I'm not sure this is entirely accurate, though I am sure it is what employers would like you to believe.

I think it is reasonable to give employers some idea of what you are expecting, but to give numbers before they have a chance to determine your value is to reduce the discussion to numbers.

.

I believe that people want to know you are interested and asking where you stand in the process is actually a show of confidence unless you want tio hire a wallflower.
I think you have a double standard here...be strong in your salary ask but don't close for the job?

You have grossly over simplified a very complex process riddles with emotion and intuition.

Thomas: Thanks for your comments -- although I guess I don't understand how you can "give employers an idea of what you are expecting" as you said without sharing actual numbers. Seems to be we're on the same page. And again, I'm not suggesting any further economic elements need to be discussed in the interview once a person has responded, strategically and successfully, to this typical "weed out" question that so frequently gets asked. After that, it's all about building value and hopefully no further financial matters will be raised until the job offer stage.

Gigi: Thanks for your comment, as well, but I don't see the double standard. There's a difference between confidently and respectfully answering a question about salary, early in the interview, and going for a "hard close" at the end of the meeting where you ask the hiring manager point blank how they feel about your candidacy -- putting them on the spot. I'm not saying you shouldn't express strong interest in the job, either. Simply that you avoid the often-suggested technique of cornering the interviewer and asking them to make an immediate judgement on your candidacy before they've had a chance to reflect.

Yes, it's a generality, but so is any "best practice" one could ever conceivably share in an advice column of limited length. Ask 10 hiring managers here in Puget Sound how they'd feel about an interview candidate who tries an aggressive close on them and I bet at least 9 would say that it would be a major turn-off and damage the person's chances of success. That's been the reaction I've gotten, at least, when I've posed the question to a number of employers I've come across...

Your advice on salary negotiations made me physically ill.

The employer already has 95% of the power during the interviewing process.

To GLOAT in this power by forcing a job applicant to pick a magic salary number early in the interviewing process is positively sociopathic.

If they guess too low, they'll be boxed in forever (Hint: All those employers complaining about high turn-over? Hello?)

If they guess too high, they'll be rejected out of hand. (Hint: All those employers complaining about 'greedy' job applicants these days? Hello?)

The employer traditionally made a reasonable offer (based on industry pay rates for that position, education and experience) AFTER the decision to go forward was made by BOTH parties. That is where negotiations are supposed to begin. What sane applicant wants to give you 100% of the power right out of the box? 95% of the power isn't enough? You have to have it ALL?

This brave new world of rubbing applicants nose in the dirt is obscene. If you treated me with pique for not instantly producing the perfect number, I'd stand up and walk out of the interview and put your company on my "do not consider these jerks" list. I'd tell my friends why, too.

The employer wants to hire the best fit for the lowest cost. The best fit means a competent, but more importantly compliant, employee who does not question authority. This demeaning and often humiliating method of hiring serves to weed out those with the gall to lobby for their own best interest.

To those of you who write these articles and those of you who read them I ask don't you ever stop and question this employer/employee relationship and the impact it has on you as a human being. You are born with a certain amount of time to live. You trade that limited asset to an employer for wages. Is it too much to demand to be valued more than a replaceable tool, purchased and operated at the lowest cost, and then replaced at whim?

I was once offered a job contingent on a good credit check, interview with a psychologist and also passing a urine test. I told them my credit rating was none of their business and they would have to accept my word than I don't smoke anything, drink alcohol, or use drugs.The employer was offended and found me to be too uppity to work for them. He didn't need a psychologist to figure that out for him.

John, Marie-France & Others: Thanks for sharing your comments and perspective on this issue. For the record, again, my advice doesn't entail giving any employer an EXACT number on your salary expectations -- just a general range, based on your sense of what the current market value might be for the type of position in question. And in return, I think the employer owes the candidate a clear validation of whether this range is within the ballpark they're considering. To me, there's nothing wrong with such an exchange and it can definitely save BOTH sides (including the applicant) wasted time and mismanaged expectations. And sure, if an employer is rude, demanding, or abrasive in terms of how they deal with this issue one always has the right to walk away from the opportunity and bow out of consideration. If you missed it, see my follow-up article on the NWjobs.com Blog section where I discuss "talking money" in more detail...

Makes alot of sense.

What i'm reading from this is that keys to a successful interview are to be honest, confident and patient. I'm certainly no HR guru, but I would expect these to be some of the key passive communication points that can be seen by acting in the way Matt is suggesting.

Assuming that you are applying for a managerial position in a company, certainly it would be important to have confidence in one's capabilities and have a sense of self-worth. Having previous job experience, I certainly have a number in my head when walking into an interview that I feel i'm worth. Putting that on the table during the interview process should show that you're honest, bold and also aware of your capacities as a manager.

Even though the interviewing process can be extremely stressful, if one is able to show confidence and calm without being aggrogant and apathetic, the interviewer should see these passive characteristics and value these in the candidate.

Thanks for the food for thought Matt.

I recently applied for a position, and have interviewed for it. As expected, HR asked my prior/current pay and my salary expectations. I've decided that at this stage in my career (16 years since college graduation), I'm done sharing prior/current pay; I see "current pay" as nothing more than a limitation on future earnings if disclosed. I did share a salary expectation so as to not leave the question "evaded". However, during the interview, I was informed that there are "on-call" expectations for the position. Now I'm stuck having shared a salary expectation that doesn't account for the "on-call" responsibilities. Hence, I still feel the salary figures should wait until there's mutual understanding of the position.

