Salary on the job description
I've written many variations on the article below, over the years, and it seems sensible to revisit given the UK government's announcements around salary transparency.
On the whole, I'm for it, with the many advantages it brings. But like a lot of things in recruitment, there is a more involved discussion to be had, especially when this fix treats the symptoms, not the rot.
That's not to say the fix isn't worth doing, just that it won't fix many of the problems underlying a lack of transparency.
This article is a little dated, in terms of the research shared, but I think the points are as relevant as ever.
Originally published May 2023
Salary on the Job Description?
Yes, the headline is trolling.
The question should be ‘salary on the job advert?’
You wouldn’t confuse a job description with an advert, would you?
This is a subject rife with disagreement around ethics and practicality, and worth broaching again considering recent campaigns in the UK to increase salary transparency and ban the ‘what’s your current salary?’ question.
Let’s focus on some practicalities first, based on UK research I ran last year for my “Accessing a Candidate Short Market” guide:
- Job boards can penalise you for not listing salary. As of December 2021, Totaljobs penalises adverts that don’t list salary, and these aren’t sent out as job alerts to candidates (who may be passive). These adverts are considered sub-standard.
- Unlisted salaries attract fewer qualified applications. This was estimated to be between 20% and 45% fewer, across the job boards I talked to.
- LinkedIn reported that not only can you expect more applications, you may also expect better-qualified applications when the salary is advertised.
- My work supporting senior job seekers confirms this - many would not apply to adverts that had no salary or "competitive salary" because they felt this was a waste of their time.
- There is less emphasis on salary negotiation from the candidate side, due to transparency in pay. This is a key part of equity, relating to gender, race and intersectional identity. According to Payscale's research, white men are most likely to negotiate the highest salary.
It’s simple – if you advertise vacancies and don’t list salary, you risk receiving fewer, less suitable applications.
Then there’s the ethical question, where a common argument is that there is ‘no ethical reason that salaries can’t be listed’.
Now, while I’m a proponent for advertising salaries, where possible, I think this ethical argument isn’t the right one - ‘can’t be’ is a strong statement.
I think a better question is ‘how does this do harm’ when establishing reasons for not listing salary. This balances pragmatism with the most important aspect of ethics.
It can be a complicated question too in scenarios like this:
- How do you establish salary transparency for job families across multiple regions where the local pay is established by HQ in one country? Currency exchange rates and cost of living mean that a fair salary one day may not be the next, therefore flexibility in not listing salary may be ethically the right thing to do if the intent is right.
- What about new vacancies that serve to solve a business problem and can be recruited at different levels?
- What about practical situations like recruiting hard-to-fill vacancies during a wider redundancy programme, whereby listing a salary would create concern in unrelated areas of that unsettled business?
It's not always as simple a question as we’d like to think. If you’re facing a complex situation in advertising a role, I recommend describing your stance in the advert itself, if you legitimately can’t state the salary.
At the same time, as we’ve seen in the US, legislation to enforce salary transparency creates situations such as Netflix apparently advertising a range of $90-900k.
Who does that help?
The problem with this kind of legislation is that companies can comply while continuing the behaviour that led to the legislation in the first place.
It’s palliative, rather than treating unfairness at its root.
We should also consider the unforeseen consequence of salary transparency, such as this research which appears to show a reduced link between performance and pay:
Helping candidates negotiate better pay or terms is a privilege I enjoy.
And there's more to understanding someone's existing remuneration than simply establishing whether they can afford to move.
Sometimes these conversations reveal that someone is being underpaid. With evidence of what their experience and contribution might command elsewhere, they can go back to their current employer and make the case for a pay rise.
That might mean they decide not to move at all. Which is a perfectly good outcome for them, even if it isn't for the vacancy in the short term.
It also opens up the counteroffer conversation early. If their employer could resolve the reason they're considering leaving, I'd rather understand that before they accept an offer elsewhere.
There's a benefit for prospective employers too.
A new employer may budget £52,000 for a role, believing that to be market rate, based on historic data. But if conversations with suitably experienced candidates reveal that their existing remuneration, expectations and other opportunities consistently indicate otherwise, there's good reason to revise either the budget or the requirements.
If that budget does prove unrealistic, and it's the same budget other team members are measured against, it can also create the argument to revisit everyone's salaries - subject to affordability, of course. After all, it's cheaper to retain fairly paid staff with all the knowledge they have than to replace them.
Of course, conversations with candidates aren't a substitute for proper salary benchmarking. But they can reveal problems that wouldn't otherwise be apparent.
There are also situations where understanding the whole package matters.
What if someone currently receives a 16% pension contribution and moves to a role offering a 10% pay rise but only a 5% pension?
Car allowances, RSUs, tax-efficient packages?
Remuneration is a more involved conversation than simply salary.
And none of this means someone's existing salary should determine what they're worth to their next employer.
If their previous salary was unfair, using it to determine their next salary risks perpetuating that unfairness. And if an employer routinely offers a 15% increase on previous earnings, the new salary may have little relationship to the contribution that person can make.
It makes sense to pay commensurately with contribution and capability, rather than what may be irrelevant history.
So I understand the reasons for wanting to ban questions about previous salary. They're often used badly.
But I think there's an important distinction between asking to establish someone's worth and asking to understand their circumstances.
One can perpetuate unfairness. The other can help identify and correct it.
If legislation restricts these conversations, I'll adapt how I offer this support. But I'd hope any restrictions recognise the difference between using salary history to determine an offer and voluntarily discussing remuneration to help someone make better decisions.
I hope you’ve found these thoughts helpful to start a broader conversation in your business.
My thoughts aren’t set in stone, so please let me know your opinions if you disagree.
Thanks for reading.
Regards,
Greg
p.s. While you are here, if you like the idea of improving how you recruit, lack capacity or need better candidates, and are curious how I can help, these are my services:
- Commercial, operational and technical leadership recruitment
- Manage part or all of your recruitment on an individually designed basis for one client
- Outplacement support
Email me on greg.wyatt@bwrecruitment.co.uk if you'd like to discuss.
