a month) after completing a licensing or certification course, you have to reimburse the employer. My H's company (IT services) does this.
“With sorrow—for this Court, but more, for the many millions of American women who have today lost a fundamental constitutional protection—we dissent,”
I’m going to quote myself here. This $15/hr employee informed me today she is moving back to her previous state due to her husband’s contract work. She will have been with me for 3 months total. She had asked for $17, I offered $15 with a raise to $17 when she got her license. As part of her benefits, I paid $850 for the licensing course because I know most $15/hr employees don’t have an extra $850 to pay up front for something like that. I was nervous because English is her second language but she’s been taking it seriously and doing well. I didn’t see this coming. I’m out $850 with no recourse. We are going to offer the course to one of the minimum wage employees so I get to pay $850 again. That’s a large chunk of money basically out of my pocket to help make sure my employees are compliant with the requirements set by the state because there are so few candidates out there with this license if we run an ad and do another search.
What does this have to do with the conversation?
Also, many companies have a policy that if you leave the company within a period (say, a month) after completing a licensing or certification course, you have to reimburse the employer. My H's company (IT services) does this.
The OP post talked about where the doctor said (I’m paraphrasing since I’m on my phone and can’t see the OP) “money out of my pocket to pay for the employee.” I wrote above how I can see that point of view as a small business owner where each dollar in a raise matters since a few comments said “it’s only $80.” Today I felt it with this situation. The employee did ask my manager about repayment and I said no because at the end of the day, it’s the cost of doing business in the highly regulated environment my business is in. And if she didn’t repay it, I have little recourse but to go after her in small claims court and $850 isn’t worth that.
If you have a strict pay scale why don't you just put a range in the job listing?
I am not opposed to that. I'm not the decision maker on that though. One key concern I have heard is how competitive salaries are in our market vs our "total reward" philosophy. Like others mentioned, there are benefits other than salary that our recruiters communicate to candidates such as our generous PTO policy (which rolls over year over year, never use-or-lose, and pays out up to 408 hours when you term), generous family and medial leave policies, bonus potential that we offer that others don't, adoption assistance, tuition reimbursement, etc.). Our base salary is generally between the 60th and 75th percentile depending on job group (with nurses at the 75th percentile) but we offer a lot of performance-based fringe benefits other employers like us don't, so when you compare your total reward statement between us and competitors you are likely to be getting the most competitive offer, especially the more experienced you are. We also offer a lot of "trainee" opportunities that once completed skyrocket your pay increases.
All of that's not evident when you publish the salaries, and if you publish all the detail, you are giving away your secret sauce so your competitors can copy it. And certain competitors get sooooo many donor dollars through their foundations that they can "see our rate and raise us $2/hr" every time we go up. - And they do!
But we do have a calculator that a recruiter can use to estimate the job offer based on experience and the job code, and they can share that limited range. [edit - we also have a tool in which they plug in the offer, and the fringe benefits associated with the job and the salary rate get published, so the person gets a "total reward package" to consider.] The reason there is a range even there is depending on the timing for market increases, the incumbents in the department may not have received a market adjustment for their roles and we look at a combination of experience and internal equity. Sometimes that results in compression, and other times in results in inflation, especially in highly competitive job categories.
Compensation is just as much an art as a science.
The only thing here that is different than most companies is the leave policy. Honestly, benefits are just that, you can not rely on them as part of your compensation because most companies annually review them and can take them away as easily as continue to provide them.
I do take the policies into account when job hunting because they let you know how companies at that point in time are treating employees, but the reason that bonuses and benefits are used to recruit is because they are not usually considered part of any future raises. Where I am now I make an extra 3k a year due to bonuses, but they can be taken away just as easily and I know better than to rely on them.
In NJ it’s illegal to as for previous or requested salary information. As a candidate, I don’t like when I’m asked for a specific number. Often it’s because I’m going for a promotion role and I have no info on banding so I don’t know what would be a reasonable pay. If it was for a like position, I wouldn’t mind providing my want.
I actually went to an interview on Friday for a promotion position. HR never asked for desired pay. I asked what the banding was towards the end. It’s nearly 60% of my current pay (which is crazy how they determined that pay for the position- I obviously think it’s severely underpaid).
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.
YES - i have had this dilemma just this year and it wasn't for what the person initially issued.
For my situation, it was because the person was hired in April and then based on compensation's evaluation of the market data, the job was re-graded and increased 7.5%. So the person got a 7.5% increase associated with the market movement in late July. It felt to her like it was at the end of a 90 day probation period, and i was never before so thankful for the compensation communication template that explains that the grade moved, the new grade is XYZ and as a result her pay was moved along with the grade.
