Introduction
There are lots of smart, solid HR folks who work hard to maintain high standards in recruiting and hiring. They are progressive and focused on making their companies successful. For example, they do not demand a job candidate’s earnings history prior to a salary negotiation. But the bureaucrats in HR are killing HR’s credibility — and that of the companies they work for. The submission below from an HR manager certainly does not indict all HR workers. Nonetheless it reveals a serious, pernicious problem in the field.
An HR manager’s head explodes
Dear Nick,
I have read your column frequently and am so dismayed that someone pays you to hand out this kind of information — in this instance with potential harm to a lesser-skilled candidate in need of a job.
It’s safe for you as a critic to have an opinion about why an employer may or may not have justification for requiring salary history — but if you’re giving out advice, tell the candidate how to handle the tricky situation — not how wrong the recruiter is — because he/she really isn’t.
Also, legal, illegal, schmillegal, what happens behind the closed doors of the recruiter’s office stays there and if a requirement on the application is salary history and you leave it off — there will be no interview for you.
I’ve been a VP of HR, a recruiter, a labor negotiator and a candidate, so I know from which I speak.
A good and thorough recruiter knows very well that if you employ a candidate at a substantially lesser salary than they earned, especially in a similar position, you are very likely wasting the company’s money and your time because the candidate is looking for a quick fix to unemployment while applying for higher paying jobs while they work for you. That is, of course, unless you’ve mapped out a rapid route for them to increase responsibilities and pay to a level they were at in the past. Someone else has already set the money standard that tells the candidate what they are worth — you’re merely a stop-gap and you have every right to know that before you hire them. Nice-looking people have been known to lie through their teeth to maintain their standard of living — like being able to afford food.
Some employers want the information because they believe that if you made $30,000 in your last job for a like position which for them starts at $50,000, they’d be overpaying and want the opportunity to buy you for $35,000 to start. The HR person who does that gets many kudos for their shopping moxie from their boss and gets to keep their job and go on many more shopping trips.
Your best advice to a candidate caught in the no-win situation of having the hiring manager ask bluntly, “What is your present salary?” or the all-too-intimidating, “What will it take to get you to come to work for us?” — you could suggest a response like this one that also opens the door for a very tricky question you were afraid to ask. The candidate should say to the employer:
“What’s more important is the value of the position to you. This is a great company so I’m sure you have a fair salary range already established for the job and as long as I fit into that range accounting for my experience, I will be happy. By the way, what is the range you’ve assigned to it?”
The employer probably won’t tell you the range, but will see you as confident, diplomatic, smart and perhaps his future right-hand.
I wish you well, Nick.
Nick’s Reply
Thanks for all the evidence anyone needs to justify withholding their salary information. I have no response to you. But I’d like to offer some comments to job hunters.
There is no real salary negotiation if you comply
Ever see an HR manager’s head explode, spewing the bile that drives their hiring process?
1. This is a clear example of a personnel jockey who would tell you there’s no interview if you withhold your salary history. This saves you the agony of working for a company that wants to take advantage of you during salary negotiation.
2. “…legal, illegal, schmillegal, what happens behind the closed doors of the recruiter’s office stays there…” This is the heart of the matter. It’s a tacit admission that in some companies the law is locked out of the hiring process when the abuse begins.
“…if a requirement on the application is salary history and you leave it off — there will be no interview for you.” Show me the law that says a job applicant is required to divulge their private salary history. By implying that behind those doors HR is the law, this personnel jockey reveals no qualms about threatening job candidates. This personnel jockey has the effrontery to brag that extorting salary information from a job applicant is intended to interfere with a fair and honest salary negotiation.
