Things you hate about Job Adverts/Recruitment
Discussion
Gargamel said:
I wasn't going to respond but the continual moaning has dragged me in.
Ok - I am hiring, lets say its Reading, Woking, Romford or St Albans. You work in London. My team are relatively junior and I want to hire a more experienced person to beef things up.
I ask around for pay data and I look at my current team. I set the teams pay as the low end of my range say 40k and from asking around (benchmarking) I discover competitors pay an average of 50k and larger London firms pay 60k
I assume someone at 60k is probably over the top, but if they are a good fit and worth it in value add - I might be tempted.
So what number do I write on the advert ?
If I write 40k which is my current team, I won't get a more senior person.
If I put 50k I will piss of my team
If I put 50k the market average, someone in a similar role is probably on 50k and lets be honest everyone expects at least 10% to make it worthwhile moving companies
So I could put 55k to get someone - but then I am guaranteeing I am going to pay at least 55k since anyone on 45k applying will ask for the job rate I put in the advert
OR
I put 'attractive salary and benefits'
Go figure
How about "Senior Gargamel Team member" 50k-60k?Ok - I am hiring, lets say its Reading, Woking, Romford or St Albans. You work in London. My team are relatively junior and I want to hire a more experienced person to beef things up.
I ask around for pay data and I look at my current team. I set the teams pay as the low end of my range say 40k and from asking around (benchmarking) I discover competitors pay an average of 50k and larger London firms pay 60k
I assume someone at 60k is probably over the top, but if they are a good fit and worth it in value add - I might be tempted.
So what number do I write on the advert ?
If I write 40k which is my current team, I won't get a more senior person.
If I put 50k I will piss of my team
If I put 50k the market average, someone in a similar role is probably on 50k and lets be honest everyone expects at least 10% to make it worthwhile moving companies
So I could put 55k to get someone - but then I am guaranteeing I am going to pay at least 55k since anyone on 45k applying will ask for the job rate I put in the advert
OR
I put 'attractive salary and benefits'
Go figure
This tells your team the difference between their current tole and what you're looking, it will attract somebody in the 45-50k range who are looking to move upwards, it gives you flexibility to appoint somebody at the bottom or at the top. The only thing it stops you from doing is appointing somebody who is better than your current team at the same salary as them.
okgo said:
In fact due to the quirks of some companies you may find that you actually earn more than people with a more senior title owing to the salary you asked for when you came in and the fact they may have been in place for years taking small rises along the way.
Some places/managers are terrible for this. Pay people the bottom end they can get away with, offer pathetic rises, then employ someone else on a much higher wage because that's the actual market rate. Existing employees ask for parity, get refused, they apply for another job elsewhere at an even higher wage, get it, put their notice in. Money is magically found to match this to retain them.Either ends in losing decent people, or having to pay even more than if maintaining rough parity with the market had been adhered to through annual rises.
Countdown said:
Gargamel said:
I wasn't going to respond but the continual moaning has dragged me in.
Ok - I am hiring, lets say its Reading, Woking, Romford or St Albans. You work in London. My team are relatively junior and I want to hire a more experienced person to beef things up.
I ask around for pay data and I look at my current team. I set the teams pay as the low end of my range say 40k and from asking around (benchmarking) I discover competitors pay an average of 50k and larger London firms pay 60k
I assume someone at 60k is probably over the top, but if they are a good fit and worth it in value add - I might be tempted.
So what number do I write on the advert ?
If I write 40k which is my current team, I won't get a more senior person.
If I put 50k I will piss of my team
If I put 50k the market average, someone in a similar role is probably on 50k and lets be honest everyone expects at least 10% to make it worthwhile moving companies
So I could put 55k to get someone - but then I am guaranteeing I am going to pay at least 55k since anyone on 45k applying will ask for the job rate I put in the advert
OR
I put 'attractive salary and benefits'
Go figure
How about "Senior Gargamel Team member" 50k-60k?Ok - I am hiring, lets say its Reading, Woking, Romford or St Albans. You work in London. My team are relatively junior and I want to hire a more experienced person to beef things up.