WHEW!
But i have also had the opposite where someone negotiated really well on her pay and oversold her experience, and then she really underperformed compared to others in her same job code. the job was evaluated and priced to market, and the others were payed according to the pay scale for market, performance, and experience. She was still paid more and therefore there was an internal inequity. I didn't feel THAT badly because she was Latina and i figured it sort of made up for systemic pay inequities... but it also inhibited her merit increase which looks at where you are in the range of the position and performance, so she was getting less than the "target average" pay increase for the year.
🤔 something about your second paragraph is rubbing me the wrong way and is directly related to the major takeaway from the op.
You place the impetus on the hiree for being a "good negotiator " and "overselling" her qualifications" then underperforming.
Um. Your company is the one with the power. You guys know the freaking job and evaluated her, and closed the deal! Its actually your mistake.
A major takeaway from the article is that this entire situation is unfair to the employee BC THEY ARE NEW and may not totally understand the job.
Your employee sold herself to the job the best of her understanding of said job and y'all bought that sale. Don't blame her lol.
So, spinoff question: how do you respond to the question of salary requirement?
The internet tells me to put $0 or negotiable on an application. And says to try to steer away from it during an interview. But what if you're pressed?
I'm in consideration for three jobs at three very big companies. One asked during the first HR call, I stated a range, moved to interview, got called saying they wanted to extend an offer but their range was $10k less than mine.
Second company posts the range on the listing so I've had two interviews and it hasn't been discussed.
Third was the same as the first, though I still have one final in person interview.
My friend said if I'm asked to straight up ask them what the range is for the position. Is that advised? These are all different positions from each other and all have different numbers found online. So I have no clue!
Post by SusanBAnthony on Feb 23, 2020 17:32:02 GMT -5
I didn't do it the last time I looked, but I've decided moving forward (as long as I'm looking while still employed) I will refuse to play this game. I plan to just refuse unless they tell me their range, and if that takes me out of the running, so be it. I may say things like "are you aware that many states prohibit you asking me this because it increases salary discrimination", and "my current employer considers my salary to be confidential information. Is you salary range for the position confidential?".
Anecdotal, but: I've been unemployed for more than a year now, and in all that time looking, I have never found a job posting in my field and location that names a salary. Not even a range. I have *never* applied to a job and known what it pays. I am, frankly, astonished that so many people in the comments on AAM said that they wouldn't apply for a job posting unless it gives a number. If I set that as my bar, I wouldn't have applied to a single job in a year.
So, spinoff question: how do you respond to the question of salary requirement?
The internet tells me to put $0 or negotiable on an application. And says to try to steer away from it during an interview. But what if you're pressed?
I'm in consideration for three jobs at three very big companies. One asked during the first HR call, I stated a range, moved to interview, got called saying they wanted to extend an offer but their range was $10k less than mine.
Second company posts the range on the listing so I've had two interviews and it hasn't been discussed.
Third was the same as the first, though I still have one final in person interview.
My friend said if I'm asked to straight up ask them what the range is for the position. Is that advised? These are all different positions from each other and all have different numbers found online. So I have no clue!
Ugh, why would that first company move you on to the interview stage, knowing that their range was so far below the range you gave, and not tell you that first?
If an employer asks me my salary requirements, I usually ask if they have a range in mind for the position. Usually, they tell me what it is, and if it's close to my range, I just say we're in the same ballpark.
Some employers may refuse to answer that (but I've never come across any) and make you give your range first, which is assholish, but pushing back at that point would likely mean they won't consider you. So, you can either give your range, or bow out of consideration.
YES - i have had this dilemma just this year and it wasn't for what the person initially issued.
For my situation, it was because the person was hired in April and then based on compensation's evaluation of the market data, the job was re-graded and increased 7.5%. So the person got a 7.5% increase associated with the market movement in late July. It felt to her like it was at the end of a 90 day probation period, and i was never before so thankful for the compensation communication template that explains that the grade moved, the new grade is XYZ and as a result her pay was moved along with the grade.
WHEW!
But i have also had the opposite where someone negotiated really well on her pay and oversold her experience, and then she really underperformed compared to others in her same job code. the job was evaluated and priced to market, and the others were payed according to the pay scale for market, performance, and experience. She was still paid more and therefore there was an internal inequity. I didn't feel THAT badly because she was Latina and i figured it sort of made up for systemic pay inequities... but it also inhibited her merit increase which looks at where you are in the range of the position and performance, so she was getting less than the "target average" pay increase for the year.
🤔 something about your second paragraph is rubbing me the wrong way and is directly related to the major takeaway from the op.
