Salaries in job posts

[SauRoNZA]

I should also add that you don’t just want to see the most expensive candidates that sit right at the top of your budget.

Why? Because someone more junior can he moulded to exactly what you want and will also stick around for longer as they have more to learn and the ceiling to progress is very far away from them which means paying them their due if they put in the effort is easy.

The top tier candidates at the very edge of your budgets are the quickest to move on to the next thing as they don’t have that much to learn and the ceiling is quite close before they move up or out usually.

It very much depends on your team dynamic and the exactly skills required and brought to the table as to where someone will slot in salary wise and seniority wise.

Doesn’t help I have someone with 20+ years experience who wants to earn a fortune but they only have 1-2 skills of the 4 I need.

 

[RedViking]

SA has a culture though of paying as little as possible. I've never managed to find a job in South Africa, but I have been for a couple of interviews, not that I tried very hard. When they ask what my expectations are, I tell them as much as they can afford. They try really hard for you to give a figure first, but I'll push them to offer the best they can. They hate it. And when you finally get to talking money they will list any possible excuse why you will not be able to get it. Make me sick. Doing work for South African companies is similar. Maybe for you okes with degrees and big past payslips the grass is greener.

 

[ubercal]

It can be tricky to give a figure up front when you have a position open that can span quite a large band with future development in mind.

To illustrate you have a role that requires 5 skills. Now you have someone apply that only has 3 of those skills, you can see them forming up to the full role in 6 months to a year but not straight out of the gates so you can’t pay them for work they can’t do yet.

Other side of the spectrum you have someone who comes on board with nice to have skills that aren’t required and you can pay them a little bit more.

Now if you put the entire salary bracket in the ad people just look at the top end figure and immediately chase that…even though they below in the bottom end of the scale with the skills that are required.

Also something to remember is even with exactly the same title changing from one company to another your 12 skills on paper might only be relevant to 6 skills to the new company and so that all comes into play.

So I fully understand why companies don’t always post the salary (depending on the role obviously) details up front.

HOWEVER, once they’ve seen your CV and/or profile and know what you are about it should be no problem giving you a bracket to work from for your particular offering before even talking about interviews.

I find it far more useful for a candidate to state what they expect to be paid upon their application as I can then very quickly trim down the chancers or delusions of grandeur from the people who live in reality and then take it further from there.

Which is why we ask exactly that on our applications.

Give me a good reason why i must take advice from somebody thats full time job is managing a block of flats ?

 

[SauRoNZA]

Give me a good reason why i must take advice from somebody thats full time job is managing a block of flats ?

What on earth are you talking about?

 

[ubercal]

What on earth are you talking about?

you not the guy that owns a block of flats in Cape Town ?

 

[SauRoNZA]

you not the guy that owns a block of flats in Cape Town ?

Most definitely not.

I’m an IT Manager.

 

[Bliksis]

I should also add that you don’t just want to see the most expensive candidates that sit right at the top of your budget.

Why? Because someone more junior can he moulded to exactly what you want and will also stick around for longer as they have more to learn and the ceiling to progress is very far away from them which means paying them their due if they put in the effort is easy.

The top tier candidates at the very edge of your budgets are the quickest to move on to the next thing as they don’t have that much to learn and the ceiling is quite close before they move up or out usually.

It very much depends on your team dynamic and the exactly skills required and brought to the table as to where someone will slot in salary wise and seniority wise.

Doesn’t help I have someone with 20+ years experience who wants to earn a fortune but they only have 1-2 skills of the 4 I need.

You need the most for the least.

 

[SauRoNZA]

You need the most for the least.

Not at all.

I prefer supporting the underdogs who have the least on paper but are sharp enough to get themselves to the most.

And they get paid very well for what they bring to the table and get solid increases as they skill up and prove themselves.

I’m far more interested in self taught jack of all trades type people than specialist by the book types who can only do one thing well and fall apart or disregard everything else.

You just can’t pay someone from Day 1 for potential, you need to see it manifest and then you can shape and support it.

 

[Johnatan56]

I should also add that you don’t just want to see the most expensive candidates that sit right at the top of your budget.

Why? Because someone more junior can he moulded to exactly what you want and will also stick around for longer as they have more to learn and the ceiling to progress is very far away from them which means paying them their due if they put in the effort is easy.

