Salary Benchmarking...
If there is one issue that has become apparent this year, it is the issue of salaries.
When a client asks us to find a candidate, one of the questions is always what kind of package can we offer to a exceptional person. "Market rate" is usually the reply. "Please can you gauge for us how much people are getting for this role at competitor companies" they say.
We then set off in search for said candidate, obviously aware that when you are head hunting, the good people are working 9 times out of 10!
"Are you interested is working for XYZ company?"
"Yes" I could be, how much are they paying?"
"Market rate" is the reply.
"May I ask what you are currently getting?"
"£45000 plus 10% bonus plus car allowance plus benefits" comes the reply.
"So what salary would interest you to change jobs and work for XYZ company?"
"I would be looking for a minimum of £52,000 plus the same package, to make it worth my while moving"
"No problem, I will state this when I send your CV"
Moving forward a few steps, (and in the current climate) around 3 to 4 interviews and a huge amount of the candidates time, the client says "I would like to offer ABC candidate the job at XYZ company"
"Great we say, What's the offer?"
"We would like to offer them the same they are on now, of £45,000"
"Oh" We reply. "I'll check with ABC candidate and see what they say." Knowing full well that it is a non-starter even after all this time and effort!
Then the deal falls through...
The point I am trying to make is that good candidates need to be enticed to move companies. WHY would companies feel that someone should join them for the same amount of money that they already earn?
In my opinion it is too much HR and procurement benchmarking, and not enough human nature and common sense. Recruitment is a people business and not a "unit item" business.
Attitudes need to change in the process and it cannot come from the candidate or the recruitment company.
It has to come from the prospective employer!