I've tried to advocate for this at my organization and been told that we don't want people primarily motivated by money...
It's called "work" because it's what you do to get money. It's not a hobby, nor an idealistic crusade (both of those are fine things, but they're different to "work").
The reason you work is to get money. That's the only motivation. You might choose between different work options on another basis, but the reason you're there at all is money.
Anyone trying to recruit people who doesn't accept this will fail.
I think what you'll find is that people aren't motivated by money, per se, but they have obligations: mortgages, car payments, retirement savings. An established standard of living. Especially the more senior they get. I don't do better work for money, but at this point in my career you can be damned sure I'm not going to lower my standard of living just to work at a company with free soda and a ping pong table. I'd put up with a lot of bullshit in my current situation before taking a pay cut.
The unlikely exception would be a mission-driven company (if your company is for-profit, this is not you) that is highly congruent with my values and truly makes the world a better place.
… more senior roles with actual money on offer instead of intangibles.
You’re trying to hire senior staff the same way as junior staff.
This won’t work.
PS: I’m starting to suspect why you’re losing your juniors as soon as they get some experience…
The first truth is that people don't leave their current jobs because someone else is offering more. They leave because they're unhappy. For knowledge workers of all stripes, unhappiness is very, very rarely about compensation.
The second truth is that high compensation keeps people where they are. If a recruiter is offering $200k, you'll listen if you're making $180k. You won't listen if you're making $250k. If you're making $180k, the $20k bump becomes a socially acceptable reason to tell your employer you're leaving, but it's not the true reason you're leaving, because every time you switch jobs, you run the risk of bad management, mistreatment, etc. There's a price to taking that risk and it's not usually worth small bumps to people. When you post a salary band, 90% of the time, people who respond are not looking for the pay bump, they're just considering you before the 90+% of employers who are not posting pay bands or whose pay band is uncompetitive. And they know that they're that much more likely to stay because it'll be that much more difficult to persuade them to leave after they join.
The third, deeper, more cynical truth is that posting salary bands probably signals to employees internally that they are being underpaid, and can provoke discontent and departures. Rather than fix the problem with a long-term solution of unilaterally issuing raises internally before posting salary bands, most companies take the shortcut and keep the salary band private.
This is only true for small sums. No one leaves a job over a 5% raise. Some will jump ship over 20%. But most people absolutely will jump ship for 50% or 200% raises. And, unfortunately for small companies, that's often the wage differential between FAANG and the Small Co.
The numbers you are using here -- 180-250 -- are illustrative; total comp for true Senior at FAANG is comfortably in the 400s.
> The third, deeper, more cynical truth is that posting salary bands probably signals to employees internally that they are being underpaid, and can provoke discontent and departures. Rather than fix the problem with a long-term solution of unilaterally issuing raises internally before posting salary bands, most companies take the shortcut and keep the salary band private.
People talk. They're going to find out eventually. If you're having trouble hiring seniors, ensuring that you retain your existing seniors is probably step zero.
I'm intentionally not including FAANG salaries here. Two things need to happen for that to be relevant - you a) need to be at that level, professionally and b) you need to have the disposition to work at a FAANG. I learned a long time ago that I don't have the patience for big-company politics, so it doesn't really matter to me what those salaries are; you might as well tell me I could make $400k if I went to medical school and became a doctor. It might as well be a different career path. Startups know that they can't compete with FAANG salaries; the only way forward is not to try.
> If you're having trouble hiring seniors, ensuring that you retain your existing seniors is probably step zero.
That's great long-term thinking - the issue is that people who refuse to post salary bands because "they don't want to hire people who are motivated by money" have a fundamentally short-term perspective.
If my employer said this to me, I'd think: "Wait... am I the mark?"
For example, I would ignore a 10% raise; my reaction to 20% raise would depend on whether I like my current job; and a 50% would certainly be a strong temptation, unless it is a kind of job that predictably sucks.
The companies that complain that they cannot find a senior developer, they usually do not offer 50% more; or if they do, they carefully hide the fact from the unsuspecting audience. It is their choice, of course. I am just saying that it indeed is their choice.
I mean, I am primarily motivated by the work, being something that I enjoy, but I already have a job that provides that. I need that and more to consider a move to another job.
It's important to me that I think my employer is doing good stuff for the world, but I'm there to be paid so I can get food and housing and internet.
Oh good, i do not want bosses only motivated by my work output either :)
Says people at the top who exclusively care about the money. Do these people think we're THAT stupid?
So, how much percentage of the business are they offering then?
Oh, they don't do that? Its about... the money? Yep.
The description is nice, but it's not what grabs your attention
What's critical is that you still need to be "market rate." You don't have to be the highest compensation on the market, but you need to pay me around the 60th percentile.
Edit: I should add that, in the two times I was below market rate, once I became indispensable, I threatened to leave unless my pay was jacked up. The "I like the job discount" only goes so far.
If you are ok passing 90% of qualified people that could do the job you need done then you have, of course, the right to do that, but don't complain that you have trouble attracting senior talent.
I don't even begin reading an ad that doesn't post salary and I don't really need any more money. Just a force of habit.
...as if that's the kind of investors the C-suite courts?