The top tier candidates at the very edge of your budgets are the quickest to move on to the next thing as they don’t have that much to learn and the ceiling is quite close before they move up or out usually.

It very much depends on your team dynamic and the exactly skills required and brought to the table as to where someone will slot in salary wise and seniority wise.

Doesn’t help I have someone with 20+ years experience who wants to earn a fortune but they only have 1-2 skills of the 4 I need.

How exactly does giving a range stop a junior from applying?
You should know if someone at the top of the band is going to move on soon / doesn't have room for growth, odd argument, and doesn't make sense saying salary band stops that.
You have a salary band for position that you make public, another that is internal for hiring manager can make an offer alone cap, and another chat with the hiring manager about other open positions and that if under this, can still get approval to accept.

Job I am in now, I met all the skills required, asked for more than the band, was accepted the next day after hiring manager brought to higher ups. I have potential for growth (both personal and position), and match the culture of the company, I count as senior, and have delivered enough value to offset my cost easily.

I would not have applied without a salary band (besides that it is against the law here). I do not know of a single decent dev that will go to an interview unless they know the general range of what is being offered in an interview, not worth wasting one's time for an offer that could be under what is currently being earned. Giving the salary band means both sides waste less time.

For any non-highly skilled job, not giving a salary band also doesn't make sense; call center makes x-y an hour, it's not really a growth opportunity job/done outside of income.

Any job has to first meet the requirement of enough income, then one starts checking off the rest, like is it interesting, does the work culture fit, etc., and you keep searching till that matches.
This is besides that e.g. in junior side, if give salary band, one can know where about you fit as a junior, and that upping skills increases salary. Or are you scared that people will assume you must give an increase correlating to salary band if skill/productivity is increased?

And in dev, I expect every company to lose money on juniors, senior time is lost, but it will be a net positive as those are your intermediate/senior devs later that know the business inside and out.

That you think someone who is specialized is useless is weird, shows either small company or one that cannot properly specialize (ends up agreeing to all client needs etc. and maintenance kills it over time, since devs will have to work overtime to keep it going, so you just cycle through people). And I mean specialize, not someone who refuses all non-dev that is e.g. ruby tasks (as in doesn't look at e.g. pipeline issue here and there, or looks and comments on tickets they're working on).

 

[SauRoNZA]

How exactly does giving a range stop a junior from applying?
You should know if someone at the top of the band is going to move on soon / doesn't have room for growth, odd argument, and doesn't make sense saying salary band stops that.
You have a salary band for position that you make public, another that is internal for hiring manager can make an offer alone cap, and another chat with the hiring manager about other open positions and that if under this, can still get approval to accept.

Job I am in now, I met all the skills required, asked for more than the band, was accepted the next day after hiring manager brought to higher ups. I have potential for growth (both personal and position), and match the culture of the company, I count as senior, and have delivered enough value to offset my cost easily.

I would not have applied without a salary band (besides that it is against the law here). I do not know of a single decent dev that will go to an interview unless they know the general range of what is being offered in an interview, not worth wasting one's time for an offer that could be under what is currently being earned. Giving the salary band means both sides waste less time.

For any non-highly skilled job, not giving a salary band also doesn't make sense; call center makes x-y an hour, it's not really a growth opportunity job/done outside of income.

Any job has to first meet the requirement of enough income, then one starts checking off the rest, like is it interesting, does the work culture fit, etc., and you keep searching till that matches.
This is besides that e.g. in junior side, if give salary band, one can know where about you fit as a junior, and that upping skills increases salary. Or are you scared that people will assume you must give an increase correlating to salary band if skill/productivity is increased?

And in dev, I expect every company to lose money on juniors, senior time is lost, but it will be a net positive as those are your intermediate/senior devs later that know the business inside and out.

That you think someone who is specialized is useless is weird, shows either small company or one that cannot properly specialize (ends up agreeing to all client needs etc. and maintenance kills it over time, since devs will have to work overtime to keep it going, so you just cycle through people). And I mean specialize, not someone who refuses all non-dev that is e.g. ruby tasks (as in doesn't look at e.g. pipeline issue here and there, or looks and comments on tickets they're working on).

I never said you won’t get a salary band before attending an interview.

I said you won’t get a salary band printed with a job ad.

