> it is perfectly ok to give your number, find out more about the role and then say the following: "I see. Well given what you've told me about the position, that's a bigger role than I was expecting when I gave you my initial number. Given that, I am going to raise my expectations with regards to compensation".
I have to believe that this kills the process at least as often as it works.
That is absolutely fine. If you are going into a negotiation with the mindset that you MUST get a deal then you have already given up much of your bargaining power. The key to success here is having a good selection of backup options in case some of them fail.
In my experience, it's much easier to suggest that some element of the comp package or expectations that wasn't salary (benefits contribution, 401k, options, PTO, work hours expectations, bonus) didn't align with your expectations instead of claiming the role was much more than anticipated.
Saying the role was bigger may also be received as the person being somewhat intimidated by the role, which doesn't instill confidence in the hiring firm.
Looks like this article is dated a couple weeks ago, which surprised me in that the article neglects to mention the rather popular movement and trend of cities in the US making it illegal to ask for your current salary.
I believe it started with the state of Massachusetts in 2016, with Philadelphia and New York City following suit this year.
One can expect this trend may continue, and will make this question (and this post) somewhat obsolete.
I usually ask : why do you need to know? To which they usually respond "so that we can see if you fit in or pay scale". To what I ask what the scale is and I will tell them.
After some back and forth they either give up or give the scale.
If they give up or try to force me to tell, I respond that thank you but I am not interested as there is something strange in their process.
If they tell, it means they really need to gauge because I have a job where the salaries can span half an order of magnitude so it may be useful for them to know if they can afford me.
I do not agree with the trend of disclosing income to recruiters. It can only serve to harm your prospects.
I know some people that are closer to retirement age who realize that they may not find a new job making what they were previously making before being laid off, and they are OK with that considering other factors. But recruiters are passing up on opportunities for them because they are trying to match numbers. The reality is that people take more than salary into consideration.
In my personal experience, just accumulate every last bit of compensation you make and turn it into a dollar number. That's what you present: salary + health care + bonuses + "free" dry cleaning + whatever. If you think that number is too high to present you can always lop some off the top.
Good recruiters will try to make you parse this out and ask "well how much of this was base salary?". Nunya is the correct answer, but if you want the job you can just make up something or take off the yearly bonus or whatever and keep the rest.
It's their job to get you into the job for as low of a salary as they can. It's your job to get into the job with as high as a salary as you can.
This has killed the process for me a couple of times, but both times the recruiter revealed to me that what I was asking for was far over what they were willing to pay and we both parted ways. I count this as working out because then I would have been in a higher position with less pay than I was currently making just to work at a company with some name brand recognition.
The article doesn't mention lying about your current salary / compensation.
Personally I wouldn't; but then I also tend not to negotiate / just roll over and take what I'm offered since generally I care much more about the interestingness of the work & the people I'd be surrounded by each day (though I'm getting to the age where I may start a family; so hopefully my subconscious' priorities will change a bit in my wallet's favour).
However, I suspect that many people do, as this avoids being seen as uncooperative, and suggests that people were willing to pay you more so presumably you're worth it. I doubt anyone would check (likely it's illegal to), so this seems a no-brainer for those ethically unencumbered by this option.
But seriously, I think that it's better to not answer this question, at least not with a hard number. The only reason they ask you is because they are trying to gauge if they can get away with paying you [current salary]+x%, where this number is less than their standard salary for the position. Instead, say something like "it's not directly comparable because [reasons], so let's focus on what will be my responsabilities and what will be an adecuate compensation for them".
I have to believe that this kills the process at least as often as it works.