Read on Twitter
I think companies should be more transparent about compensation. But let's be clear. Putting ranges in job descriptions doesn't really do any of these things Nathan suggests. Not without other tradeoffs anyway. https://twitter.com/nathanbarry/status/1379584947275505670
Does it save time? Sort of. If you mean you'll have a whole set of people self-select out of your process. Many don't want people self-selecting out early. There's flexibility to how things might work out. Posting salary ranges can suggest more rigidity than there truly is there.
Does it set expectations up front? Sort of. I mean there should be salary ranges that are consistent internally. But often the job description can't capture things like different levels that you might be evaluated at. Is the range for one level or multiple?
Not to mention you might be considered for a different role or one may get created for you. It may be different at bigger companies. But at startups in particular, the job you apply for just isn't the only thing at play when looking for great talent.
Does it a avoid a bait and switch feeling if candidates end up getting a different offer? Not really. The things I mentioned happen a lot. The offer we give changes based on what we see from you as a candidate. Maybe you were evaluated at a different level.
Let's say you apply for a senior engineer role. We may say you're not quite senior, but we'd love to bring you into the team at this level. Is that a bait and switch? It often feels that way to candidates. But it's also the truth from my perspective as a hiring manager.
There's a whole conversation about over-leveling that I'm sure people don't wanna have today. But I acknowledge that it's a tricky environment for candidates. I understand people feeling that they can't trust the way they're evaluated. But it happens.
Then there the other thing I mentioned. I've been in situations where I've created new roles based on my conversation with a candidate. The original job description and salary range become moot at that point. Is that a bait and switch? Again, it can feel like it to candidates.
At the end of the day, candidates have to decide if they believe the story they're being told. It's not easy. A lot of companies are shady as fuck. They will lie to you to get you to sign. If you talk to me, I'm always giving you 100% truth. But the story might sound the same.
So why *should* companies post their salary ranges. There are lots of good reasons.
It forces them to *have* salary ranges, and it gives people internally a way to hold the company accountable for treating them consistently.
It forces them to *have* salary ranges, and it gives people internally a way to hold the company accountable for treating them consistently.
"The company" doesn't care about you. There are some people who are happy to screw you over. But even at the worst companies, there are people who are trying to keep the "the company" from being too shitty. They need tools to make the company do what it says.
The more we can get companies to make public statements about what it's gonna do, you give internal people ammo to make that true. This is way more important than a lot of people realize.
Another reason to post salary ranges is that it helps candidates know what they are worth and gives them leverage in negotiation with you. This is part of why it's being mandated by policy in states like CA. Companies have a huge advantage by hiding info and being able to lie.
I wanna go back to @nathanbarry. I think his comments come from exactly the right place. And this wasn't meant to be a rebuke. More of an expansion on the rationale. As a CEO, Nathan should do this to set a precedent about equity within his company.
Many CEOs, even ones that care about "hiring great talent", don't go deep enough into functions like recruiting to know if it's being handled equitably. There are a lot of incentives that drive towards discrimination and bias unless someone is paying attention.