There in lies the massive difference. You’ll get a salary band from us after your application has been initially assessed and we’ve determined what we will pay YOU specifically.

I was specifically not advocating that anyone should waste their time attending interviews without knowing what’s on the table.

And where did I say specialists are useless? I just said in a given group I’ll tend to lean to those who are more multi-skillled, didn’t say I’m actively avoiding specialists. Note I’m not referring to a specialist role here, I’m purely referring to skills of a given candidate on paper over another.

And no our company is quite mature and overtime is not a thing, outside of very well paid for standby. We also don’t have (development) clients, we are the client.

 

[derp90]

I never said you won’t get a salary band before attending an interview.

I said you won’t get a salary band printed with a job ad.

There in lies the massive difference. You’ll get a salary band from us after your application has been initially assessed and we’ve determined what we will pay YOU specifically.

I was specifically not advocating that anyone should waste their time attending interviews without knowing what’s on the table.

And where did I say specialists are useless? I just said in a given group I’ll tend to lean to those who are more multi-skillled, didn’t say I’m actively avoiding specialists. Note I’m not referring to a specialist role here, I’m purely referring to skills of a given candidate on paper over another.

And no our company is quite mature and overtime is not a thing, outside of very well paid for standby. We also don’t have (development) clients, we are the client.

Can you give a salary band after seeing only a CV? I still think it may waste a lot of time, because someone generally spends time typing out a cover letter/honing their CV to cater for a specific position, and even then their expectations may be greatly different from what you have set aside for the role.

I find it very difficult to see any positives for employees in not listing a salary. It's transparent, people will be happy applying knowing what's on offer and not accept a lower than expected salary after going through interviews and be unhappy.

And companies can't do the thing of asking you what you want, since they've put forward their range initially.

Not listing a salary range ONLY benefits an employer. A person only has 3 out of 5 skills? Start their salary towards the lower end of the range! Companies have an idea of who they want for the position, and if that person they hire can do the job advertised, even if they need to learn a few things, pay them accordingly.

 

[lkpat]

Can you give a salary band after seeing only a CV? I still think it may waste a lot of time, because someone generally spends time typing out a cover letter/honing their CV to cater for a specific position, and even then their expectations may be greatly different from what you have set aside for the role.

I find it very difficult to see any positives for employees in not listing a salary. It's transparent, people will be happy applying knowing what's on offer and not accept a lower than expected salary after going through interviews and be unhappy.

And companies can't do the thing of asking you what you want, since they've put forward their range initially.

Not listing a salary range ONLY benefits an employer. A person only has 3 out of 5 skills? Start their salary towards the lower end of the range! Companies have an idea of who they want for the position, and if that person they hire can do the job advertised, even if they need to learn a few things, pay them accordingly.

Can't believe this debate is still ongoing.
If you don't want to apply because the salary is not advertised, then your application is very likely not wanted. The trouble with advertising salary is it severely limits the pool and creates unrealistic expectations in applicants who aren't at the right level experience wise.
Besides, some positions are publicly funded and paying more than x% of the candidate's previous position creates havoc since it raises red flags.

 

[derp90]

Can't believe this debate is still ongoing.
If you don't want to apply because the salary is not advertised, then your application is very likely not wanted. The trouble with advertising salary is it severely limits the pool and creates unrealistic expectations in applicants who aren't at the right level experience wise.
Besides, some positions are publicly funded and paying more than x% of the candidate's previous position creates havoc since it raises red flags.

Or it solely benefits the employer who can then pay too little. I find it very hard to ever side with an employer-biased way of doing things.

At the end of the day, most companies don't actually care about you. Advertising the salary creates a level playing field and the job can be applied for by those that are happy with the salary. It's up to the company to disregard the applications of people who aren't at the right level.

If you're advertising a position, at the minimum I would expect you to know exactly what you're looking for in a candidate, and if you want to hire someone who may not be up to scratch, then pay them at the lower end of your range. You decided to hire someone who isn't at the right level for your job posting, and chances are they'll be at the right level soon enough.

You mention 'limiting the pool', but that's going to save you time as an employer going through hiring processes with someone who expects more than you're willing to offer.

 

[lkpat]

Or it solely benefits the employer who can then pay too little. I find it very hard to ever side with an employer-biased way of doing things.

