About not to state the salary expectations upfront -- I found myself doing the opposite all the time. I often give a number to recruiter very early, in the lower end of my acceptable range, and then negotiate up once an offer extended. The mental model here is, coming from a big tech background, my expectation is often a lot higher than market average, and set an anchor point early on helps 1) eliminate companies that just couldn't pay that money; 2) make the recruiter thinks they found a (relevantly) bargain candidate, which I imagine might be a good strategy in current market.
This approach is entirely based on my own speculation, didn't got a chance to validate really. Would love to hear what you may think about it :)
Tao: I actually did something similar when I *knew* that my current salary is closer to the top of the range (or above) to what the company offers I'm interviewing at! Looking at the trimodal model: when you interview a tier "lower" or in a similar tier (but your comp is high within the tier) doing this can probably be more benfitial for everyone: https://newsletter.pragmaticengineer.com/p/trimodal-nature-of-tech-compensation
It can hurt people who are coming from a tier "below" and by disclosing, the hiring manager realizes they could just give the bottom-of-range offer, or even a downlevel would result in offering more than what they make!
I really appreciated hearing the insight behind the recruiter processes so I can have a better understanding on how to best approach things as a candidate. Thanks for sharing! :)
"For example, when we were hiring for the Payments team: we'll decided that we needed to find a couple candidates working at companies where they have relevant Payments experiences, or they can wrap up quickly."
About not to state the salary expectations upfront -- I found myself doing the opposite all the time. I often give a number to recruiter very early, in the lower end of my acceptable range, and then negotiate up once an offer extended. The mental model here is, coming from a big tech background, my expectation is often a lot higher than market average, and set an anchor point early on helps 1) eliminate companies that just couldn't pay that money; 2) make the recruiter thinks they found a (relevantly) bargain candidate, which I imagine might be a good strategy in current market.
This approach is entirely based on my own speculation, didn't got a chance to validate really. Would love to hear what you may think about it :)
Tao: I actually did something similar when I *knew* that my current salary is closer to the top of the range (or above) to what the company offers I'm interviewing at! Looking at the trimodal model: when you interview a tier "lower" or in a similar tier (but your comp is high within the tier) doing this can probably be more benfitial for everyone: https://newsletter.pragmaticengineer.com/p/trimodal-nature-of-tech-compensation
It can hurt people who are coming from a tier "below" and by disclosing, the hiring manager realizes they could just give the bottom-of-range offer, or even a downlevel would result in offering more than what they make!
I really appreciated hearing the insight behind the recruiter processes so I can have a better understanding on how to best approach things as a candidate. Thanks for sharing! :)
There's a typo here:
"For example, when we were hiring for the Payments team: we'll decided that we needed to find a couple candidates working at companies where they have relevant Payments experiences, or they can wrap up quickly."
That should read: "they can ramp up quickly."
Good to know the other side of the desk. Thx.