I ask around for pay data and I look at my current team. I set the teams pay as the low end of my range say 40k and from asking around (benchmarking) I discover competitors pay an average of 50k and larger London firms pay 60k
I assume someone at 60k is probably over the top, but if they are a good fit and worth it in value add - I might be tempted.
So what number do I write on the advert ?
If I write 40k which is my current team, I won't get a more senior person.
If I put 50k I will piss of my team
If I put 50k the market average, someone in a similar role is probably on 50k and lets be honest everyone expects at least 10% to make it worthwhile moving companies
So I could put 55k to get someone - but then I am guaranteeing I am going to pay at least 55k since anyone on 45k applying will ask for the job rate I put in the advert
OR
I put 'attractive salary and benefits'
Go figure
This tells your team the difference between their current tole and what you're looking, it will attract somebody in the 45-50k range who are looking to move upwards, it gives you flexibility to appoint somebody at the bottom or at the top. The only thing it stops you from doing is appointing somebody who is better than your current team at the same salary as them.
Some people view pay as transparent and would prefer total transparency on everything, and are likely to be mature and realise you don't always get what you want - at least not all the time.
Then you have others who see pay as very personal, and would expect discretion both from the company and an individual pay deal.
Hence the debate - I have worked with both system, they both have drawback, when I put salaries on I recieved many more 'chancers' looking to double their pay, and very few for whom it was a 10% step ....
Oddly lots of people apply who are above what you say you are willing to pay and expect you to up the band....
As an applicant, not including the salary on the advert doesn't bother me, I simply ask on my initial application roughly what the package is so I know whether it is worth pursuing and I don't end up wasting anybody's time.
As a hiring manager it is a real pain. I'm currently hiring for a role in Belfast and am getting direct applicants from all over the world asking for up to double what we would be prepared to pay. The role is 1st line support and some of the applicants are clearly developers, functional leads or project managers. But because they can match a keyword or 2 they apply anyway.
Also annoying are people that applied for a more junior FTC role and were rejected due to lack of experience, who have now applied for the more senior, permanent version of the role that is now advertised.
As a hiring manager it is a real pain. I'm currently hiring for a role in Belfast and am getting direct applicants from all over the world asking for up to double what we would be prepared to pay. The role is 1st line support and some of the applicants are clearly developers, functional leads or project managers. But because they can match a keyword or 2 they apply anyway.
Also annoying are people that applied for a more junior FTC role and were rejected due to lack of experience, who have now applied for the more senior, permanent version of the role that is now advertised.
The job title doesn’t matter a jot. You can be Vice President of Jack s
t and paid minimum wage. People compare roles and a VP of People for instance is easy to find comparators for in most businesses so you can find a kind of salary range of "competitive"
Not saying what it pays not to piss current workers off or to try and get someone cheaper with a more senior title is also bullst. It doesn’t matter how secretive you are about your salaries, how many clauses you put in your contracts about not taking about it and all that st. People DO talk about it and it’s never difficult to find out what people are paid. Sites like Glassdoor have made a business out of it. Research has shown that the more secretive you are about stuff the more equal pay claims you will end up with too. Having advised C suite level HR for years I would never recommend such shady practices unless you want your employee satisfaction scores in the basement and an active caseload to manage.
t and paid minimum wage. People compare roles and a VP of People for instance is easy to find comparators for in most businesses so you can find a kind of salary range of "competitive"Not saying what it pays not to piss current workers off or to try and get someone cheaper with a more senior title is also bulls
t. It doesn’t matter how secretive you are about your salaries, how many clauses you put in your contracts about not taking about it and all that st. People DO talk about it and it’s never difficult to find out what people are paid. Sites like Glassdoor have made a business out of it. Research has shown that the more secretive you are about stuff the more equal pay claims you will end up with too. Having advised C suite level HR for years I would never recommend such shady practices unless you want your employee satisfaction scores in the basement and an active caseload to manage. Edited by craigjm on Thursday 3rd June 14:02
craigjm said:
The job title doesn’t matter a jot. You can be Vice President of Jack st and paid minimum wage. People compare roles and a VP of People for instance is easy to find comparators for in most businesses so you can find a kind of salary range of "competitive"
Not saying what it pays not to piss current workers off or to try and get someone cheaper with a more senior title is also bullst. It doesn’t matter how secretive you are about your salaries, how many clauses you put in your contracts about not taking about it and all that st. People DO talk about it and it’s never difficult to find out what people are paid. Sites like Glassdoor have made a business out of it. Research has shown that the more secretive you are about stuff the more equal pay claims you will end up with too. Having advised C suite level HR for years I would never recommend such shady practices unless you want your employee satisfaction scores in the basement and an active caseload to manage.
