Startups Looking To Hire Data Scientists, Don’t Make This Mistake
By: Adam Ross Nelson
Tags: Career Advice, Salary Negotiations, Recruiting, Data Science, Human Resources

Startups Looking to Hire Data Scientists, Don’t Make This Mistake

Both startups and large corporations often botch this part of the hiring process.

Photo credit: Tim Mossholder

It’s a mistake that will potentially cost the opportunity to connect well with candidates that really want to work for you. It’s a mistake that will render your company vulnerable to hiring candidates who will be easily poached away by other competing employers. It involves making a faulty assumption about candidates. The faulty assumption is that salary is a candidate’s most important consideration in the job search.

I recently conducted a poll using multiple social media platforms. The combined polls collected 343 responses.

Less than half of the respondents indicated that salary was their most important consideration (47%). This means that more than half of the respondents may consider at least one other factor as more important (53%).

Below I will explain why asking about salary, and screening candidates based on salary requirements is a mistake. Also provided is a script that recruiters can use to avoid making the mistake of asking about salary in a counter-productive way. This script also helps the recruiter learn more about what does matter more than salary, if anything, for the candidate. A companion article provided advice to candidates on how to respond when recruiters ask about salary expectations (link coming soon).

Why screening candidates based on salary expectations is a mistake

The main reason that screening candidates based on salary expectations is a mistake is that the premise is often wrong. When candidates do have salary expectations, there are often other expectations that are as equally important or more important. More on what those expectations might be below.

When a recruiter assumes that salary is a candidate’s most important factor they lose out on an opportunity to learn what else is the most important factor. By making this faulty assumption organizations are losing out on a valuable business intelligence opportunity. If recruiters took the time to ask this question in a systematic way, and then tabulate those results, the organization would learn better how to position itself in the employment market.

When recruiters screen candidates based on salary expectations they create a Darwinistic dynamic that allows candidates who are driven by salary over all other considerations to advance in the search process. By allowing salary driven candidates to advance in the search process (but not others) the employer risks building a workforce that is vulnerable to poaching by other competing employers.

If recruiters would recruit on the basis of other factors, factors that matter more to candidates, and factors that competing employers can not easily replicate, the employer begins to build a workforce that is resistant to poaching by other employers.

Factors that matter more than salary

The information listed here is largely based on the comments that many posted in response to the polls I put online. There are two categories of considerations that might matter more than salary. First, non-salary compensation factors. Second, non-compensation factors.

Non-salary compensation factors

Listing all of this category’s factors is beyond the scope of the article. Here are four examples that might influence candidates to accept a lower salary.

Health insurance. A health insurance program that has no employee premium (they do exist) can save hundreds for the employee. A $5 premium is $60 annually. A $50 premium is $600 annually. A $500 premium (could happen for larger families) is $6,000 annually. Plausibly, an employee could be persuaded to move from job A to job B where job B pays $5,000 less than job A if Job B move would save $6,000 in annual healthcare premiums.

A health insurance program that has no employee premium (they do exist) can save hundreds for the employee. A $5 premium is $60 annually. A $50 premium is $600 annually. A $500 premium (could happen for larger families) is $6,000 annually. Plausibly, an employee could be persuaded to move from job A to job B where job B pays $5,000 less than job A if Job B move would save $6,000 in annual healthcare premiums. Tuition remission. This item is variable from candidate-to-candidate. Candidates who have completed a PhD might be less interested in more school than candidates who have yet to start a master's. But if tuition remission is available, to the tune of thousands over several years, a candidate would be smart to consider a job that pays less but offers tuition remission or tuition reimbursement.

This item is variable from candidate-to-candidate. Candidates who have completed a PhD might be less interested in more school than candidates who have yet to start a master's. But if tuition remission is available, to the tune of thousands over several years, a candidate would be smart to consider a job that pays less but offers tuition remission or tuition reimbursement. Student loan forgiveness or payment assistance. For graduates with high student loan balances the opportunity for public service loan forgiveness (PSLF) is clearly a factor that could weigh in favor of job B (in the non-profit sector) that pays less than job A (in the for-profit sector). Companies (in any sector) that offer payment assistance will also have an advantage in recruiting graduates who have student loan balances.

