I'm trying to remember what I've been watching on TV recently but I have repeatedly seen variations of an Advert from the online jobs platform Indeed. Multiple variations of the advert show what is what I would say looks like an extremely awkward (and unrealistic) interview situation where the hiring manager won't disclose the salary and the candidate doesn't want to name his price. It's supposed to highlight the 'absurdity' of salaries not being absolutely transparent - even at interview stage - and I guess also that if you try to find a job on Indeed.com, you'll absolutely have salaries shown on every single job advert.
I wrote not so long ago about how many job seekers get frustrated when a job advert states a 'competitive salary'. I understand this and always state a salary band which represents what the employer will pay. Often it's within a range - this is common in all industries and is dependent on experience. I will add here that I fell out not so long ago with an employer who had an issue with me highlighting the salary range of a role they were looking to fill. The employer was concerned that existing employees would discover that in fact, their employer was looking to hire new people at the same experience level on more money. I don't actually state who the employer is on my adverts (obviously!) but it does highlight that within some businesses, there is still inequality of people operating at the same level on entirely different salaries. All I can say to this is that they need to get that sorted. It's untrue that employees don't discuss salary - they do. So I do believe that every job advertised publicly should give the job seeker an idea of the remuneration - it's one of the main carrots that will encourage a response to the advert.
Anyway, a typical digression from me!
When I initially talk to a candidate about salary and expectation, we talk from a perspective of what they are looking for. Whether this is realistic. If I had a pound for every candidate who told me they were underpaid in their existing role, I'd be living my best life in the Bahamas! Whilst employees look for a new role for all kinds of reasons, finding a higher salary is usually number one or two in their reasoning. We then talk about the opportunities that I am working on that might match what they are looking for - and this will include role, location, hybrid, other benefits etc. Only then would we determine if the role was a potential for them and from that point I would talk to my client and share the candidate details. At this point, I share with the client, the salary expectation of the candidate.
Initial feedback might be that the expectation is too high or too low - in which case the candidate is not shortlisted for interview (and there are usually other reasons too! In the current climate, a client would only go over their budget it there were compelling reasons from the potential employee). But equally, many clients will think laterally and as long as the candidate has the right skills for the role, the client will invite that candidate for an interview.
My point here, is that no candidate should arrive at an interview - live or remote, without knowing what the salary band for the role is. And no client should be interviewing a candidate for whom they have no knowledge of that candidate's salary expectation. So the advert fails for me at this point.
I would obviously say that in using a respected recruiter like myself, that such a situation would never happen and that's why it is always worth talking to a recruiter (me). But it's also unrealistic because clients/employers don't interview for fun. Their time is valuable, they will only interview people who really tick all their boxes - and a huge box is salary expectation.
Where I do think that a candidate is underpaid in their current role, I always advise them to talk to a prospective client about the salary that they are looking for (as opposed to saying 'I'm on X and I am looking for Y'. Once a candidate mentions that they are currently earning £28k but applying for a £40k role - even if the candidate is currently woefully underpaid and the new employer would pay £40k, they'd offer a lot less. So I do understand at least in the advert that the candidate doesn't want to name their price. But again, it's just unrealistic. I can't believe that the candidate would have made it to interview stage without the salary marker being discussed in advance.
If the role is being handled by a recruiter, this situation wouldn't happen. If a candidate gets to final stage of interviewing and then salary is on the table - there should be no surprises for either the employer or the candidate. As with just about everything it's about managing expectations.
Yes, often at the point of offer, a candidate will see if the client potentially can stretch to a couple more thousand - and whilst many employers won't take offence at this, some will! If an employer has been clear from the start about the salary, this can sour the agreement. Having said that, I would always ask, if it is appropriate to do so.
Finally, back to the advert. I thought the whole interview set-up was unrealistic. Any hiring manager who interviews with that level of disinterest in their potential new employees - a) shouldn't be in that job themselves and b) doesn't deserve to find any good candidates prepared to work for them.
I'm always happy to chat and to discuss what salary averages are for different roles in our sector. Knowledge is power!
Fiona Christian. 28/10/25. 07976 125963.