
Salary history: Just say no - prakash
http://corcodilos.com/blog/224/salary-history-just-say-no
======
snowbird122
This comes down to negotiation theory. Is it better to make the first offer,
or wait for the other person to make the first offer? I used to think "The
first person to mention a number loses", but after taking a negotiations class
and applying some of the concepts, I learned the power of anchoring the
negotiation by mentioning the first number. After the first number is
mentioned, you are now negotiating around that range. This has proven to be
very effective for me.

~~~
timr
You can't "anchor" a corporation. It doesn't have feelings or emotions -- it
has a big table of pay ranges for people with X years of experience and/or
education.

Your strategy works if you name a "negotiable" number that is higher than what
you really want to make, but near the employer's upper bound for the position.
Guess right, and you'll be negotiated down to a number that is mutually
acceptable. Guess too low, and you'll be under-paid. Guess too high, and
you'll be bounced without further negotiation. No matter what you do, the onus
is on _you_ to guess correctly the numbers on the employer's sheet. That's why
saying the first number is bad when you're negotiating with a more
knowledgeable opponent.

If you've had a lot of success with the "anchoring" method, it's likely
because you're not coming close to the upper bound of the pay range that your
employers had pre-determined for their positions.

~~~
chollida1
> Guess too high, and you'll be bounced without further negotiation.

This hasn't been my experience. My experience has been if they want you then
they'll find a way to make it work.

If you don't fit in one grid then they'll just bump you up to the next grid.

~~~
timr
Most HR people are staffing for positions. They don't have the authority or
the incentive to "bump" you to another job (and most likely, another
recruiter).

~~~
chollida1
I'll have to take your word on it as far as what HR people will do.

The people I was thinking of were the team leads and managers.

These are the people I've dealt with and I am. We do, at least in every
company I've worked for, have the ability to say I want this person, lets make
it work wrt salary.

Now obviously this has limits; a developer can't come in and expect to be the
highest paid person in an established company:). But if the person's demands
fit anywhere on the salary grid, and their abilities match, then they are
almost assured of getting hired at their desired salary.

We don't create a salary range when we create a position.

------
ghshephard
I've been hiring in the valley for the last 12 years, starting off in the
interview chain at Netscape in '96, and moving into management at my current
organization in 2003. Since I moved into management, and end each interview
chain (with a candidate that I am the hiring manager for, and have a candidate
that I think we will bring on board), I have always ended the interview with
three questions: Do we have your application filled out, When can you start,
and "what did you make at your last company."

"What did you make at your last company" is a valid question, and I know of no
employer (at a Silicon Valley Company) that has instructed their employees to
_not_ tell future employers what they make. It is, of course, considered good
taste not to discuss compensation (Stock or Salary) with coworkers - but it's
remarkable that there aren't typically company policies against that. (There
are exceptions, I'm sure)

The thing is - you _need_ to color that answer. Don't just say "I made
$150K/year as a Sysadmin at my prior company", it's fine to say "They were
paying me $150K, but that was probably an outlier, and I'd be very comfortable
making $115K." Or, "I was making $90K/year, but I'm looking to make $115K at
my next engagement" - You probably know (through salary.com, your colleagues
at other companies, etc..) what the market will pay for your skills - and that
is the number you need to communicate during the interview, what you are
_worth_. It is as destructive and harmful to a career to be paid more than you
are worth, than it is to be paid less than you are worth.

The employees being overpaid are always the very first ones to be laid off,
while their less skilled, but more appropriately compensated colleagues, are
kept on. And, when you aren't being laid off, if you aren't delivering to your
compensation level - you are never receiving positive performance reviews -
even if you are performing at a much higher level than someone less well
compensated - makes for a stressful work environment. (There is more to a job
than money.)