We have no idea what you’re worth, but this is how we pay less
3. Not all HR folks depend on your salary history to judge you. But some do.
“Someone else has already set the money standard that tells the candidate what they are worth…” Consider the abject failure of the HR person who trusts some other company’s judgment of you as it’s reflected in the salary it paid you. If I were the chairman of the board employing that personnel representative, she’d be fired. Consider what she’s doing. If our company is recruiting someone from a competitor, she’s judging that candidate based on our competitor’s assessment. If we can’t judge for ourselves, where is our competitive edge? (And what if our competitor made a mistake?)
4. The real corruption of HR practices is revealed here: “…and you [HR] have every right to know [the applicant’s previous salary] before you hire them.” No, HR does not have that right. HR may have the right to show you the door if you don’t comply, but HR does not have the right to your private information. When candidates realize they can walk away from an unreasonable interviewer, they often do. Not all candidates are so bold or fearless, but the choice is theirs to make.
5. The arrogance of some in HR becomes clear, too. “Nice looking people… lie through their teeth… to afford food…” That’s a great way to characterize the next candidate who walks in. It’s emblematic of the dismissive attitude that candidates face when they apply for a job and when they negotiate a job offer. But judging from comments here on Ask The Headhunter, many job hunters are walking away from such nonsense.
Salary negotiation: We’ll let your last employer decide
6. So is this merely an HR problem? I think not. It’s a problem in the board room. “The HR person who does that gets many kudos for their shopping moxie from their boss…” for paying a sucker less than the job is worth just because the last employer did the same. I know that many HR professionals will be appalled by the statements this particular HR person makes. But I believe this practice is prevalent enough that it’s a problem.
But the capper is right here:
7. The job candidate is supposed to say, “This is a great company so I’m sure you have a fair salary range already established for the job…” Based on everything this crank has already told us, we know that the “fair salary range” is irrelevant. What matters is the applicant’s previous salary. Even if the salary for the job is $50K, our HR friend is going to score points with her boss by suckering the candidate. The offer will be for $35K because the candidate was making only $30K. Welcome to the workhouse.
See danger for what it is
Does anyone wonder why my readers don’t trust employers with their salary history? “The hiring manager probably won’t tell you the range, but will see you as…” …a sucker to be underpaid? All I see in this HR person’s statements is danger for the job hunter.
This kind of HR policy is why I publish Ask The Headhunter. While salary history can be discussed when and if an applicant feels comfortable doing it (it’s not inadvisable in every circumstance), something big is wrong when a Goliath of a company intimidates the little job applicant and threatens that David will never see a job if David doesn’t surrender his private information. It almost doesn’t matter that many HR operations don’t behave this way. Enough do that the problem is endemic: People generally believe they have no choice when the demand is made, and that they will be ejected if they refuse even politely.
The HR profession has some housecleaning to do. I urge those practitioners with integrity to remove the salary history question from job applications and to stop defending this practice on any level.
It’s time for responsible employers to rid themselves of representatives who abuse their roles and threaten not only the privacy of job applicants but the reputations of their companies. It’s time for HR to judge candidates on their abilities, not on their salary, and to stop limiting job offers because “The HR person who does that gets many kudos for their shopping moxie from their boss.”
Moxie indeed. What executive-level manager would brag about giving job applicants the shaft and then suggest that I should teach them to take it?
Related articles:
Can I change careers without a salary cut?
We need to know your salary because —
Does your company’s HR team require a candidate’s salary history before doing an interview? Why? Do you surrender your salary information when an employer asks for it? If you decline, what do you say?
: :
“Some employers want the information because they believe that if you made $30,000 in your last job for a like position which for them starts at $50,000, they’d be overpaying…”
Well, then that employer is clueless about market rate of said “like position” yet wants someone else to do their research for them – for free of course?
They’d only be “overpaying” if they remain clueless by not procuring the available “information” provided by the market they claim to be hiring from.
In other words, “Hey job seeker, be sure to help us underpay you so you’ll have to beg for years to come just to bring you pay up to market parity.”
Sorry, I’ll take a hard pass on that.
