Do candidates think the listed salary range is just a suggestion? An invitation to negotiate? We clearly explain the salary range with every job posting. But almost every candidate feels the need to push for more, and treats me like I’m holding out on them. The budget is set, and no amount of playing hardball is going to get us to adjust it. Is it wrong that I kind of get offended when candidates act like they’re entitled to more money than we can offer?

Yes, you should not get offended by any of this. It's not your money. People are trying to do what's best for them. Besides, budgets can be stretched for the right candidate at times

it's because have been told they should always ask for more or they'll be leaving money on the table.

And when the posted range is 100K As in 115K - 215K and the candidate hits all check marks and they offer 120K. Why would the candidate not negotiate then? I mean even half is about 165K and if you say no my budget is only 145? What’s the candidate supposed to do? Take less than what they are worth or try to negotiate?

Depends on the firm for example bofa wants candidates to negotiate wages while wells fargo doesn't usually allow for wage negotiations

Are you getting offended because it makes you uncomfortable to have to say no? Try to separate those feelings. It is perfectly reasonable for somebody to try to negotiate a salary, people can in many places.

Candidates are expected to negotiate within the range, especially for higher-level roles, so first make sure you’re not just calling out the fact that candidates are negotiating in general.

If you’re seeing candidates negotiate outside of the range specified, repeatedly, maybe it’s worth considering if you’re (1) paying market value for such roles and (2) if you need to reset the role grade - i.e. are you hiring for a exec level role while advertising it as mid-senior? - and thus expecting the pool of qualified candidates to accept a salary less than they made in roles 2-3 grades lower? I would rather make 1 good hire for a role per 5-10 years than hire replacements every other year, for time, and much of this discernment falls on HR. You have influence to seek the budgets you need for roles to place good candidates.

I’m sympathetic to budgetary constraints, but having a more competitive pool of candidates doesn’t excuse trying to get more for less, because it’s an option. Taking advantage of desperate job seekers on comp isn’t something we can ethically advise is ok. Luckily, consulting and tech are largely unaffected if not aided by current market conditions in terms of growth, so it’s not an issue for most on these bowls.

Ultimately, you get what you pay for, and it may just have to be a 23 year old, requiring training programs and considerable ramp up instead of someone with 5-10 years of experience, who may be fully operational day one, with greater insight, trade-offs. Many caveats, of course. We don’t know the specifics.

I feel like it's odd if the candidate is negotiating outside of the provided range. Understand why it can seem disrespectful- it's a waste of both your and their time

What's the level of the role, work location, and salary range? I'm asking because if the posted range isn’t aligned with market expectations for that level and location, savvy candidates SHOULD negotiate. And frankly, they’re doing you a favor by helping correct that data.

Also, out of curiosity, when you were job hunting at the Director level, are you saying you didn’t negotiate?