Speaking only for myself, any candidate who starts going down the road of "I
won't fill out employment application until we are interested in each other",
"I won't discuss previous salary", "I won't provide references until there is
an offer letter", etc... - just screams "Prima Donna"

That strategy might work if you are a very strategic hire, with very
specialized skills, in a very tight job market - but in general, life is too
short to have to manage those type of personalities, and I'd rather just take
a pass and bring on someone who is willing to work _with_ me, and not
_against_ me.

~~~
Locke
I'm not sure your post deserves to be downmodded -- it seems honest and on
topic. I can see how one bit in particular could come off as slightly
offensive:

'Speaking only for myself, any candidate who starts going down the road of "I
won't fill out employment application until we are interested in each other",
"I won't discuss previous salary", "I won't provide references until there is
an offer letter", etc... - just screams "Prima Donna"'

This is a matter of trust. Salary history, a detailed employment history, and
references are private. In the case of references it would be down right rude,
to repay the people who are willing to vouch for you by spamming their contact
info to anyone who asks. There is nothing unreasonable about withholding that
info until both sides clearly serious about moving forward. If anything, I
wonder what your cavalier attitude screams about you?

~~~
ghshephard
So, In a world of Networks that need to be built, customers that need to be
deployed, ticketing systems that need to be improved, Post Mortems that need
to be completed, and Network Architectures that need to be visioed - I simply
don't have time/energy or, even the _ability_ to deal with someone who isn't
going to throw themselves 100% onto the team. And that starts at the
interview. Perhaps it's a reflection on how I perceived the employer/employee
relationship.

The interview is a (very poor) proxy for what the work relationship will be
like with the candidate in the future. Firing people is such a major, major
hassle (particularly as you get bigger) - that unless the person is grossly
incompetent or breaches company policy in an unambiguous manner, you typically
have to wait for the next round of layoffs to get rid of them, even if they
are difficult to work with.

What this means, is that you are looking for all the danger signs you can
during an interview - and hiring someone who is going to "Stand up for their
rights" or "as a matter of principle, not share detailed employee history", is
fraught with risk. Both of those actions are entirely reasonable in and of
themselves, but, for better or worse, they portend, for the potential
employer, risk.

And I guess that's what I was trying to get across (from the perspective of an
employer) - that rightly or wrongly, your actions in holding back information
or challenging the employer in an interview, will be sending clear signals.

If you are a strategic hire, or if the job market is tight, or if you have
some very, very specific skills - then you can probably afford to negotiate
hardball, and be as difficult as you want - they aren't hiring you for the
person that you are, but the things that you can do - but, in the 95% of the
time a hiring situation is taking place, that is not the case.

[added: And as far as spamming references - ask anyone who hires; actually
getting around to calling references of people you are _hiring_ is hard enough
- I don't know if I have _ever_ contacted a reference unless a salary, start
time, and position where pretty much agreed upon. And I'm better than most at
getting around to that task. ]

~~~
brlewis
Do you always tell the people you're interviewing what the maximum budgeted
salary is for the position?

If the answer is no, then withholding their previous salary isn't hardball
negotiation, it's simply negotiating on the same terms you are.

~~~
ghshephard
"maximum budgeted salary" is probably a more relevant concept to large 1000+
employee company. I typically only know what the _minimum_ budgeted salary is
- that is, the lowest skilled employee I can justify bringing into a position.
At the top end, sky is the limit - if you can justify $200K/year based on
contribution, we'll be lucky to bring you on board.

And yes, I immediately tell all applicants at the conclusion of the interview
process precisely what I think they can command in the peninsula economy, and
at our company (65th percentile), based on what I know about their experience,
the listed (and back door references), the local economy, and what our needs
are. I don't negotiate salary - that's the number we offer them, and they can
either take it or leave it. The information they provide on their salary, and
the reason they are leaving their last position, just happen to be two pieces
of information that feed into that final number.

The difference, of course, being that I know very little about how smart they
are, and how much they can get things done, whereas the candidate knows almost
_everything_ about themselves. And having the candidate hold back that
information just makes my job more difficult, rather than easier. Certainly
not what I'm looking for in an employee.

They should be able to walk into the interview and tell me to within $5K
precisely what they should be making.

Remember - I'm a hiring manager, not an HR staffer. I see my job in life to
maximize my employee's compensation, ensure that they are making more at my
company than they would anywhere else. Every single day consists of me trying
to increase what my employees make by giving them more training, more tools,
more projects, more guidance, more time to focus on what interests them.

Also remember - it hurts an employee just as much to be overcompensated as it
does to be undercompensated.

~~~
prakash
_Also remember - it hurts an employee just as much to be overcompensated as it
does to be undercompensated._

Why? Can you expand on that?

~~~
ghshephard
As a manager, when we do both our employee reviews as well as rankings, we
always take into account what an employee is making. Ideally, an employee is
performing slightly above their pay grade at all times, so their is a
consistent track record of pay increases, punctuated every so often by
significant changes in job responsibilities.

