(Elixir/Phoenix || Node.js/Meteor || Ruby/Rails) && (Angular.js, React, Homegrown JS frontend stuff), as well as desktop stuff with JS (my "lib": https://github.com/Anonyfox/node-webkit-hipster-seed ) from time to time. Actually I'm fluent in many languages so the concrete choice doesn't matter really as long as it is suitable for the given problem. But today there is no question where the answer would be PHP. Especially when the future is "soft" realtime, distributed and high performant or for tiny devices, problems you can't throw more hardware/caches at.
Likewise, especially since "competitive" is such a huge range. As an example, if I'm currently making $100k, I might entertain a position at a slightly interesting company that's offering a "competitive" salary of $95k. However, I don't think there's anything that would make me go through the hassle of interviewing for a job paying a "competitive" $60k.
Basically, posting the salary range gives me a quick and easy way to weed out those companies which aren't serious without a significant investment of my time.
A range would at least give me a good idea of whether the salary is more or less than what I'm currently getting paid. If the high end of the range is well below my current salary, I know I shouldn't waste my time. "Competitive" can mean just about anything, so it gives me absolutely no information.
What i care about is where the office is located, whether there is anything to do in the area around the office, what technologies i will work with and whether i regard the company as ethical.
I once worked for a former white panther at half the salary i could have commanded anywhere ele.
Showing sallaries saves everyone's time and money, some people want higher wages, others are willing to go for the same, just want to change.. Really depends.
That's a fair enough comment, job application processes are getting longer and more time consuming - sometimes out of need for getting the right people.
Any ideas as to why salaries might be left as something broad like 'competitive'?
Defining your salary as "competitive" is worthless since everyone does it (although I saw a job description with "salary: decent" once :) ).
Clearly, being open about the salary gives you a big advantage, applicants know what they can expect and are more willing to spend time going through your interview process. When dealing with recruiters, I only answer their cold email if the salary is listed (among location, company name, tech stack).
One note of caution: if you advertise a range (e.g. 90k to 120k) you should have clear criteria in mind to decided what to offer in your range. As a candidate, I would want to understand why I'm offered 95k instead of 110k for example.
'Decent' is brilliant haha! :) Not seen that one yet. Your modus operandi, and note of caution are also spot on IMO.
Transparency (not just on salary, but role/skill expectations too) would appear to build trust. What can firms that can't offer as much do, do you think?
Heh, "Decent" is more likely to make me apply than "Competitive" because it shows that they know what good developers cost and are acknowledging they're not paying top rate.
I don't think "decent" is any more meaningful than "competitive". Based on my experience, "competitive" has proven to be sometimes way below market value, I don't see why "decent" would be any different.
Some companies have no clue what "competitive"/"decent" really is, some do but are just trying to find someone to milk for cheap.
'Decent' could have a connotation of 'good' (though that depends on the source, and the location targeted) - it's in my vernacular, but would agree, it can certainly be offputting, and a case of your second point - milking for cheap.
How might companies tackle the issues some have listed here of displaying salaries, while not deterring people (assuming they're being fair, not exploitative).
If you publish a job description and already know that your budget won't let you match market value I would just not mention salary at all in the ad.
Stating "competitive" while you know very well you're not is harmful in 2 ways:
- candidates who know the market will be very disappointed after taking the time to interview, most likely resentful and they will spread the word
- if someone actually accepts the low ball offer presented as "competitive" it means that they have no clue what the market is and you probably don't want to hire them.
You can be very upfront about it though, "salary below market value but most of our compensation package is composed of options/equity".
That's a reasonable assumption in all fairness. And I would agree that the other 'perks/benefits' need championing in cases where firms can't match market value (whether it be equity, healthcare, daycare, or even free beers/billiards on Fridays).
I take the term competitive as you will compete with the surrounding market for my particular skillset and what I bring to the table. Salary bands lead me to believe that you want to fit me into a box regardless of what I can do. For example, 115-125k for a job description asking for senior responsibilities means top talent at your org is at 125k. I would be naieve to think your internal employees never read your posted openings. So to save everyone feelings and make things "fair" you post a range. If you are looking for the best you should be willing to "bid to play" and post it as such.
Great point re: salary bands, and existing employees reading listed job openings.
Each side of the bands/'competitive' debate has +/-s for sure. By 'bid to play' do you mean a 'race to the bottom' sort of thing re: salary/compensation?
