Many
of my clients and, I believe, most job-seekers today have great fears
about revealing their salary requirements, as they're asked to do in
company input form, after company input form, when applying for a
given job ... and rightly so. You're trapped because they want a
firm figure, not a range or words that say "salary range is
open", so their input form literally forces you to choose a
figure.
It's
a stupid way to go about things, even from the employers' viewpoint,
but they persist on doing this idiotic "dance" by asking
the applicant to tell them their salary requirement before
they've even reviewed their resume.
I
call it stupid because it generates lots of resumes from many
different people who wouldn't take the salary being offered if it
were posted up front; or who might even be scared off because it
looks like a heavy-duty job because it's rather high. This results in
countless wasted resumes, both on the part of the sender and the
employer's reader. I suppose the HR departments that foster this
kind of thinking think it screens the improperly-priced applicants
out, while in actuality it adds to the work everyone does that is, to
put it mildly, wasted.
The
smart thing to do would be to include the salary, or the range that
is being considered for the salary, upfront. This would attract
certain people, repel others, and limit the resumes and wasted time.
It would be the upright thing to do. I might even say it would be
the sensible thing to do.
Discussing
salary with a third-party recruiter, however, is a completely
different story. It's the wise thing to do because the third-party
recruiter will, hopefully, know the salary range the employer is
offering, and he or she will want to find someone who fits the
requirements as well as that salary range. No wasted time or energy
here.
I
wish more HR people would read this and realize how stupid it is to
do this kind of thing. Get the would-be employee to tell you how
much they want and perhaps screen them out if they're too high, and
maybe lose a highly-qualified candidate for a few lousy dollars.
Somehow, that thought never seems to have entered those who build
those input forms.
Some
of the more progressive companies out there have begun to look at not
only how well someone interviews, but how well they "fit"
into the organization because they've begun to realize that having
good retention rates for employees is economical and saves money in
the long run, and salary isn't the be-all and end-all of that
equation.
I'd
welcome hearing from anybody who can defend this "salary
upfront" type of thinking. To date, I haven't heard one
argument in favor of it, but ... who knows? ... there could be a
rational reason for it. I also welcome comments from those
applicants who have encountered this and would like to share their
experiences.
*
* *
Lawrence
M. Light has been a job coach for over fifteen years. His website is
eJobCoach.com. He has created a number of eBooks and Video Workshops
that cover various aspects of finding, and getting, a job. Learn More Here.
Hello Lawrence,
ReplyDeleteIf applicants refused to answer such stupid questions, employers would stop asking such stupid questions.
As professional engineers we never offer our services until after we fully understand the project. Job applicants need to fully understand the job before they can give a meaningful response to a salary question. Perhaps employers don't want applicants to know what the job requires before they commit to a salary.
Some employers look at their employees and job applicants as interchangeable cogs on the wheel of productivity whose salary is to be minimized. Such employers suffer from excessive employee turnover and low productivity.
Successful employees have all three of the following success predictors while unsuccessful employee lack one or two and usually it is Job Talent that they lack.
1. Competence
2. Cultural Fit
3. Job Talent
Employers do a…
A. great job of hiring competent employees.
B. good job of hiring competent employees who fit the culture.
C. poor job of hiring competent employees who fit the culture and who have a talent for the job.
Identifying the talent required for each job seems to be missing from talent and management discussions. If we ignore any of the three criteria, then our workforce will be less successful with higher turnover than if we do not ignore any of the three criteria.
1. Competence
2. Cultural Fit
3. Talent
There are many factors to consider when hiring and managing talent but first we need to define talent unless "hiring talent" means "hiring employees." Everyone wants to hire for and manage talent but if we can't answer the five questions below with specificity, we can't hire or manage talent effectively.
1. How do we define talent?
2. How do we measure talent?
3. How do we know a candidate’s talent?
4. How do we know what talent is required for each job?
5. How do we match a candidate’s talent to the talent demanded by the job?
Most people cannot answer the five questions with specificity but the answers provide the framework for hiring successful employees and creating an engaged workforce.
Talent is not found in resumes or interviews or background checks or college transcripts.
Talent must be hired since it cannot be acquired or imparted after the hire.