4 ms·

There's a vein of truth here, but it's a bit navel-gazing. The first truth is that people don't leave their current jobs because someone else is offering more.

There's a vein of truth here, but it's a bit navel-gazing. The first truth is that people don't leave their current jobs because someone else is offering more. They leave because they're unhappy. For knowledge workers of all stripes, unhappiness is very, very rarely about compensation. The second truth is that high compensation keeps people where they are. If a recruiter is offering $200k, you'll listen if you're making $180k. You won't listen if you're making $250k. If you're making $180k, the $20k bump becomes a socially acceptable reason to tell your employer you're leaving, but it's not the true reason you're leaving, because every time you switch jobs, you run the risk of bad management, mistreatment, etc. There's a price to taking that risk and it's not usually worth small bumps to people. When you post a salary band, 90% of the time, people who respond are not looking for the pay bump, they're just considering you before the 90+% of employers who are not posting pay bands or whose pay band is uncompetitive. And they know that they're that much more likely to stay because it'll be that much more difficult to persuade them to leave after they join. The third, deeper, more cynical truth is that posting salary bands probably signals to employees internally that they are being underpaid, and can provoke discontent and departures. Rather than fix the problem with a long-term solution of unilaterally issuing raises internally before posting salary bands, most companies take the shortcut and keep the salary band private.

InefficientRed 4y ago
> The first truth is that people don't leave their current jobs because someone else is offering more. They leave because they're unhappy. This is only true for small sums. No one leaves a job over a 5% raise. Some will jump ship over 20%. But most people absolutely will jump ship for 50% or 200% raises. And, unfortunately for small companies, that's often the wage differential between FAANG and the Small Co. The numbers you are using here -- 180-250 -- are illustrative; total comp for true Senior at FAANG is comfortably in the 400s. > The third, deeper, more cynical truth is that posting salary bands probably signals to employees internally that they are being underpaid, and can provoke discontent and departures. Rather than fix the problem with a long-term solution of unilaterally issuing raises internally before posting salary bands, most companies take the shortcut and keep the salary band private. People talk. They're going to find out eventually. If you're having trouble hiring seniors, ensuring that you retain your existing seniors is probably step zero.
- solatic 4y ago
  > that's often the wage differential between FAANG and the Small Co I'm intentionally not including FAANG salaries here. Two things need to happen for that to be relevant - you a) need to be at that level, professionally and b) you need to have the disposition to work at a FAANG. I learned a long time ago that I don't have the patience for big-company politics, so it doesn't really matter to me what those salaries are; you might as well tell me I could make $400k if I went to medical school and became a doctor. It might as well be a different career path. Startups know that they can't compete with FAANG salaries; the only way forward is not to try. > If you're having trouble hiring seniors, ensuring that you retain your existing seniors is probably step zero. That's great long-term thinking - the issue is that people who refuse to post salary bands because "they don't want to hire people who are motivated by money" have a fundamentally short-term perspective.

InefficientRed 4y ago

> The first truth is that people don't leave their current jobs because someone else is offering more. They leave because they're unhappy. This is only true for small sums. No one leaves a job over a 5% raise. Some will jump ship over 20%. But most people absolutely will jump ship for 50% or 200% raises. And, unfortunately for small companies, that's often the wage differential between FAANG and the Small Co. The numbers you are using here -- 180-250 -- are illustrative; total comp for true Senior at FAANG is comfortably in the 400s. > The third, deeper, more cynical truth is that posting salary bands probably signals to employees internally that they are being underpaid, and can provoke discontent and departures. Rather than fix the problem with a long-term solution of unilaterally issuing raises internally before posting salary bands, most companies take the shortcut and keep the salary band private. People talk. They're going to find out eventually. If you're having trouble hiring seniors, ensuring that you retain your existing seniors is probably step zero.

solatic 4y ago
> that's often the wage differential between FAANG and the Small Co I'm intentionally not including FAANG salaries here. Two things need to happen for that to be relevant - you a) need to be at that level, professionally and b) you need to have the disposition to work at a FAANG. I learned a long time ago that I don't have the patience for big-company politics, so it doesn't really matter to me what those salaries are; you might as well tell me I could make $400k if I went to medical school and became a doctor. It might as well be a different career path. Startups know that they can't compete with FAANG salaries; the only way forward is not to try. > If you're having trouble hiring seniors, ensuring that you retain your existing seniors is probably step zero. That's great long-term thinking - the issue is that people who refuse to post salary bands because "they don't want to hire people who are motivated by money" have a fundamentally short-term perspective.