My candidate turned a slap in the face, into a handshake. He received an offer below his minimum, but handled it with poise. He calmly turned down the offer and even referred someone for the role. Instead of getting upset, he remained composed. He could have told us to “get lost” or to “lose his number.” Instead, he politely turned it down. “The number is too low. Let's stay in touch for future opportunities.” The Employer increased the offer by 25k after hearing my feedback. It takes real character to keep your composure during negotiations. But keeping your cool, pays off. Within 24 hours, the offer was signed, sealed, and delivered. Happy Candidate. Happy Employer. Happy Recruiter. When we work together, it’s a win-win-win. PS. Would you have given the Employer another chance to make it right?
If they knew the candidate’s salary expectations and what they are actually budgeted for, then why not offer the correct amount from the beginning? Then once they turned it down then they could miraculously find an additional $25k to add to the salary 🤔 Why do companies play these games? To me that’s a red flag that they are NOT people focused. That they care only about the bottom line. So I still would pass on this company. This would have put a terrible taste in mouth about the company and I’d want no parts of it in the long run.
Key question: was the employer aware of the candidates salary minimum expectation prior to sending the initial offer? Organizations have budgets like everyone. Their goal is to find the best talent at the best rate within that budget. If the salary expectation was set then this could be a red flag or error through misunderstanding. If not its a reasonable negotiation. I think the key thing that creates issues is the lack of setting clear expectations from the get go by being honest.
I would have not given the employer a second chance. They already devalued you in the first offer to see if you’d bite and accept their terms. Coming back to them to accept the second offer is much akin to working at a company, going somewhere else, and the company you previously worked with matching your current offer to retain you. No need to get upset with a low offer. Sometimes you don’t know, however it’s best to find out within the first interview what that offer might look like so you’re not wasting your time.
The decision depends on individual circumstances. If I urgently needed a job, I might accept. If I was already earning close to my minimum, I'd think twice. Offering $25k below my request raises questions: Is lowballing standard here? Will I have to underpay hires for my team too? Do they realize accepting $25k less might lead me to keep job hunting? If I wanted 25k more I will keep searching until I get it. But sure employer you can help me pay some bills while I do that. Why didn’t they think I was initially worth the extra $25k? Low offers can cause high turnover. If you can't meet a candidate's salary expectations, it's better not to interview them. And if you can afford them, give them what they need to accept.
A low offer where you have the option to increase it by this much isn’t just a problem in and of itself, it’s part of the bigger issues of pay disparities we see across the board. It pretty much means that people aren’t being paid equally for equal work in this company. Pay transparency, banding, and clear goals to understand seniority within the bands is really important. So that indicates a company that probably pays women less. I couldn’t work for such a company.
Yeah....I have a personal reputation for being honest, especially when I was a child. If someone had told me honesty would make for good business when I was a kid, I would have thought they were lying 🤣 Jokes aside, transparency speeds things considerably, allowing everyone to focus on what matters, most - paying the bills. However it does take a commitment to being highly skilled, and extremely devoted to the vocation, which is something I don't see mentioned very often. I would argue that to be confident like that, takes a lot of work elsewhere, which someone may or may not want to do. Instead of answering this question, I would restate it differently - 'Is it worth it for the candidate to give the employer another chance to make it right?'
If they had posted a range and given a minimum, then reneged on it, and then renegotiated to bring it up again to match my clearly stated minimum, no. I don't think I would. If there were miscommunications through the process or something wasn't very clear, then I may consider it, but low ball offers are so common and raises are so scant that I would be leary of someone who doesn't seem to value me at the interview process to meet my bare minimum cost of living expectation.
Im curious, who handled the INITIAL job analysis for the position in order to determine the appropriate salary range? If the position was benchmarked correctly and a range was identified none of the confusion stated in your post should have occurred.
Not sure I would have. I would ask some questions to get a sense of what prompted the change of heart on their end.
Using my passion for insurance and communication to be a multi-industry Change Agent
6dIf they were aware of the candidates requirements/needs and STILL "under cut " the offer by TWENTY FIVE K- No- I would have walked away and let them "hire a bargain" - I would have looked further for a management team who WANTED to retain talent by paying them what they need to have work life balance from the Employees perspective. - in this market- NOPE- the team that wants to "pinch pennies" and "find a bargain" can HIRE that bargain- I want to work for someone that knows what I am ACTUALLY worth. Poor form on the part of the Hiring company IMO. But the candidate handled it great.