I wouldn't stop it -- I'd want to talk about it to understand why. If it was because they were following advice they read somewhere because worried it would influence their offer, I'd try to dispel that myth within the context of Automattic. If they didn't believe me, we probably don't have the level of trust needed to work well together.
Our culture is really built on two-way trust: since we're distributed and seldom see each other you don't know how someone is going about their work, and most of our HR policies come down to the honor system. The company places an incredibly amount of trust in employees, and vice versa people place a great amount of trust in the company, including that we'll do our best to treat them fairly. It's a responsibility the folks on the operations side of Automattic, including myself, take very seriously.
> If it was because they were following advice they read
> somewhere because worried it would influence their offer,
> I'd try to dispel that myth within the context of
> Automattic.
If knowledge of a candidate's previous salary doesn't influence your offer, why do you ask for it and what do you do with it?
I agree it can be uncomfortable for people, as is almost everything around compensation. I don't think we're entitled to know, but it is an expression of trust when someone shares it, and thus far with ~99% of people we've hired over 10 years it hasn't been an issue.
Why should people express trust in you by deliberately sacrificing information relevant to their own interests before you've proven yourself trustworthy?
Well actually, one usually builds trust by giving it in small pieces, showing that you're willing and able to develop a relationship with the other person. But the key word there is small: you don't place yourself at a large disadvantage until the other person has shown themselves to be trustworthy in previous instances where less was at stake.
