
Are techies really 57% more likely to apply for a job if they know the salary? - itschaffey
http://hackajob.co/blog/displayed-vs-competitive-salaries/
======
chrisbennet
"Competitive" really means "market"

"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."

~~~
itschaffey
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)?

~~~
chrisbennet
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?

Something else?

~~~
itschaffey
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.

~~~
chrisbennet
Ah, I think I see the problem now.

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.

------
collyw
Especially when "the first stage of our selection process is a 90 minute
online coding test".

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?

~~~
itschaffey
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'?

------
dudul
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.

~~~
itschaffey
'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?

~~~
allwein
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.

~~~
dudul
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.

~~~
itschaffey
'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).

------
itrademrkts
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.

~~~
itschaffey
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?

~~~
itrademrkts
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".

~~~
itschaffey
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?'

~~~
itrademrkts
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.

------
chrisbennet
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."

------
crazy_geek
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.

~~~
itschaffey
Job titles have definitely become weirder/amgbiguous/watered down over time.

Instead of salary range, what would interest you? (firm, tech stack, vision?)

~~~
dman
Email addresses of two or three peers on the team that is advertising the
position.

~~~
itschaffey
To get in touch/an understanding of the company/team?

------
ramon
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.

~~~
itschaffey
Showing salaries would seem to be a way of offering transparency. One worry
might be people going for a higher paying role with just that intent.

Why do you think companies might not show salaries?

~~~
TheLoneWolfling
So that they get to screw over people who don't know what they are actually
worth.

Sorry about the relatively-crude language, but I don't know of a better way to
put it that's still succinct.

~~~
itschaffey
No need to apologise - it's a perfectly justified way of putting it. Could be
considered a cynical view, but justified still.

~~~
TheLoneWolfling
Also, note that employers are seldom as rushed to find an employee as an
employee is to find an employer.

------
marssaxman
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.

~~~
itschaffey
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.

------
aepearson
Personally? I am 100% more likely.

~~~
allwein
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.

~~~
itschaffey
So a displayed salary range (perhaps $5-15k in swing?) in any case offers
something more tangible/clear than 'competitive'?

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.'

~~~
greenyoda
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.

~~~
itschaffey
That's fair logic - what if other forms of compensation were included in the
listed range? (e.g. top end of band + equity)

------
MichaelCrawford
not me.

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.

~~~
itschaffey
Your rationale is certainly a strong one - salary is but only one
consideration in the end.

What was your experience with the former white panther like?

~~~
MichaelCrawford
he ran the company into the ground but we all had a great time while he did
so.

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.

~~~
itschaffey
Enjoying it at the end of the day is the key thing, on a personal level and as
a team. Shame it ended, but seems an understandable reason.

Now, having an ex-POTUS reading their is one helluva bragging right for him!

~~~
MichaelCrawford
Im hoping to meet jimmy someday but hes pissed at me bcause i made an offcolor
joke at the expense of his exgirlfriend.

~~~
itschaffey
Ah, oh dear haha.