You place the impetus on the hiree for being a "good negotiator " and "overselling" her qualifications" then underperforming.
Um. Your company is the one with the power. You guys know the freaking job and evaluated her, and closed the deal! Its actually your mistake.
A major takeaway from the article is that this entire situation is unfair to the employee BC THEY ARE NEW and may not totally understand the job.
Your employee sold herself to the job the best of her understanding of said job and y'all bought that sale. Don't blame her lol.
I totally accept that it was my mistake.
But I shared the example because you can never know perfectly from interviews how a person will execute on the job.
So an employer might target a little lower pay until seeing the performance on the job, and adjust up if warranted. You can easily increase pay. It isn’t so easy to cut someone’s pay to reflect their performance compared to others for internal equity, due to the long list of employee relations concerns that would follow.
Anecdotal, but: I've been unemployed for more than a year now, and in all that time looking, I have never found a job posting in my field and location that names a salary. Not even a range. I have *never* applied to a job and known what it pays. I am, frankly, astonished that so many people in the comments on AAM said that they wouldn't apply for a job posting unless it gives a number. If I set that as my bar, I wouldn't have applied to a single job in a year.
I am not opposed to that. I'm not the decision maker on that though. One key concern I have heard is how competitive salaries are in our market vs our "total reward" philosophy. Like others mentioned, there are benefits other than salary that our recruiters communicate to candidates such as our generous PTO policy (which rolls over year over year, never use-or-lose, and pays out up to 408 hours when you term), generous family and medial leave policies, bonus potential that we offer that others don't, adoption assistance, tuition reimbursement, etc.). Our base salary is generally between the 60th and 75th percentile depending on job group (with nurses at the 75th percentile) but we offer a lot of performance-based fringe benefits other employers like us don't, so when you compare your total reward statement between us and competitors you are likely to be getting the most competitive offer, especially the more experienced you are. We also offer a lot of "trainee" opportunities that once completed skyrocket your pay increases.
All of that's not evident when you publish the salaries, and if you publish all the detail, you are giving away your secret sauce so your competitors can copy it. And certain competitors get sooooo many donor dollars through their foundations that they can "see our rate and raise us $2/hr" every time we go up. - And they do!
But we do have a calculator that a recruiter can use to estimate the job offer based on experience and the job code, and they can share that limited range. [edit - we also have a tool in which they plug in the offer, and the fringe benefits associated with the job and the salary rate get published, so the person gets a "total reward package" to consider.] The reason there is a range even there is depending on the timing for market increases, the incumbents in the department may not have received a market adjustment for their roles and we look at a combination of experience and internal equity. Sometimes that results in compression, and other times in results in inflation, especially in highly competitive job categories.
Compensation is just as much an art as a science.
The only thing here that is different than most companies is the leave policy. Honestly, benefits are just that, you can not rely on them as part of your compensation because most companies annually review them and can take them away as easily as continue to provide them.
I do take the policies into account when job hunting because they let you know how companies at that point in time are treating employees, but the reason that bonuses and benefits are used to recruit is because they are not usually considered part of any future raises. Where I am now I make an extra 3k a year due to bonuses, but they can be taken away just as easily and I know better than to rely on them.
I didn’t get into the long list but there are many more benefits that we offer. Paid parking vs competitors who leave you on your own, on-site gyms with access granted you employees and spouses, rich retirement benefits, daily pay for those who live paycheck to paycheck in the extreme so they don’t have to use payday loans, a living wage, etc etc .
Pay can also be changed at a moment’s notice. Jobs can also be cut. Nothing is set in stone.
🤔 something about your second paragraph is rubbing me the wrong way and is directly related to the major takeaway from the op.
You place the impetus on the hiree for being a "good negotiator " and "overselling" her qualifications" then underperforming.
Um. Your company is the one with the power. You guys know the freaking job and evaluated her, and closed the deal! Its actually your mistake.
A major takeaway from the article is that this entire situation is unfair to the employee BC THEY ARE NEW and may not totally understand the job.
Your employee sold herself to the job the best of her understanding of said job and y'all bought that sale. Don't blame her lol.
I totally accept that it was my mistake.
But I shared the example because you can never know perfectly from interviews how a person will execute on the job.
So an employer might target a little lower pay until seeing the performance on the job, and adjust up if warranted. You can easily increase pay. It isn’t so easy to cut someone’s pay to reflect their performance compared to others for internal equity, due to the long list of employee relations concerns that would follow.
So because one person was a bad hire, it’s justified to underpay everyone?
And I know that you work for a company that is doing a seemingly good job at salary analysis, but I think it’s a little laughable to just go with the idea that most companies would just raise everyone’s salaries when they meet expectations of a role.