Pete: Two questions for you -- one, are you truly willing to risk NOT getting interviews in a certain number of cases by refusing to provide salary information, when requested? Fine if you are, but people have to realize that's the tradeoff. Secondly, with regard to this job you mentioned that suddenly added "on-call responsibilities" into the mix, why couldn't you at that point simply tell them that the initial salary number you gave them was for a job that didn't include such responsibilities -- so you'd need to adjust that number upward a bit, as a result?

I'm sure these are things this *writer* doesn't like; but I've seen nothing to suggest what he's saying is true of anyone else in the Seattle area.

As an engineer, I know the going rates. If they ask me, I give them the range I know is standard for the job and the experience level. I am aware that there are companies that contract houses that consistently underpay. Being up front is a way of not wasting time with such firms. If an employer is offering pay at the standard levels in the community, then both they and I know the standard rates. If they are interested in trying to pay less than the market, there is no point continuing.

I also ask for flexible hours.

Hi Matt,

I've heard a $5,000 range (give or take $2,000) like $47,000 to $52,000 is the best salary response. But why would I receive an offer of $52,000 when I've already told them I'll settle for $47,000? I don't understand this about giving pay ranges. Does this statement work: " I can't imagine this position paying any less than $xyz. This is my bare minimum and please tell me if we're on the same page about the responsibilities for this position"?

I'm searching for HR generalist positions at the 2-4 years of experience level and I never know if they're going to want to low ball at a true entry-level salary of $37,000 or are willing to pay $57,000 for someone who has two years of experience, but has the potential to perform at a much higher experience level.

I'm looking for something right around $47,000, but I don't want to price myself out of an opportunity to work as an HR generalist. I could always accept a low salary and get the work experience while looking for a similar position where I'll be paid what I'm actually worth. Though taking a lower pay range locks me into a lower pay range for future positions.

Help me out Matt; I'm seeing this from the job seeker's perspective. I can't give a range of $37,000-$57,000. I can't magically get into the employer's head and know that I should go for $40,000K +/- $3,000 instead of $50,000K +/- $3,000.

JD: You raise a great question and one I'm sure many other job hunters and professionals have wondered about, as well. Here's my take on it:

For starters, you're right, you'll almost never know going into an interview (unless you have inside information) what an employer might be willing to pay for a given job -- or how flexible they'll be in terms of negotiating. At the same time, as I mentioned in my article, I believe you have to give an employer some rough salary parameters so that you don't get booted out of the interviewing process in the first place. So by giving a range you think is reasonable, based on what you feel the current market value is for the type of role in question, you're meeting their need for information while simultaneously buying yourself some precious wiggle room.

Surprisingly, though, I've found that most employers DON'T intentionally use this information against a candidate later in the process or lowball them just for the sake of doing so. They wouldn't automatically offer you $47K, in other words, just because you happened to make that the bottom of your range. It may seem like that in some cases, but the real reason might actually be because the range THEY were thinking for the job was significatly lower than your own (say $40-45K in this case) so this actually represents a successful strategy on your part. If they offer you $47K, you actually got them to COME UP to your range, even if they weren't initially planning to do so. Make sense?

Remember, too, that by giving a range you're not saying you'd take ANY given job for $47K, necessarily. You're saying that "depending on the challenges of the job, the benefits package, and other factors" this would be the lowest base salary you'd possibly consider. So if the company does offer you the lowest number, and you're not willing to accept it, you can explain that you'd be seeking a number more in the middle of your range now you fully understand the context of the position and the level of responsibilities involved. While they might grumble a little, this stance is absolutely consistent in terms of what you told them about your salary requirements from the get-go -- that you couldn't give them an exact number until you had the chance to learn a lot more about the job and what it would require. So now that you've got a better sense of the what the job involves, you can sharpen your target number accordingly.

Ultimately, the final number that gets agreed on will depend on "who blinks" and which party is more willing to walk away from a potential deal -- but remember, once you reach the offer stage, you've accomplished something important. You've convinced them that you're the best available candidate for the job, out of all the potential applicants they've met, and most employers (in my experience) won't want to go back to the drawing board at this stage simply over a few thousand bucks. If they offer $47K, and you counter at $52K, they'll probably grant it -- or at least meet you in the middle somewhere.

Again, there are many variables in these situations, but hopefully this gives you a little more insight into why I feel the "range" approach is generally the best path to follow. Feel free to drop me an e-mail directly if you want to talk more specifically about your exact situation...

That helps A TON. Thanks Matt. I feel a lot better knowing that it's unusual for an employer to automatically offer my proposed minimum for the sake of saving money. Regularly using the minimum salary requirement would obviously lead to pay discrepancies and possible lawsuits. However, I've stopped being surprised by how much employers flirt with employment law disasters like that.

I also see the point of the range; it gives me a better chance of hitting the employer's range. If the employer's range is higher then they'll work with the higher end of my proposed range. If the employer's range is lower then they'll try to reach an in-between or meet my low.

I've just discovered this site and will definitely take you up on your email offer if I find anything that's too old to comment on.

Thanks again.

Matt...
I agree with Marie-France, you're way off the mark here. First off, just because we're from the North-West, does not make us different or special. What commercial nonsense. But if you want to think you are special, go right ahead.
Secondly, don't tell people to be sheep. As an employer myself, I look for people that believe in their qualifications and worth. Low self-esteem during an interview is never a good thing. Going by your recommendation, the applicant would have just as much of a chance if they straight out asked 'So when do I start!?' Or, maybe better.
Lastly, when I went through the agonizing interview process as a perspective employee, I expect to be told when the final hiring decision would be made. If I wasn't told, I would certainly ask. My time is valuable too, and probably more so then the person conducting the interview. They already had a job.

On a side note, I applied for your job and happy to say we're at the third stage now.