It's been a while now for most salaried positions in North America. I actually walked out of an interview (years ago now) because the response to my question "what level of compensation should I be thinking of for the duties and hours?" was "How much do you think it's worth?" (I had that luxury, being aleady gainfully employed with plenty of time to find my next step). The only reasonable response to this idiocy is "You may want to readvertise when you have a clearer idea of your budgetary constraints. In the mean-time, good luck" but of course it isn't really an option if you're really and immediately looking for a job.

For myself, I don't wonder so much about the question - it's obviously a ploy to trick applicants into undervaluing themselves - but about when exactly employers forgot that they're not shoppes at a farmer's market - both sides are selling something in a job contract, so you need TWO points of reference for negotiation. And BOTH sides need to come to the table willing to talk.

Still, probably wise not to go back to them with a nettled response unless you're happy to burn that bridge.

That's the problem: as tempting as it may be in the short term, burning the bridge doesn't actually gain me anything in the long term.

That, of course, is what they're counting on. On the other hand, either the employers really are clueless as to whether their budget really supports a reasonable package for someone with the skillset they want or they're ruthless exploiters slyly manouvering for someone to undersell themselves. I'm not sure I'd want to work for them in either scenario. But of course, I'm not actually looking so it's abstract, and thus easy to get up on a moral horse. I seem to remember not being so bothered the last time I was looking for a new job myself. Hopefully they're neither as incompetent nor as mercenary as the strategy screams, and just think it's smart management.

More harm has been done by "HR professional" training programmes than by 90s and later era MBAs, and that's saying something...

Why not just quote the highest salary you expect, and hedge with that it be negotiable?

That's certainly one strategy - but when there are a fair number of applicants expected for a position the employer's strategy of asking for your expectations without giving any indication from their side is often intended to filter for the lowest "bids". Asking for the highest reasonable salary in that case would disqualify you, even if you would be happy with their compromise position based on your particular combination of experience and skill.

The trick is to ask for a number that's higher than the minimum you'd be satisfied with, but still low enough that they won't dismiss you instantly in favour of lowball bidders.

In my experience, it's usually HR playing this game, not the hiring unit or anyone who really understands the job. HR's job is to filter applicants and present a short list to the people who actually know what's needed. They usually only have a vague idea of requirements beyond a check-list of skills/experience so really aren't equipped to do anything but try to get the best cost:value ratios and let the managers decide.

+Kevyn Winkless I completely agree with it being HR, not the hiring team.

The first time I really became aware of this issue, I was asked by the manager of a team to apply for the full-time version of my position when my contract ran out. I really liked working with the team, however I had been working at a significantly lower rate than normal (for various reasons); so I stated what I thought I was worth, and what my absolute minimum rate would be (the rate at which I would walk and not look back).

He said that wasn't in his control.

I waited 3 months for the job to be posted, went for two in person interviews (2 hours away), waited 2 months for a "decision" to be made. At every point of contact, I asked if a decision on the wage had been made and was always told, "that's up to HR to decide".

6 months, from start to finish. 3 of those months spent unemployed. When HR finally called to offer me the job, they offered 15% less than my stated minimum.

I still go out for lunch with that team every 6 months or so.

I completely agree... Here's one recent experience: I was being vetted for a research position in one of the national labs. The job talk went great; at which point suddenly I found myself dealing with the HR. These guys had zero to none tech background, and resulted in some of the most annoyingly dragged out "conversation s". One issue was salary... I was asked what I expected... I told them the salary offered to me by a NY financial firm to go model the stock market. The HR response was almost funny... Think the visual trope of choking on a glass of water... I added that I am willing to negotiate, since I am interested in the position. In the coming months it seemed that the HR was completely in charge of the hiring decision, and seemed like their key issue was emerging as the compensation... I found it really odd.... It's a national lab, they are supposed to hire the best people, not one that costs 10k less.. On top of it, it seemed that the tech managers had little to no control on the process.

+Ishanu Chattopadhyay I disagree. While HR should be seeking "the best", there is always an implied "the best we can afford". An organization without a budgetary constraint is doomed to failure since at some point they will run out of money and lay everybody off.

What I think it is important to avoid is drawn out discussions when the range I would accept and the range they will pay have no overlap.

I was about to write out a proof explaining that there is a time for negotiating, and a point you are just wasting time.... but that sounds like a waste of time.