You've had one phone interview, then HR calls

[KingNothing]

You've had one phone interview for a job 1000 miles away, then HR calls, and says:

Hi. How are you today? Good, good. I am calling to talk to you about salary expectations. We like to verify that our candidates' salary expectations are reasonable before we invest too much time and money into the process. Could you please tell me what salary you would be expecting?

What do you say? Do you give a number? Do you ask them for a number? What if they don't give you one?

 

[fss]

"Going rate" or, "Commensurate with my experience and the responsibilities of the position." It's a trap question; do not mention a number.

 

[carlgrace]

"Going rate" or, "Commensurate with my experience and the responsibilities of the position." It's a trap question; do not mention a number.

I agree 100%. Nothing good can come of you giving a number. If they absolutely insist, say what you want + 5 or 10%, then think hard about working for a company that would attempt to intimidate a potential employee.

 

[Ryker]

"Going rate" or, "Commensurate with my experience and the responsibilities of the position." It's a trap question; do not mention a number.

I agree that those are good answers, but disagree that it is necessarily a trap question and that he shouldn't mention a number. I think some will prefer a number, because it shows decisiveness, whereas others really will set up a trap (for whatever reason). It's safe to forego giving a number, but on the other hand, what reasonable employer will cut someone from the shortlist if they give a reasonable number?

 

[fss]

I agree that those are good answers, but disagree that it is necessarily a trap question and that he shouldn't mention a number. I think some will prefer a number, because it shows decisiveness, whereas others really will set up a trap (for whatever reason). It's safe to forego giving a number, but on the other hand, what reasonable employer will cut someone from the shortlist if they give a reasonable number?

You really can't win by mentioning a figure. You'll either a) undervalue yourself, resulting in a lower salary than you should be earning, or b) overvalue yourself, possibly resulting in your candidacy being terminated.

 

[AlephZero]

It's not a trap question if you are already employed somewhere else. Not many people want to change employers and take a salary cut at the same time. There is no sense in offering somebody a job and them accepting it, if realistically their salary expectations over the next few years will not be met. Hiring somebody costs money, and hiring somebody who leaves after 6 or 12 months costs at least double the money.

Quite likely the HR person didn't bother to check if you are previously employed or not before asking the question. (That's based on my experience of HR people, anyway - YMMV of course)

 

[Ryker]

You really can't win by mentioning a figure. You'll either a) undervalue yourself, resulting in a lower salary than you should be earning, or b) overvalue yourself, possibly resulting in your candidacy being terminated.

Again, I disagree.

If you don't know your own value, your going with "the going rate" can just as equally result in getting less than you "should". If, on the other hand, you do know your own value, go with the "going rate" and then later decide that what they offer is too low, you'll still end up with citing figures that you were so desperately trying to avoid.

And a) and b) you mentioned aren't the only options. There isn't a set figure of what one is worth, there's a wide range. If you pick a figure where that range overlaps with the range that would keep you happy, you satisfy both your employer's expectations and yours.

Employers look for people they think would fit best into their organization, not people they can trick or outsmart with playing mind games.

And again, I'm not saying one should cite a figure, I'm saying there's no harm in it and might in some cases even be better, if you can actually back it up. If you can't, then it's better to go with the "going rate".

 

[fss]

And a) and b) you mentioned aren't the only options. There isn't a set figure of what one is worth, there's a wide range.

Not relevant. Any hiring manager worth their salt will have a figure in mind about how much they are willing to pay the candidate based on experience, the position, education, etc. In that sense there is indeed a set (but somewhat flexible) value on your "worth."

 

[Choppy]

If you're really serious about the position, you should research the salary range even before going into the interview. What do various employers in the industry pay? What's the range? What can you expect at entry level? There are lots of websites that publish this kind of information.

When negotiating, you want to have as much information as possible and know what your skills are worth. Also make sure to factor in benefits. Lots of people focus on an annual salary amount, but how much is an extra week of vacation worth? A solid pension plan?

It's okay to answer such a question with a number (or a range of numbers), in my opinion. But you also have to keep the position in mind. Within larger organisations it can look a lot better if you say "I believe my skills and experience would place me on step four of the company's salary scale."

With respect to what you should aim for: it's okay to start high provided you have reasonable justification for what you're asking. The litmus test for this is whether or not you are able to present a reasonable and articulate argument for any number you throw out. You want to avoid a spot where your interviewer challenges a number and you have no response.

 

[twofish-quant]

I'm curious how much experience you have in looking for jobs.

If you don't know your own value, your going with "the going rate" can just as equally result in getting less than you "should".

For standard entry-level positions, this is invariably not the situation. HR knows what the salaries are, that's their job, and they've hired people to do salary surveys. If nothing else, HR knows what they are paying the other employees.

Employers look for people they think would fit best into their organization, not people they can trick or outsmart with playing mind games.

You really think so?

And again, I'm not saying one should cite a figure, I'm saying there's no harm in it and might in some cases even be better, if you can actually back it up. If you can't, then it's better to go with the "going rate".

Absolute nonsense. For standard entry-level positions, there is absolutely no benefit in citing a number. If you guess high, you won't get the job. If you guess low, you might get the job, but you really don't want it. As a job seeker, you simply do not have the information that HR has. HR knows how much they are paying the other employees and you don't.

 

[twofish-quant]

If you're really serious about the position, you should research the salary range even before going into the interview. What do various employers in the industry pay? What's the range? What can you expect at entry level? There are lots of websites that publish this kind of information.

Absolute true, but you should also let the company make the first move. If the number they give you seems unreasonably low, you should counter offer.

When negotiating, you want to have as much information as possible and know what your skills are worth. Also make sure to factor in benefits. Lots of people focus on an annual salary amount, but how much is an extra week of vacation worth? A solid pension plan?

Except for small companies, you'll usually find that you cannot negotiate vacation or pension plans. Pension plans are set up ahead of time, and there are federal rules saying that they have to offer the same plan to everyone or no one. Vacation time is really hard to negotiate. The problem is that if they give you more money, no one else will know, whereas if they give you extra vacation, everyone will know and will want the same thing.

Vacation and pensions make a difference when comparing between companies, but it's practically impossible to negotiate, except for very small companies.

Also for entry level positions, it's not really a negotiation. Entry level salaries are usually pretty standard, and the company has a number that they are already willing to pay you. You aren't going to convince them to change that number, but you can hit the number.

The other thing is that the only real way of getting a company to change the number is if you have another company that offers you more.

With respect to what you should aim for: it's okay to start high provided you have reasonable justification for what you're asking. The litmus test for this is whether or not you are able to present a reasonable and articulate argument for any number you throw out.

It's usually pointless to try to argue for a number in an entry level position.

You want to avoid a spot where your interviewer challenges a number and you have no response.

You really shouldn't be talking about salary during the job interview. Also, the only response that matters is "I can get a better deal elsewhere."

 

[twofish-quant]

Not relevant. Any hiring manager worth their salt will have a figure in mind about how much they are willing to pay the candidate based on experience, the position, education, etc. In that sense there is indeed a set (but somewhat flexible) value on your "worth."

The other thing is that it's sort of silly to talk about salary at the start of the interview because the employer has no idea what you are worth or even if they are willing to hiring you.

In my experience, I've only encountered one company (and in case you are wondering it's Bloomberg) that insists on having people quote salaries before the interview.

Also, this may vary, but I'd be more impressed with a candidate that when asked how much they are willing to work for says "I don't know" which is the truth.

 

[Ryker]

I'm curious how much experience you have in looking for jobs.

Limited, but existant.

For standard entry-level positions, this is invariably not the situation. HR knows what the salaries are, that's their job, and they've hired people to do salary surveys. If nothing else, HR knows what they are paying the other employees.

True, but from my experience and from what I hear from other people, you are not going to be asked how much you want to make for such positions, but will rather be presented with a figure that you can then, if you choose to do so, bargain about.

You really think so?

Yeah, I do. Why wouldn't the employer want to get the most "bang for the buck" from their employees?

