(Controversial Opinion) I think it’s okay to give salaries based on past salaries

HR spotted 🙂

Companies can learn from their american counterparts on how not to ask for prev salaries and still be able to provide an offer. 🙂

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.

Let me guess you are either an HR, owner of service based company or have graduated from a top tier college

I have never seen MAANG companies asking salary before releasing the offer letter.

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.

HR spotted, opinion rejected

Valid point. But changing the salary after 6 months is very rare. India being a low trust nation, I won't believe that salary will be significantly increased if person is delivering more value than expected. That being said, I don't see companies moving beyond the current method because of the points you mentioned. People want to be idealistic but not possible in corporate world just based on interview

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.

If you can’t figure out a candidate’s worth during an interview, you aren’t an effective interviewer

It's a glorified excuse to pay people less for the same amount of work

I don't agree with this. There are always some salary bands defined for the level/designation that the company is hiring. When they want to exploit the candidate by lowballing this band level is not referred to and when the candidate is already at a higher compensation this is referred to. I have seen many people who are quite happy when they join the company because of the hike in CTC from the previous organisation but after a few months they realise this which leads to disappointment and dissatisfaction.

Incentives incentives incentives. Expecting an employer to revise remuneration by themselves is wishful thinking. You need competitive dynamics in negotiations.

Hmm lets break this down into 2 parts 1- its okay to give salaries based on past salaries: Should the company trust their recruitment process or should they bank on some other indicator to decide? In my experience decision always happens on own assessment, other variables are guiding beacons or filtering criteria at best. So if the decision is happening based on the company's evaluation, shouldnt the salary assessment also be similar? Why rely on past benchmarks? Assess value while assessing fit for the role and take a call for both, cant be either or here. 2- performance in first 6 months and subsequent adjustments While hiring if you are unsure of a candidate, the hiring decision is always a 'no'. You are doing yourself and the candidate a favour by being clear. Now assuming the above process is followed, why should there be any caveats? Shouldn't the candidate be offered the exact market rate (or higher) to make sure the candidate's motivations, team's motivation and company's motivation are all aligned from the get go?

If you are in the same space it can work. From Uber to ola or from flipkar to Amazon etc cases it can make sense. When someone jumps industries or jumps functions it becomes pretty infective to judge on past salaries

Disagree Pay based on candidate talent and experience that would help company go to the next level. It’s hard to align those. However the common notion is companies always have to pay higher than what candidate currently earns, if organisations doesn’t see value then don’t pay. Is easier if companies tell what’s their salary range before and ask candidate’s expectation in the first round then it’s solved before it makes it hard on both ends.

Then I see no use of leaving your current organisation except when it is toxic or for some unavoidable personal reason. When you join a new company, you have to spend your time and energy towards learning how things happen and start from scratch which can be difficult as well. Why will someone give up the comfort of staying in the old company for very less increment in new company.

Don’t do all of this BS. Have bands for salary for each level. MaYbe even have quartiles within that bands. Stick to the band And pay everyone fairly. Why should there be a huge difference between people working at the same level?

Make them work first 6 months 80hours a week to show they are good a work and handle workload, lay them off after that.. you got 2x of work in 1/2 the pay in same time frame.. 4x profit, and you take raise on the basis of that , absolutely brilliant!

If it is so, what about US culture where companies happily post the range in which you will be getting? Is India a cheap labour country that's why ?