Not talking about pay is only beneficial to a business. Employees should be comparing and ensuring they're being paid fairly if they're doing the same job to the same standard.t and paid minimum wage. People compare roles and a VP of People for instance is easy to find comparators for in most businesses so you can find a kind of salary range of "competitive"Not saying what it pays not to piss current workers off or to try and get someone cheaper with a more senior title is also bulls
t. It doesn’t matter how secretive you are about your salaries, how many clauses you put in your contracts about not taking about it and all that st. People DO talk about it and it’s never difficult to find out what people are paid. Sites like Glassdoor have made a business out of it. Research has shown that the more secretive you are about stuff the more equal pay claims you will end up with too. Having advised C suite level HR for years I would never recommend such shady practices unless you want your employee satisfaction scores in the basement and an active caseload to manage. Edited by craigjm on Thursday 3rd June 14:02
alorotom said:
This is one of the things I do love about the NHS - the complete national transparency for roles and banding upto very senior management (VSM) level ... covering everything from domestics and basic admin upto senior directors (£18k to £105k) currently.
You might know the band but you wouldn't necessarily know which increment point they were on. eg band 9 goes from 91k to 104. When i used to work in central Govt the pay band for SCS1 went from something like £60k up to £110k (which was understandable because not all SCS1 jobs had the same amount of responsibility).P.s. from memory the pay bands only cover those on NHS T&Cs. IIRC the Trust Exec Directors were all on individually negotiated salaries.
alorotom said:
When i used to work in central Govt the pay band for SCS1 went from something like £60k up to £110k (which was understandable because not all SCS1 jobs had the same amount of responsibility).
It's is very rare for more than the bottom quartile of the band to be used though. Which means you will never get anywhere near the top of the band. Even SCS2 average (92kish IIRC) is well below the top quartile of SCS1. Though the figures are now 70ish to 110ish. Regardless of the width of the bands there is an obsession about keep pay comparable, despite size of portfolio. Which means attracting and retaining people with the right skills is impossible.
wiggy001 said:
As a hiring manager it is a real pain. I'm currently hiring for a role in Belfast and am getting direct applicants from all over the world asking for up to double what we would be prepared to pay.
If you put an indication of salary on the advert, you may avoid this to some extent.
redrabbit29 said:
bigandclever said:
‘face off’ has always meant ‘stand up to’ in my world.
Exactly my interpretation. Sounds a bit like "must have the balls to deal with confrontational situations with arsey senior people" xx99xx said:
wiggy001 said:
As a hiring manager it is a real pain. I'm currently hiring for a role in Belfast and am getting direct applicants from all over the world asking for up to double what we would be prepared to pay.
If you put an indication of salary on the advert, you may avoid this to some extent.Sporky said:
xx99xx said:
If you put an indication of salary on the advert, you may avoid this to some extent.
I don't understand why this isn't obvious. Only skinflint employers and recruiters don't seem to get it. wiggy001 said:
For us I believe it is about not giving the competition info on what we pay.
I reckon they know. I certainly know what my equivalents at our biggest competitors earn, and roughly what their pay scales are versus ours. That might be different in other industries, of course. Have we had "competency based interviews" yet?
When I am looking for a role I want to get a feel for the company, the team, the position and so on. When I am recruiting I want to better understand the candidate, their experiences and how they would fit into the organisation. The best way I find to do that is to have a good two way conversation talking through the CV and the role, asking and answering questions as we go. It shows that both parties are listening to one another, that it needs to be a fit both ways and gives a better idea of what the chemistry will be like. You get a real feel for people this way.
