Asking about money appears to be a generation gap hot button

Don't know if it is a generational thing, but here's my 2 cent's worth. The longer that you can go without getting into the compensation discussion, the more time you have to prove your value to the interviewer(s), and the more time that they have to say "this one's a keeper - we cannot let her get away - let's put her at the top of the range." You start asking about compensation early, they will start by quoting the lower end of their range.

Dick

I agree with Dick that delaying the discussion about compensation as much as possible is likely to get you a better deal.

Also when we do interviews with employees about what they think is important either when working for our company or in exit interviews ie when they have decided to leave the company for another position, compensation usually comes in somewhere around 7th-10th place in importance. Items placing high are usually opportunity for personal development, possibility to do cutting edge science, Products that makes a difference in the world, good work conditions with a good work-life balance etc. Since this partially comes from exit interviews when the staff have no reason not to tell us what they really think this list of priorities is probably close to the truth. It also mathces various published studies around this topic. These are all things that we as a comopany can work with both on a short term and a long term basis.
If this is the order of priority it is reasonable to only get to a discussion about compensation when these other topics have been covered. If compensation is the first priority for someone it will most likely be difficult for us to compete and keep that person with the company for a longer time. We would then have to compete with for example various consultancy firms that do offer a better compensation than we do but also dont offer the same as us from other aspects.

If this is a 'generational' thing, I can certainly see where it comes from.

Our generation (baby-boomers) were pretty much raised to follow "authority". We were taught to "follow the rules" regardless of whether or not they made sense, and that only after we were on "the inside" could we attempt to change those rules.

Today's young people are - I believe - much less likely to sit still for something like this. If a rule doesn't make sense to them, they are less inclined to "sit back and take it" and more inclined to say "wait a minute."

Like it or not, this generation is going to change how things work - just like we did in our prime. The successful institutions of the future are going to be those that adapt to those changes; those that cannot adapt will fail to survive.

Also as for the nonsense about because you are thinking about money you are not aligned with company values. Any company that deluded I would suggest a simple experiment. Stop paying your employees and see how long it takes for your employees to walk off the job and complain to the DOL.

This is about a clueless HR person off their leash behaving in a stupid, self-rightous, and obnoxious way causing a problem nightmare for a company.

I also think it is time we stop pretending that when we ask a candidate why they are seeking employment the true answer isn't almost always that they want more money or their boss is an @hole.

Steven, I don't know what world you are living in, but it sure isn't the one represented by companies I've worked with over the years. In those companies, as someone (PG?) already said above, when you talk to people about what they like about their job, it's not compensation that shows up as #1. It's down the list somewhere. I do this every time I meet someone, I ask them what they like about their job and what they'd like to improve. Sure, sometimes a person feels that they have not been dealt with squarely in compensation. Nothing wrong with seeking a move as a result. But if that's the ONLY or the FIRST reason, I wouldn't touch them with a ten foot pole because that's going to be a problem placement. Being that we have a one-year guarantee, I would have to be drunk or looking the other way to let someone like that into a client search.

While it might be an ideal world to have companies print out their pay levels like the do in government jobs, I doubt we'll ever see that. Instead, they'll print out why it's a good role and why the company is a good place to work. Then, when both parties are interested, a fair deal can be struck.

Dave

Steven, that's not science specific. In the general population -- people who just go to work to earn a paycheck -- that would indeed be the #1 reason why people leave their jobs.

In the sciences and the arts, people don't leave for the same reasons.

Dave

HI All,

In my experiences the compensation discussion is among the first questions asked, usually after a description of yourself and Brief discussion of the role, then HR or recruiter will then ask about salary expectations.

If not, then question of compenstion, should be asked by the candidate early one, provided the candidate understands what they're looking for. That way expectations are aligned.

I do think the Generation issue Dave speaks to, is going away, especially in Job rich countries like the US, and especially when you have experience. Yes in parents Generation, one didn't overtly talk salary or had negative views on those who asked about that up front, even vacation days - would put a candidate in negative light. So maybe that interviewer with silver hair one has to be a bit cautious.