🤔 something about your second paragraph is rubbing me the wrong way and is directly related to the major takeaway from the op.
You place the impetus on the hiree for being a "good negotiator " and "overselling" her qualifications" then underperforming.
Um. Your company is the one with the power. You guys know the freaking job and evaluated her, and closed the deal! Its actually your mistake.
A major takeaway from the article is that this entire situation is unfair to the employee BC THEY ARE NEW and may not totally understand the job.
Your employee sold herself to the job the best of her understanding of said job and y'all bought that sale. Don't blame her lol.
I totally accept that it was my mistake.
But I shared the example because you can never know perfectly from interviews how a person will execute on the job.
So an employer might target a little lower pay until seeing the performance on the job, and adjust up if warranted. You can easily increase pay. It isn’t so easy to cut someone’s pay to reflect their performance compared to others for internal equity, due to the long list of employee relations concerns that would follow.
So because one person was a bad hire, it’s justified to underpay everyone?
And I know that you work for a company that is doing a seemingly good job at salary analysis, but I think it’s a little laughable to just go with the idea that most companies would just raise everyone’s salaries when they meet expectations of a role.
So, spinoff question: how do you respond to the question of salary requirement?
The internet tells me to put $0 or negotiable on an application. And says to try to steer away from it during an interview. But what if you're pressed?
I'm in consideration for three jobs at three very big companies. One asked during the first HR call, I stated a range, moved to interview, got called saying they wanted to extend an offer but their range was $10k less than mine.
Second company posts the range on the listing so I've had two interviews and it hasn't been discussed.
Third was the same as the first, though I still have one final in person interview.
My friend said if I'm asked to straight up ask them what the range is for the position. Is that advised? These are all different positions from each other and all have different numbers found online. So I have no clue!
Yes, I think it's totally reasonable to turn the question back, since they're the ones setting the pay range. Say something like, "It's negotiable on my end, and of course it depends on the overall compensation package. Can you share the salary range for this position?"
🤔 something about your second paragraph is rubbing me the wrong way and is directly related to the major takeaway from the op.
You place the impetus on the hiree for being a "good negotiator " and "overselling" her qualifications" then underperforming.
Um. Your company is the one with the power. You guys know the freaking job and evaluated her, and closed the deal! Its actually your mistake.
A major takeaway from the article is that this entire situation is unfair to the employee BC THEY ARE NEW and may not totally understand the job.
Your employee sold herself to the job the best of her understanding of said job and y'all bought that sale. Don't blame her lol.
I totally accept that it was my mistake.
But I shared the example because you can never know perfectly from interviews how a person will execute on the job.
So an employer might target a little lower pay until seeing the performance on the job, and adjust up if warranted. You can easily increase pay. It isn’t so easy to cut someone’s pay to reflect their performance compared to others for internal equity, due to the long list of employee relations concerns that would follow.
Wat. Again, there is a logical mistake in your thinking.
Your example of a pay cut due to performance as well as inequity is hard bc it should NEVER happen.
You give the other people raises based on their own performances 🤔
You..the employer TRAIN the employee so they stop underperforming and truly understand the job.
Anecdotal, but: I've been unemployed for more than a year now, and in all that time looking, I have never found a job posting in my field and location that names a salary. Not even a range. I have *never* applied to a job and known what it pays. I am, frankly, astonished that so many people in the comments on AAM said that they wouldn't apply for a job posting unless it gives a number. If I set that as my bar, I wouldn't have applied to a single job in a year.
Same. But to jlt19’s point, now that I’m a hiring manager, I’ve seen how many people will ask for the range during the initial phone screen. (Usually they ask the recruiter — the person most candidates will speak to first — but sometimes that’s me.)
We pay a lot. The problem we sometimes run into is people who don’t really want to do the job but figure they’ll suck it up for the money. Which is fine, I get it, but then they get unhappy with the actual responsibilities and it means higher turnover. But we’ll still reveal the range when people ask.
In NJ it’s illegal to as for previous or requested salary information. As a candidate, I don’t like when I’m asked for a specific number. Often it’s because I’m going for a promotion role and I have no info on banding so I don’t know what would be a reasonable pay. If it was for a like position, I wouldn’t mind providing my want.
I actually went to an interview on Friday for a promotion position. HR never asked for desired pay. I asked what the banding was towards the end. It’s nearly 60% of my current pay (which is crazy how they determined that pay for the position- I obviously think it’s severely underpaid).
Employers would solve a lot of these problems by just putting the fucking salary range in the damned posting. Or disclosing the offer upon an interview request if the interview is not the direct result of a posting. Employers know what they can/are willing to pay. They have e power. Expecting employees to jump through these hoops and guessing games is bullshit.
