Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Salary negotiation is one of the most important parts of the hiring process, but it is often treated as a final admin step.
A company screens CVs, interviews candidates, gets excited about the right person, brings in stakeholders, maybe even asks for a task or presentation, and only then has a proper conversation about salary.
By that point, both sides have invested time. The candidate has prepared, shown up, answered questions, met the team, and started to picture themselves in the role. The company has also spent time assessing them and may already feel they have found the right person.
Then the offer lands, and the salary is not aligned.
That is when the whole process can fall apart.
Not because the candidate is difficult. Not because the company has done anything intentionally wrong. But because one of the most important parts of the decision was left too late.
Most hiring teams know the budget for a role before they start hiring. They know what has been approved, what they are expecting to pay, and where they may have some flexibility.
Of course, there can be nuance. A stronger candidate may justify the top end of the range. A candidate with less experience may sit closer to the lower end. Sales roles may have a base salary, commission, OTE, ramp period and bonus structure to consider.
But generally speaking, companies know the range.
So when salary is not included in the job description, or not discussed properly during the process, it creates avoidable ambiguity.
That ambiguity does not help the company. It does not help the candidate either.
It can lead to wasted time, frustration, and a poor candidate experience. It can also affect trust. If a candidate gets to the end of a process and only then finds out that the role is paying far below what they need, they may question why that was not made clear earlier.
Clarity is not a weakness in hiring. It is a filter.
When people know the range, they can decide whether the role makes sense for them. Some will drop out. That is not a bad thing. It means they were never likely to accept the offer anyway.
Leaving salary until the end can feel safer at the start. Some companies worry that sharing salary too early will put people off, limit negotiation, or reduce the number of applicants.
But the real risk often comes later.
A strong candidate may move through the process, get positive feedback, and become emotionally invested in the opportunity. If the offer then comes in below expectation, they may feel disappointed or misled, even if that was not the intention.
At that stage, you are no longer just negotiating salary. You are repairing a trust gap.
I have seen strong candidates drop out at the final stage because expectations were not managed early enough. They may have liked the company, the role and the team, but the package did not match what they needed to make the move.
That is painful because it is avoidable.
A short, clear conversation earlier in the process could have saved everyone time.
No two salary negotiations are the same.
For one candidate, salary may be mainly about market value. For another, it may be about childcare costs, mortgage commitments, financial security, relocation, risk, or leaving a stable role.
Someone moving from a secure job into a start up may need a stronger base salary to justify the risk. Someone joining a sales role may care more about how realistic the OTE is than the headline number. Someone returning from parental leave may value flexibility and stability as much as pay.
This is why salary conversations need to be handled with care.
They are commercial conversations, but they are also human ones.
There is a thin line between being professional and being inflexible. A company should have clear boundaries and protect internal equity. But it also needs to listen properly to what matters to the candidate.
A good negotiation is not about winning. It is about finding out whether there is a fair agreement that works for both sides.
Salary transparency helps reduce confusion before it becomes a problem.
The EU Pay Transparency Directive requires employers to inform job seekers about the starting salary or pay range, either in the vacancy notice or before the interview. It also prevents employers from asking candidates about their pay history.
Even where there is no legal requirement to include salary in adverts, the direction of travel is clear. Candidates want more clarity. Employers benefit from fewer mismatched conversations. Hiring teams save time by speaking to people who are more likely to accept the role if offered.
In the UK, salary visibility is improving but still inconsistent. Indeed’s Hiring Lab reported that more than half of UK job postings include salary information, while disclosure levels vary widely across Europe.
That inconsistency is part of the problem.
When one company is transparent and another is vague, candidates notice. “Competitive salary” no longer says very much. Competitive against what? The market? The candidate’s current salary? The company’s internal band? A budget that has not been shared?
Clear salary ranges remove some of that guesswork.
It is also important to acknowledge that salary negotiation is not experienced equally by everyone.
