[pmoriarty]

I never, ever, ever give anyone a number until the salary negotiation stage of the interview (ie. after I've been given a job offer), and even then I only give the company a number as a counter to their offer. I always do this negotiation myself, and never let anyone else negotiate for me.

Almost all recruiters have been fine with that, but a couple haven't. To such people I wish a good day and go my own way. There are plenty of other recruiters in the sea.

[slownews45]

On hiring side we screen folks out pretty quickly who can't discuss money.

I used to be much more relaxed about this, but if you get burned doing a few rounds of interviews and it was a waste you wise up pretty quickly - teams do not like time wasted.

I've also found that folks who can't / won't talk money - usually not great hires for a bunch of reasons.

We're happy to talk through the different positions, levels, progressions and comp ranges for them all. But you have to have a clue about what type of comp would work for you (early on in initial call or two) or it's just not worth continuing forward.

[pmoriarty]

Sounds like we wouldn't be compatible.

You say "I've also found that folks who can't / won't talk money - usually not great hires for a bunch of reasons."

The same goes in my experience for companies which insist on talking salary before the job offer. It's a red flag.

"you have to have a clue about what type of comp would work for you (early on in initial call or two) or it's just not worth continuing forward"

Of course I have a clue, but I'm not going to put myself at a disadvantage in the negotiation by revealing it before I've been given a firm job offer and heard a number from the company first.

Also, in my experience recruiters are the ones who push hardest to hear salary expectations up front. They know it'll give them a leg up in negotiations, and some of them are even paid specifically to get that number (as one recruiter was brazen enough to reveal to me).

[philliphaydon]

> On hiring side we screen folks out pretty quickly who can't discuss money.

That’s because it benefits you as an employer.

I’ve been on the hiring side and I know there’s a budget. If someone is too high you want to push them out right away.

My flatmate in Singapore about 6 years ago was looking for a new job. Her salary was about 2200/m and she said the recruiter kept asking about salary.

I told her not to discuss it. She doesn’t /need/ a new job. If the company really values her then they will give her an offer. They have a budget. They offered her around 4600/m.

If she told them she was on 2200 it’s guaranteed they would have given her only a small bump.

Companies should never ask for salary info. Because it’s only used to get cheap labour.

[ishiz]

Why can't you simply ask the candidate "We offer $min to $max for this position, is that acceptable?" That lets you and the candidate know whether proceeding further is a good use of time.

[cutemonster]

Maybe because there's a chance the job applicant will suggest < $min

[drunkenmagician]

I've been a hiring manager in tech for a long time now, and recently as a candidate. As has already been commented, all companies have a budget. They may be able to increase that for the right candidate, but there is always a range, why not disclose that? As a candidate I know I'm not wasting my time, and the actual during the actual negotiation, its then that the 'value' of the new candidate to the org can be assessed. Pay people what they are worth, which is of course a reflection of their experience, talent, and attitude.

[blunte]

Indeed as a candidate, I don't want to waste my time either.

Your clients know their budgets. Why not just be upfront about that to the candidates. Tell us your budget or reasonable expected range your client can pay. Then if (when) we find that it's well below what some other hungry companies are paying, we can save you and us time by passing.

If you know your client is paying low, then just be open about it. Something like, "Ok, this client is a bit below market (and tell the upper limit they will pay), but they have these good things to offer." If the client has no good things to offer, and the pay is low, then you're still likely to not seal the deal with a candidate no matter what. So just cut the game and get to the point.

[b5n]

Giving a number early on in the process only weakens my position when it comes time to negotiate, waiting for an intital offer to counter is in my best interest. I apologize if that makes me a 'not great hire'.

If you're happy to provide a range, great, if I'm still there doesn't that generally indicate that the range is in line with my expectations?

I guess your comment kind of makes sense, I can see how corporate might interpret 'this person looks out for themselves' as a potentially bad hire.

[oezi]

The problem is that companies use any salary information you provide as a candidate to adjust their offer. A lot of companies that asked me what I made at my previous job (even though it is illegal to ask in Germany) offered me just 20% on top of my number.

This makes me think that all jobs position should have rather narrow target ranges which are stated up-front. Then you can discuss if you are too high level/low level for that job and range.

[KptMarchewa]

What would happen if you refuse?

[oezi]

They just kick you out of the process.

[ummonk]

Why can’t you just talk through your comp ranges and let the candidate decide whether that works for them?

[duxup]

Why can't you just tell them a range you're offering?

[dboreham]

Because then the candidate will be upset when you lowball them because they're not as strong or experienced as your range max merits.

[duxup]

And you won't feel the same when someone picks a number?

[pdimitar]

That seems to be the going theory in these circles, yes. If there were no initial expectations then the candidate can't feel low-balled.

[BurningFrog]

Might be a way to filter out the Perpetually Angry Engineers...

[BurningFrog]

I think that question applies equally to both parties.

[tomp]

No it doesn’t. The company is fundamentally in a much better negotiating position (they have much more data on salaries) and carry way less risk than the employee (a company has many employees, each employee has just one job).

