Advertising
Advertising

Drop the Embarrassment: How Smart Interviewers Disclose Their Salary Requirements

Drop the Embarrassment: How Smart Interviewers Disclose Their Salary Requirements

It’s not always that you find yourself on a chair against an esteemed panel keenly listening to your skills and aptitude. That could be your gateway to your dream job, a sense of security, a better lifestyle, achieving your ambitions and get them to pay you the salary you have always wanted. You need to be tactful, smart and well-articulate to ensure you don’t miss that chance.

Giving your salary requirements could be a challenge.

For a fresher or experienced, getting the salary requirements out there is only a challenge. You are already suffering from the burden of proving yourself to an employer that you are worthy of a responsibility. Your negotiations for salary is only minimal and skill oriented. Experienced professionals have a bigger obstacle to tackle. For them the most inevitable part of the selection process is the communication and zeroing down on a package that’s acceptable to both parties.

The most essential bit of your selection process: If you aren’t smart enough to convince the panel why you deserve the package you just proposed, you may lose out on a job. The worse would be to settle for a job that requires overworking and is underpaying.

Advertising

But here’s the art of discussing salary requirements:

As an interviewee, be aware that your entire interview process more or less leads up to the point where the salary requirements are discussed. So your performance throughout the interview matters[1].

1. Stand out from the little things.

It’s that impression that build that silently negotiate for you and your package. If you under performed and expect a best in industry package, that’d be an absurd move. Be confident, speak with conviction and be smart and quirky or even a little funny[2].

You could be skilled enough for a job, but know that you are competing with a range of equally skilled/qualified contenders. It’s those little quirks, remarks and insights which helps you stand out. Stand out, once you are there, then you have a better scope of negotiations.

Advertising

Don’t worry, it’s an acquired skill and to improve your position as a potential candidate, tools like People HR software will help overcome situations and teach you skills of negotiation and get package you deserve.

2. Your resume and cover letter will be your greatest assets.

Secondly, understand that your resume and cover letter are absolutely essential. It’s incredibly important for your resume to stand out from the lot as more or less all leading brands are bombarded with hundreds of exceptional resumes [3]. Ensure that you have a resume which highlights the key skills that would benefit the employer with focus on relevant past experiences.

One another aspect on which many don’t emphasize is the cover letter. Tips and tactics which makes your resume and cover letter look impressive are provided, which you may follow to curate originals.

Advertising

3. Be open and bold to talk about your salary requirements.

Thirdly, know that when your employer is asking you to quote a price for your services, he’s not doing you a favor, instead just asking you to directly, and openly state what do you think you are worthy of.

Don’t be ashamed to say openly that you are thoroughly skilled, has potential and will become an inevitable part of the firm convincingly with reasoning so that your required salary isn’t a far-fetched dream. Most companies will be willing to pay a large sum to get on board a candidate who can bring value and add a sense of innovation to the team. Don’t hesitate.

4. Don’t underestimate your capabilities and be confident in yourself.

Lastly, be sure of yourself. Don’t settle for something because you are intimidated or afraid to reach the bigger players. If a google is hiring, please don’t go for a tiny regional team, unless you think you can make them top-class. Yes, being the king of nothings might be a huge boost for your ego, on a larger picture, in the long run, wait for the opportunity that will make you a better professional.

Advertising

Featured photo credit: Stocksnap via stocksnap.io

Reference

More by this author

How Not to Be a Bad Boss That Makes Good Employees Quit Drop the Embarrassment: How Smart Interviewers Disclose Their Salary Requirements Top 5 Ways To Drink More Water All Year Round 4 Ways to Make your Workplace Plastic Free

Trending in Productivity

1The Productivity Paradox: What Is It And How Can We Move Beyond It? 210 Best Time Management Books Recommended By Entrepreneurs 3What Is Procrastination (And the Complete Guide to Stop Procrastinating) 46 Simple Steps to Make Progress Towards Achieving Goals 5Secrets to Organizing Thoughts and Ideas (So You’ll Never Lose Ideas!)

Read Next

Advertising
Advertising

The Productivity Paradox: What Is It And How Can We Move Beyond It?

The Productivity Paradox: What Is It And How Can We Move Beyond It?

It’s a depressing adage we’ve all heard time and time again: An increase in technology does not necessarily translate to an increase in productivity.

Put another way by Robert Solow, a Nobel laureate in economics,

“You can see the computer age everywhere but in the productivity statistics.”

In other words, just because our computers are getting faster, that doesn’t mean that that we will have an equivalent leap in productivity. In fact, the opposite may be true!