As this is an international Forum, some of These views are different globally - in Europe vacation is important probably more Govt mandated by it is a part of those benefits discussions that can be had early and in China for example, that discussion of Money better happen early because in that market employees will and do jump fast for a measley 1 to 2% increase in salary, (to what Steve Z talks about) few will know unless one have worked with China market that employee turnover for this reason is high - and well puts us who work with that market in a difficult Management Situation (a newbie every 6 months). But that's China, not US or Europe. So some international insight.

As mentioned before, a Person at the Interface of academia and industry may not have so much salary negotiation power...but that's OK to take a lower salary just as I have done in the past, the value or weight at that Interface is experience. 2 years later or even less you'll be ok to start having compensation Goals that match you're expectations, snaped to a market value if possible (by your own Research and understanding).

Touching on Dave's Point and Steve Z's Points, the decision to stay or leave a Company is not just compensation, I call it a Quad-factor which is a Balance on 1. Team/Company Environment, 2. Individual Development, 3. Quality of Life 4. and lastly Compensation to include total benefits package.

All of those weighed together usually drive a Person to seek another Job externally, and if you want to apply weighting then usually the dominant factor is Team/Company Environment that will influence the other Points, not just Compensation package. And to be clear compensation package is not just salary - it can include say number of vacation days, or Pension fund matching, or the stock Options, other perks that other companies may not have.

To adovate Dave's Point those who are taking decisions solely based on Money well - probably not this audience.

Yes compensation is important, Yes one should have that discussion early as part of Setting expectations early, yes we all Need to pay bills and that's why we work, but put all that ino context of career - which at the end of the day is the path you Choose on how you were going to make a living, i.e. get paid...linked to something you're intersted in.

Best

DX

N.B. for the record, my first Chemistry internship (~5 month term) paid me 9$ an hour. I thought I was in heaven. 5 months later I was offer a Job at the firm at a Salary, and if you did the calculation, much higher than 9 bucks an hour (which I turned down due to lack of interest in Analytical Chemistry at the time). key message, we all got start some place - and here's a generational issue that seems to be going away but relvant - we all gotta pay our dues!!! Color me old.

If salary comes up early it is often in a more general setting ie either as a question from for example HR about the range that the candidate is expecting or from the candidate also about the range. Making sure that the Company and the candidate are in the same area regarding expectations can be useful.

However I dont want to have a detailed discussion about the exact salary and other compensations that we as a Company may offer until the end of the interview process. Thats when I have sufficient information to decide what I am willing to offer and the candidate knows how eager he or she is to get the job and what other values the company can provide.

Having said this salary is rarely an issue. It has never been an issue when I have changed jobs and I think that it has happened once that a person I interviewed said no due to that our offer was insufficient.

In my experiences the compensation discussion is among the first questions asked, usually after a description of yourself and Brief discussion of the role, then HR or recruiter will then ask about salary expectations.

That has been my experience as well, during the job interviews I've had, at various EU-based companies. Which makes me think this isn't as much a "generation gap" difference, but a work culture / location one.

For that reason I'd be hesitant about quoting (or following) any "Golden rules", without clarifying the context for which they apply. It is the same as with dating; the "do's and don'ts" of first dates can be very different, depends on whom and where you are dating.

Why risk alienating potential employers by asking too early about compensation? It's not just a golden rule, it goes back to the basics of negotiating. You let the other person bring up the subject first, and name a number. "He who speaks the first number loses" -- hey, that's fairly international, has nothing to do with the location or the generation, just plain common sense. You wait until they talk about money, and then you let them do the talking first. Makes sense from every perspective, no matter where you live or what your job goals are.

And you've got to be kidding me . . . there are cultures where you meet someone on a first date and immediately ask "How many children do you want to have?" I doubt that. I think that analogy holds up.

Dave

Hi Nate,

That's probably going to eventually go away. Some Eastern state (I can't remember which, it's in a clear minority at this moment) has come up with some kind of regulation or law that says that employers can not ask that out of the chute. Yes, you can later have conversations about money, but you can't start out the conversation by asking that (in this State). I mention it because other states could start to do the same thing. It's an uncomfortable question for all, and one like sexual preference, just doesn't need to be asked at the front door.