On a technical track, the typical valley growth pattern is from a low level
helper, to a developer/technician, to an engineer/sysadmin, to an
architect/Sr.Sysadmin.

But, from time to time, something gets out of whack, and either an employee
was poorly interviewed, lied about their previous salary, or was grossly
overpaid, and they come into a job with far higher expectations than they are
going to be capable of delivering on.

Let's say that a solid Jr. Sysadmin, who's comfortable working around DNS zone
files, configuring startup scripts, placing IP addresses on interfaces, and
writing rudimentary scripts to automate all of this, should be making around
$80K/year in the valley right now.

Now, let's say they got hired into a Sr. Sysadmin role, at $120K/year and, in
their first couple months, were expected to architect/engineer/deploy a global
loadbalancing DNS architecture, complete with performance and redundancy
capability, documentation, etc...

This isn't unreasonable to expect of a $120K/year performer, so, when the
individual failed to accomplish this, they are placed on a performance
improvement plan, seen as an underperformer, and are taking up a valuable head
count where someone else could have been performing those functions. They are
mostly likely the first people to be laid off, and will be very unlikely to
see a repeat of that salary, and will need to adjust to that fact. In a worst
case scenario, it takes them 9-12 months to adjust to the fact that their next
job will include a $40k/year pay decrease.

On the flip side, if they had come in as an $80K/year Sysadmin, and performed
well, they would have been seen as an asset to the team, and would have
continued to have enjoyed both career as well as salary growth. Ideally they
manage to dodge layoffs, and then, 3-4 years later, they are making $120K/year
based on merit.

~~~
shiranaihito
Obviously it's a good thing if an employee gets what he's worth, and it's nice
if you can actually accurately determine that.

But what's his previous salary got to do with what he's actually worth, now?

If you tell a potential employer what you're currently getting, doesn't it set
an upper limit on how much you _can_ get from the new job?

If no one knows what you're getting now, you could get a 50% 'raise' when
changing jobs, and still happen to be worth just that.

Is there any way that a potential employer knowing your current salary can
work to your advantage as an employee? I seriously doubt it.

------
jbarciauskas
What a bizarre concept. Both HR and the applicant should have done market
research and come to similar conclusions about the appropriate salary range.
If the applicant is qualified, what on earth does it matter if he was
lowballed by his previous employer? Similarly, if the applicant did his
research properly and is still applying for the job, clearly he is indicating
that he is prepared to take a pay cut.

Also, the self-righteousness of claiming "privileged information" is patently
absurd. I'll tell anyone who asks what I make. More transparency gives power
to employees. Companies want you to keep your salary a secret for their own
reasons.

~~~
tptacek
Because:

(a) HR's job is to hire you for the lowest possible price.

(b) By telling them your previous salary, you've conceded a great deal of
information about what your negotiating floor is.

Two very basic rules of salary negotiation, which process _could not be
further from market research_ :

* Don't name a number first (whatever number you give is the highest number that will occur during negotiation, even if their range went higher).

* Don't give up your "invoice price" --- the cost for them to move from your previous job without you taking a pay cut, or, worse, if you're unemployed, the price at which you'll think they're still doing you a favor.

~~~
Locke
You're first point strikes me as incredibly jaded. That may be the case at
poorly run companies, but hasn't been my experience. As in most business
relationships, the goal is not to screw the other party. The goal is to arrive
at a win-win, where both sides can be happy.

Let's look at what I can expect if I screw someone over with the lowest
possible salary:

* An employee who can justify doing the bare minimum it takes to get the job done, because after all, he's being paid the bare minimum

* Low morale. Can I not expect the individual to bitch about how poorly the company treats its employees?

* High turnover / no loyalty. How much money am I going to waste bringing people up to speed, only to see them hop to the next job as soon as possible? How can I expect to retain valuable employees when I don't treat them as valuable from the start?

It's a poorly run business that screws over it's employees, customers, and /
or partners just because it _can_. I like to think most good business people
recognize that that sort of approach does _not_ yield the best results over
the long term.

Frankly, I have no concerns about revealing salary requirements or providing
salary history. If a company doesn't treat me fairly during negotiations
that's a huge signal that it's not the sort of company I want to work for.

