People Puzzlers - October 2025

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.

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 

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! 

I’d love to hear from others as well:

​@Aaron Windrum ​@Hellohere ​@SalC 

I never flex on the bands, this situation would lead me to review the bands to see if they reflect the market and reward being offered externally, maybe they’re outdated. If they are outdated then I would look into if they could be revised if budget etc permits, if they aren’t then I would focus on what all we offer that a potential competitor doesn’t that could be better bens, better flexibility or better career growth opportunities etc. I would always have a conversation with the person to establish what their motivations are, and to determine more details of the counter offer as they may have overlooked some key differences.

If it is ultimately decided to go outside the band (which I definitely wouldn’t recommend) then management & HR need to be prepared for the consequences, they could damage trust with existing employees and promote a culture of disregarding processes and practices in general which may be a downward spiral. We also need to ask ourselves why we have the bands and the structures in the first place. Normally they are in place to primarily maintain pay equity and fairness and to budget, not only do they build trust with the workforce and enable financial planning for the organisation, they provide a legal safeguard. With New York being the first to bring in mandatory pay transparency legislation and the EU Pay Transparency Act coming into force next year, this is something that we will likely see cropping up more often. 

Excellent point on having to deal with the consequences. Considering how hard it is to regain that trust, the decision to offer a salary outside of a band would seem to be a dicey one! 

​@Carly Murphy, I know your fresh from you’re first time hosting a meetup with us, but I’d love to get your thoughts on this as well 😊

Some more folks I’d be happy to see chiming in:

​@damayantichowdhury09 ​@HannahPorteous-Butler ​@BTE ​@Kira Kurmann ​@Magdalena Pasieka-Wesołowska ​@ana.classen.reategui ​@jwilliams79 ​@MarcosFelicio01 ​@kev ​@HStan 

Well we are in pubic sector so the only reason we can go higher than the advertised salary in the advertisement (which is normally point 1 of the scale) is if the successful candidate is already at a higher point on that scale. Other than that our salary bands all have to be visible on the advertisement (and all salaries now have to be in general). Agree with ​@HRJoy in reviewing the recruitment process, but people will also push for that extra little bit at the offer stage. ‘if you don’t ask you won’t know’ would be a common thought with candidates. 

Sometimes it’s not always monetary - the role can be more attractive with things like

• Flexible working arrangements: Remote options or flexible hours (subject to company policy)
• Professional development: Budget for training, certifications, or conferences. (We are lucky to have  a healthy training budget)

I have found that people will always push their luck though, regardless of whether they are genuinely happy with the salary on offer. 

Hello lovely community - everyone above makes some great points.  We maintain salary bands here.  We have on one or two occasions offered a one-off joining award payable after successful completion of a 6 months probation, but only for exceptional candidates.  We do also make it clear where they are positioned within the salary bands!  We are in a niche market so not a lot of talent out there #slimpickings!  Thanks, Sally