A question often asked by recruiters;
“What is your current salary?”
In Singapore and much of Asia, asking for a candidate’s existing compensation, sometimes even requesting documentary proof, remains the norm. In contrast, several parts of the United States and Europe have moved in the opposite direction and banned the question entirely.
This divide is more than just legal. It reflects different attitudes toward fairness, negotiation, trust, labour markets, and the power dynamic between employers and employees.
Below is an overview of how different regions approach salary disclosure, why these practices exist, and the pros and cons of each model, especially as hiring becomes more global and talent moves more freely across borders.
Singapore and Much of Asia: Salary Anchoring as Standard Practice
Why Does This Practice Exist?
1. Risk Management and Cost Control
Employers often prefer offering incremental increases (typically 10 to 20 percent) instead of rethinking compensation from scratch.
2. Market Stability Over Mobility
Asian labour markets have traditionally valued:
- Stability
- Incremental progression
- Predictability
Salary often serves as an indicator of seniority and market position.
3. Cultural Deference and Low Confrontation
Negotiation is generally more reserved, and asking for proof of salary is usually viewed as factual rather than intrusive.
4. Trust Through Verification
Documentation is seen as a way to ensure fairness and prevent exaggeration rather than a sign of distrust.
Merits of This Model
- Predictable and structured compensation decisions
- Lower perceived hiring risk
- Protection against inflated salary expectations
- Easier benchmarking across similar candidates
Downsides
- Reinforces historical pay inequalities
- Penalises candidates who have been underpaid
- Anchors compensation decisions to previous pay rather than role value
- Reduces mobility and limits upward adjustments
United States: Salary History Bans and Market-Based Pay
In many US states and cities, including California, New York, and Massachusetts, it is now illegal to ask about salary history. Instead, employers must:
- Provide a salary range
- Evaluate candidates based on the role, not their past pay
Why the US Shifted
1. Addressing Pay Inequality
Research showed that salary history questions reinforced gender and racial pay gaps and kept candidates trapped in underpayment cycles.
2. Emphasis on Labour Mobility
The US job market places importance on lateral moves, career jumps, and pay based on skills rather than tenure.
3. Negotiation Is Encouraged
Assertive negotiation is culturally normal and often rewarded.
Merits of This Model
- Compensation is tied to the value of the role
- Allows candidates to reset their market value
- Encourages transparent salary bands
- Helps reduce systemic inequality over time
Downsides
- Greater pay variance and negotiation risk
- Employers may overpay weaker candidates
- Rewards confident negotiators, not necessarily the strongest performers
- Challenging for companies without structured compensation frameworks
A More Balanced Global Approach
As companies hire more internationally, many are shifting toward a hybrid model.
1. Start With Role-Based Salary Bands
Anchor compensation to the job’s value within the organisation, not to a candidate’s previous pay.
2. Treat Current Pay as Context, Not a Limit
If candidates choose to share their current salary, use it as background information rather than the basis for the final offer.
3. Consider Total Value, Not Just Base Pay
Career growth, learning opportunities, flexibility, and long-term upside often matter more than short-term cash increases.
4. Choose Transparency Over Verification
Trust candidate disclosures unless a clear legal or compliance requirement makes verification necessary.
Both approaches, have valid reasons behind them and also real drawbacks. For global employers, a hybrid strategy may be the most equitable. It respects the time of both candidates and clients while ensuring compensation is aligned with the value someone will create, rather than what their last employer happened to pay them.
