4 ms·

Are the companies indeed inflicting self harm? They might get less applications that way, but posting salary ranges for new employees has other downsides - e.g.

Are the companies indeed inflicting self harm? They might get less applications that way, but posting salary ranges for new employees has other downsides - e.g. it might tilt existing employees. Another downside is that it's easy to scrap and collect this data and companies might not like candidates or employees easily accessing historical data. Sharing salary range basically reduces the knowledge advantage of a company in many ways. It's surely great for candidates and existing employees.

indymike 4y ago
> Are the companies indeed inflicting self harm? They are spending 14% more on recruitment advertising than they would have to if they just put a range in the salary box. So, yes, financial self harm. 14% is substantial for many companies. > ther downsides - e.g. it might tilt existing employees. People have access to wage data and job boards in their pocket. If they answer that unknown caller, it's as likely to be a recruiter as a car warranty hustle. It's amazing how many business leaders think that their people are not going to look.
- robocat 4y ago
  > They are spending 14% more on recruitment advertising Oh boy, huge assumptions there, so bad that I would associate that thinking with HR recruiters. What matters is what selects/filters for desirable employees. Getting 14% more applicants is a terrible metric to be measuring - https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law which is obvious since one can increase applications by advertising in irrelevant places to get more irrelevant applicants. Alternatively 14% more could be extremely important, if a lack of salary indication filtered for bad candidates, and salary indication brought in good candidates. > A single day of delay in response causes 28% of candidates to become unresponsive to recruiters (this is from our company's research). It drops to 51% become unresponsive 48 hours later. [your top level comment]. That’s an interesting metric, since anecdotally the best candidates get snapped up extremely quickly. It is obviously very difficult to find good factual correlations: a lack of good data just produces opinions.
  - indymike 4y ago
    > Oh boy, huge assumptions there, so bad that I would associate that thinking with HR recruiters. HR and recruiting is not legendary for financial acumen, but they do spend in aggregate, billions on advertising, and they do in many cases have very good analyitcs on that spend. > Alternatively 14% more could be extremely important, if a lack of salary indication filtered for bad candidates, and salary indication brought in good candidates. We've not seen a change in quality of candidate in either direction. It does reduce the cost per applicant significantly.
- HideousKojima 4y ago
  >They are spending 14% more on recruitment advertising than they would have to if they just put a range in the salary box. Mind you I prefer when companies post salaries, but 14% greater/fewer applicants does not directly equate to 14% greater/lesser spend on listings. A company only needs one qualified applicant. More applicants means you might find better candidates faster/more easily, but by itself listing salaries isn't necessarily going to save the company money.
- lalopalota 4y ago
  > reducing the number of applicants to the advertised job by 14% does not mean > spending 14% more on recruitment advertising if a company gets 86 applicants instead of 100, that's less screening work which means less $ spent for the hire.
  - indymike 4y ago
    > if a company gets 86 applicants instead of 100, that's less screening work which means less $ spent for the hire. Using this logic, then just hire the first person who applies and you will minimize all cost. Screening is a drop in the bucket compared to the cost of making a bad hire, and the quality of the final candidates requires you have enough candidates to make a good selection from.
anigbrowl 4y ago
reduces the knowledge advantage of a company Defaulting to an adversarial relationship with its own staff is not the sign of a good company.
stemlord 4y ago
>and existing employees. Oh wow, true. Now I'll know exactly when to negotiate a raise or leave.
Sohcahtoa82 4y ago
> but posting salary ranges for new employees has other downsides - e.g. it might tilt existing employees. Fucking good. It's absolutely scummy to secretly pay new hires more than your experienced existing employees. It's also extremely short-sighted. You'd rather deal with attrition costs of losing a trained, experienced employee and having to find new candidates and train someone new, than to just give your current employees the pay raise they obviously deserve? > Sharing salary range basically reduces the knowledge advantage of a company in many ways. That's the fucking point.
- badpun 4y ago
  > You'd rather deal with attrition costs of losing a trained, experienced employee and having to find new candidates and train someone new, than to just give your current employees the pay raise they obviously deserve? The job market is a market, meaning it's a game between buyers and sellers. "Deserve" does not exist there. The companies are obviously counting on the fact that majority of people will prefer to stay put instead of risk jumping ship for a salary increase - which is in fact what happens in practice.

