What to say when a recruiter asks your salary expectations — before you have even had an interview

The call is going well. The role sounds interesting. You have answered a few questions about your background. And then:

*"So — before we go further — what are your salary expectations for something like this?"*

The question arrives before you have read the full job description. Before you know the scope of the role, the team size, the real responsibilities, the bonus structure, the growth trajectory. Before you have made any case for your value. Before the recruiter knows enough about you to advocate for the top of their range.

And every guide says the same thing: give a range.

This is, in almost every case, the wrong answer. Not because giving a range is dishonest or aggressive — but because it is the worst possible moment to name a number, and a range named now becomes the anchor for every conversation that follows.

This article gives you what to say instead — calibrated specifically for women, because deflecting this question reads differently when you do it, and most guides do not account for that.

Why the question arrives so early — and what it is actually doing

Recruiters ask this question at the start of the process for reasons that are not adversarial. They are managing multiple candidates against a budget, and they want to know early whether your expectations are anywhere near the approved range for the role. A recruiter who sends a candidate through three rounds of interviews only to discover the salary gap is 40% has wasted everyone's time.

Understanding this matters because it changes how you respond. The recruiter is not trying to lowball you in this moment. They are trying to screen for fit. That means your goal is not to convince them you are worth a certain number — it is to stay in the process while not giving them a number that will be used to anchor your eventual offer.

The question is also, in 2026, embedded in a legislative landscape that has fundamentally changed the correct answer. In states and countries with salary range disclosure requirements — California, New York, Colorado, Illinois, Washington, Massachusetts, and EU member states from June 2026 — the employer is often legally required to share their range. When that is the case, you do not need to answer their question. You can ask yours instead.

Why giving a range is usually wrong

Every major career site tells you to give a range rather than a number. The reasoning is that a range signals flexibility while giving you some control.

Here is what actually happens.

You give a range of £55,000–£65,000. The recruiter hears £55,000. Not because they are malicious, but because the bottom of your range is the number that tells them the conversation can continue — and it anchors every subsequent number to it. When the offer eventually arrives, it will be positioned relative to your range. If the role was budgeted at £70,000, you may never find out.

The range also, almost by definition, commits you before you have enough information to commit intelligently. You do not know yet whether the role involves management responsibilities they did not mention in the job posting. You do not know whether the role is technically senior-level with a junior title. You do not know whether the bonus makes up 20% of the total package or 5%. Giving a range before you know any of that is guessing — and the guess will follow you through the process.

There is one exception. If you already know the role's salary range — because it was posted, because you researched the company's band, because the recruiter has already shared it — then you can respond to their range rather than setting your own. That is a different conversation, and it is covered below.

The deflection problem for women

Here is what most guides do not say.

Deflecting the salary expectations question — asking to learn more about the role before naming a number, redirecting to the employer's range — is sound negotiating strategy. Research by Bowles and Babcock consistently shows that the person who names a number first in a salary conversation cedes significant leverage. Not answering is almost always the right move.

But deflection reads differently when a woman does it.

Research on recruiter perceptions shows that when a man deflects a salary question with confidence — "I'd like to understand the full scope before I put a number on it" — he is frequently read as strategic and experienced. When a woman uses similar language, she is more often read as uncertain or unprepared. The same deflection produces different social signals depending on who delivers it.

This means the deflection script for women needs to do two things simultaneously: decline to answer the question and actively signal confidence and preparation. The phrasing cannot be passive or hesitant. It has to communicate that you know exactly what you want — you are simply not willing to name it before you have the information to name it intelligently.

That is a different script from the generic ones.

The three scenarios — and what to say in each

Scenario 1: No salary range has been posted. The recruiter asks cold.

This is the most common version. You know nothing about the company's range. They know you have not committed to a number. The question arrives and you need to deflect without reading as evasive.

“"I'd want to understand the full scope of the role before I put a number on it — the level of responsibility, what success looks like in the first year, the structure of the total package. Once I have that picture I can give you a really precise answer. Can you tell me what range has been approved for this position?"”

Three things this script does. The first two sentences explain why you are not answering — not because you are unprepared, but because you are being precise. "A really precise answer" signals confidence and preparation rather than avoidance. The question at the end redirects to the employer's range, which in many jurisdictions they are required to share.

If they say they do not know the range or cannot share it:

“"That's helpful to know. Then I'd like to get a bit further in the process before I commit to a number — I want to make sure I'm giving you something accurate rather than a placeholder. Can we revisit this once I've had the chance to speak with the hiring manager?"”

You have now bought the time to get through the first proper interview before a number is discussed. In that interview, you will learn enough to respond intelligently.

Scenario 2: They have already shared the range, or a range is posted.