LMAO.
I must admit I prefer to avoid hiring conspiracy theorists myself.
Publicly funded positions are especially sensitive and need to be treated with extra transparency. That's why the USG biodata form exists.

AID 1420-17: Contractor Employee Biographical Data Sheet | Forms | U.S. Agency for International Development

The information requested by this form is necessary for prudent management and administration of public funds under USAID contracts. The information helps USAID estimate overseas logistic support and allowances, the educational information provides an indication of qualifications, the salary...

www.usaid.gov

At the end of the day, most companies don't actually care about you. Advertising the salary creates a level playing field and the job can be applied for by those that are happy with the salary. It's up to the company to disregard the applications of people who aren't at the right level.

That's like saying at the end of the day, most people don't care about the company, they care about the salary. It works both ways. There's no one size fits all salary for a position, believe me. You learn that quickly when become responsible for hiring and keeping staff happy.

If you're advertising a position, at the minimum I would expect you to know exactly what you're looking for in a candidate, and if you want to hire someone who may not be up to scratch, then pay them at the lower end of your range. You decided to hire someone who isn't at the right level for your job posting, and chances are they'll be at the right level soon enough.

That all depends on the individual and where their mindset is. Up to scratch doesn't even begin to look at attitude to the job. That and soft skills are not easy to get right.

You mention 'limiting the pool', but that's going to save you time as an employer going through hiring processes with someone who expects more than you're willing to offer.

I'm prepared to pay more than originally budgeted if I find a good fit - all within reason of course. The reason people want to be more conservative with starting salaries is because staff expect increases and those add up quickly over 10 years.

 

[derp90]

LMAO.
I must admit I prefer to avoid hiring conspiracy theorists myself.
Publicly funded positions are especially sensitive and need to be treated with extra transparency. That's why the USG biodata form exists.

AID 1420-17: Contractor Employee Biographical Data Sheet | Forms | U.S. Agency for International Development

The information requested by this form is necessary for prudent management and administration of public funds under USAID contracts. The information helps USAID estimate overseas logistic support and allowances, the educational information provides an indication of qualifications, the salary...

www.usaid.gov

That's like saying at the end of the day, most people don't care about the company, they care about the salary. It works both ways. There's no one size fits all salary for a position, believe me. You learn that quickly when become responsible for hiring and keeping staff happy.

That all depends on the individual and where their mindset is. Up to scratch doesn't even begin to look at attitude to the job. That and soft skills are not easy to get right.

I'm prepared to pay more than originally budgeted if I find a good fit - all within reason of course. The reason people want to be more conservative with starting salaries is because staff expect increases and those add up quickly over 10 years.

Companies pay employees to care about companies, so it's true that most people don't care about the company either. But I'm on the side of the employee, and companies always need to be more transparent.

Yes, there's no one size fits all approach, but that's why you have a salary range. If you define the position upfront with your job posting, you can also define the salary.

If you hire someone who applied for the posting you listed, you should pay them according to the posting you listed.

This also works for high-paying posts. If I'm a skilled employee looking for work, I know to apply or not based on the salary bracket the company advertising is willing to pay. If they don't pay enough, I'm not going to waste their time applying.

 

[Ancalagon]

Sometimes you are filling more than one spot rounding out a team.

Other times you already have a very senior person in a team so you can afford to bring in a junior with a runway of development in front of them.

The budget you refer to always has a low, medium and high and this can be quite a massive deviation internally and you wouldn’t make it known externally…that’s literally the point I’m making.

The best candidate isn’t always automatically the highest paid one, but often the one that will fit into the team the best and bring a synergy that is lacking.

But now you have the right person for the job who belongs in a junior side of the role and they only see the top level senior bracket advertised and miss the nuance of why they can’t do that job (yet).

Then you have different roles. If the salary range is so broad, its because the role description is too broad.

You could then publish two roles with different salary ranges, and allow people to apply for one.

In any case, you just described one specific example of where you're hiring when you don't know what you want (ROFL but anyway). But in other examples, you know exactly what you want, so why not just publish the salary?

 

[lkpat]

Companies pay employees to care about companies, so it's true that most people don't care about the company either. But I'm on the side of the employee, and companies always need to be more transparent.

Companies are private entities and can do as they please. If you don't like them, don't work for them. It's a simple formula in a free market that keeps the decent people employed and the decent companies staffed.

