My guess is that they usually want to pay less and use the individual's salary requirements to weed out applicants that they think will be "too expensive". But maybe I'm just jaded. :) Find out what the industry average is for your position and reconcile that with your experience as well as what your financial needs are. If the salary is "fair" and a company doesn't want to pay that, then that's probably not a company you want to work with anyway because salary probably isn't the only way they are short-changing their employees.

posted February 21, 2011

They usually leave the salary out of the job posting because they have a range they have to/want to pay but could pay a little more for an outstanding candidate and they don't want to discourage those people from applying to the position.

posted February 21, 2011

Why? Because they want negotiating leverage. Or they are just doing "market research", not actually seeking to hire.

Approach? State your expectation, including that you expect the offer to be "competitive". If that screens you out, that's good, because you have just eliminated another loser.

posted February 21, 2011

Funny to read that all answers are from an applicant perspective. Not sure what the practice in the US is but I prefer not to mention salary ranges because I want applicants who are interested in the job not the money.

In general salary ranges of companies are benchmarked so there are differences but not exceptional ones. If an applicant fits the job specs there usually is a comparable comp & ben package. Details may vary so the negotiations are on those details..

posted February 22, 2011

Same thing when selling a used car.
"How much are you asking?"
"Well, how much are you offering?"
Both parties want the other to establish the level of bargaining.
If the applicant ends up going first, its best to be general.
"I believe I'm within the range."

posted February 22, 2011

Two reasons. Budget and Candidate's perspective.

Departments are usually budgeted for the salary. Just because the range of the salary is X to Y doesn't mean that the department is budgeted for Y.

Also from the candidate's side, you only pay attention to the second number. So when it comes to the offer you think you are being cheated if you aren't offered the highest number mentioned.

We ask for salary to see if you will be in the budgeted range of the position. It's not used by ethical recruiters as a means to low ball your salary. What do we have to gain if we low ball you? You will only end up looking for another job and we will be back to square one filling the position again.

posted February 22, 2011

I usually ignore job posting which omit salary/day rate!

For all permanent jobs I have been requested to supply previous salary for 5 years before getting to negotiation stage.

I think BOTH parties need to be open from the outset.

posted February 22, 2011

Sandra - you have already gotten pretty comprehensive answers for this. I will only add, don't use a "range". If you are the candidate and you hear X - Y, you only want Y, right? If you are the company and the candidate says X-Y, why would they offer Y? So I would suggest for both saying something like "approximately $Z depending on skills and experience/scope responsibility" which gives latitude when the time comes to negotiate.

posted February 23, 2011

Owning a business opened my eyes: it's not that simple. I am no longer a proponent that it is "good business sense" to hire people at a low wage, and employers needn't hang on to antiquated notions or a narrow "accountant's" perspective which looks only at a thin slice of the pie that makes up "the best hire".

That concept is now outdated, because employees can keep a much closer watch on corporate environments and salary levels via the internet sites like Glass Door. No job is perfect and why not put up with those imperfections at the highest benefit possible? In any hiring process, you must also consider employee retention.

It never ceases to amaze me when I hear employers exclaim that an employee will "leave for a couple of thousand dollars". They created this situation themselves! Hire-for-low made sense decades ago (specifically, in Canada, prior to the early 1990's recession) when employees experienced stable jobs for many years. The 90's recession was the first experience for the baby-boom generation with massive layoffs where good people who had done all the "right" things (i.e. got their degrees, were good in their jobs) yet remained without work. Thus a conversation around "mistrust" was born, and people have long memories.

What I found when I hired at lower wage levels, was the "underperformers" remained, with an inordinate amount of time spent keeping an eye on them, while the "outperformers" found better paid work and left. The time spent acclimatizing and training new employees was a never-ending cycle, keeping me from working on important aspects of the business. Hiring at the lowest wage results in a short-term "win" and long term "lose".

Remember companies compete with each other: not just for sales, but for the best employees. I believe companies that hire the best tout this idea of hiring for less to other companies in order to gain an advantage in hiring.

Employees also compare themselves with others within the company. All other things equal, and with exceptions, many do not want to spend lengthy time and personal expense earning a degree in a challenging University-level program to find their peers haven't. It's immediately demotivating, perceived as an undervaluation of the position and they move on to "other challenges" (this is a euphamism for jobs with higher valuation and potential).

I increased the wages in accordance with educational level, experience and in relation to other companies and experienced a jump in the quality of applicant. People contributed more, knowing they were paid well and couldn't duplicate that elsewhere.

Considering what I am willing to pay, I also have no qualms about releasing an employee who is irrational, coasts, or who stretched the truth on their application.

posted February 24, 2011

Sandra, do your research before anything.

www.glassdoor.com is likely to give you an indication of salaries they pay.

Links:

• http://www.glassdoor.com

posted February 24, 2011

Hi Sandra, Salaries are like water, ie self levelling, an existing employer will pay you what they think you are worth. The recruitment industry has changed and grown significantly as there are no longer any "jobs for life", this has come about predominantly because employees are beholden to the shareholders and dividends are there for the shareholders, the higher the dividend, the higher the stock price !

Very few Company's have internal recruiters now, they have "Talent Acquisition" professionals, the general belief amongst the HR staff I have worked with is that if you are worth £xx to another organisation, then you are worth the same to the hiring firm, after all it is unlikely that you will suddenly become a superbly committed member of the team because you change you route to work (ie employer).

My suggestion on how you approach this issue is to use Linkedin, you will find a number of people already working in the chosen area you wish to work within, also you will find numerous competitors to the hiring firm. I have found that employees are more than willing to offer advice on where the industry standard is as a benchmark against what they are paid. Once in receipt of this information (a tad laborious but nevertheless good due diligence) I would set that as your required salary.

The reason for the importance of doing due diligence is key, I believe that people love their jobs but nobody does their job for love, ergo just imagine that you find out that the competitors pay more for your skills than your employer....... it won't be long before you are again on the move.

I hope my answer was useful and makes you feel less like you have been "outnegotiated"

Paul

posted February 24, 2011

Sandra;

You seem to have received some excellent advice. I'd add only the following bit: When I was looking for a job, and the "salary" question arose, my usual reply would be something like "I'm interested in this position because......... If we agree that I'm the right person for the job and your company, I'm sure we can arrive at an equitable salary and benefit package."

I never had a problem in using this approach. If a potential employer persisted before discussing at least the broad parameters of the position, I'd quote a figure that I knew was too high for the job. They'd say "Thanks, but no thanks", which was fine with me because I found that focusing on the money didn't work for me as an employee.

posted February 26, 2011

It is obvious and you have answered the question
with your facts -- negotiation leverage.

If you go through the HR process you'll be forced
into these rituals. If you get to the decision makers
via other means you will be able to present your
value before having to state your price.

It is the reverse of the selling situation where the
prospect asks the price and the value hasn't been
established. If the price is given at that juncture
the sale is going to be price rather than value
driven to the salesperson's disadvantage.

I would state and approximate current earnings
and then say that you are looking for a greater
opportunity with commensurate pay opportunity.

posted February 26, 2011

As an employer just be honest. Sorry to sound like a cliche but it's true. However, if you can get the employer to throw a number out first you'll have the upper hand.

If possible, never throw out a number first. It could be waaaay under what they were thinking.

posted February 27, 2011