I think companies should be more transparent about compensation. But let's be clear. Putting ranges in job descriptions doesn't really do any of these things Nathan suggests. Not without other tradeoffs anyway.
Does it save time? Sort of. If you mean you'll have a whole set of people self-select out of your process. Many don't want people self-selecting out early. There's flexibility to how things might work out. Posting salary ranges can suggest more rigidity than there truly is there.
Does it set expectations up front? Sort of. I mean there should be salary ranges that are consistent internally. But often the job description can't capture things like different levels that you might be evaluated at. Is the range for one level or multiple?
Not to mention you might be considered for a different role or one may get created for you. It may be different at bigger companies. But at startups in particular, the job you apply for just isn't the only thing at play when looking for great talent.
Does it a avoid a bait and switch feeling if candidates end up getting a different offer? Not really. The things I mentioned happen a lot. The offer we give changes based on what we see from you as a candidate. Maybe you were evaluated at a different level.
Let's say you apply for a senior engineer role. We may say you're not quite senior, but we'd love to bring you into the team at this level. Is that a bait and switch? It often feels that way to candidates. But it's also the truth from my perspective as a hiring manager.
There's a whole conversation about over-leveling that I'm sure people don't wanna have today. But I acknowledge that it's a tricky environment for candidates. I understand people feeling that they can't trust the way they're evaluated. But it happens.
Then there the other thing I mentioned. I've been in situations where I've created new roles based on my conversation with a candidate. The original job description and salary range become moot at that point. Is that a bait and switch? Again, it can feel like it to candidates.
At the end of the day, candidates have to decide if they believe the story they're being told. It's not easy. A lot of companies are shady as fuck. They will lie to you to get you to sign. If you talk to me, I'm always giving you 100% truth. But the story might sound the same.
So why *should* companies post their salary ranges. There are lots of good reasons.

It forces them to *have* salary ranges, and it gives people internally a way to hold the company accountable for treating them consistently.
"The company" doesn't care about you. There are some people who are happy to screw you over. But even at the worst companies, there are people who are trying to keep the "the company" from being too shitty. They need tools to make the company do what it says.
The more we can get companies to make public statements about what it's gonna do, you give internal people ammo to make that true. This is way more important than a lot of people realize.
Another reason to post salary ranges is that it helps candidates know what they are worth and gives them leverage in negotiation with you. This is part of why it's being mandated by policy in states like CA. Companies have a huge advantage by hiding info and being able to lie.
I wanna go back to @nathanbarry. I think his comments come from exactly the right place. And this wasn't meant to be a rebuke. More of an expansion on the rationale. As a CEO, Nathan should do this to set a precedent about equity within his company.
Many CEOs, even ones that care about "hiring great talent", don't go deep enough into functions like recruiting to know if it's being handled equitably. There are a lot of incentives that drive towards discrimination and bias unless someone is paying attention.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Marco Rogers

Marco Rogers Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @polotek

7 Apr
Paraphrased: "Page auditioned to play Superman’s grandfather. They rejected him on grounds that fans expected the character to look like a young Henry Cavill."

This is really tortured way to say "white people must have white ancestors or white viewers get confused."
Ask Black Americans if we get confused when a Black character has white ancestors.

On second thought, don't.
That's just it though. Of all the ways that sci-fi and fantasy get to play with the rules of reality, we can see that white supremacy can not be tampered with. That's what we mean when we talk about how it pervades everything.
Read 5 tweets
6 Apr
You really need to get into Karla's thread. There is so much here. She has been chewing on power, and how it moves. I think it's such a necessary part of the discourse we are having about things need to change.
We've been talking about how social media platforms have created a new form of power. Unlike many of our older institutions, the power conferred by internet platforms is less able to be controlled by gatekeepers. People who haven't had power now have it.
Karla has also helped me see something else. (I highly recommend the thread and a follow).

Different kinds of power used to be coupled together. E.g. money, access, platform, decision-making. Now it's being decoupled. That has massive implications.
Read 10 tweets
5 Apr
I really want us to stop letting random (white) men set the bar for what constitutes a reasonable discussion around issues. They so frequently do not come into it with good faith, especially on twitter. Fuck getting them to understand something they don't want to understand.
I need more people to be confident in rejecting this kind of thing. These bad faith attempts to set themselves up as the arbiters of what needs to be "explained" or "proven". We are not obligated to meet their arbitrary demands for what would make them get on board. It's a trap.
This is especially true when it comes to white men reacting to issues around race. They don't want to understand. The way they engage is a tactic. Often, their real goal is to trivialize and devalue these issues instead of giving them the intellectual weight they deserve.
Read 6 tweets
1 Apr
I had to come back to this after vacation. It's a good thread. I've argued with Oscar about agile principles in the past. But I know he and I look for the same outcomes. We used to work together. It feels like I run into more and more people who aren't impressed with scrum.
Oscar hits on something really important here. But it requires a bit more context. He says "good engineers" know how to adjust scope. Instead I would frame that as a core skill that a good product engineer needs to develop.
The important pieces of context are these.

I'm using the loose term "product engineer" to describe devs who build products at companies that usually need to iterate and ship new features quickly. There are other kinds of dev jobs where maybe this kind of advice doesn't apply.
Read 8 tweets
26 Mar
It's so wild how when you ask any random white person, they do SO MUCH for Black people. Sending us to college and everything. And yet somehow we still can't seem to make it. SMH.
8 out of 10 white people I talk to are adamant that they do their part to help the blacks. That should be highly visible no? I mean when you go to Black neighborhoods, they must be teeming with well meaning white people. Hang on, I'm gonna look outside and see.
Hm. I don't see any right now. Maybe it's an off day. It's still early though. Maybe they'll show up later.
Read 4 tweets
26 Mar
After undermining the election for Governor, Kemp is now using his stolen position to establish disenfranchisement laws.

We have to start treating the Republican party as actively hostile to our democracy and specifically hostile to non-white Americans.
The GOP is watching their political power diminish in an increasingly diverse nation. They built a base on top of fomenting white supremacy. And they're realizing that leads to ever-escalating extremism. The GOP leadership is morally and ethically bankrupt. It's a broken party.
We managed to dodge a bullet with this presidential election. I still believe things would've accelerated towards fascism and authoritarianism had Trump won a second term. But we are not out of the woods. The rot didn't start with Trump and won't end with him.
Read 5 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!