[BurningFrog]

I see this kind of argument a lot, and I don't think it's valid in general. People confuse "big" with "having power over me", or something.

In this case, obviously a job seeker does have many possible employers to apply to.

[CRConrad]

In each negotiation about a position, the company is negotiating only about one of its many positions; the candidate[1] about what will (usually) be their only job. And companies usually, AFAIK, get a lot more applications[1] per position than each applicant[1] gets offers per job search.

So no, AFAICS you are wrong and the original thesis of "the company holds the advantage" is correct.

___

[1]: Consider the connotations of those words.

[swat535]

This is great actually because you avoid wasting candidate's time, they can move on quickly to better companies that have a more fitting interview approach.

[vips7L]

Have you been up front with the type of comp you’re willing to give?

[usaar333]

A particular problem with doing that is discussed in the post; you risk everyone's time being wasted if the company will never be able to meet your target.

[bigiain]

Why should it always be the candidate's problem to reduced that risk and not the companies?

That time would not be "wasted" if the company had done due diligence on what the position and candidate were "worth" and revealed their target (or target range) to the candidate.

The real reason, I'm sure, is that companies think they hold the upper hand in the negotiation. And a lot of time with a lot of candidates that's true. It's clearly _not_ true for the class of candidate who's realistically got a $300k+ target. You are totally not going to successfully headhunt anyone in the top 1% or 5% of FAANG engineers if you try to dick them around with recruiting power imbalance power plays. _They_ don't need your bullshit. They will totally walk away from whatever time you've "wasted" so far trying to recruit them. You need them _way_ more than they need you.

(And I'm pretty sure that generalises a lot further down the experience/renumeration food chain than most devs realise. Fresh grads or devs with only a few years of experience might need to play the stupid recruiter games, but most companies trying to fill a mid level or senior role need the right candidates way more than those candidates need any one specific job. You can and should be able and willing to walk away from any potential job offer over stupid games like this...)

[pmoriarty]

I don't consider the time wasted because:

1 - I get real-world interview practice, and that always helps me in future interviews. Many companies ask the same or similar questions, and the more I'll be ready for them being asked again. In addition, when I'm surprised by a question I'll research it thoroughly when I get home and won't be surprised by that question again.

2 - I get a bit of an inside peek in to how the companies I interview at work. That's a privilege not afforded to many outsiders, and how some of these companies (some of which are world class) can and has helped me at other companies.

3 - A company might bring me in to interview for one position, but after the interview might determine I'm better suited for another. If I didn't interview with them they'd never know.

4 - As I interview with people I get a chance to make a good impression on them, so even if they don't wind up hiring me for that position they might want me when a different position opens up (whether at that company or another company the people I interviewed with moved to).

5 - By letting companies make the first offer I myself get a good salary survey of the minimum what all the companies I interview with are willing to pay for someone with my qualifications in that position. Of course I try to do my own research ahead of time, but getting salary numbers without getting a job offer is not always possible or reliable.

6 - If I blurt out a number first I'll it may put me at a disadvantage in the negotiation, as they'll just start the negotiation from what I say even if they would have been happy to have paid way more.

[RussianCow]

> I get real-world interview practice, and that always helps me in future interviews.

I hear this a lot, but how much interview practice do you really need? After the third or fourth set of interviews, they start to really blur together for me.

None of your points are false, but if you're casting a wide net and taking every interview without any idea if the company can even afford you, that's a lot of hours spent. The last time I looked for a job, I interviewed at only four companies and spent an average of probably 5-6 hours on each, and it was exhausting. I can't imagine making a habit out of it while also working full-time.

[pdimitar]

I agree it's exhausting. And it can feel very bad and demotivating for the whole thing to end up without an offer or some half-assed "culture fit" "explanation" that is likely copy-pasted from an online script collection.

But, in my case, doing many interviews helped me understand what negative signals I am emitting during interviews [according to the interviewers]. There's nothing like an outsider's perspective, even if you disagree with it.

---

Example: in one of my last interviews I was told that I am too "cocky" and "over-confident" because when I was given real-time modifications to a homework assignment (that I completed before) I was smiling and saying "oh, that's easy!" and proceeded to make the changes live in my editor -- while sharing screen.

This feedback left a very WTF feeling in me. Dude, I am (a) enthusiastic about the task and (b) have enough experience to show you, in real time, that I can modify the code right there and then to suit the new requirements, and (c) chatting with the interviewing team while doing it... and all you can gleam from that is that I am overconfident and cocky? Seriously, get a grip.

For the record, I strongly disagree with their take. But it gave me a very interesting perspective -- namely to scan for the more introverted / likely-insecure people in the interviewing dev team and try and act a little more modestly to not rub them the wrong way.

It's a fact of life that most people suck at interviewing -- as I hope that I demonstrated here. One of the guys in that team simply dislikes certain kinds of people and he lets this go against his better professional judgement about my abilities. Not cool, right? Especially when you also take into account that the CTO who also attended all interviews agreed that my tech acumen is top-notch and they seriously couldn't catch me with my pants down no matter what they did.