I'm not clear on what "race to the bottom" is implying to in this particular sense so excuse me if I fail to properly answer your question. What I mean by "bid to play" is lets say Google and Apple are looking for the same developer and located within the same general vacinity of each other. After going through both interviews, one is willing to pay me $125k and other $130k. Their predeterminded budget number. My current skillset is greater than what the job description is asking for. With such both orgs should be open to discussing going above the 125 or 130 slighly so I can join the team because the ball is favorably in my favor. What I'm refering to is there should be an open door there for this to happen. Seeing the word competitve or open implys to me that the negotiations are open for the right person. Hence why they do not advertise salary on their postings. They're attempting to attract the best talent possible. A range stops that from happening because you are not willing to "bid to play".
Ah sorry, I've muddled myself somewhat with 'bid to play.'
But what you've said here would be appropriate when it comes to the best in their fields. And not just with salary (other compensation, care packages, etc). But would 'competitive' be less appropriate than something like 'negotiatiable?'
I would not say less apporpriate. I view both as equal. My example does not have to refer to the best in their fields. I just used that as the best case example to prove a point. It can refer to any level(jr., mid., sr., etc.) of qualified talent.
(a) You're afraid of scaring off good people before they even hear your pitch.
(b) You aren't paying the rest of your team at true market and if they saw the ad they might ask for raises or get pissed and leave.
(c) You don't want to attract people who are in it for the money. (But it's OK for the company owners to be revenue driven of course.)
(d) You want to hire an "A" player who is more expensive than the "B" players you have and you don't want to explain it to your "B" players.
As they grow, companies tend to optimize for mediocrity - "We can't pay $X for someone really valuable because it would upset the (good but) less valuable team members."
a-d are all valid points, and (c) is certainly one crux when it comes to listing a higher-paying jobs - is listing 'competitive' the only way of combatting this (what about the application process finding the most compatible skill-wise, person-firm fit-wise, etc)?
It's very easy for me to be critical when I haven't faced the very real problems that hiring companies face but I think there is some justification for being skeptical of an employers true motivations.
Just thinking out loud; what does it really mean when a company doesn't want to attract someone who wants to get paid a lot?
Does it mean that they are afraid of getting "spammed" with applicants that they have to weed out in the interview processes?
Does it mean that they want to select for people who won't ask for what they are worth i.e. someone they can get at a bargain?
I think both followup questions are valid. As others have mentioned in addition to yourself, there is wariness of companies' intentions, which ties into getting someone for less/value/than what they're worth.
On the flip side, case may be they genuinely can't afford to pay as much - but potential applicants may be swayed if they trust in them, and choose to forgo a higher salary or accept other compensation methods or benefits.
Company "A" pays less but actually offers a higher total happiness level, lets call it "quality".
Company "B" pays more but is has a lower "quality", all things considered.
Applicants are going to tend to apply to Company B because salary is a simple metric that doesn't have to be explained. Company "A" needs to educate their applicants/"consumers" in order for the applicant to see their value proposition - and that is something that is hard to do in a job ad.
This sort of thing is very common in the retail market. For example, (in the U.S.) if you are under 30 you probably have never even seen a quality shovel. Good luck finding a shovel today that you can use without wearing gloves.
I don't know that this survey really demonstrates anything interesting, but humans typically reciprocate demonstrations of trust, suggesting that greater transparency in hiring would create a virtuous cycle.
It is admittedly not a totally methodical study, but the discussion is sort of compelling.
Human nature would suggest as much (we'd certainly hope for reciprocations of actions that demonstrate trust in the everyday at least). But as others have mentioned - there are drawbacks to being transparent, even with the potential benefits from the created virtuous circle.
200% yes. I've got better things to do than go through the whole recruiting cycle only to find they're not going to pay what I'm willing to take -- especially when it's wayyyyy out of range. Happens more and more as I get older, as the term "senior engineer" has really gotten watered down since I started (I'd be like senior^3 I suppose). I've gotten to the point where I have to be really interested to go very far at all without having pinned down a range.
Let's flip this around, suppose a lot of applicants started waiting until the end of the interview process to mention that they only expected to work 35 hours a week but made up for it by "being really fun to work with".
Do you think that hiring companies would start wishing that applicants would put that information right up front in their resume or cover letter?
How would a company interpret applicants coyness about revealing this bit of information (a) "Awe shucks you got us!" OR (b) "Hey, you tricked us and we assumed you meant 40 hours a week."
50 comments
[ 4.3 ms ] story [ 94.3 ms ] threadBasically, posting the salary range gives me a quick and easy way to weed out those companies which aren't serious without a significant investment of my time.