But these competency based interviews are nothing like that, just formulaic one way Q&A - "give me an example of when you took a risk", "give me an example of when you dealt with conflict", "give me an example of when you failed" etc etc. Even if you answer these well (because you have prepped some stock answers beforehand) there is still no sense of chemistry building - it is all very cold and impersonal.
If I had two comparable offers on the table, one where I had had a good discussion with the hiring manager and one where it was competency-based Q&A, which one would I pick? The discussion one every time. And if I was hiring, how would the answers to those questions really allow me to understand this candidates specific skills, track record or how they would fit into the company?
When I am looking for a role I want to get a feel for the company, the team, the position and so on. When I am recruiting I want to better understand the candidate, their experiences and how they would fit into the organisation. The best way I find to do that is to have a good two way conversation talking through the CV and the role, asking and answering questions as we go. It shows that both parties are listening to one another, that it needs to be a fit both ways and gives a better idea of what the chemistry will be like. You get a real feel for people this way.
But these competency based interviews are nothing like that, just formulaic one way Q&A - "give me an example of when you took a risk", "give me an example of when you dealt with conflict", "give me an example of when you failed" etc etc. Even if you answer these well (because you have prepped some stock answers beforehand) there is still no sense of chemistry building - it is all very cold and impersonal.
If I had two comparable offers on the table, one where I had had a good discussion with the hiring manager and one where it was competency-based Q&A, which one would I pick? The discussion one every time. And if I was hiring, how would the answers to those questions really allow me to understand this candidates specific skills, track record or how they would fit into the company?
I don't think there's anything wrong with competency based questions. There's nothing to stop the Hiring Manager using them as discussion starter points as well as linking them back to the Application Form. They also ensure that the recruitment is questions are focussed on the necessary skills and experiences rather than just on the "vibe" that the Hiring Manager gets.
lambosagogo said:
Have we had "competency based interviews" yet?
When I am looking for a role I want to get a feel for the company, the team, the position and so on. When I am recruiting I want to better understand the candidate, their experiences and how they would fit into the organisation. The best way I find to do that is to have a good two way conversation talking through the CV and the role, asking and answering questions as we go. It shows that both parties are listening to one another, that it needs to be a fit both ways and gives a better idea of what the chemistry will be like. You get a real feel for people this way.
But these competency based interviews are nothing like that, just formulaic one way Q&A - "give me an example of when you took a risk", "give me an example of when you dealt with conflict", "give me an example of when you failed" etc etc. Even if you answer these well (because you have prepped some stock answers beforehand) there is still no sense of chemistry building - it is all very cold and impersonal.
If I had two comparable offers on the table, one where I had had a good discussion with the hiring manager and one where it was competency-based Q&A, which one would I pick? The discussion one every time. And if I was hiring, how would the answers to those questions really allow me to understand this candidates specific skills, track record or how they would fit into the company?
I like competency-based interviews as an interviewer, they give me great insight into how a potential hire likes to work.When I am looking for a role I want to get a feel for the company, the team, the position and so on. When I am recruiting I want to better understand the candidate, their experiences and how they would fit into the organisation. The best way I find to do that is to have a good two way conversation talking through the CV and the role, asking and answering questions as we go. It shows that both parties are listening to one another, that it needs to be a fit both ways and gives a better idea of what the chemistry will be like. You get a real feel for people this way.
But these competency based interviews are nothing like that, just formulaic one way Q&A - "give me an example of when you took a risk", "give me an example of when you dealt with conflict", "give me an example of when you failed" etc etc. Even if you answer these well (because you have prepped some stock answers beforehand) there is still no sense of chemistry building - it is all very cold and impersonal.
If I had two comparable offers on the table, one where I had had a good discussion with the hiring manager and one where it was competency-based Q&A, which one would I pick? The discussion one every time. And if I was hiring, how would the answers to those questions really allow me to understand this candidates specific skills, track record or how they would fit into the company?
There's no reason they can't be two-way, though and I'd always encourage them to be so. Indeed, when I've been the interviewee in one (which is a few times as my old company used them for internal interviews) and I'm asked if I have any questions, I ask questions in exactly the same format.
Gassing Station | Jobs & Employment Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff