Doesn’t really answer the question directly… but I’d say the recruitment process needs reviewing! Something has gone wrong if the candidate waits until offer stage to request a 15% higher salary, and even more wrong if a 15% above-band salary has actually been offered by a hiring manager.
Salary should be on the job ad to start with, and discussed at the very first screening interview to make sure the business and the candidate are clear on potential/required salary. No-one should get to the point of an offer being made without both being aligned on the salary that is available for the role.
So, to answer the question - say no to a 15% higher-than-banding salary, re-train hiring managers and internal and external recruiters on the process, and start again 😅
Doesn’t really answer the question directly… but I’d say the recruitment process needs reviewing! Something has gone wrong if the candidate waits until offer stage to request a 15% higher salary, and even more wrong if a 15% above-band salary has actually been offered by a hiring manager.
Salary should be on the job ad to start with, and discussed at the very first screening interview to make sure the business and the candidate are clear on potential/required salary. No-one should get to the point of an offer being made without both being aligned on the salary that is available for the role.
So, to answer the question - say no to a 15% higher-than-banding salary, re-train hiring managers and internal and external recruiters on the process, and start again 😅
I love these sorts of answers! Also, could not agree more on salaries being on the job ads - transparency is key!
I agree with what @HRJoy said. If a 15% salary gap only shows up at offer stage, that usually points to a process gap somewhere earlier. Getting clear alignment on salary expectations before going deep into interviews saves everyone a lot of unnecessary back and forth.
That said, even with strong processes, these things happen. Good candidates negotiate, certain roles are tough to fill, and sometimes walking away is not the smartest move. In those moments, I think it is worth looking at creative but fair ways to bridge the gap before restarting the whole search.
A 15% difference above band is not easy to justify, but it can be handled if it is done with structure and transparency. For example:
- one time sign on bonus to close the gap
- six month performance based review agreed upfront
- equity or bonus elements if they exist
- quick level calibration if the scope turns out broader than assumed
- salary progression tied to specific milestones
For me, pay equity is not about everyone earning the same. It is about making decisions that are fair, explainable, and aligned with your overall philosophy. If another team already went above band, that makes it even more important to document the reasoning and keep the process transparent.
And once the hire is settled, I would definitely tighten the alignment step earlier in the funnel. It avoids surprises, protects internal consistency, and keeps the candidate experience smooth.
I agree with what @HRJoy said. If a 15% salary gap only shows up at offer stage, that usually points to a process gap somewhere earlier. Getting clear alignment on salary expectations before going deep into interviews saves everyone a lot of unnecessary back and forth.
That said, even with strong processes, these things happen. Good candidates negotiate, certain roles are tough to fill, and sometimes walking away is not the smartest move. In those moments, I think it is worth looking at creative but fair ways to bridge the gap before restarting the whole search.
A 15% difference above band is not easy to justify, but it can be handled if it is done with structure and transparency. For example:
- one time sign on bonus to close the gap
- six month performance based review agreed upfront
- equity or bonus elements if they exist
- quick level calibration if the scope turns out broader than assumed
- salary progression tied to specific milestones
For me, pay equity is not about everyone earning the same. It is about making decisions that are fair, explainable, and aligned with your overall philosophy. If another team already went above band, that makes it even more important to document the reasoning and keep the process transparent.
And once the hire is settled, I would definitely tighten the alignment step earlier in the funnel. It avoids surprises, protects internal consistency, and keeps the candidate experience smooth.
Your point on pay equity is a strong one, Sabbu! And you’re right, strong processes don’t always stop things like this from happening. But they sure do help! I liked the 15% number because it was just enough to be both “realistic” and a real stretch of almost any budget 😅
I’d love to hear from some of our newest community members:
@Ben at TRI @ShFHR @Florina @idapauliina @Samson2908 @MareAS @Laura Pfadenhauer @Lena Bautz @Naat
And I would certainly welcome hearing from our regulars!
@LegoMD @jwilliams79 @andra.enache @fmason @BSBSBS
Doesn’t really answer the question directly… but I’d say the recruitment process needs reviewing! Something has gone wrong if the candidate waits until offer stage to request a 15% higher salary, and even more wrong if a 15% above-band salary has actually been offered by a hiring manager.
Salary should be on the job ad to start with, and discussed at the very first screening interview to make sure the business and the candidate are clear on potential/required salary. No-one should get to the point of an offer being made without both being aligned on the salary that is available for the role.
So, to answer the question - say no to a 15% higher-than-banding salary, re-train hiring managers and internal and external recruiters on the process, and start again 😅
Agree, salary ranges should be discussed as early as possible in the process. Now there are some other questions too - are these salary bands updated to the current market?
It’s natural for candidates to negotiate; even if they already know the range, many will still “try their luck” since there’s nothing to lose. If someone asks for around 15% above the range, that might actually mean the initial offer wasn’t at the top of the band, so there could still be some room to grow. If they’re highly skilled and clearly capable of performing at the upper end, I’d explain that while our salary bands go up to X and we aim to stay equitable, we recognise their strengths and potential impact, so X could be a fair counterproposal.
I’d also highlight the broader total compensation (including bonuses, benefits, and any non-monetary advantages) to show the full value of the offer.
However, I’d be cautious about candidates accepting less than what they’ve asked for (unless it’s a small difference or other benefits bridge the gap). There’s always a risk that they may later feel undervalued, which can lead to disengagement or resentment.
Doesn’t really answer the question directly… but I’d say the recruitment process needs reviewing! Something has gone wrong if the candidate waits until offer stage to request a 15% higher salary, and even more wrong if a 15% above-band salary has actually been offered by a hiring manager.
Salary should be on the job ad to start with, and discussed at the very first screening interview to make sure the business and the candidate are clear on potential/required salary. No-one should get to the point of an offer being made without both being aligned on the salary that is available for the role.
So, to answer the question - say no to a 15% higher-than-banding salary, re-train hiring managers and internal and external recruiters on the process, and start again 😅
Agree, salary ranges should be discussed as early as possible in the process. Now there are some other questions too - are these salary bands updated to the current market?
It’s natural for candidates to negotiate; even if they already know the range, many will still “try their luck” since there’s nothing to lose. If someone asks for around 15% above the range, that might actually mean the initial offer wasn’t at the top of the band, so there could still be some room to grow. If they’re highly skilled and clearly capable of performing at the upper end, I’d explain that while our salary bands go up to X and we aim to stay equitable, we recognise their strengths and potential impact, so X could be a fair counterproposal.
I’d also highlight the broader total compensation (including bonuses, benefits, and any non-monetary advantages) to show the full value of the offer.
However, I’d be cautious about candidates accepting less than what they’ve asked for (unless it’s a small difference or other benefits bridge the gap). There’s always a risk that they may later feel undervalued, which can lead to disengagement or resentment.
Very interesting. I think your point on acceptance of a lower-than-asked salary leading to feeling undervalued is a good one! I also really appreciate your approach to the communication element with the candidate. It’s a tough situation because it’s easy to get it wrong, but I like how you tackle it!
