“The Breakthrough Hiring Playbook” – Issue 5
After ten years in recruitment, the gap feels bigger than ever.
Day rates that don’t cover bills. AI salaries that look like phone numbers. It’s just impossible to compare fairly. Everyone wants more but what even is fair anymore?
When you try to rationalise who should be paid what, it all becomes a blur. So who’s wrong, who’s right or are we all missing the point?
This one’s not about outrage. It’s about what I’m seeing in the market, and why the loudest voices aren’t always the most useful.
Let’s Talk About Pay. Salary. Day Rates. Packages.
I keep seeing two kinds of posts on LinkedIn right now.
The first? Complaints about day rates being slashed and companies offering pennies for serious work. The second? Mock outrage that someone in AI has secured a role paying £350k plus.
But what I never see are posts about fair pay, “average earnings,” or roles that are actually aligned to reality. And why would we? It doesn’t generate clicks. So we keep seeing extreme examples and start blanketing the entire market as broken.
Personally, I think we just have more access to more information right now and maybe it’s always been like this?
This issue is about pay, what’s fair, what’s expected, and why there’s no one size fits all answer. I’m going to share what I’m seeing in the market, the factors no one talks about, and what could be better.
I’m not here to tell you what the perfect number is. But I am here to suggest that maybe we’ve forgotten how this all actually works.
Skillset + Rarity + Project Complexity + Value Added = Rate or Salary
So What’s Driving the Gap?
It comes down to a mix of value, availability, expectations, and market understanding. But none of these work in isolation, they all feed into each other.
First, skill and value aren’t the same thing.
The AI salaries everyone complains about? They’re not just for highly skilled engineers. They’re for people who create enormous commercial value. The kind that shifts roadmaps, creates IP, and influences revenue. They’re not just coders. They’re value creators.
Take the role I was recently worked on. It paid £700k plus. Six stages, multiple first class flights, family relocation, accommodation. Why? Because that person had unmatched experience, technical depth, and strategic knowledge that would change the trajectory of the business. That kind of pay isn’t for showing up. It’s for showing impact. And yes, if your interview process includes business class travel and a private chef, you’re probably not hiring to maintain a legacy platform.
Second, the misunderstanding around day rates.Some of the lower day rates we’re seeing are just permanent salaries chopped into day rates divided by 12, then by 4, then by 5. If that’s your model, it’s not just wrong: it completely misses the point of hiring a contractor. You’re paying for short term delivery, not long term cost saving or a full time perm employee cheap/without risk.
Third, expectation vs reality. I’m currently filling contract roles at £600 per day where clients expect someone to land, lead, and deliver across multiple projects from day one. They want the best. For someone used to £300 per day inside IR35, that sounds like a dream until they realise the level of pressure and delivery expected. It’s not a cost saving gig. It’s an outcome focused hire. Sometimes the extra rate comes with extra stress, higher expectations, and less wiggle room. That’s the trade off.
And finally, availability shapes everything. We’re seeing layoffs. Microsoft letting go of 6,000. Meta cutting 5 percent. Other firms trimming 10 percent of teams. And yet, in the same breath, these companies are paying millions to secure the top 1 percent. That’s not a contradiction, it’s the market reacting to supply. When there’s an abundance of people doing the same job, it’s easier and cheaper to hire. When there’s scarcity, the price goes up. That’s not always fair. But it’s how markets work.
What’s missing in all these salary debates is nuance. It’s too binary. Too much shouting. No one wants to admit that:
- Paying low can be fine: if the ask matches. You want someone two or three days a week to write test scripts or do some dashboards? Fine. £300 per day may well be enough. You’re not looking for transformation. You’re looking for support.
- Paying high comes with pressure. Don’t be shocked when the person on £850 per day wants to drive the roadmap, question decisions, or challenge the team. You’re not just buying skills. You’re buying outcomes.
- Some people choose lower pay. I’ve placed engineers who turned down £20k more because they didn’t want the stress, or because they wanted to work 32 hour weeks. Not everyone is chasing the max.
- Expectations must match reality. If you’re paying £400 per day, don’t expect £800 per day output. If you’re offering £95k, don’t demand FANG level depth, domain knowledge, and six tools on day one. Just because you can only afford X, it doesn’t mean you’ll get what you need in that budget. Be realistic or you’ll end up disappointed.
I’ve said this before hiring is about alignment. Pay is no different. You’re either aligned or you’re not. But at least be honest with yourself and with the person you’re hiring.
Are we no longer in the hiring boom? Maybe not. But what are we basing that on?
Big recruitment firms losing profits? Recruiters who couldn’t win business before struggling now? Layoffs from 2023? Or is it just that companies want more flexibility? Maybe some grew too fast. Maybe AI really is replacing parts of jobs.
The world is changing every single day. And so is technology. You can’t compare hiring in 2020 to hiring today. The tech has changed. So why wouldn’t the way we recruit and what companies want change too?
The bottom line is this:
- If you want the big bucks, you’re going to have to work for it.
- If a company expects you to die by the sword for very little, then that’s a red flag.
- If you don’t have certain skills or you’re not looking to give your all to a job, then you’ll likely be paid less. That’s just how it works.
And not forgetting the silent range, the fairly paid majority. They’re not screaming online because things are fine. They’re just cracking on.
So do I think the tech market has a problem?
Honestly? No. There’s enough money for everyone. So what’s the real issue? Maybe ,just maybe, it’s a tiny bunch of people shouting the loudest.