Yes, there's no one size fits all approach, but that's why you have a salary range. If you define the position upfront with your job posting, you can also define the salary.

Except now you're excluding people who earn more than your range and creating unrealistic expectations for earners below the range.

If you hire someone who applied for the posting you listed, you should pay them according to the posting you listed.

But then I'm going to hire someone who is worth that money only. I want the freedom to consider talented people who aren't at that level.

This also works for high-paying posts. If I'm a skilled employee looking for work, I know to apply or not based on the salary bracket the company advertising is willing to pay. If they don't pay enough, I'm not going to waste their time applying.

I'd prefer people to also apply based on other factors than "I'm currently earning less", like "I want to have flexi-hours and work from home" or "I want to work for an international firm with travel prospects" or "I want to work for a well established brand" or "I prefer smaller teams with less red tape".
If you want salary ranges for positions, work for government, they do that well.

 

[Ancalagon]

Except now you're excluding people who earn more than your range and creating unrealistic expectations for earners below the range.

First, why is it a bad thing to exclude people to earn more than your range? You're literally telling them you can't pay them what they want so you don't waste each other's time. Why is that a bad thing?

Secondly, what do you mean unrealistic expectations? If someone matches the requirements of the job - ie has the skills - then they deserve the salary. It's quite simple. That's why the job description is important.

If someone can do the job you want, who cares if it is a big increase for them? That's how much you're willing to pay. Doesn't necessarily mean the candidate will get offered the top of the salary range - that depends on how they do in the interview. Sure, if the candidate insists on max salary, you probably won't offer.

Willing buyer, willing seller. You're agreeing to buy labour for a price, and you find a candidate willing (and able) to sell. What's the issue with being upfront about how much you're willing to spend?

 

[lkpat]

First, why is it a bad thing to exclude people to earn more than your range? You're literally telling them you can't pay them what they want so you don't waste each other's time. Why is that a bad thing?

I'm doing nothing of the sort, I'm open to people who earn more than the position would normally pay.

Secondly, what do you mean unrealistic expectations? If someone matches the requirements of the job - ie has the skills - then they deserve the salary. It's quite simple. That's why the job description is important.

You say that like there's such a thing as matching job requirements.
Who here has matched any job requirements? Unless they're very general, they're never going to be matched.

If someone can do the job you want, who cares if it is a big increase for them? That's how much you're willing to pay. Doesn't necessarily mean the candidate will get offered the top of the salary range - that depends on how they do in the interview. Sure, if the candidate insists on max salary, you probably won't offer.

Back to square one, why must I limit the pool of applicants or create a very specific niche position every time?

Willing buyer, willing seller. You're agreeing to buy labour for a price, and you find a candidate willing (and able) to sell. What's the issue with being upfront about how much you're willing to spend?

We've covered that already. Why must I advertise a position at a set range that I'm flexible in hiring two people to fill, or why advertise a position at the rate I could afford two candidates when I can find one person capable and pay them more?
If two capable candidates are available for back/front end, I might not need a full stack dev. If one candidate can be full stack and I'm impressed with their resume, I'm willing to pay them more. I might prefer one over the other.

 

[derp90]

I'm doing nothing of the sort, I'm open to people who earn more than the position would normally pay.

You say that like there's such a thing as matching job requirements.
Who here has matched any job requirements? Unless they're very general, they're never going to be matched.

Back to square one, why must I limit the pool of applicants or create a very specific niche position every time?

We've covered that already. Why must I advertise a position at a set range that I'm flexible in hiring two people to fill, or why advertise a position at the rate I could afford two candidates when I can find one person capable and pay them more?
If two capable candidates are available for back/front end, I might not need a full stack dev. If one candidate can be full stack and I'm impressed with their resume, I'm willing to pay them more. I might prefer one over the other.

So let's say you have R1000 per month in mind for a job posting, and someone applies who has been earning R2000 per month in their previous position. Are you telling me that you'd gladly consider paying them more than R2000 even though you had a much lower figure in mind?

Limiting the pool to "only people who can accept the salary I'd like to offer" is a GOOD thing. No one goes in expecting too much, and those that are chancing it, you just don't hire. It's not like the chancers wouldn't apply to the position even if you didn't list the salary.