Recruiters, after establishing a mutual interest (that's the key point -- the company is interested, the candidate is interested) do need to know something about compensation, so they aren't wasting their client's time. But that's different than asking it as some kind of a form you check off before you even work with a person. I'd call that "being a rookie" and write off that recruiter.

Dave

Ana said, "Dave, using your example of dating I think that asking if they "plan to one day start a family" is an ok question for an early date, also to make sure you are on the same page, yet asking "how many children you want to have together" is a completely different question. Broad range is fine, specifics is off-putting."

Ana, I agree, and great use of the analogy. Thanks!

Dave

Thank you EKL, but as the moderator, let me be the first to warn all tribes in the middle of the Amazon that this forum is focused on the Western process of job seeking, and that our advice may not always be relevant to them.

Dave

Let's not pretend that people work for (gasp!) money. Its disingenuous to act surprised when people admit that they are looking for a job for money. So, if we agree that I'm hiring to get work done, and you're looking to get paid (and hopefully fulfill good career, etc) then why be shocked when money comes up? I'd agree that it looks like a double standard when the employer can ask about salary, references, background check, etc before an interview even but job seekers can't bring up salary?

If it's a "double standard," it's one that's existed for decades. It's just protocol -- that's what I'd call it. The employer is the one "footing the bill" so they get to choose the time and place to come up with the money question. It's something that won't change, or that will take a long, long time to be washed out of the culture. So, along that way, as job seekers, you have to be aware that when you bring up money, it's distasteful.

Yes, I know all the arguments why it shouldn't be distasteful, as you say Abby everyone needs to work for money. But because this dance -- this back and forth exchange that has gone on for decades -- operates this way, it's better for you to play along than to buck the protocol.

No one reading that woman's story could support the company. But, on the other hand, she might be working there today if she had just kept pushing forward in a positive way with her interviewing instead of stopping the process to ask about money. (Yes, maybe it is not a company she'd like to work for, but she'll never know).

Dave

[quotes Dave's earlier comment)

Dear Dave,

Are you implying that there were no such 'incidents' taking place in your generation?!

Did it occur to you that we could perhaps quite safely assume that they were less reported instead? Or are you simply just stereotyping? Considering your position I would label it as a bit of a professional misstep...but use your own judgment.

Thank you,
Sincerely yours, a Millennial...

Nope, neither -- not stereotyping, not misstepping. My job here is to offer career advice. My suggestion is to allow the interview process to proceed to the point where the employer talks about money. Then, it's wide open for whatever way you want to play it.

It's not stereotyping when you see hundreds of comments all supporting one side of the story. That paints a very clear picture. I would certainly not support this company's actions either -- they both blew it. As a recruiter, I watch these situations play out all the time, on the "playing field" while I am up in the stands so to speak. I watch companies and candidates come together, and just as 99.9% (probably 100%) of the job seeker books say, when the candidate brings up money first, it's not good. It unbalances the process from the way that it rolls out naturally. That creates a doubt in the employer's minds -- are they dealing with someone who is not "our kind of person?" What is this "our kind of person"? It's different in every company, but the company culture is NEVER "we are all here for a paycheck." Instead, they're on a mission, from the CEO on down.

I'm not saying that's right or wrong, just that there's a way to interview and there's a way to stumble. She stumbled.

Dave

Nate,

While the expectation of that MA law is that it will do some good and help balance wages, salaries are actually determined by negotiation in most cases and not by laws and regulations. All this does is set up a number, to be stated by employers. They'll all use a low number, and then the final offer will be determined by negotiation (upwards). Those who can negotiate (just like now) will get the best offer.

This will be just like the law that was passed about prosecuting telemarketing companies. Perhaps you can remember how we were all going to stop getting those calls, that there would be a new "Do not call list" and blah, blah, blah. Just like that law, there are so many loopholes that I don't see anything changing. It will hold for a while and then people will start working around it, just as telemarketers do today (had three today already).

With regards to negotiation, we've got to get everyone on the same track with that ability, men and women. When both groups of entry-level scientists understand the basics of negotiation, then there could be the potential of an equal playing field beginning from day one. Of course, take a picture of those same people a decade later and there will still be big discrepancies between one person and other. They will still separate out based on how a person has negotiated throughout each annual review, and of course based on performance.

Dave