[tossaway1]

As someone who's regularly on the other side of the hiring (i.e. negotiating with candidates), I often prefer to have some insight into a candidate's rough salary requirements early in the process -- especially if it's someone that might demand more than I could offer. The hiring process is a huge time commitment for both me and the candidate -- I don't want all that time to be wasted if we could identify early on that it's not going to be a good fit.

I wouldn't necessarily walk away from a candidate who wouldn't share approximate salary requirements early on in the process but it would probably be an added red flag if it was someone where I already had this concern.

[pmoriarty]

So just tell the candidate what the salary range for the position is. If that number's a dealbreaker for them, they'll let you know. Why does it always have to be the candidate who shows their cards first?

Personally, for me there are no salary-based dealbreakers. There's always room for negotiation, after both sides determine there's a good fit.

[EvanPlaice]

Consider that recruiters also have to justify their own existence. From a business perspective, their position is a sunk cost. If they can't signal to their employer that their work is gaining the business something above and beyond just doing their day-to-day job then there's no chance of advancement.

They also dislike candidates that show proficiency in business for a few reasons.

First, the candidate is more likely to move on for a better opportunity.

Second, people with a business background like to 'shake things up' and head in new directions looking to maximize the potential of a company. Considering that HR's other primary responsibility is protecting the business from legal action, it's in their best interest to choose candidates who will stay on the straight and narrow and not shake things up.

Third, business types ignore the 'gatekeepers' and take action on their own. They may make a groundbreaking decision that takes the business in a new and more profitable direction. Unfortunately for HR, it's hard to ride on the back of an accomplishment that they weren't aware of to begin with. Worse yet, that same type of personality may have the potential to climb up the chain to a level where they're the boss of the HR person one day.

They aggressively select for 'code monkeys' because code monkeys do what their told, don't have enough soft skills to be a threat, suck at negotiation, and are too busy nerding out to look for something better.

[pyre]

How does HR "ride on the back of an accomplishment?" For example, if a sales team hits their sales goals how is it that HR would get credit for this? Are you grouping "management" under the umbrella of HR?

[tossaway1]

I give candidates a range if they ask.

[Riod]

I think the issue is that a fair number of people doing hiring think this is still the 1980s. People worth hiring would like the company to be upfront with them too. If you put the salary range in the posting or mentioned it upfront then problem solved no?

[noddingham]

Then you should share the range for the position and let the candidate decide if it's worth continuing.

[tossaway1]

I share if the candidate asks. In the end the candidates requirements come out though. If I say X, they'll often say, oh I really need Y. I can work with that. If they just walk away when I say X, that's fine too -- it wasn't a good fit.

[Riod]

That's not a fit issue. They just don't want to work for that wage. Find someone who will. Why do they have to ask? If you're really interested in efficiency, state it upfront, atleast the lower and upper bounds.

[tossaway1]

It doesn't matter to me who asks first, just the the discussion is had to avoid wasting time if it's likely to be a problem. Sometimes they ask about salary range, sometimes I ask about salary requirements.

Debating whether a disconnect on $$ is a "fit" issue seems kind of silly. If it's not a job they would take because of pay, it's not a good fit for them.

[Riod]

Precision matters. Fit is a poorly used term to basically mean, we don't want you for reason X but don't want to tell you that.

[tossaway1]

Precision matters, but you're just nitpicking based on your interpretation of "fit". I guess you're thinking of it as whether the candidate is "fit" for the position. My use of it was referring to whether it was a fit for what they're looking for (where money is obviously an important factor).

[fweespeech]

Posting the salary range for the position solves this problem.

[tossaway1]

The salary range I can pay friends on a lot of factors, not just the position. Oftentimes I can adjust the salary and title (up or down) to be appropriate for the candidate. But if a candidate asks what range of salary the position would pay, I'll give an estimate.

[ska]

So I presume you are sharing your salary range early, then?

[tossaway1]

Sure, if the candidate asks, I'll give a range. Of course, it's still a negotiation so my range may be a bit lower than I could actually go but I expect the same of whatever numbers candidates offer up. If I say 120k is my top and he needs 175k, there's no reason to move forward. If the numbers aren't that far apart we can go forward and see what happens.