21–30 of 191 posts
So the entire premise that there is a defined salary and it's being kept secret is flat out wrong.
We don't broadcast our salaries with our job listings because reality is how much we're willing to pay varies candidate to candidate. Interviewing, for example, someone with seven years experience vs. fifteen (I'm simplifying what matters greatly for the sake of argument - years experience is the easiest thing to put a number to) and we would pay way more for one than the other. Maybe that's unfair, but I don't think…
Then have a range? Of course you need to pay different employees different salaries, but that doesn't mean you can't expose potential employees to the salary they might expect to earn.
Explaining to people who are perfectly well qualified for the job including your own existing employees why they're at the bottom of the range is an uncomfortable conversation... much more uncomfortable than explaining why an actually-hired elite candidate whose been given additional responsibilities earns 50% more salary.
> Yes, you have quantity, but what about quality? How much time will you spend sorting the wheat from the chaff? How much application spam will you have to review and dispose of? And of the relevant ones, how many under- and over-qualified candidates do you need to sift through because they lacked the vital piece of information that is a salary range?
It's easy: filter the incoming candidates based on who you want to hire. Send your favorite candidates a simple email saying what you want to pay for that position, and ask if they're still interested. Interview the ones that are. (This way, you're not posting the salary number to the public, but you're still filtering candidates quickly and respecting their time.)
If none of your favorite candidates are interested at your targeted price, there's your answer. Either lower your standards and take one of the other applicants, or ask all of your favorite candidates what number it would take to get them interested. (No interviewing - you don't have the right to take up their time until you can come up with the money - you're just asking for the salary number they would need to even step into an interview.) When the numbers come back, that's what it would take to hire your favorite candidates.
We don't broadcast our salaries with our job listings because reality is how much we're willing to pay varies candidate to candidate. Interviewing, for example, someone with seven years experience vs. fifteen (I'm simplifying what matters greatly for the sake of argument - years experience is the easiest thing to put a number to) and we would pay way more for one than the other. Maybe that's unfair, but I don't think…
This is counter to a lot of advice given, but because of this I try to address salary as one of the first questions during the initial contact I have with a potential employer. I'm fine with a range, but if they're not even in the same ballpark we've both just saved a lot of time. Similarly, if there's no way they can afford me it does us both good to wish each other well and move on.
I would argue that in London it's the fact that talking about salaries is considered rather taboo in tech that perpetuates non-disclosure. I wrote a post about it a while ago: http://blog.zonino.co.uk/on-salaries-in-london-startups/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then have a range? Of course you need to pay different employees different salaries, but that doesn't mean you can't expose potential employees to the salary they might expect to earn.
Because if you can afford to stretch your range up to attract an elite candidate you will do. Explaining to people who are perfectly well qualified for the job including your own existing employees why they're at the bottom of the range is an uncomfortable conversation... much more uncomfortable than explaining why an actually-hired elite candidate whose been given additional responsibilities earns 50% more salary.
My experience is it doesn't matter what you post in the job description - you still have to wade through applications. As for the article, I think the author lists a lot of real concerns that exist at companies - and then sort of dismisses them as if they are invalid because they aren't ideal. I'm sorry - but companies aren't ideal. Let's also look at the function of job postings - from my point of view, the goal is…
One of the points in the post is that not posting salary information is also a filter. Some would argue that the absence of even a salary range filters out the top end of candidates, leaving you with a pipeline of mediocrity.
We don't broadcast our salaries with our job listings because reality is how much we're willing to pay varies candidate to candidate. Interviewing, for example, someone with seven years experience vs. fifteen (I'm simplifying what matters greatly for the sake of argument - years experience is the easiest thing to put a number to) and we would pay way more for one than the other. Maybe that's unfair, but I don't think…
The problem is, and this has happened to me personally, is you'll be told the salary is "competitive" without further details even when pushed. Of course, everyone wants to save a buck, but when you've gone through multiple rounds of interviews...spending personal days...personal time doing projects.. then you get an offer that is 1/2 the starting range for the industry and location, you have a problem!
First time, they said no and we stopped talking. Second time got me my current job. YMMV.