~~~
tptacek
I agree with all of the things you've just said in principle, but none of them
apply in the real world. A company that loudly embraced just one of those
bullet points you just gave would top the "best places to work" lists.

The problem isn't top-down corporate strategy; it's the concept of HR
departments. When you:

* establish an entire business unit apart from the real work of a company,

* give it a mandate to meddle in the affairs of every other business unit in the company, and then

* measure its performance in raw numbers,

you get the systemic inefficiency almost every large company sees. It's not
the people or their ideas that are messed up, it's the system.

However, apart from all that --- if you think what I'm saying is "jaded", try
being a vendor to large companies sometime. Prospective employees deal with
HR. Vendors deal with _Purchasing_. At least HR tries to pretend to be nice to
you. Purchasing departments (for consultants, or for products) are overtly
intended to screw you.

Finally, this isn't about whether you _feel_ like you're being treated fairly.
It's about whether you're _best representing your interests_ during
negotiation. The idea is not to lose leverage by conceding an advantage in
information to your counterparty.

An HR person would be fired if they revealed the salary history of the last 20
people hired into your group in the company. Under no circumstances would a
company ever reveal that kind of information. But you concede it willingly.
Why?

~~~
Locke
I think our opinions are informed by very different "real world" experiences.
I've worked mainly at small companies where HR had very little power over
staffing or other important decisions. When I have had hiring
responsibilities, I worked very hard to balance the interests of the company
with the interests of the future employee. I care deeply about the happiness
of both parties, because I think happy, successful employees are the
foundation of a healthy, successful company.

It sounds like you've worked often (mostly?) with larger companies. Companies
staffed with people who think life / business is somehow a game. That in order
to win, someone else must lose.

I don't doubt that such companies exist. They may even represent a majority.
But, not every company is run that way, and I hope you are fortunate enough to
work for a _better_ sort of company someday.

~~~
tptacek
You still shouldn't cough up your salary history to a startup hiring manager.

------
ig1
The problem with this is that it's mainly a disadvantage to disclose your
current salary if you're earning below market rates.

If you're earning above market rates you want to disclose your salary both to
show the company how much your previous employer values you and also to get
you a higher salary at the new company.

Hence the people who aren't disclosing their salary are implicitly informing
the company that they're currently being paid below market rate. While it
might not be true for everyone who refuses to disclose salary, it's true for a
large enough percentage of applicants that it's safe to assume.

------
davidu
It's always wise to put a number out first. As an employer, I try to do that.
As an employee, I've also always done that.

It sets the dynamic and expectations. Obviously if it's crazy, it also
provides an immediate opportunity to correct an unreasonable expectation.

~~~
run4yourlives
Yeah, I've never understood all of this salary secrecy crap. Just tell them
what you want to be paid! If it's way more than they can truly afford, at
least you won't waste any more time.

If you know what the market is paying and are comfortable with a particular
wage, what the hell does it matter if you're under everyone else?

~~~
yummyfajitas
If an hour of negotiation gives you $5k more money per year, you just got
(effectively) $5k for an hour of work.

~~~
run4yourlives
I'm not suggesting you don't negotiate. I'm suggesting you ask for that extra
$5K up front.

------
there
bold tags: just say no

------
bhc3
The concept here is great. But if those people laid off from Sun Micro and
other companies divulge past salary in a tight job market, are they more
likely to get a job over those who don't?

------
comatose_kid
Nick's Ask The Headhunter column was a great source of job hunting strategies
when I first read him on EETimes (I think) back around 2001.

------
geuis
could the author have used bold any more?

------
raganwald
[http://weblog.raganwald.com/2006/08/three-tips-for-
getting-j...](http://weblog.raganwald.com/2006/08/three-tips-for-getting-job-
through.html)

What a hypocrite! When he's interviewing, he asks for salary history. When
you're interviewing him, he just says no.

------
time_management
When I left finance, I hid my pay for the opposite reason of most people. I
knew that most tech companies wouldn't match the absurd compensation I'd
earned at a hedge fund, so there was no point in divulging it.

I'd never say, though, that I refuse to divulge pay based on a company policy.
That makes the position seem weak. "I'm not telling you, because I'm not
allowed." I'd make it clear that I'm not divulging it because I don't want to,
and any company that wouldn't respect that desire on my part is a place where
I wouldn't want to work.