I used to answer the question, “I wish I could tell you, but I respect and abide by the non disclosure agreement I signed. Let me show it to you- it includes the company’s financial information. Since employee salaries and position salary ranges were confidential and not disclosed inside the company, I regret I’m not at liberty to disclose it”.
If they squeak, reply “Will you tell me what my future co-workers are earning? No? Is it because it’s confidential information? How is this different?”
I’m sure you’ve mentioned it in the past, but women (and anyone not white) suffer particularly from this.
When your first salary is low, every time you have to tell a prospective employer your previous salary it will remain low compared to everyone else.
It’s about prejudice, expectations and greed.
SPOT ON, /Anne- in fact it has become illegal in some states to even ask that question, precisely because it perpetuates wage discrepancies based on gender and race.
@/Anne: It never ends. This is from 2016:
https://www.asktheheadhunter.com/8612/dont-blame-women-for-the-gender-pay-gap
The nameless Hire & Release operator opined:
__what happens behind the closed doors of the recruiter’s office stays there__
And this is why we cannot give a prospective employer our salary history. It’s proprietary information between us and our former employers.
@Steve: Do ya think they us cattle prods or water boards behind those doors…? And, who agreed not to tell all?
It’s a weapon younger HR people use on older and usually on paper overqualified candidates. There are many who don’t want to be directors or VPs anymore but would be perfectly happy to contribute as managers, consultants, and individuals at lower pay. Some of us financially can afford to. But if not… I cannot tell you the disinterest and arrogance I’ve experienced from HR over the years, often from young males towards an older woman. And I’ve heard this from contemporaries too.
@DeeC: I still have not figured this out. A candidate appears with stellar qualifications beyond HR’s dreams at a discounted salary… and HR shows them the door? HR is worried you’ll quit for a better deal down the road? WTF?? Is HR willing to sign a deal guaranteeing the job for a year, two or three? Will the company even be in business by then? What kind of guarantee does HR want?
Interesting that we’ve not heard from anyone in HR defending the HR manager.
Of course HR will never guarantee your tenure except if they really really want someone at a senior level, and then they write a contract with guarantees.
I have never, ever been asked the question about my being senior or ‘over experienced’ for a job. I would answer honestly that I believe the job would be a challenge and based on our discussion, I’d make a great contribution. It works for me…does it work for you?
What is completely offensive about this note from this HR person is the pervasive dishonesty running through it. This HR person may believe they are a ‘company person’ but what he or she does is in reality destructive to the good of the company and their future growth.It’s all about them. These types come out of the woodwork in times like these.
This used to be my go-to response to these kinds of questions. It generally put it right back on the HR folks. “Are you saying that it would be OK for me to discuss my salary should I be hired”?
I finally just landed on the following:
1. I won’t even engage with HR or a recruiter if they don’t disclose an ACTUAL salary range for the position. By ACTUAL range, I mean that I disregard the obvious legal work around that is often used – $75k – $175k.
2. I immediately shut down requests for my own history. You’ve already provided me a range, so what value does my history have for you? Are you going to lowball me below the range you already provided?
In the end, if as an HR rep, you try these tactics with me, I know that I’ve dodged a bullet by not engaging and potentially end up employed by you.
Every time the hiring market shifts from qualified emplouee scarcity to abundance of hungry candidates forvthe employer, this stuff blatantly happens. Cattle calls, free work demanded, questions about salary history, hidden job specs not in JD, no hires, and crashing rates for contractors who are hired to solve probems and fill gaps. So different from the previous appeals to “diverse culture” and at least a modicum of respect for candidates. It really demonstrates exploitation. short term view, and the lack of ethics pervasive in corporate culture. The people doing the hiring do not give a rat’s patootie about the company in 5 years…when not even the founders or C levels do. They will take the next offer to be bought out.
Shame you don’t list this guy’s company. Instead of walking out, we could just not accept interviews. Sadly you have more ethics than he does.