indymike 4y ago

> Are the companies indeed inflicting self harm? They are spending 14% more on recruitment advertising than they would have to if they just put a range in the salary box. So, yes, financial self harm. 14% is substantial for many companies. > ther downsides - e.g. it might tilt existing employees. People have access to wage data and job boards in their pocket. If they answer that unknown caller, it's as likely to be a recruiter as a car warranty hustle. It's amazing how many business leaders think that their people are not going to look.

robocat 4y ago
> They are spending 14% more on recruitment advertising Oh boy, huge assumptions there, so bad that I would associate that thinking with HR recruiters. What matters is what selects/filters for desirable employees. Getting 14% more applicants is a terrible metric to be measuring - https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law which is obvious since one can increase applications by advertising in irrelevant places to get more irrelevant applicants. Alternatively 14% more could be extremely important, if a lack of salary indication filtered for bad candidates, and salary indication brought in good candidates. > A single day of delay in response causes 28% of candidates to become unresponsive to recruiters (this is from our company's research). It drops to 51% become unresponsive 48 hours later. [your top level comment]. That’s an interesting metric, since anecdotally the best candidates get snapped up extremely quickly. It is obviously very difficult to find good factual correlations: a lack of good data just produces opinions.
- indymike 4y ago
  > Oh boy, huge assumptions there, so bad that I would associate that thinking with HR recruiters. HR and recruiting is not legendary for financial acumen, but they do spend in aggregate, billions on advertising, and they do in many cases have very good analyitcs on that spend. > Alternatively 14% more could be extremely important, if a lack of salary indication filtered for bad candidates, and salary indication brought in good candidates. We've not seen a change in quality of candidate in either direction. It does reduce the cost per applicant significantly.
HideousKojima 4y ago
>They are spending 14% more on recruitment advertising than they would have to if they just put a range in the salary box. Mind you I prefer when companies post salaries, but 14% greater/fewer applicants does not directly equate to 14% greater/lesser spend on listings. A company only needs one qualified applicant. More applicants means you might find better candidates faster/more easily, but by itself listing salaries isn't necessarily going to save the company money.
lalopalota 4y ago
> reducing the number of applicants to the advertised job by 14% does not mean > spending 14% more on recruitment advertising if a company gets 86 applicants instead of 100, that's less screening work which means less $ spent for the hire.
- indymike 4y ago
  > if a company gets 86 applicants instead of 100, that's less screening work which means less $ spent for the hire. Using this logic, then just hire the first person who applies and you will minimize all cost. Screening is a drop in the bucket compared to the cost of making a bad hire, and the quality of the final candidates requires you have enough candidates to make a good selection from.

anigbrowl 4y ago

reduces the knowledge advantage of a company Defaulting to an adversarial relationship with its own staff is not the sign of a good company.

stemlord 4y ago

>and existing employees. Oh wow, true. Now I'll know exactly when to negotiate a raise or leave.

Sohcahtoa82 4y ago

> but posting salary ranges for new employees has other downsides - e.g. it might tilt existing employees. Fucking good. It's absolutely scummy to secretly pay new hires more than your experienced existing employees. It's also extremely short-sighted. You'd rather deal with attrition costs of losing a trained, experienced employee and having to find new candidates and train someone new, than to just give your current employees the pay raise they obviously deserve? > Sharing salary range basically reduces the knowledge advantage of a company in many ways. That's the fucking point.

badpun 4y ago
> You'd rather deal with attrition costs of losing a trained, experienced employee and having to find new candidates and train someone new, than to just give your current employees the pay raise they obviously deserve? The job market is a market, meaning it's a game between buyers and sellers. "Deserve" does not exist there. The companies are obviously counting on the fact that majority of people will prefer to stay put instead of risk jumping ship for a salary increase - which is in fact what happens in practice.