And while I agree that physicians and other skilled medical professionals should be well compensated, I’ve never met a bankrupt doctor unless they had a coke habit or a gambling problem, so my sympathy well is a little higher for the person applying to be a medical assistant or a receptionist than the MD who sends his kids to private school.
🤔 something about your second paragraph is rubbing me the wrong way and is directly related to the major takeaway from the op.
You place the impetus on the hiree for being a "good negotiator " and "overselling" her qualifications" then underperforming.
Um. Your company is the one with the power. You guys know the freaking job and evaluated her, and closed the deal! Its actually your mistake.
A major takeaway from the article is that this entire situation is unfair to the employee BC THEY ARE NEW and may not totally understand the job.
Your employee sold herself to the job the best of her understanding of said job and y'all bought that sale. Don't blame her lol.
I totally accept that it was my mistake.
But I shared the example because you can never know perfectly from interviews how a person will execute on the job.
So an employer might target a little lower pay until seeing the performance on the job, and adjust up if warranted. You can easily increase pay. It isn’t so easy to cut someone’s pay to reflect their performance compared to others for internal equity, due to the long list of employee relations concerns that would follow.
AAM also addressed someone who wanted to cut a new employee's salary because they overstated their qualifications:
So, spinoff question: how do you respond to the question of salary requirement?
The internet tells me to put $0 or negotiable on an application. And says to try to steer away from it during an interview. But what if you're pressed?
I'm in consideration for three jobs at three very big companies. One asked during the first HR call, I stated a range, moved to interview, got called saying they wanted to extend an offer but their range was $10k less than mine.
Second company posts the range on the listing so I've had two interviews and it hasn't been discussed.
Third was the same as the first, though I still have one final in person interview.
My friend said if I'm asked to straight up ask them what the range is for the position. Is that advised? These are all different positions from each other and all have different numbers found online. So I have no clue!
I just accepted a new job. I actually didn't talk salary much with this one, but with the other companies I was talking to, if they asked for my salary requirements, I basically said, "I'm happy to discuss my requirements, but would like to hear your range for the position." In all cases, they responded with a pretty specific range. I was then able to state that my range was similar, assuming other benefits made sense, or could say the range was too low and that it didn't seem to make sense for me to continue with the process.
In one case, they didn't ask and when we got to the part for me to ask follow-up questions, I asked if they had a salary range in mind for the position.
I think it's perfectly acceptable, and even a sign that you want to be invested, to ask for their range early on.
With my new company, we discussed where I wanted to be (frankly, a huge stretch from what most other companies are offering, so I felt fine tossing out a number), and they exceeded the top end of my range. But they're known for paying above market, so it felt like a different dynamic than I had with the other companies I was talking to.
Anecdotal, but: I've been unemployed for more than a year now, and in all that time looking, I have never found a job posting in my field and location that names a salary. Not even a range. I have *never* applied to a job and known what it pays. I am, frankly, astonished that so many people in the comments on AAM said that they wouldn't apply for a job posting unless it gives a number. If I set that as my bar, I wouldn't have applied to a single job in a year.
Same. But to jlt19 ’s point, now that I’m a hiring manager, I’ve seen how many people will ask for the range during the initial phone screen. (Usually they ask the recruiter — the person most candidates will speak to first — but sometimes that’s me.)
We pay a lot. The problem we sometimes run into is people who don’t really want to do the job but figure they’ll suck it up for the money. Which is fine, I get it, but then they get unhappy with the actual responsibilities and it means higher turnover. But we’ll still reveal the range when people ask.
Can you expand on this? What kind of responsibilities are we talking here?
DH once had a recruiter contact him based on his Linked In profile and ask to interview him. DH asked the salary range, in part because he thought he might be overqualified for the position, but the recruiter refused to discuss salary until after an interview.
He reluctantly agreed (I think the job had a shorter commute than his current one, which made it appeal to him), and took off work to attend an interview, which was with a full hiring panel. After the interview they told him the salary range, which was LESS THAN HALF of his current salary. He was so mad that the recruiter had wasted his time - it should have been abundantly obvious to her that he was making more than this job was paying.
Can you expand on this? What kind of responsibilities are we talking here?
So for example, my team might beta test new products and come up with the strategy around the public roll-out. We might hire someone who’s, say, very good on camera, who understands how video works. But the job is not to produce your own videos but to use that knowledge to inform how other people might use a new video feature. Someone might convince herself that she’s fine with that transition when in her heart, she wants to be the talent, not the producer.
Maybe not the best analogy, but hopefully you get the idea.