@Denton: I appreciate the sentiment. My policy has always been that I don’t publish or disclose names of people or their companies when they submit something to me. Otherwise I wouldn’t get many candid e-mails like this one! But the real point is, loads of companies think and behave like this. It’s important for every job seeker to assess an employer to make reasonably sure they’re not walking into a bad environment. Unfortunately, the prudent thing is to assume the next employer you apply to or interview with is this one. Eyes open.
Do they take into account cost-of-living and family issues? A recruiter contacted me some years ago about a job near Palo Alto, CA, while I was in Cleveland. More than 3 times the cost of living and my wife would have to quit her job. Obviously my current salary was not very relevant.
@Dale: I think many companies take that into account. I know that when I was working as a headhunter in Palo Alto most of my client companies would make job offers that were competitive in Silicon Valley no matter where the candidate came from — if only to avoid losing the candidate to a local competitor. Nothing prevented me from taking a candidate invited to town by company A to companies B, C and D. (For the most part, I worked on contingency so I had that freedom, though I was careful not to abuse it.) And I did that all the time, always reminding the candidate that A was the one that made a commitment by paying for travel and accommodations – so they deserved special consideration.
Nonetheless, there were always companies that took advantage of candidates from out of state. It’s a poor business practice.
“I’ve been a VP of HR, a recruiter, a labor negotiator and a candidate, so I know from which I speak.” Sad to think this person has been promoted in her career because she found ways to pay candidates less than average or less than fair maket value–an attitude of “we got you cheap.”
“Someone else has already set the money standard that tells the candidate what they are worth — you’re merely a stop-gap and you have every right to know that before you hire them. Nice-looking people have been known to lie through their teeth to maintain their standard of living — like being able to afford food.” I don’t even know what to say to her snarky comment. Yes dear–people want to be paid enough to afford food and the necessitites of life.
“Some employers want the information because they believe that if you made $30,000 in your last job for a like position which for them starts at $50,000, they’d be overpaying and want the opportunity to buy you for $35,000 to start. The HR person who does that gets many kudos for their shopping moxie from their boss and gets to keep their job and go on many more shopping trips.” This statement screams “I bilked a job candididate out of less money and my company rewards me for that.” I wonder what their turnover rate is? How many people leave in a year or two once they find a better company and opportunities? She costs her company money by treating job candidates the way she does. And, I blame the leadership too because they appear to endorse this behavior.
Here’s the problem: she is poisoning her own well. Does she think people don’t talk to one anothe? I’ve been at professional meetings where we talk about where we work (or where not to work). I had someone tell me about companies I would not want to work because of their behavior and how they treat their employees. You get some good information at professional meetings about companies.
Then, companies wonder why they cannot attract good quality candidates! Geesh!
@Anna: I can tell you from experience that you are right. I’ve seen companies poison their own wells for senseless, poor judgment and practices. They fail to realize that word gets around and they are treated accordingly by the professional communities they try to recruit from.
Employers check references. (Though not as much or as effectively as they used to – big mistake. You should always ask around about an employer, too.
There are a lot of dopes running companies.
The last thing the writer said “what is the range for the position” is the way to handle the question. I’ve been on interviews where I took too long to establish that their range was to low for me. The other point the writer misses is that a salary out of range will be discovered. I have been in a position where I had someone who’s salary was way out of range. They would get increases above range for awhile until they are caught up. They feel good about it as well.
Maybe the incompetent DOGE bros need to do some real work by cleansing the HR ranks in the private sector.
Nice article! I’m surprised you didn’t touch on one sentiment from the HR leader, which jumped out at me in this remark:
“…they’d be overpaying and want the opportunity to buy you for $35,000 to start”
This says all I need to know- this person sees other people as property to be bought and sold. No way do I want to work for a company with that attitude. Other comments made it clear that the company “has the right to…” but does not recognize the rights of its applicants or employees. You are correct that identifying this early will save me (as a job hunter) a great deal of time and grief.
