Picture the scene: Your company is seeking to employ a Department Manager, and the leading candidate is currently “in transition.”
Human Resources has pegged the market value of the job at $75,000, but you suspect that the preferred candidate (Bob) will accept $65,000.
A seasoned and experienced professional, Bob was previously paid $77,000 by his last employer, but was caught up in a restructuring staff reduction. He’s been out of work for almost a year and is getting desperate, worried about feeding his family and paying the mortgage.
When the decision point arrives other, less qualified candidates are already making $70,000 and are asking for $75,000 and up. Some hiring managers would look at this situation as a no-brainer. “Let’s hire Bob and save $10,000 to $15,000” would be the smug decision.
That wasn’t hard, was it? A preferred candidate has been gained at a low-ball price. The hiring manager deserves a pat on the back for saving the company money.
But, wait a minute — perhaps it should be a boot in the butt instead.
A savvy professional like Bob will have a sense of the competitive market, so he’ll be aware of having taken a significant pay cut to land this job. So how excited will he be with the offer? Oh sure, today he’ll be delighted and will celebrate getting a job and finally having money coming in again. Tomorrow, not so much enthusiasm.
How long before his resentment grows, knowing that he was taken advantage of – gotten on the cheap? What will happen to his energy level, his engagement, even his morale? What will he now think of the company, never mind his hiring manager?
It’s safe to presume that how you treat a candidate will be discovered at some point by that same new employee. So when Bob confirms for himself the low-ball treatment, what reaction can you expect?
What you now have is a bad hire — a situation that’s unnecessary and easily avoidable if you treat candidates fairly.
Look at it from the candidate’s perspective: When your back is to the wall and you feel your “rescuer” is taking advantage, that feeling causes a pit-of-the-stomach resentment that lingers and festers. And it costs.
The manager claimed a cost savings by the hiring decision. But when you factor in the longer term ramifications of that decision, how do the initial savings hold up?
So, the next time a hiring manager proudly announces how to save a bunch of money on a candidate who’s in transition, take a moment to think it through.
You may want to consider a boot in the butt instead.
This was originally published at the Compensation Café blog, where you can find a daily dose of caffeinated conversation on everything compensation.