Salary history on Job ApplicationIn filling out a job application, what is an appropriate response to the Current Salary question? Also, the application is asking for Compensation as well as other compensation amounts (bonus, commission, etc). Is it appropriate to put 'Confidential' for an answer to these questions? My feeling is that total compensation encompasses not just bonus, but auto allowance, total benefits, vacation, covered monthly expenses (cell phone, home networking, etc) so I don't know how to quantify that into the 'total compensation' question. I have already had the first phone interview with the internal recruiter and have been passed onto the next step in the process. I don't want to show my cards too soon. What is the best approach to handle this? In my opinion, you should provide the information requested, assuming you want to stay in the running for the job. In your response, you could include a sentence that says something like, "My current salary is $X, but my anticipated salary is negotiable within the $Y to $Z range." But on the application, list your salary as an annualized amount. Compensation, with all due respect, doesn't include the value of benefits. It's limited to money actually paid to you in form of bonuses, commissions, or other payments that are based on performance, not stuff like the value of cell phones or car allowances or any of the other items you mentioned. They are part of the benefit package, not the salary package. This isn't a matter of showing your cards, it's nothing more than providing objective information requested by the employer. You can always refuse to provide it, and they can always refuse to hire you. Depends on how badly you need or want this job. Paul W. Barada The Negotiation Expert I would offer another option aside from caving in to these types of requests. I usually put "professional scale". They know what the market is and what they're willing to offer for the position. When I was in law school, I learned the first rule of negotiation is "never offer numbers first". I have found that discussing concrete numbers with a potential employer prior to deciding whether or not they actually want to hire you puts you at a disadvantage. Or, if asked, you can turn this question around and ask them what the range for the salary is.
I think it is terrible advice to suggest ducking the anticipated salary question, regardless of what somebody recommended during law school. One of the ways employers attempt to drain the pool of potential applicants is to screen them on the basis of their anticipated salary range. If, for instance, you're used to a salary of $60K, let's say, and the prospective employer's budgeted range for the job tops out at $50K, there's probably no reason to interview you when it's obvious that you're not going to take a $10K cut in salary under most circumstances - hence the advice to be honest and forthcoming in stating what your most recent salary is and what your anticipated salary range is, when that information is requested. Playing the "who blinks first" game just wastes both party's time and, with increasing frequency, causes the prospective job seeker to be screened out for failing or refusing to provide the requested information. Paul W. Barada The Negotiation Expert Dear Paul, Thanks for that insightful analysis. I'm sure you believe that yours is the expert approach. I agree that no one should waste time applying for positions far beneath their salary requirements. Employers should post them up front so we don't waste our time or theirs. With increasing frequency they don't perhaps because employers and hiring managers play games, too. I have had managers tell me whatever they can shave off hiring salaries is often awarded to them as part of their annual bonus. Your approach assumes that the only litmus test for both applicants and employers is compensation. I find that salary requirements are flexible and depend on a variety of factors. So, it isn't necessarily the case - at least in my experience that anyone rules out candidates or employers based solely on salary. I have applied for many positions being told the salary was "x", but actually negotiating for far more. I can't recall ever starting a position for the stated salary. It's important that people be hired based on qualifications - not what their current salary is or what they expect. I believe you're ignoring the big picture, but you are entitled to your opinion. Of course compensation isn't the only factor! That just happens to be the factor asked about by our friend. But when a hiring manager is looking at a pile of several hundred resumes or job applications, one of the quickest and easiest ways for most of them to whittle down that pile to a more manageable size is eliminating those without complete information. Other ways to do it include, obviously, screening for a degree in the desired discipline required by the job, having X years of experience in the occupational field, and dozens of other criteria. Why would any hiring manager waste his/her time with an applicant who's left out basic information that's been requested - whatever that information happens to be? The idea for the job seeker is to stay in the running for the job. When a hiring manager is coming up with the short list of candidates to interview, the general idea is to look for those whose qualifications, including anticipated salary, line up best with the requirements of and budged salary for the job. Making it harder for the hiring manager by not providing the requested information isn't the way to increase the chances of making the short list - looking at the big picture. Paul W. Barada The Negotiation Expert I believe we're talking negotiations here, not getting the job itself, although they are related, they are too different phases. At the end of negotiations, each party has to decide whether or not to continue the relationship. So yes, if you ask for too much, you might get skipped, and if you offer not enough, you'll be rejected... The key to successful effective negotiations, in a situation where both parties want to come to an agreement, is that both parties have access to the same information about the other. For example: if an employer wants to know your salary history, they should provide you with the salaries they've paid for that position in the past. If you think that's ridiculous, then you agree with me that asking for your salary history is ridiculous as well, right? Apply this example to other questions designed to strengthen the negotiation position of the employer and you'll get a good feel for what questions you should answer and which ones you shouldn't. ("Are you currently employed?", "Do you have any other offers?", etc.)
