If a company gives a candidate a range, of course the candidate will pick the highest end of the range.
If the candidate gives a range, of course the company will pick the lowest end of the range.
Just give one number and then negotiate.
Example: A .NET shop uses Oracle. The salary range is $100K–$150K.
- Candidate 1 knows .NET but is new to Oracle. They know RDBMS concepts so they can be brought up to speed, but they start closer to the $100K end of the range because they're less valuable to the company initially.
- Candidate 2 has a long track record of .NET and Oracle work, has spoken at conferences, writes about it on their blog. Candidate 2 is closer to the $150K end.
The company may want a Candidate 2 more than a Candidate 1, but Candidate 2s are in short supply. The range acknowledges that the real candidate may not match the ideal.
How long would the ramp-up be? Are we talking an increase from $100K to $150K over a year, two, three? I've yet to encounter an employer ramping me up at even a remotely decent market rate, whereas I can give myself tens or sometimes hundreds of % increases every 2 - 3 years by shopping around.
"Candidate 2 has a long track record of .NET and Oracle work"
These should be two different JDs with different stated salaries.
Or explicitly say "+$50K for candidates with a long track record of .NET and Oracle work".
But I'm only hiring one person. Ideally, the one with all the perfectly matching experience. But I'm not going to wait around forever for the unicorn to show up, so I may likely settle for someone promising who doesn't quite have the experience.
> Or explicitly say "+$50K for candidates with a long track record of .NET and Oracle work".
That's the same as giving a range.
If it's an objective function of qualifications that's a lot more clear-cut.
This also allows discrimination based on "race, gender, and other things" since "long track record" is completely open to interpretation and if the interviewers are already operating in bad faith, they can find any BS reason to try and undermine an interviewee.
"$100-$150k DOE" is exactly the same, if not clearer, than "$100k (+$50k if XYZ)"
For those operating in good faith, it gives an honest comp range depending on experience.
For those who aren't, a format change on job postings isn't going to do anything.
Granted, I tend to interview for roles I'm already demonstrably good at. So less experienced/suitable people might have different experiences. But this kind of negotiation clearly doesn't follow the "obvious" path.
Remember, hiring managers are spending their own money and people do get excited for candidates. When you spent 20 hours interviewing people, and you finally get that unicorn, everyone is going to push for them.
I mean, if the pay is high enough I can deal with the benefits on my own?
I'd rather take a 500K job with no benefits than a 300K with full benefits, since the benefits can easily be procured for 200K as long as they're okay with unpaid time off [that prorates the 500K].
When we get to the point of an offer, I’m not going to say “@dheera, would you prefer to be paid X or 1.25*X? It’s up to you.”
"If you're a white male you'll get 1.25X and if you're a black female you'll get X?"
More specifically, why can't someone who meets the JD get the stated number? If they interview and don't demonstrate the ability to meet the JD then don't give them an offer, it's that simple.
I think there's large spreads of productivity in many of those types of workers and if you pick a single number for a range of possible productivity, you either overpay some people or you cut yourself off from the most productive workers. (Some people argue that there's a 10x spread in SWEs, others that there's a -10x spread, but I don't think anyone thinks there's realistically less than a 2x spread at a given level among competent SWEs.)
If they don't meet it, pip them and then pip uninstall them.
If nobody is meeting it, adjust your expectations.
If they far exceed it, give them a bonus.
I can’t see any way that “everyone, no matter their interview performance and relevant experience in what we need done, either gets an offer of exactly $X/yr or gets rejected” is an optimal strategy.