Absolute nonsense. For standard entry-level positions, there is absolutely no benefit in citing a number. If you guess high, you won't get the job. If you guess low, you might get the job, but you really don't want it. As a job seeker, you simply do not have the information that HR has. HR knows how much they are paying the other employees and you don't.

Like I said, you need to have something to back it up. If you don't have enough info, then you're not going to throw out a figure. And when you talk about standard entry-level positions, you may not know how much people in that specific company get, but you can get a sense of what the going rate across the field is.

Anyway, what I'm saying is that there's no "best" way to go about this, something that might work in one situation is going to fail in another. But like there are different people, there are different employers, and hence differences in what they'd like to hear from people in interviews. And before you say you have more experience with this than I do, you should probably be aware that you'll never get enough experience to be able to say your way is the only way and the right way (unless you somehow managed to apply to every and all jobs that existed, exist and will exist in the future).

 

[fss]

And before you say you have more experience with this than I do, you should probably be aware that you'll never get enough experience to be able to say your way is the only way and the right way (unless you somehow managed to apply to every and all jobs that existed, exist and will exist in the future).

That is not the point. You are right in that exceptions exist to the rule, but if you had a choice between naming a specific salary figure and "not" naming a specific salary figure, you should choose "not." If you really have a justification for getting higher pay than the going rate, you're probably looking at the wrong position.

True, but from my experience and from what I hear from other people, you are not going to be asked how much you want to make for such positions, but will rather be presented with a figure that you can then, if you choose to do so, bargain about.

I have had that experience exactly once in my career, when I was looking for a senior engineer to run a multi-million dollar project. I would imagine this practice is significantly less common at the entry level. I don't think I would ever negotiate a salary for someone fresh out of college, especially not in this market where I can (and do) find plenty of talent for every position I advertise. The economics of current affairs strongly suggest against this happening frequently.

 

[carlgrace]

Originally Posted by twofish-quant View Post

You really think so?

Yeah, I do. Why wouldn't the employer want to get the most "bang for the buck" from their employees?

I think that 'getting most bang for the buck' for most companies means paying the minimum they need to hire and retain their staff. They know what the range of going rates for your position is far better than you do. They are fishing to see if they can get you for the low end of that range. Most HR types at best pay lip service to "finding people that are good fits for the organization". Because that is hard to quantify, it is hard to be rewarded for that. What they *are* rewarded for is getting top people for mediocre salaries (or depending on the company, mediocre people for low salaries)

 

[Choppy]

They know what the range of going rates for your position is far better than you do. They are fishing to see if they can get you for the low end of that range.

This certainly has not been my experience in my own field. I keep a close eye on the professional surveys performed by my national organization and the American one (which includes Canadian data). I'm in a relatively small professional discipline and I talk to my colleagues, so not only do I know median salaries and ranges, but I also know how advancement works in different areas. When I deal with HR-types, it's rare that they even know what I do.

What they will know more than you is what they are willing to pay, and how the administration of pay and all other benefits is going work within their organization.

Something that I haven't seen in relation to the original post is the possibility that such a question may have nothing to do with how much you can get and a lot more to do with whether or not you are going to be happy and more to the point, whether you will stick around with what they are offering.

 

[DaveC426913]

I always say "I'm really more motivated by the role, responsibilities and cultural fit than by a dollar figure. I'd have to understand more about my role and my place in the company to discuss salary expectations."

 

[twofish-quant]

Why wouldn't the employer want to get the most "bang for the buck" from their employees?

Because there isn't an "employer". Unless you are taking with a very, very small company, you'll be talking with a bureaucracy in which it is highly unusual for someone to give a large amount of money for an entry level employee. One issue is that from the point of view of the employer entry level employers are largely interchangeable. Yes you might be a better or worse employee but it's impossible for the employer to figure that out.

Once you get into more senior positions, it's possible to bargain a bit more.

Anyway, what I'm saying is that there's no "best" way to go about this, something that might work in one situation is going to fail in another.

Perhaps, but you should go with the odds.