For graduates with high student loan balances the opportunity for public service loan forgiveness (PSLF) is clearly a factor that could weigh in favor of job B (in the non-profit sector) that pays less than job A (in the for-profit sector). Companies (in any sector) that offer payment assistance will also have an advantage in recruiting graduates who have student loan balances. Retirement contribution. For younger candidates, with compounded interest over 30–40 years, a 2–3% difference in an employer’s retirement contribution could be massive. For more experienced candidates, a 2–3% difference in the employer’s contribution is also significant because presumably, salaries are generally higher later in a career. The vesting schedule also matters. A candidate would be smart to consider job B that has a short vesting schedule, even though job A pays a little more but won’t vest until much later.

Non-compensation factors

An opportunity to be a thought leader. This means the opportunity to write, publish, and present at conferences. This also means leeway when an employee wants to serve as a volunteer in a professional organization. An organization that sees the value if letting an employee spend time at a long lunch in order to contribute at a professional association board meeting will have an advantage when recruiting those who have an interest in this flavor of professional experience. Employers benefit when their employees engage in this type of experience.

This means the opportunity to write, publish, and present at conferences. This also means leeway when an employee wants to serve as a volunteer in a professional organization. An organization that sees the value if letting an employee spend time at a long lunch in order to contribute at a professional association board meeting will have an advantage when recruiting those who have an interest in this flavor of professional experience. Employers benefit when their employees engage in this type of experience. An opportunity to engage in mission-driven work. Many scientists are not motivated by profit. The motivational value of salary diminishes and plateaus over time. We know this from Pink (2011) and Harlow & Deci (1971) (and from Youtube’s Autonomy Mastery Purpose videos.). Instead, many professionals respond to autonomy, mastery, and purpose. The opportunity to engage in mission-driven work satisfies the need for purpose. This means providing opportunities for your employees to make a positive supportive difference in the world.

Many scientists are not motivated by profit. The motivational value of salary diminishes and plateaus over time. We know this from Pink (2011) and Harlow & Deci (1971) (and from Youtube’s Autonomy Mastery Purpose videos.). Instead, many professionals respond to autonomy, mastery, and purpose. The opportunity to engage in mission-driven work satisfies the need for purpose. This means providing opportunities for your employees to make a positive supportive difference in the world. Credit for the work. Scientists need credit for their work. Receiving credit and attribution for scientific work is how scientists advance their careers. One of the best ways for an organization to harvest the benefits of a scientist is to ensure that their scientists are well recognized and well attributed throughout the scientific community. When done well, an organization’s scientists will be offered a microphone. When the scientist takes that microphone, that scientist will speak well of, and in favor of, their organization. In short, when the scientist looks good, the organization looks good. That is the definition of a win-win.

Scientists need credit for their work. Receiving credit and attribution for scientific work is how scientists advance their careers. One of the best ways for an organization to harvest the benefits of a scientist is to ensure that their scientists are well recognized and well attributed throughout the scientific community. When done well, an organization’s scientists will be offered a microphone. When the scientist takes that microphone, that scientist will speak well of, and in favor of, their organization. In short, when the scientist looks good, the organization looks good. That is the definition of a win-win. An opportunity to collaborate with other scientists. Science is a team sport. At a minimum, satisfying this factor means recruiting and maintaining a cadre of scientists throughout the organization. To more fully address this factor, it is important to build an organizational culture that will support collaboration with scientists at other organizations (universities, think tanks, other corporations, etc.). For employers, this also means establishing policies and processes that facilitate (not inhibit) knowledge sharing and dissemination.

Science is a team sport. At a minimum, satisfying this factor means recruiting and maintaining a cadre of scientists throughout the organization. To more fully address this factor, it is important to build an organizational culture that will support collaboration with scientists at other organizations (universities, think tanks, other corporations, etc.). For employers, this also means establishing policies and processes that facilitate (not inhibit) knowledge sharing and dissemination. Sufficient independence that will permit the discovery of new and meaningful insights. If you’re recruiting a scientist, be willing and able to demonstrate that you want a professional that will tell you the truth about their findings. As a practical matter, this means evaluating your goals for the organization. You need to be sure you are genuinely interested in hearing the truth, not the results of a tortured data analysis that fits a narrative that has been otherwise pre-determined by management, or executives.

