So I was browsing my feed this morning and found this article from CCP Chuck Csizmar. In the piece, Chuck argues that paying a candidate below their market value just because you can (e.g. because he/she has been out of work for a while and is desperate to start bringing in an income again) will often lead to a short-term gain but cause long-term headaches.
Csizmar points out that over time the new hire may come to resent the employer for the low-ball offer: Among other things, the employee may become a flight risk (the job market will open up a bit now that he/she has a job), productivity may drop, the employee may become a negative presence in the work environment.
I don’t disagree with much of this. As a recruiter, whenever a hiring manager wanted to extend an offer to a candidate at a rate below what they made in their prior position I cringed; even if the candidate accepted the offer, over time they would often look to replace the lost earnings externally.
With that said, I conversely think that it’s a mistake to not consider a talented candidate if they earn (or earned) a salary outside of what you’re willing to pay for the position: In these cases the only offer a firm can make to a candidate may be one that’s technically below their market value, but if there is otherwise a fit it’s probably wise to sit down and have a frank conversation about salary constraints… and opportunities for growth if the candidate performs in the new role.
Of course, an employer could just as easily take that tactic regardless of if they can pay more for the position; with this in mind I wonder if my thoughts around this are based more on a moral code than business best practice.
…But shouldn’t the two go hand in hand?
As always, please share your thoughts in the comments below.