There's a reason why salary bands for each level at a company are structured as ranges and not simply one value (though some companies are trying this). The hig

There's a reason why salary bands for each level at a company are structured as ranges and not simply one value (though some companies are trying this). The higher you go up in level, the broader the range is. The variance in skillset increases the higher you go, and employees can also have differing tenures within a level as well. Salary transparency as a singular compensation number doesn't always paint the full picture about an individual, and so it's easy to get upset seeing some of the higher end numbers. The solution in my opinion is just deeper transparency: how do compensation structures at companies really work. What determines a higher salary within a level for a role. And what are the details for large discrepancies / variance within a particular level. All of which we're attempting to collect and display with Levels.fyi (disclosure: I'm one of the founders). A lot of folks look at the out of band offers for a certain level and immediately conclude that they are being underpaid. As in the article: "7 in 10 will demand highest end of salary range". But to provide more comprehensive information around why someone may have received a higher offer could help clear some of this up. For example, interview performance, scope of work, and previous tenure can all affect the resulting offer.