Many of the items listed in this section satisfy, at least in part, a scientist’s desire and need for autonomy, mastery, and purpose.

More than half of the poll’s respondents indicated at least one factor other than salary was the most important when in the midst of a job search.

A more productive approach

The following is a discussion that would be more productive both for recruiters and candidates.

Recruiter (On LinkedIn): Hey Adam, we have an opportunity to share with you.

Candidate: Okay sure, let’s set up a chat.

Recruiter (On the phone): I know I reached out to you and contacted you first. Would you be willing to share a bit more with me about why you decided to accept my invitation to chat?

Candidate: Thanks so much for asking. You’ve indicated you have a great opportunity for me. If it turns out that I don’t think it is a good fit, I can likely help connect you with others who might be a better fit. Also, I know a little bit about your organization and the opportunity to work for you is quite appealing. I didn’t want to pass the opportunity to chat with you because, even though I’m not necessarily searching right now, I could see myself circling back your way in the future.

Recruiter: Thanks so much for sharing that information. I understand that you’re not actively searching for a new role at the moment. But, I really do believe that my company is a great organization and I’m excited to chat with you about the opportunity we have. Of course, if after hearing about the role, you decide it is not a good fit for you or that now is not the right time I’ll respect that.

Candidate: Sounds great. I promise not to hide the ball. I will let you know how I’m feeling once and as I hear more.

Recruiter: So what do you know about [insert recruiter’s company name].

Candidate: [Talks about recruiter’s company name].

Recruiter: Let’s talk about priorities. What is the most important factor for you when you are evaluating a job offer?

Candidate: For me, my family is located in rural Wisconsin. It is hard to get there for visits. So one of my most important factors is the ability to take time off work in order to visit family. In my last few roles I’ve had the opportunity to work remotely. I need to keep the ability to work remotely because I leverage that as an opportunity to connect with and visit family. Also in the midst of 2020’s pandemic, access to quality health is important.

Recruiter: I heard you mention health care. Health care is an important component of compensation. Personal time off is also an important component of compensation. Our company offers health care that could be described as [insert description]. And we offer [insert number] of personal time off days each year. If we can continue the conversation I’ll send you a copy of our remote work policies. How important is salary to you?

Candidate: Salary is important. It isn’t a primary motivator. I currently make $XXX,XXX and at my previous position I made $YYY,YYYY. At least once in my career I’ve taken pay cuts in order to pursue opportunities that were new and exciting to me.

Recruiter: Thanks so much for sharing.

Candidate: I promised not to hide the ball. Do you have a salary range in mind for this role?

Recruiter: [Sound of paper rustling or computer clicking and typing]. We were looking at $XXX,XXX on the low end and $YYY,YYY on the upper end.

Candidate: Okay, thanks. Sounds like it would be worth our while to continue this conversation.

Final thoughts

This article discussed why asking about salary during the screening interview is a mistake for startups. Asking about salary during a screening interview or making it any aspect of the screening process is a mistake for any organization.

Above I explained why asking about salary, and screening candidates based on salary requirements is a mistake. Also provided was a script that recruiters can use to avoid making the mistake of asking about salary in a counter-productive way.

The script above also helps the recruiter learn more about what does matter more than salary, if anything, for the candidate. A companion article provided advice to candidates on how to respond when recruiters ask about salary expectations (link coming soon).

In the simplest terms many, perhaps most, candidates do not consider salary to be their most important consideration in the context of a job search. This means that asking about salary in the wrong way, or screening candidates on the basis of salary expectations and history is a potential recruiting mistake.

There is ample reason beyond this one-off and non-scientific poll to believe that salary is likely often not the first consideration on a candidate’s mind. After certain levels, salary fails to motivate. Instead, many professionals respond to autonomy, mastery, and purpose.

The best advice for organizations that have made or are making the mistake of screening candidates based on salary requirements is simple. Stop making the assumption that salary is the most important factor. Instead, ask candidates what is their most important factor. Track that information for reporting and strategic purposes. Also, speak to the factors candidates identify as most important. Later, use that information to support your employees and to promote retention.

If you are a job candidate, a current, or aspiring data scientist and you want to chat about speaking with recruiters — contact me. My contact information is below.