We often hear that men negotiate more than women. There is some truth in the broader pattern, but the reality is more complex. Pew Research Center found that most workers did not ask for higher pay the last time they were hired. Among those who did ask, women were more likely than men to say they were only given the original offer, at 38% compared with 31%.
Research from Bowles, Babcock and Lai, summarised by Harvard Kennedy School, also found that women can face higher social costs when initiating salary negotiations. In their research, evaluators were less willing to work with candidates who negotiated, and the negative effect was more than twice as large for women as for men.
This matters for employers.
If your salary process rewards only the people who are most comfortable pushing, you may create unfair outcomes. Some candidates will negotiate hard. Others may not, even if they are equally strong. Some may worry about being judged. Others may not know what is realistic.
A fair process should not rely on confidence alone.
That does not mean removing negotiation completely. It means giving the conversation structure.
Share ranges early. Be clear about what determines pay. Explain what skills or experience would place someone at the top of the range. Keep internal equity in mind. Document decisions.
That is how you reduce bias and build trust.
Salary does not need to dominate the first conversation, but it should be checked early enough to avoid wasted time.
A simple line can work well:
“Before we go further, I want to make sure we are roughly aligned on package. The salary range for this role is £X to £Y, with [commission, bonus, benefits or flexibility]. Does that feel broadly in line with what you are looking for?”
That question is not pushy. It is respectful.
It gives the candidate space to respond honestly. It also gives the company a chance to explain the full package, especially if salary is only one part of the offer.
For sales roles, this is even more important. OTE can look strong on paper, but candidates will want to understand whether it is realistic. They may ask about quota, average attainment, ramp period, sales cycle, deal size, inbound versus outbound split, territory, and what support they will have.
Good candidates will ask these questions.
That should not be seen as a red flag. It should be seen as commercial thinking.
Salary negotiation can also tell you something about the candidate’s communication style.
This is especially relevant in sales, partnerships, account management, customer success and leadership roles.
You can learn how someone explains their value, handles tension, asks questions, listens, and responds when there are limits. Do they stay calm? Do they understand the bigger package? Can they be clear without being rigid? Can they advocate for themselves professionally?
That said, employers should not treat salary negotiation like a hidden test.
Negotiating your own salary is more personal than negotiating a commercial deal. A candidate may be nervous, cautious or less polished because the stakes are personal.
So use the conversation as one data point, not the whole judgement.
Good salary negotiation starts with preparation.
Before speaking to candidates, hiring managers should know the approved range, the ideal offer point, the highest possible offer, and what flexibility exists outside base salary. That may include commission, bonus, title, remote working, learning budget, annual leave, start date, pension, private healthcare, equity, or a salary review after probation.
The job description should include a salary range wherever possible. If the range is wide, explain why. If the package includes OTE, explain the base salary and what needs to happen for the candidate to reach the full number.
During the first call, check alignment. Not in a cold way, but clearly enough that both sides know whether it is worth continuing.
During the interview process, keep expectations live. If the role changes, or the candidate is stronger or weaker than expected, update the conversation.
At offer stage, explain the offer properly. Do not just send a number. Talk through the full package, why the offer sits where it does, and what flexibility is or is not available.
If the candidate negotiates, do not react defensively. Ask what matters most to them. Sometimes the base salary is the issue. Sometimes it is flexibility, security, earning potential, timing, or confidence in the company.
If you cannot move, say so clearly and respectfully. A firm answer is better than vague delay.
Avoid asking candidates to go through several rounds before giving any salary guidance. It wastes time and can damage trust.
Avoid saying “competitive salary” if you know the range. It is vague and usually unhelpful.
Avoid making candidates feel awkward for asking about pay. Pay is part of the role. It is not a side issue.
Avoid creating offers based only on negotiation skill. That can create unfair gaps and internal problems later.
Avoid overpromising future earnings, especially in sales. If OTE is not realistic, candidates will find out quickly.
Avoid treating a negotiation as a sign that the candidate is not interested. Often, it means they are interested enough to have a serious conversation.
