When to ask about wider package?

[Hairybaker]

Starting to look for a new job… Fairly senior manager level so salary wise looking at £50-60k. But the wider package of a role is also important to me eg working hours, holiday allowance and WFH policy. Would you ask about this before an interview if it’s not made clear on job spec? It would be the difference between accepting a role and not for me so I don’t want to waste time (mine or theirs) in preparing for interviews if it’s not the right package for me in the first place.

Why on earth would you interview for a job when you don't have the basics? Just ask HR. I don't understand people saying you should give your time and energy without having essential information.

It isn't grabby or wrong to say : -

" Before we get to interview I'd like to check some basic information to make sure we're on the same page. Can you tell me about the working location (office, home, hybrid), normal working hours and annual leave entitlement? "

It's a grown up way to approach things and shows you respect your time and their time.

I've just been through interview processes with 2 large companies, one was one of the Big 4 accountancy firms.

Company A were completely upfront from the first conversation about the salary banding, bonus and benefits. Company B (big 4) would not share anything at all.

I was offered both jobs, although Company B wanted me to meet with senior partners as a final round. I said I would do that only if they revealed the entire package, as it would have required a significant amount of preparation.

They refused.

I took the other job.

I believe this is very arrogant and old fashioned and ultimately will prevent them hiring the right people for the jobs in question.

@AlienEgg well that's fine we're all different aren't we, we also all work in different sectors with different customs. The organisations I work for largely have the critical information upfront. As I say if there is anything I'm uncertain about I would do so upfront, so if there was NO mention of hybrid working, that would be a dealbreaker to me and I would discuss, but if it mentions they're hybrid I would likely wait until they want me to negotiate what level of hybrid, because in my experience the conversation goes differently pre and post offer.

I am very selective about where I interview and I have a pretty high success rate, I don't do a scatter gun approach when I'm looking for a job, I've rarely interviewed more than once for my next job role, so this has been a process that has worked well for me.

@doverdiva you're making a lot of assumptions here, I don't think it's grabby to ask upfront, I know I have more success discussing the package afterwards, it's not about my level of maturity, it's that for me the interview stage is about finding out if I am suited to the role and if I want the specific role, the logistics come afterwards because when a company really wants you, they often magically find more for you, so whilst you can discuss prior, I just find it a bit pointless EXCEPT for the caveats I have already mentioned.

When I worked for a Big4 firm and used to do some of the interviewing I made exactly these points! Clearly they've not learned...

Yes I'm sure it varies. For some roles interview processes can be extensive, three or more different in-depth interviews for one role, so in that case a scattergun approach and getting down to terms on the other side of the contract wouldn't really be a good use of time or enable a candidate to weigh up various roles against each other.

Sorry, I mean doing multiple interviews for one role before discussing what package and terms you'd accept wouldn't be a good use of time. What's the point of convincing them they want you if it turns out they can't/ won't give you what you want? If you are considering multiple roles, this could take up a lot of time for no benefit to anybody, simply because they won't be upfront. It's not acceptable. If I went to an interview and said "yeah, sorry, not going to answer your questions until you offer me the job" would they be impressed? So why should one party accept that and one not? It has to be a two way process otherwise they've fallen at the first hurdle of showing basic mutual respect rather than treating you as a commodity.

I think this situation is very common - you need information to arrive at a price. Our negotiations with our bathroom contractor have been long and they have inched forward - they could not give me a price without doing a significant amount of work and that is often the case when information requires effort to obtain. All people are not the same - they’d like to think so judging by the number of times we get the glass door salary argument used in salary negotiations.

But those assessments need to take place on both sides, as in all types of contract negotiations. That's the purpose of the interview process.

A contractor might come to quote for a piece of work on a house. I'd expect to have discussions about what I wanted, their work standards, materials etc. What I'd be prepared to pay or not and relative costs. Their flexibility and availability. Then if they wish to quote they will and we can negotiate specifics. But even in the early stages of discussion, for any of these things to be off limits to talk about and only one side to be able to specify what they want or need when they may not be able to meet the other side's requirements would be pointless and ridiculous and likely waste everyone's time in many cases. Why establish in detail if one side can meet the other's requirements when the point may be moot if it can't/ won't be reciprocated and that could be established right at the start?

And obviously early on it's ok for them to say "X is negotiable, Y is not. Z would have to be in the range of A-B". But be clear. And I expect to be equally clear with them. Then if both think it would be a productive relationship move on to specifics to nail down final terms. But refusing to even state a starting position or ranges or limits but expect the other party to invest in the discussions and demonstrate what they can do for you on the off-chance they might accept whatever you feel like offering them afterwards... to me I would find that utterly disrespectful and dismissive of the value of my time so would immediately rule them out as people I'd be prepared to work with because it shows a huge problem with their entire mindset and way of working and treating colleagues - even in an interview context where they are meant to be trying to impress you!

Thanks all.

If my initial contact was with HR I would definitely ask upfront, but for this specific current example I am in contact with the recruiting manager. I’ve agreed to a first interview so probably too late to ask now but will do in any future ones as it really is a deal breaker to me.

I would ask for details of the benefits when asked about my salary expectations (which in some cases can be at the start of the process if a recruiter is involved). I would be hesitant to suggest an expected salary without knowing what the benefits are, as this may change my salary requirements.

A lot of recruiters have access to the benefits info and will provide it when asked.

I would also expect a general idea of benefits before I apply a for a role e.g. a company offering only 20 days annual leave wouldn't work for a lot of people I know.

I had this recently, basic was £60k but as it was a sales role I wanted to know the commission element. The recruiter didn't know but came back to me ten minutes later to say no there wasn't one. Needless to say I withdrew from the process.

But prior to interview, which is what OP has asked about, you haven’t had detailed conversations about what value you would bring. OP has a good idea about the package i.e. £50-60k salary, she also knows at least the minimum of what holidays she will get and most people have a fair idea of what “office hours” are like in their industry.

I am going to maintain that pre interview is not the time to ask about “working hours” and ability to work from home is not necessary pre interview. An interview is indeed a two way process, but OP seems to want to know the very finer details from the employer before providing any deeper insight than a CV on her own part.

I'm currently interviewing for similar level roles and I always try to find out about these things from the outset, either via the telephone sifting conversation or via email/LinkedIn messages. Much easier to rule them out or in at that stage than later on!

The thing is, it can vary massively for any kind of 'office work'. In my industry you have everything from fully remote to 5 days a week. And even in my own major org it very much depends on specific LM's - some just like having their staff in.

I think leave allowance, maternity, pension etc is too much detail but working hours, like salary is something major that would be a dealbreaker.

*sorry I mean work location

As a hiring manager I wouldn’t be put off if a candidate asked me this question.
I think expectations have shifted a lot since COVID and as PP have stated, it’s such a time such on either side, surely it’s better to suss these things out then potentially waste hours on interview time.
When I went from my previous job to my new one, I found I wasn’t going to get any performance related bonus that I was used to, and negotiated my base salary to compensate that.
Holiday and Hybrid working are also important to me, there’s no point me wasting the recruiter or line managers time if they’re offering the basic holiday allowance and expectation to be in the office 4/5 days a week, the culture would put me off.

Time Suck! Not time such!