Salary on the Job Description?
Questionable ethics
Yes, the headline is trolling.
The question should be ‘salary be 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 aren’t sent out as job alerts to candidates (who may be passive). These adverts are considered sub-standard
Unlisted salaries attract fewer applications. This was estimated to be between 20 to 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 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 will receive fewer, less suitable applications.
No brainer, right?
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 skill short 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 reduced performance correlated to transparency and fair pay:
There’s no question in my mind that we should work towards better fairness and equality throughout society.
And there are only two ways in which this can be done: systemically and individually.
Yes, the system requires a change to give everyone access to the same opportunities.
But we can also help individuals fight for their own equality – something that’s in their control, unlike the hope for a fairer state.
This is one reason I strongly believe that the ‘previous salary’ question being banned can be counterproductive.
In the UK we have a fragmented employment market with interchangeable job titles representing wildly different job functions, and different locations offering wildly different salary bandings.
While salary should not be a predictor of worth, it is an insight into that candidate’s situation.
Part of my role as a recruiter guides candidates on how they can improve their lot, and sometimes that can be as simple as going back to their current employer with evidence that they should be given a pay rise.
I act as a coach both with candidates and the job seekers I support through Reciprocate.
Helping candidates negotiate better pay or terms is a privilege I enjoy.
There are a lot of situations where understanding a candidate’s emoluments can help them navigate their career.
Such as what if they currently get a 16% pension contribution, and move to a role with a 10% pay rise and a 5% pension?
Car allowances, RSU, tax efficient packages?
Packages are a conversation that is more involved than simply salary.
If a recruiter’s role is to help candidates find better opportunities, banning the salary question can work against the candidate.
Of course, most recruiters don’t work like this and I’ll adapt how I offer this help if legislation requires.
This personal argument aside, let’s come back to one reason banning ‘previous salary’ is a good thing.
If salary is not representative of contribution, and employers have a rote 15% pay rise for new starters, then the new salary is unlikely to represent contribution either.
Moreover, if that earlier salary was unfairly paid, the new salary is likely to propagate the same.
It makes sense to pay commensurately with contribution and capability alone, rather than what may be irrelevant history.
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 (available for no more than two vacancies)
- manage part or all of your recruitment on an individually designed basis for one client
- recruitment coaching and mentoring (one place available at £250/hr + VAT. Yes, prices have gone up. I value my time.)
- recruitment strategy setting
- outplacement support
Just hit reply to check if my approach is right for you.