And before you say you have more experience with this than I do, you should probably be aware that you'll never get enough experience to be able to say your way is the only way and the right way (unless you somehow managed to apply to every and all jobs that existed, exist and will exist in the future).

I'm trying to be helpful here. If you don't like my advice then don't take it. It's your career, not mine.

 

[twofish-quant]

This certainly has not been my experience in my own field. I keep a close eye on the professional surveys performed by my national organization and the American one (which includes Canadian data).

This can be true for more senior positions, but I've never seen this to be true for entry level positions.

Something that I haven't seen in relation to the original post is the possibility that such a question may have nothing to do with how much you can get and a lot more to do with whether or not you are going to be happy and more to the point, whether you will stick around with what they are offering.

One other possibility is that they don't really care if you get the job or not, but rather are interested to see what salary expectations are like.

 

[daveyrocket]

It's not a trap question if you are already employed somewhere else. Not many people want to change employers and take a salary cut at the same time. There is no sense in offering somebody a job and them accepting it, if realistically their salary expectations over the next few years will not be met. Hiring somebody costs money, and hiring somebody who leaves after 6 or 12 months costs at least double the money.

Everytime I read a justification like this I'm left with the question of why don't they open with "The salary range for this job is $XXXX - $YYYY, is that acceptable for you?" And the only reason I can come up with is to see if they can trap you in a lower number than they are expecting to pay. Unless there's some other reason?

 

[KingNothing]

OP here. I thought I should check in on my thread. I actually started this thread because this happened to me. Here's the story:

I had a phone interview with LSI last thursday for a failure analysis position, entry level. I honestly think I am underqualified, at least on paper. But we had a wonderful chat and seemed to hit it off. This morning I was awoken by a phone call from the HR rep as started in the original post.

I was pretty caught off guard, so I just remembered "don't say a number" and spoke from the heart:

I told him that I couldn't give a concrete number until I knew more about the job. I said that I'd like to see the place and get to know more about the job, and that I base my expectations off of my overall perception of the job. I also asked if they had a standard salary scale that they paid for such positions. He said yes, but didn't disclose what it is.

So how did I do? Go easy on me, the call woke me up!

 

[Pengwuino]

For an entry-level position, doesn't it make more sense that they have pretty much a set salary already decided? For the employer, it seems like they're basically throwing a dart at a wall and hoping whatever it hits is golden. It's not like they're weighing your years of relevant experience and demonstrated financial worth when they interview you I would think.

 

[fss]

I told him that I couldn't give a concrete number until I knew more about the job. I said that I'd like to see the place and get to know more about the job, and that I base my expectations off of my overall perception of the job. I also asked if they had a standard salary scale that they paid for such positions. He said yes, but didn't disclose what it is.

Not bad.

 

[carlgrace]

Limited, but existant.True, but from my experience and from what I hear from other people, you are not going to be asked how much you want to make for such positions, but will rather be presented with a figure that you can then, if you choose to do so, bargain about.Yeah, I do. Why wouldn't the employer want to get the most "bang for the buck" from their employees?Like I said, you need to have something to back it up. If you don't have enough info, then you're not going to throw out a figure. And when you talk about standard entry-level positions, you may not know how much people in that specific company get, but you can get a sense of what the going rate across the field is.

Anyway, what I'm saying is that there's no "best" way to go about this, something that might work in one situation is going to fail in another. But like there are different people, there are different employers, and hence differences in what they'd like to hear from people in interviews. And before you say you have more experience with this than I do, you should probably be aware that you'll never get enough experience to be able to say your way is the only way and the right way (unless you somehow managed to apply to every and all jobs that existed, exist and will exist in the future).

OP here. I thought I should check in on my thread. I actually started this thread because this happened to me. Here's the story:

I had a phone interview with LSI last thursday for a failure analysis position, entry level. I honestly think I am underqualified, at least on paper. But we had a wonderful chat and seemed to hit it off. This morning I was awoken by a phone call from the HR rep as started in the original post.

I was pretty caught off guard, so I just remembered "don't say a number" and spoke from the heart:



So how did I do? Go easy on me, the call woke me up!

