Rising Star
Related Posts
Anonymous User
PwC 🐠, I interviewed with the firm about 6 months ago for a Senior Associate position on the forensics team. I wasn’t extended an offer because the position was given to an internal transfer, at least what I was told. I tried reaching out to the recruiter I worked with last time but the email bounced back and wouldn’t be delivered. I was hoping to see / reapply if the group still was looking for seniors.
In your opinion, would it be best to reapply as a cold application?
More Posts
How can I learn chinese?
What are some standard NPP digital tactics ?
Enthusiast
Thought I was on LinkedIn when I saw this one
Rising Star
New to Fishbowl?
Download the Fishbowl app to
unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
Pro
I’d love I hear other perspectives on this because this is an area that is pretty grey right now and so many orgs are having the same problem. Why post the full range if there’s really only a certain approved range the role can go up to?
Rising Star
Thanks for raising that. In many cases the posted range reflects the broader compensation band for the role, while the “approved” number can depend on internal factors like budget timing, team structure, or candidate experience. That gap can definitely create confusion on both sides, though.
From your perspective, would it be more helpful if companies clarified the likely hiring range upfront rather than listing the full band?
I think that we have been so indoctrinated with salary or hourly wage caps that people feel embarrassed to ask what they think that they are worth. This is a dramatic shift that is going to have to happen in the customer service arena, because the best folks out there are perhaps an even most likely to not be making a living wage in today's society. While ownership gets away with extra $ to support their elite lifestyle, it is the end consumer that is ultimately harmed. Nobody seems to be able to think beyond today in this economy!
Rising Star
Thanks for sharing that perspective. I agree there can be a real hesitation for candidates to ask for what they believe they are worth, especially when compensation structures have conditioned people to stay within perceived limits. From the recruiting side, situations like the one I mentioned often highlight how little visibility candidates actually have into the real budget behind a role.
Do you think more transparency from employers would help shift that mindset, or is it more about candidates becoming more comfortable advocating for themselves?
Did they know there was a budget up to 195K? That’s where the problem is. If I see a range for 100 - 125k, I’ll not accept below 100k. But that’s usually kept in the dark, and we’re left guessing on what to say.
Tighter ranges absolutely. I get the need for a range, which gives a chance for people trying to move in and up, or those already at the upper level. But when you're negotiating 40-50k of difference, that’s too much.
I see this stuff all the time. Candidates don't even ask what the range is and they undervalue themselves by tens of thousands of dollars. That is why I always tell candidates to make sure they do their research and ask the right questions.
Rising Star
I see the same pattern as well. Many candidates move straight into stating a number without first asking about the approved range or overall compensation structure, which can lead to situations like the one I mentioned.
In your experience, what’s the most effective way recruiters can encourage candidates to ask those questions earlier in the process?