How to negotiate a better salary in a job offer when the recruiter says that he or she does not want to create a salary imbalance within the company?

Sorry we really cannot do that, you have understand that this can lead to a terrible situation where your co-workers are going to be jealous of you and destroy or break the harmony within the team

Most of the time, this is a (really cheap) negotiating tactic. But you don't have to fall for it. Understand that the leverage you have in such a negotiation is to either take the final offer or not. And if you don't, just don't take the job. There is really no reason to justify yourself, you need to know what you want and be prepared to walk away if they don't offer it.

If the company really wants you suddenly all these excuses will disappear and they'll offer a decent salary.

Just as you should never use your coworkers' salaries as the reason why you should get more, a recruiter should not use your potential coworkers' salaries as the reason why you should get less. What you are worth depends on you - not on what others make.

Unfortunately, this happens often.

It makes no sense to argue the point with the recruiter, or to try and dig up statistics, etc.

You should tell the recruiter that you really don't want to know what others make but that you know what you are worth and the value you would bring to the company. You could choose to negotiate other parts of the offer package (benefits, vacation, bonuses, stock options, etc), or you could just concentrate on salary.

And if the company doesn't want to meet the salary level that you feel you deserve, you move on in your job search and find a company that will.

It doesn't matter why this company won't meet your salary demands if some other company can and will.

How to negotiate a better salary in a job offer when the recruiter says that he or she does not want to create a salary imbalance within the company

You apply for a job at a different company.

Their answer tells you several things about the company, none which bode well for you.

1. They are not willing to compensate for performance. It is more important to maintain "fairness" whatever that means.
2. Do they care if you have higher bills than your peers? (No, they don't.) So, why should you care if you will be getting paid $x more than your peers? (You don't.)
3. They are not willing to be competitive in a free market. They'd rather underpay and lose talent, than to pay justly and retain talent.

In essence, while it is understandable to maintain an equitable pay scale--it would be odd for a junior to make more than a senior--it is not really your problem. It is up to the market to decide your salary, commensurate with your experience, performance, and capabilities; not the compensation of your immediate peers.

"Sorry we really cannot do that, you have understand that this can lead to a terrible situation where your co-workers are going to be jealous of you and destroy or break the harmony within the team"

This is a really stupid excuse.

1. Pay is almost always treated as confidential. So how do they suppose other employees know other employees salaries?
2. It is HR's job to manage that confidentiality (so it's not your problem, sans the duty you have to keep your mouth shut). So if there is a problem with salaries getting discussed, then HR is failing at their job.

In conclusion, you'll have an easier time finding another job that will pay you justly, than to convince them to pay you more than your peers when they've already indicated an unwillingness to do that.

There are two acceptable reasons to offer a low salary: One, if they feel you are not worth more. Two, if they have no money. Of course the company being short of cash is a good reason to search for a job elsewhere, but as a reason it is acceptable.

"Your colleagues might be jealous" is nonsense. You say "I fully understand this, so I will definitely not tell anybody what my salary is". Problem gone away.

I'll tell you where your advantage lies: $1000 more or less is $1000 more in your pocket (after taxes). $1000 more or less doesn't make a difference to the recruiter, because it's not his or her money. He or she may get a bonus at the end of the year, but that bonus is nothing compared to the money you win or lose.

On the other hand, if you walk away, that's a lot of additional work for the recruiter. And it's unpleasant for the recruiter if your prospective manager really liked you and then finds out that the recruiter messed it up. If your manager needed help urgently and then has to wait two more months, that's not good for the recruiter.

So in that situation, you need to show confidence that you are worth more than offered, and that you will not accept what is offered. Remember, to the recruiter it's at most a tiny advantage if he or she hires you cheaply, and a big problem if you walk away at that stage.

This might be a real issue for the company making the offer.

However "salary imbalances" exist only be workers at the same level (usually VPs make more than Directors who make more than Managers, etc).

So, the solution would be to be placed at a different level or given a specialist title that is distinct from the lesser co-paid workers.

This strategy will likely only work if it is clear that you're worth the extra money.