I think you did really, really well. I can't imagine handling that question any better.

A bit unrelated, but I would think carefully about whether you want to go into failure analysis. Once you start your first job it is harder (but not impossible) to change specialties. Best of luck!

 

[KingNothing]

A bit unrelated, but I would think carefully about whether you want to go into failure analysis. Once you start your first job it is harder (but not impossible) to change specialties. Best of luck!

The truth is I really don't want to do failure analysis. But I am having a ton of trouble finding jobs. It doesn't help that my friends who got IT degrees and 3.0 GPA's because they flunked out of engineering are getting $70K jobs right off the bat.

 

[Pengwuino]

The truth is I really don't want to do failure analysis. But I am having a ton of trouble finding jobs. It doesn't help that my friends who got IT degrees and 3.0 GPA's because they flunked out of engineering are getting $70K jobs right off the bat.

Who cares. You could go into finance and get 6-figures and all you have to do is sell your soul.

 

[turbo]

You did good, KN. At the end of a 3-year job in construction (starting as an inspector and ending as the superintendent) my wife and I returned to her old home town to look for more work. I applied for work as a general laborer, but on my resume was my academic record, including my studies in chemical engineering, and instead of being invited to interview for a general laborer's job in an outdoor setting (my preference), I was invited to interview for a salaried job as a process chemist. I hadn't even gotten home after the interviews when the HR people had called and told my wife where and when I had to show up for health tests and screenings. I screened on Monday and Tuesday I was a process chemist in a brandly-new pulp mill.

 

[KingNothing]

Who cares. You could go into finance and get 6-figures and all you have to do is sell your soul.

I care. It hurts! I understand what you are saying, that my happiness shouldn't depend at all on the fairness of a situation and the salaries of others. But the truth is I am human and it's just not the case. I worked really hard and want to make more money than others who didn't!

 

[twofish-quant]

The truth is I really don't want to do failure analysis. But I am having a ton of trouble finding jobs. It doesn't help that my friends who got IT degrees and 3.0 GPA's because they flunked out of engineering are getting $70K jobs right off the bat.

1) A lot has to do with timing and career support services and other skills that don't have to do with the curriculum. Luck also plays a rather large factor.

2) The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence. If you talk to your friends, you'll probably find that they had to fight to get a job in this economy.

 

[twofish-quant]

I worked really hard and want to make more money than others who didn't!

If you hold on to that attitude you'll make yourself miserable for no good reason. There is a lot of luck involved in job hunting. You'll also find that there are a lot of skills that aren't part of the curriculum.

Something that I've learned is to do things for the sake of doing them. Hard work is good for the sake of hard work. One quote from Kennedy...

::We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too.

 

[twofish-quant]

Who cares. You could go into finance and get 6-figures and all you have to do is sell your soul.

On the other hand going into finance is not a good idea for this sort of thing because:

1) you have to deal with the standard job hunting headaches in finance.

2) $100K in NYC is not going to get you very far. NYC has a marginal tax rate of 45% and it will cost you $2000/month for a decent apartment

3) You'll feel extremely poor. If you make $70K but everyone around you makes $50K, you feel rich. If you make $100K but you come into daily contact with people that make $1M+, you feel very, very, very poor. Also, if you don't have your head screwed on straight, you can get into serious, serious financial trouble very quickly.

There are good reasons for going into finance, but making large amounts of money so that you can feel rich curiously isn't one of them.

 

[Pengwuino]

I care. It hurts! I understand what you are saying, that my happiness shouldn't depend at all on the fairness of a situation and the salaries of others. But the truth is I am human and it's just not the case. I worked really hard and want to make more money than others who didn't!

As others have said, ditch that attitude - it was cute in junior high, but will ruin you in the real world. Don't try to one-up the Joneses as they say. If you REALLY want to make more money than other people, there are plenty of ways to do it. Hell, for all you know, your friends could be lying. They could be doing something they dislike or may have no job security or could end up in a company that will go belly up next year. They could also end up millionaires with their own airplanes, who knows. It only affects you as much as you let it.