Are techies really 57% more likely to apply for a job if they know the salary?
hackajob.co
hackajob.co
"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.
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?'
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."
Instead of salary range, what would interest you? (firm, tech stack, vision?)
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.
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.
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.
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!