I could certainly agree with that. It doesn't confine a company to a certain $x, but isn't as opaque as the bog standard 'competitive.'
What i care about is where the office is located, whether there is anything to do in the area around the office, what technologies i will work with and whether i regard the company as ethical.
I once worked for a former white panther at half the salary i could have commanded anywhere ele.
What was your experience with the former white panther like?
that was the best place i ever worked. the problem was that dave really didnt want to be in the software industry anymore.
nowadays, jimmy carter reads his political blog.
Now, having an ex-POTUS reading their is one helluva bragging right for him!
Why do you think companies might not show salaries?
Sorry about the relatively-crude language, but I don't know of a better way to put it that's still succinct.
You expect me to do that when I know very little about the job and don't even know what I am going to be paid?
Any ideas as to why salaries might be left as something broad like 'competitive'?
Clearly, being open about the salary gives you a big advantage, applicants know what they can expect and are more willing to spend time going through your interview process. When dealing with recruiters, I only answer their cold email if the salary is listed (among location, company name, tech stack).
One note of caution: if you advertise a range (e.g. 90k to 120k) you should have clear criteria in mind to decided what to offer in your range. As a candidate, I would want to understand why I'm offered 95k instead of 110k for example.
Transparency (not just on salary, but role/skill expectations too) would appear to build trust. What can firms that can't offer as much do, do you think?
Any other words/phrases you've seen in your job travels/perusings haha (for better or worse)?
Some companies have no clue what "competitive"/"decent" really is, some do but are just trying to find someone to milk for cheap.
How might companies tackle the issues some have listed here of displaying salaries, while not deterring people (assuming they're being fair, not exploitative).
Stating "competitive" while you know very well you're not is harmful in 2 ways: - candidates who know the market will be very disappointed after taking the time to interview, most likely resentful and they will spread the word - if someone actually accepts the low ball offer presented as "competitive" it means that they have no clue what the market is and you probably don't want to hire them.
You can be very upfront about it though, "salary below market value but most of our compensation package is composed of options/equity".
Each side of the bands/'competitive' debate has +/-s for sure. By 'bid to play' do you mean a 'race to the bottom' sort of thing re: salary/compensation?
But what you've said here would be appropriate when it comes to the best in their fields. And not just with salary (other compensation, care packages, etc). But would 'competitive' be less appropriate than something like 'negotiatiable?'
"Market" means "below market"
Thus "competitive" means "below market" :-)
Here are some reason's not to list salary:
(a) You're afraid of scaring off good people before they even hear your pitch.
(b) You aren't paying the rest of your team at true market and if they saw the ad they might ask for raises or get pissed and leave.
(c) You don't want to attract people who are in it for the money. (But it's OK for the company owners to be revenue driven of course.)
(d) You want to hire an "A" player who is more expensive than the "B" players you have and you don't want to explain it to your "B" players.
As they grow, companies tend to optimize for mediocrity - "We can't pay $X for someone really valuable because it would upset the (good but) less valuable team members."
Just thinking out loud; what does it really mean when a company doesn't want to attract someone who wants to get paid a lot?
Does it mean that they are afraid of getting "spammed" with applicants that they have to weed out in the interview processes?
Does it mean that they want to select for people who won't ask for what they are worth i.e. someone they can get at a bargain?
Something else?
On the flip side, case may be they genuinely can't afford to pay as much - but potential applicants may be swayed if they trust in them, and choose to forgo a higher salary or accept other compensation methods or benefits.
Company "A" pays less but actually offers a higher total happiness level, lets call it "quality".
Company "B" pays more but is has a lower "quality", all things considered.
Applicants are going to tend to apply to Company B because salary is a simple metric that doesn't have to be explained. Company "A" needs to educate their applicants/"consumers" in order for the applicant to see their value proposition - and that is something that is hard to do in a job ad.
This sort of thing is very common in the retail market. For example, (in the U.S.) if you are under 30 you probably have never even seen a quality shovel. Good luck finding a shovel today that you can use without wearing gloves.
Human nature would suggest as much (we'd certainly hope for reciprocations of actions that demonstrate trust in the everyday at least). But as others have mentioned - there are drawbacks to being transparent, even with the potential benefits from the created virtuous circle.
Instead of salary range, what would interest you? (firm, tech stack, vision?)
Do you think that hiring companies would start wishing that applicants would put that information right up front in their resume or cover letter?
How would a company interpret applicants coyness about revealing this bit of information (a) "Awe shucks you got us!" OR (b) "Hey, you tricked us and we assumed you meant 40 hours a week."