I have a Ph.D in a scientific field and no part of that training prepared me for the business world– your site has really helped. Keep up the the great work here!
@Dave: Thanks for posting. I’ve got a soft spot for Ph.D.s because you’re right – the training includes no training in how to handle this stuff!
@Dave- this stood out to me as well for its bald-faced arrogance. This HR person is pretty much admitting that she doesn’t see the candidate as a person that is checking out this job and this company every bit as much as HR is evaluating candidates. It’s a 2-way street, but this HR person is clueless. It wouldn’t even help to know what company this is because I think that there are quite a few recruiters in all kinds of companies that see job candidates as something to be screened out rather than invited in so they can share their company with a talented person to see if there’s a mutual fit. Instead, candidates are seen as desperate people that just need to “afford food”, while being expected to jump through all of their hoops that include first interviews with bots and not people, personality tests before talking to a person, giving up more information than is necessary to them on the front end before they’ll even consider talking to us, free work samples and then–if you even get an interview– it’s likely full of questions that have nothing to do with the work they say they need done. After all that, they still end up ghosting you. Disgusting.
I’ve often thought that many interviews have direct corollaries to inspections of slaves at the dock, fresh off the ships, or cattle. When you’re interviewed by an HR person who looks at you that way with disdain, like you are a slab of beef, you aren’t dreaming. How to succeed in HR!
She did write about buying candidatas.
? This ?This right here ?
Nomination for Post of the Day.
#postoftheday
A HR “professional” with this brand of moxie had best make sure that facilities has a spare gallon of machine oil around. You know, to keep the revolving door in back well lubed and functional.
Wow, what an amazingly clueless letter. Everyone has covered just about all my concerns here in the comments, except one.
They say “Nice-looking people have been known to lie through their teeth”, when it’s just as likely the company is the one spreading lies about the position, benefits, company culture, etc.
In my opinion the HR “professional” has highlighted everything wrong with the hiring process, yet has the delusion that it helps the company to act in this manner.
@Chris: I’ll take it another step. What’s an HR manager doing assessing job applicants for how nice-looking they are and making assumptions based on looks? Think of all the regulatory/compliance training they’re required to sleep through!
I have a problem with “The HR person who does that gets many kudos for their shopping moxie”. Why is HR getting the credit for salary negotiation? I was under the impression that Hiring Managers were the ones who decide what the amount of work in a position was worth since department performance is likely one of the measures of their job performance. The problem I have is if a hiring manager finds that perfect employee and they both agree to a salary, why can HR derail those negotiations because a prospective employee won’t divulge salary history?
@Bill: There’s more to that. The manager finds an outstanding candidate, in keeping with HR’s claims in its recruiting PR: “We want people that think out of the box! Who are on the leading edge of their discipline!”
When that “off the curve” candidate appears, though, HR is quick to interject: “They have to fit on our salary curve.”
So as I asked in the column, where is a company’s competitive edge if it declines to hire off the curve talent for off the curve pay?
I have personally noticed that “nice looking people” get hired first and sometimes (or often) have lied about their qualifications. I saw this at my last job working in a mostly women management office. These “nice looking” people got hired and promoted beyond their ability and had a knack for making lower level staff do all the work.
Sadly, there are companies where HR dictates the salary, based on corporate bands/ranges and “compa ratios”
A very good article, Nick.
I appreciate that you wrote at the start in defense of good HR people, because they are out there.
An often overlooked point about problems with HR is that they are often given too much responsibility for the hiring process in the first place. They are delegated responsibility to make decisions for which they are not capable to make.
Management holds ultimate responsibility for the people who are hired into a business. If they delegate this responsibility to people who are incompetent, then it follows that the Management should be held to account for this shortcoming.
This doesn’t absolve HR of their bad practices, but I think it’s fair to point out that there are others who bear responsibility for it.