Some random thoughts: - Believe that in every negotiation you are an equal to the other party. - Believe in a reasonable outcome of the negotiations. - Do not undermine your own position. - Set your bottom line before negotiations start, start negotiations aiming high. Walk away if you can't negotiate at least your bottom line.
Actually, we were talking about ways to stay in the running for a job, not how to negotiate on the basis of a job offer having been made. Of course it would be nice if both parties could stand on an equal footing with regard to anticipated salary range and budgeted salary range, but it usually doesn't work that way when we're talking about providing salary information from the entire pool of job seekers as a whole. My point was that to stay in the running for a job, providing the requested information is better than not providing it. If you'll read back, you'll find that my advice was not making the hiring manager's job harder by leaving out information that was requested. In addition, and this is just my opinion, the job seeker and the employer are NOT on equals in the hiring exercise! And that's especially true of people who aren't working! For the person who isn't working, the employer has something the job seeker wants - a job. And there are, we must presume, at least several other job seekers who also want that job. Staying in the running requires playing by the employer's rules, not the job seeker's rules! That's not an equal position and it would be naive to assume otherwise. Finally, walking away from negotiations presumes that the job seeker either has a job or has enough money in the bank to be a co-equal negotiator. Sorry, but that's not always the case for people who need a job. Paul W. Barada The Negotiation Expert Yes, we do have a different opinion about negotiating, and I think we've been into it together before <g> If it is naive of me think that both parties engaged in the negotiating process are equals and must follow the same set of rules, then my naivety has served me very well this far. I sit at that table, completely at ease with myself and with confidence about the end result. I too do need the money, but this has never stopped me from leaving that table or even quitting a job when *I* think it's totally not going where I want to go. Maybe it's the attitude, I rather work a minimum wage job (and have done so in the past) then to go below my lower limits. And I will not hesitate to do so again, although these days I'm more in a position to make things go my way, but I think I've earned that and worked up to it, so: Negotiate from your heart or just chew on whatever bone *they* want to throw at you, it's your choice and only you can make it that decision. Try to end up somewhere in the middle and you'll be just fine. While both of you make good points, and I am not weighing in on techniques for getting or negotiating a job offer, there is one thing the job seeker must always bear in mind: that he or she is just as "good" a person, and just as talented, as the person doing the interviewing. One simply cannot go into an interview feeling as if one is somehow not as "good" or is subordinate in personhood to the interviewer. Projecting an air of confidence and self assuredness--not arrogance--is a must in any interview. You must consider the other party as an equal, even if you must acknowledge in some cases that your position is not equal! The worst thing one can do is interview with the attitude that they are "less" than the potential employer. Of course the employer, in many if not most cases, is holding the better hand from a logistics standpoint--especially if the job seeker is not currently working. But I see so many posts from people that seem as if they are not interviewing from a position of personal strength. The VP of a company pulls his pants on, or her pantyhose on, same was as you do every morning. He/she started out, very likely, as a worker bee like you. Don't ever go into an interview "in awe" of someone with a higher level position. Make solid eye contact, use a firm handshake and a smile, and always remember that you are just as valuable a person with valuable skills to offer. Do that, and you may not have to worry about how to get an offer or how to negotiate a better one! | |
|
Career Tips
|