This is increasingly common in 2026. The recruiter opens with "the role is budgeted at £60,000–£75,000 — does that work for you?" Or the range was in the job posting and they are referencing it.

This is a different question and it needs a different answer. You are no longer deflecting — you are responding to their information with your own.

“"That range works as a starting point. Based on what I understand about the role so far and my background in [relevant area], I'd be targeting the upper end of that — closer to £73,000–£75,000. I'd want to understand the full scope of the responsibilities before I put a precise number on it, but that's roughly where I'd expect to land."”

What this does: it confirms the conversation can continue (the range works), anchors toward the top without naming an exact number yet, and reserves the right to be more precise after you know more. "Upper end" is the right position — you are a specific candidate with a specific track record, not the average person this role is budgeted for.

Do not say the full range works if it does not. If the posted range tops out below what you need, say so now: "The range is a bit below where I've been targeting — is there flexibility above the posted ceiling, or is that firm?" Better to know early than after four rounds of interviews.

Scenario 3: They ask for your current salary.

In a growing number of jurisdictions, this question is illegal. In the US, salary history bans are in place in California, New York, Illinois, Massachusetts, Colorado, Washington, and others. In the EU from June 2026, employers cannot ask candidates about salary history. In the UK, there is no blanket ban but you are not required to answer.

If it is legal in your jurisdiction and you choose to answer, your current salary is the worst anchor you can offer. It has nothing to do with what the new role pays. It reflects a previous negotiation in a previous market, possibly several years ago, possibly at a company that underpaid you. It should not determine your next salary.

“"I'd rather focus on what this role warrants than on what I've been earning — they're different calculations. Based on the market rate for this level and what I bring to the role, I was expecting something in the range of [your range]. What's been approved for this position?"”

If you are in a jurisdiction where the question is illegal:

This response is neither aggressive nor apologetic. It names the legal position accurately, redirects to expectations rather than history, and immediately asks for the employer's number.

When they persist

Some recruiters will push back on any deflection. "I really do need a number from you before I can put you forward." "The hiring manager requires salary confirmation at this stage." "I can't move the process forward without knowing your expectations."

These objections are sometimes genuine — some companies do have rigid processes — and sometimes a pressure tactic. Either way, the response is the same.

“"I appreciate the constraint. Given that I don't have enough information about the full scope of the role to give you an accurate number, let me say this: based on my research into market rates for this level in [city/sector], I'd be targeting [your specific number]. That's where I expect to land once I understand the complete picture. Does that work?"”

Three things changed in this version. First, you acknowledged the constraint without accepting that it requires you to play on their terms. Second, you named a specific number rather than a range — because if you must name something, a specific number is better than a range whose bottom becomes the anchor. Third, you framed it as a market-rate number, not a personal desire or a current salary.

The number you name should be the salary you actually want, grounded in market data for the role. Not the bottom of a range. Not a number you would be willing to accept. The number you want.

The salary history trap — and how to step around it

Even in jurisdictions where salary history is legal to ask, you can redirect without lying.

“"I'd rather look at this from the market rate for the role than from my history — the two can be quite different depending on company and market. Based on what I know about rates for this level, I'm targeting [your number]. Does that fall within the approved range?"”

This response does not disclose your current salary, does not claim it is illegal to ask, and does not sound evasive. It reframes the conversation from where you have been to where the market puts someone like you — which is the only anchor that actually serves you.

What you should know before the call

The salary expectations question is easier to handle when you have already done the work. Before any recruiter call:

Know your number. Not a range. One specific salary — the one you are targeting, grounded in market data for the role, level, and geography. You may not use it on the first call. But knowing it means you are never caught guessing.

Know whether the range is posted. Check the job posting, the company's careers page, and the posting on LinkedIn and Indeed. In any transparency jurisdiction, the range should be there. If it is, you already know what they are prepared to pay.

Know whether salary history is banned in your jurisdiction. Check your state or country. If it is banned, you do not need to answer that version of the question at all.

Know the recruiter's incentive. External recruiters (agencies) are typically paid a percentage of your first-year salary. They are incentivised to get you hired, not to save the company money on your offer. They want to know your expectations so they can confirm the process will close, not so they can lowball you. Internal recruiters are salaried employees managing a pipeline — their incentive is process efficiency, not your salary outcome. Knowing which type you are speaking with changes how you interpret the conversation.

The question that ends the conversation well

However the salary expectations exchange goes, end it with this:

If you have not yet got the answer to this question, this is the moment to ask it. A recruiter who will not tell you the approved range after a substantive conversation is giving you information about the company's approach to transparency that is itself worth knowing.

The information you need to negotiate well is not a number you give them. It is a number you ask for.