(Controversial Opinion) I think it’s okay to give salaries based on past salaries
I believe it is extremely difficult to judge exact level of an individual during an interview. It is better to also use past salary as some indication of value to last company. Having said that, the company needs to get to the correct salary range depending on performance in first 6 months.
Thoughts?
Talking product sense with Ridhi
9 min AI interview5 questions
HR spotted 🙂
Let’s assume I’m a HR, what’s you POV? Which parts do you disagree with
Businesses always exploit candidates in the name of capitalism. Companies will pay as low as possible to get a candidate. There are so many other factors as well such as companies hiring based on the college tier, bad luck, bad timing, desperation etc. Current pay should be based on their role and not their previous pay
Companies can learn from their american counterparts on how not to ask for prev salaries and still be able to provide an offer. 🙂
That’s my point. It is very difficult to come to an accurate number with few interactions.
Either you would unintentionally lowball and lose the candidate or give a very high jump to only realise few months down the line, you overpaid, which hurts both the candidate and company in long run.
Ever heard of asking for expected post range? Or making your budget clear before interviewing?
I disagree. There's a reason companies have levels. Each level has competency matrix. Each level also has salary band that they can provide. If candidate is applying for certain level, it's duty of interview panel to Guage the candidate based on the competency matrix. If the candidate doesn't know which level he belongs to, again it lies with competency matrix to figure out what should be the right level for the candidate and if there are roles available in it.
If you have been part of an interview panel, you would realise how subjective these things are. Same guy who got an offer as SDE3, you could easily be told that you are SDE2 or SDE4
Could be, I don't disagree there, but the company that roles out the offer is going to offer at a level. They may realise that the person isn't right fit for the role later and won't promote the person for sometime, but they won't give conflicting roles while rolling out an offer.
Let me guess you are either an HR, owner of service based company or have graduated from a top tier college
I don’t understand why the discourse on who I am is more important? Than the core argument itself ?
Because they are the only one who get benefitted by under-paying an employee. That's why they will give you % increament rather than deciding the pay based on interview and salary expectations.
I have a different view on this.
Most companies actually don't need as many full time employees as they think. They can often make do with part timers but usually don't go for it.
Salary negotiation should happen on the basis of market rate plus how many hours of work is required. Probation period of 3-4 months should be considered as a paid test period with final negotiation and employment at the end if the trial period goes well for both parties. Some people also need less time for same amount of work, they can also be accommodated.
A lot of attrition happens because of mismatch of culture and expectations, this paid trial format might help everyone.
I have never seen MAANG companies asking salary before releasing the offer letter.
That doesn’t make anything wrong or right ?
MAANG orgs set the trend. It's why they're the top dogs. In addition to being a MAANG trend, it is, in fact the moral and decent thing to do. If you get a respite from being a douchebag you'd probably be able to comprehend the point.
HR spotted, opinion rejected
Offering salary by past salary is the "lazy way" of hiring quickly. If you truly want to judge the candidate, then the interview process would be lengthy.
Global remote companies have actually solved this issue. They judge the candidate regardless of their past CTC and have an extensive hiring process with multiple score points on how to evaluate and they completely remove bias from the interviews.
This is a solved problem, and a lot of companies are actually evolving and learning. Look forward to learning from existing companies rather than post-poning decisions because of incompetencies and trying to sound as if that is a new innovation.
Probably it’s lazy, I agree. But lengthy interviews are bad as well. Imagine someone sitting though 6 round of interviews and being told you are selected for role lower than your expectations. However lengthy interviews are, they can’t get as accurate as 3 months of work
If you can’t figure out a candidate’s worth during an interview, you aren’t an effective interviewer
Or even an effective organisation
So you are telling me you are capable of judging someone based on couple of hour of interviews that whether this person is 28L SDE2 or 32L SDE2 or 35L SDE3?
And the performance turns out to be in-line with what was expected earlier
Incentives incentives incentives. Expecting an employer to revise remuneration by themselves is wishful thinking. You need competitive dynamics in negotiations.