The first time I asked my boss for a raise, he rejected the request. His reasoning was that people should be working there because they wanted to, not for the money. He further reasoned that I was getting paid, and I quote, exactly what I deserved.
This is common rhetoric in the social service sector, the belief that staff should sacrifice their personal well-being in the name of mission. Often staff feel guilty for wanting more money and stay in jobs that don’t pay them enough because they have been told that is the way it goes and because of the personal connections they forge with clients. Employers know this and they manipulate it, especially with younger, idealistic workers who want to make the world a better place and have been convinced that the only way to do that is to resign themselves to a life of low salaries. This is hardly relegated to the social service sector, however. In the private sector as well, professionals, particularly younger ones, are told to pay their dues, that the struggle is part of the process. At a time when a large number of millennials are straddled with debt, they are put in the position of taking what they can get and being grateful for it.
This us versus them mentality around money begins with the job search process where companies are increasingly secretive about how much a job pays, a decision which flies in the face of what job seekers want. The number one piece of information job seekers desire is salary, yet only 11% of job postings include salary information. Talk about a disconnect.
I have heard a few reasons why companies don’t publish salary information, including that they want to attract people who want to work there, not who are in it for the money. As if the two are mutually exclusive. Except for the independently wealthy- the smallest minority of job seekers- people work to support themselves and their families. Of course salary matters. What complete hubris we display when we imply and in many cases openly admit, that it shouldn’t. That we only want employees for whom salary does not matter. Who are these people exactly?
I have also heard executives say that when they publish a range, the candidate expects to receive the highest end of the range and is disheartened when s/he doesn’t receive it. But eventually the salary must come out. So…?
The truth is, employers who don’t publish salary information are looking to spend as little as they possibly can on their staff. Instead of publishing salary information, they will often ask for previous salary history, which should not have any bearing whatsoever on what a current position pays. In many cases, when people are looking for a new position, that position is at a higher level, or in a different industry, or in a different geographical location with a different cost of living. How is previous salary history, then, at all relevant to the range of the current position? Simply, it is not. This information merely allows employers to offer you lower than they can if they know you have accepted it before.
(This is a post for another day, but for now, suffice it to say, do not share your previous salary information with prospective employers. It is none of their business, and it will only hurt you in the end. Either you lowball yourself and will be offered less than you may get or the employer will think your number is too high and will not consider you. Unless you hit the range they want, you will hurt yourself either way. Thankfully, Massachusetts has lead the charge of making this question illegal and hopefully other states will follow suit.)
For job seekers- this one included- the process can feel like a giant waste of time. In addition to only 11% of ads posting salary information, we are instructed not to ask about salary during a first interview as it is bad form. Bad form. To know if it is worth our valuable time to continue to interview for a job we may feasibly not be able to take. Most companies employ multiple rounds in their interview processes- I once applied to a part-time position that had 6 rounds! – yet wait until the bitter end to let candidates know about salary. If the compensation is too low, everyone has wasted their time, yet the process persists. It is certainly not worth it to the job seeker, but is it worth it in the end for the company? It doesn’t seem like it. Deloitte found that employers spend an average of $4,000 to fill an open position that on average takes 52 days to fill. Being upfront from the beginning about salary would help reduce some of the time and effort by eliminating candidates who cannot accept what is being offered.
Furthermore, employers are often less than honest when making an offer. Personally, I was told during a job search that the amount I was offered was the maximum possible. Later after I secured the position, I learned that this was not true. As a result, I learned quickly that I could not trust the organization and I operated accordingly. Once it was clear my services were not valued- later reinforced by our boss who told us directly that everyone was replaceable- I had no reason to offer my loyalty to the company, and I didn’t. Once I got a better offer from another company, I left. And I know I’m not alone. When employees are treated as dispensable and are sought after for the lowest possible price, how can there possibly be any expectation of loyalty and longevity?
Indeed, there is not. Companies, especially those in the social service sector, accept turnover as inevitable when in fact, they have the power to limit it. By being honest and by valuing staff, companies have tremendous power to increase retention which benefits everyone involved. Deloitte found that the cost of losing an employee can range from tens of thousands of dollars to two times the employee’s annual salary. Doesn’t it then make financial sense to offer a bit more to the employee in the first place to prevent said turnover? To attract higher talent to increase outcomes? Makes sense to me.
Throughout my career, I have been on the hiring end and on the being hired end. Since I became part of the hiring process, I have become more convinced than ever that the system is unfairly designed to benefit the employers. But it doesn’t have to be this way. As employers, we can make the process more effective and efficient, both for ourselves and for our future employees, by being more transparent and honest during the hiring process. We can also maximize compensation packages to attract the best talent we possibly can, a decision that will positively affect our bottom line. As employees, we can do our part by knowing our worth and choosing companies that value our time and our talent. By asking what the compensation package is, by refusing to disclose our previous salary history and to make sure we negotiate to maximize our offer. According to Career Builder, less than half of job seekers attempt to negotiate their salaries, leaving thousands of dollars on the table. Do not ever expect employers to offer those thousands willingly.
We have created an us versus them system when it comes to hiring staff. If we want to attract the best employees possible, we need to shift this mindset and recognize that we are hiring the future of our company. Why not increase our chances of hiring the best talent and retaining that talent by being honest throughout the process and offering a package that is fair? In the end, it will only benefit the company. By investing in our staff, we are investing in the future of our companies. Seems like a worthwhile investment to me.
4 Responses