New York Times writer Matt Richel wrote in an article for the paper back in 2008 that stated, “Statistical and anecdotal evidence mounts that the same technology tools that have led to improvements in productivity can be counterproductive if overused.”

There’s a strange paradox when it comes to productivity. Rather than an exponential curve, our productivity will eventually reach a plateau, even with advances in technology.

Advertising

So what does that mean for our personal levels of productivity? And what does this mean for our economy as a whole? Here’s what you should know about the productivity paradox, its causes, and what possible solutions we may have to combat it.

What is the productivity paradox?

There is a discrepancy between the investment in IT growth and the national level of productivity and productive output. The term “productivity paradox” became popularized after being used in the title of a 1993 paper by MIT’s Erik Brynjolfsson, a Professor of Management at the MIT Sloan School of Management, and the Director of the MIT Center for Digital Business.

In his paper, Brynjolfsson argued that while there doesn’t seem to be a direct, measurable correlation between improvements in IT and improvements in output, this might be more of a reflection on how productive output is measured and tracked.[1]

He wrote in his conclusion:

“Intangibles such as better responsiveness to customers and increased coordination with suppliers do not always increase the amount or even intrinsic quality of output, but they do help make sure it arrives at the right time, at the right place, with the right attributes for each customer.

Just as managers look beyond “productivity” for some of the benefits of IT, so must researchers be prepared to look beyond conventional productivity measurement techniques.”

How do we measure productivity anyway?

And this brings up a good point. How exactly is productivity measured?

In the case of the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, productivity gain is measured as the percentage change in gross domestic product per hour of labor.

But other publications such as US Today, argue that this is not the best way to track productivity, and instead use something called Total Factor Productivity (TFP). According to US Today, TFP “examines revenue per employee after subtracting productivity improvements that result from increases in capital assets, under the assumption that an investment in modern plants, equipment and technology automatically improves productivity.”[2]

In other words, this method weighs productivity changes by how much improvement there is since the last time productivity stats were gathered.

But if we can’t even agree on the best way to track productivity, then how can we know for certain if we’ve entered the productivity paradox?

Possible causes of the productivity paradox

Brynjolfsson argued that there are four probable causes for the paradox:

Advertising

  • Mis-measurement – The gains are real but our current measures miss them.
  • Redistribution – There are private gains, but they come at the expense of other firms and individuals, leaving little net gain.
  • Time lags – The gains take a long time to show up.
  • Mismanagement – There are no gains because of the unusual difficulties in managing IT or information itself.

There seems to be some evidence to support the mis-measurement theory as shown above. Another promising candidate is the time lag, which is supported by the work of Paul David, an economist at Oxford University.

According to an article in The Economist, his research has shown that productivity growth did not accelerate until 40 years after the introduction of electric power in the early 1880s.[3] This was partly because it took until 1920 for at least half of American industrial machinery to be powered by electricity.”

Therefore, he argues, we won’t see major leaps in productivity until both the US and major global powers have all reached at least a 50% penetration rate for computer use. The US only hit that mark a decade ago, and many other countries are far behind that level of growth.

The paradox and the recession

The productivity paradox has another effect on the recession economy. According to Neil Irwin,[4]

“Sky-high productivity has meant that business output has barely declined, making it less necessary to hire back laid-off workers…businesses are producing only 3 percent fewer goods and services than they were at the end of 2007, yet Americans are working nearly 10 percent fewer hours because of a mix of layoffs and cutbacks in the workweek.”

This means that more and more companies are trying to do less with more, and that means squeezing two or three people’s worth of work from a single employee in some cases.

Advertising

According to Irwin, “workers, frightened for their job security, squeezed more productivity out of every hour [in 2010].”

Looking forward

A recent article on Slate puts it all into perspective with one succinct observation:

“Perhaps the Internet is just not as revolutionary as we think it is. Sure, people might derive endless pleasure from it—its tendency to improve people’s quality of life is undeniable. And sure, it might have revolutionized how we find, buy, and sell goods and services. But that still does not necessarily mean it is as transformative of an economy as, say, railroads were.”

Still, Brynjolfsson argues that mismeasurement of productivity can really skew the results of people studying the paradox, perhaps more than any other factor.

“Because you and I stopped buying CDs, the music industry has shrunk, according to revenues and GDP. But we’re not listening to less music. There’s more music consumed than before.

On paper, the way GDP is calculated, the music industry is disappearing, but in reality it’s not disappearing. It is disappearing in revenue. It is not disappearing in terms of what you should care about, which is music.”

Perhaps the paradox isn’t a death sentence for our productivity after all. Only time (and perhaps improved measuring techniques) will tell.

Featured photo credit: Pexels via pexels.com

Reference

Read Next