So again, this helps me gather experience and culture and makes me more adaptive in the future.

Does it hurt your ego? Absolutely. Does it shake your preconceived notions? Much more than one would think beforehand. Is it exhausting? Hell yes, sometimes after an interview I didn't want to do another one for a week.

But, is it also very valuable to help you improve your interviewing and negotiation skills? Yes!

That's why I did lot of interviews the last time around. And I'd do it again.

[nucleardog]

Yep. I won't get to the offer stage without us having discussed money. I don't want to waste either of our time only to find out someone's only willing to pay 70% of my bottom line.

[RussianCow]

For a big enough company, you can collect a few data points via Glassdoor[0], levels.fyi, etc to make sure that they pay in the range you're looking for before you even begin the interview process. For smaller companies, you're absolutely right, although I personally tend to give a very broad range[0] at the beginning of the process, and only narrow that down at the offer stage. That's worked well for me in the past.

The nice thing about the explosion of remote work due to COVID is that engineering salaries are beginning to normalize across the US, and there is now a lot more salary data available online, so it's easier than ever to see what you're "worth" on the market on average. This at least gives you an anchor when having these conversations, so you're not going in blind, and gives you a lot more leverage if they low-ball you.

[0]: Yes, I'm aware of the drawbacks of self-reported data, but it's still broadly useful in aggregate.

[1]: I'm making up numbers, but something like $120k - $200k, with the lower number being the minimum you'd realistically take. Usually recruiters are honest up front if they can't even afford your absolute minimum, but it still leaves you with a lot of negotiation room once the offer comes in.

[pmoriarty]

"I'm making up numbers, but something like $120k - $200k, with the lower number being the minimum you'd realistically take. Usually recruiters are honest up front if they can't even afford your absolute minimum, but it still leaves you with a lot of negotiation room once the offer comes in."

Why even give an upper limit? It's not like you'd refuse $400k if it was offered to you, would you?

Most companies will naturally start negotiation near the lower end of your range, even if they would have started way higher had you let them make the offer first. I really don't see an upside to this strategy.

[RussianCow]

> Why even give an upper limit?

Because if you just give one number, even if that's your absolute minimum, the entire salary conversation is going to be anchored around that one number, and you're going to have a harder time asking for 50+% more than that. If you give a broad range, it's easier to justify countering with something closer to the top of that range.

> It's not like you'd refuse $400k if it was offered to you, would you?

Of course not, but nobody has ever offered me that. :) In all seriousness, yes, you run the risk of your range coming in below what the company would be willing to pay, but in my experience (and those of friends and acquaintances), outside of FAANG, I have found that to be extremely rare if your range is wide enough. The companies that pay super well are generally big, and thus well-known to pay that much, and I wouldn't give them any salary numbers at all because I'll have a pretty good idea of what they'll pay me with a bit of research prior to interviewing.

Of course, anecdote != data, so YMMV and all that. This is just my experience interviewing at mostly smaller companies.

[tdeck]

In my experience Glassdoor numbers are low. They've been low compared to the reality at places I've worked, at least.

[swiftcoder]

They uniformly underestimate big tech compensation by 50%+, because they've never clearly delineated salary from total compensation (and stock grants are a majority of comp for a lot of senior FAANG employees).

Luckily levels.fyi has fairly accurate data for those same companies.

[usaar333]

> For a big enough company, you can collect a few data points via Glassdoor[0], levels.fyi, etc to make sure that they pay in the range you're looking for before you even begin the interview process.

Agreed though in practice that just moves the pre-interview conversation from a comp discussion to a leveling discussion.

[ivalm]

That’s why the company should say their range and the candidate can say if that’s satisfactory.

[jabits]

Seems to me that you would waste a lot of your personal time this way. They know enough about me before I even step in the door and I want some idea of whether the money can work. I ask for more than might be typical and I haven’t time to waste on companies that just want to show me what a great place they are to be at.

[andrew_]

conversely, I discuss compensation immediately. In the segment of the market I'm in, I've wasted too much time going through interview processes only to get to the end and find out they're incapable of even matching my current comp. I've found being candid more successful.

[sgerenser]

Yeah I think it’s worth giving at least a range if you suspect the company can’t even meet the minimum. Like “at this point in my career I’m targeting positions that pay from $150-$200k.” If they balk and basically say the aren’t authorized to offer over $100k, you don’t have to waste your time. This probably makes more sense with smaller companies where they tend to have more limited budgets.

[KptMarchewa]

In my country it's common for companies to have public salary range, at least for IT positions - see https://justjoin.it/ for example board, Linkedin recruiters do the same thing.

It seems to be terrible waste of time going through interview process to learn that they won't even come close to what you want. I would not do that to myself.

[jiveturkey]

that used to be true universally. now only true for entry level at big companies.

at senior levels especially, you should know what you want. comp bands are informed by huge data troves now and any edge you may have gotten before is gone due to the fixed and tight bands. just state your requirements and insist on “turnabout is fair play” ie they need to tell you the band. do this during the prescreen and save everyone’s time. if you kill it in the interview you still easily can negotiate to top of band.