PUT THE SALARY ON THE JOB AD!
A common cry in LinkedIn land.
It may seem a simple thing to do but it doesn’t come without its problems. In this article, we take a look at why job adverts may not advertise salary and also the downfalls that remain regardless.
Why don’t job adverts display salary details?
1-?????The culture is not open and transparent.
2-?????They don’t want to overpay
3-?????They genuinely don’t know what the market rate is
PLUS - we look at the issues that remain, regardless of showing the salary.
?You can appreciate why candidates get frustrated with the lack of salary transparency on job adverts. You can spend a lot of time and emotional energy on a job advert, only to find out it is not paying what you are looking for.
Here are some reasons why job ads may not show a salary.
1 – The organisation doesn’t have an open and transparent culture
Ok, this may be a little unfair, but there is truth to it. Many companies will not put a salary as it will open up a can of worms and uncomfortable conversations they just don’t want to have!
Say they are recruiting for a Buyer. They have a banding of $70,000 to $95,000 for this position. So why not just state this on the advert?
People doing this role already at the company will not be getting paid the same!
Salary is rarely related directly to performance. There could be a number of reasons why people are paid more or less than others.
The best performers are not always the best paid!
If someone is a Buyer in this company and sees that they pay between $70,000 and $95,000 and they are on $78,000, they would quite rightly go to their manager and say “why am I not getting paid $95,000?”
For companies that don’t manage performance too well (most) and don’t align salary directly to performance and targets (most) this will just open up a can of worms…. wasting candidates' time is small fry to them to protect from this Armageddon of sh%t that would come flying their way!
?
2 - They don’t want to overpay!
This one is quite simple. If they advertise the role from $70,000 - $95,000, then everyone is going to want $95,000!?
A lot of recruiters will want to understand your salary expectations before they let you know what the role is paying.
So the role is paying $70,000 - $95,000. The recruiter asks what you are looking for, you say $85,000, they say “yep that’s within the banding, great let's go!”
You get down to offer stage. Get offered $85,000. Accept. You’re happy. They’re happy (having saved $10,000). Everyone is happy.
However, if you entered the process, knowing they were paying to $95,000 and got offered $85,000 - how would you feel? Why aren't you good enough for their max salary?
Some might say this is good work from the recruiter, managing candidate expectations…….
领英推荐
?3 - They just don’t know what the market rate is!
Perhaps the least likely, but still a valid point. They don’t want to rule people out.
They might actually pay more for someone super talented and need to understand the market first and what salary the role might command.
?Fair enough….. isn’t it?
?So what issues still remain regardless of advertising salary banding?
We've touched on this....
The main one being every candidate will be looking at the top end, while every hiring manager will be hoping for the bottom end, trying to save money – perhaps to spread their budget further and give a pay rise to someone in their team (a common scenario I have seen MANY times).
There are a lot of nuances to what you have to pay a candidate, much like the housing market, there are a lot of external forces.
If there is a distinct lack of candidates, like in a lot of regions now, then you will end up paying toward the top of the banding.
You may pay less if the job market is very slow, not much around so candidates have less choice.
You may also end up paying more if a candidate is from a competitor.
This is not about underpaying, it is market rates and external factors that dictate what you need to pay to secure a service.
?For me, the PROS are that candidates can self select themselves in or out, as let's face it, salary is probably the most important reason why we work (don’t lie to yourself – it is!)
CONS – by making it so visible, if you offer a candidate below this without expertly articulating why, you risk them feeling undervalued from the start.
Anyway.
This is just my take. I am not agreeing or endorsing any of these reasons! Just explaining what I have seen in my experience.
Hopefully I don't fall off this fence I am sitting on!
What do you think? Have I covered the issues? Anything to add?
I hope you have found this interesting and insightful!
If you are looking for help in your job search – please reach out via DM or take a look at my website www.thejobsearch.coach for my services.
Russell Ayles // The Job Search Coach
?
?
?
?
Licensed Hair Stylist in Oregon
2 年Love it!! Sadly there will still be job seekers who won’t want to understand these valid reasons. I’ve been trying to say this for months now and they still don’t care lol.
Store Manager at Primark
2 年I think the salary should be in the job Ad it could. be stated as cica 70k it's doesn't need to be specific. Looking for a new job is difficult enough and not everyone uses a recruitment agency. Why not be transparent it helps the candidate decide if its worth putting in the effort. I realise and don't disagree with the reasons for not but it's a tough market out there for most employers and recruiters I do think the salary in the Ad. would help.
Senior Business Execution Consultant
2 年Those are all great and valid points. I lean towards the side of displaying a pay range, but with the added verbiage being something like this, which I recently saw on a job posting: “This compensation range takes into account the wide range of factors that are considered in making compensation decisions, including but not limited to skill sets; experience and training; licensure and certifications; and delivery model. We would not anticipate that the individual hired into this role would land at or near the top end of the range, but such a decision will be dependent on that facts and circumstances of each case”. I felt that was a fair statement and, to me at least, appears to be more transparent while also letting candidates know that the top end isn’t expected or even common, but not un-achievable. I guess I might also be a little biased as a job seeker myself and seeing jobs with and without the salary range, so I get it. I just really appreciate when I see a range that is possible or one that is not in the realm of realistic for what I feel I could maintain a certain standard of living, and am able to move on or apply. This is a great article that does show both sides because I can understand arguments on each.
GS GLOBAL SOURCING / INDIGOSMITH / GARDEN HOTEL GUANGZHOU
2 年YES!!
Talent Acquisition & Management for Fintech | Associate CIPD | Talent Mentor & Coach | DE&I Hiring Champion | Dyslexic Thinking
2 年Great points Russell Ayles. It's something I've been thinking a lot about because often candidates will expect the top end. I have been thinking of displaying a min salary on ads and I'll let you know how this goes.