Salary Ranges of $60k-$120k Scare Off Top Talent

Posting a salary range of "$60k - $120k" is a red flag. Many companies think they are complying with the push for pay transparency by posting absurdly wide salary ranges on their job descriptions. The data shows this tactic is actively hurting their ability to recruit top talent: especially women. Studies reveal that 54% of female applicants are less likely to apply for a role with a broad pay range, compared to 47% of men. Why would you lose so many people with a salary range? Female candidates often view these massive ranges as a glaring warning sign of internal pay inequality. It shows a culture where they will have to fight tooth and nail just to be compensated fairly. And as you can see above, men aren't far behind avoiding those jobs either. If your salary ranges are too wide, candidates assume you either don't know what the job is actually worth, or you are hoping to draw them in and then lowball them. Be specific. Be transparent. Pay equitably. HR Brew #PayTransparency #GenderPayGap #RecruitingTrends #TalentAcquisition #KandorGroup

A new study from Cornell University suggests that pay transparency laws may not be reducing gender pay gaps as intended. In many regions where employers are required to disclose salary ranges in job postings, companies often list very broad ranges that offer little clarity to applicants. Research led by Alice Lee found that women are less likely than men to apply for roles with wide salary bands and tend to negotiate less assertively when they choose jobs with narrow ranges. However, the study found that adding simple explanations about how compensation is determined can encourage women to apply and negotiate at similar rates as men. Read more: https://lnkd.in/dvmFXJrs

Women workers may be less likely than men to negotiate for higher salaries, and new research suggests that the way salary transparency is implemented could unintentionally reinforce that gap. Pay ranges in job postings are widely viewed as a positive step toward transparency. A 2024 survey by Robert Half found that four in ten workers lose interest in a job listing if it does not include salary information. Employers also believe that transparent pay ranges help attract candidates and strengthen employer branding by supporting a more open workplace culture. However, new research from Cornell University published in the Applied Psychology Journal suggests that the structure of those pay ranges matters. The study found that very wide salary ranges can discourage women from applying for certain roles. According to the researchers, women tend to assume they are less likely to negotiate toward the higher end of a salary band compared with men. As a result, they often prefer jobs that offer narrower and more clearly defined pay ranges. Alice Lee, assistant professor of organizational behavior, explained that across four studies women consistently showed a stronger preference for narrower salary ranges and demonstrated less assertive negotiation behavior. Women were also more satisfied with a midpoint salary offer and, when they did negotiate, typically asked for smaller increases. Lee noted that the current way many transparency policies are implemented may unintentionally maintain the same pay gaps they were meant to reduce. Several jurisdictions including California, New York and Washington, D.C. already require employers to include salary ranges in job postings. Supporting this concern, a separate study by Washington State University in January 2024 found that extremely broad pay ranges can also discourage applicants in general and harm recruitment efforts. In the study, participants described a $100,000 salary range as dishonest, disingenuous and unrealistic. Researchers emphasize that the starting salary has long term consequences. Pay raises, bonuses and career opportunities are often tied to initial compensation, meaning that beginning with a lower salary can affect earnings throughout a person’s career. #PayTransparency #GenderPayGap #WorkplaceEquality #SalaryNegotiation #FutureOfWork

Wrote about some new research from Cornell University's ILR School, which finds female applicants are more likely to be turned off by broad pay ranges. More on what this means for employers' talent acquisition and pay equity strategies: https://lnkd.in/e3-WbGir

My brilliant colleague shared his thoughts about pay transparency in this great article. many years ago, he and I co-authored an article about it too. Yesterday at a women's networking event, I was part of a discussion about what is attracting vs pushing women away in the workplace. Pay transparency is great, but it is just one step in creating workplaces where women want to work. we need to be prepared to look at what's working and what's not in pay structures and then explain them in a way that's easy to understand. I hope more companies start to take that next step. It's about more than transparency or doing the work to create a solid structure.

Pay transparency has made pay ranges more visible. But it hasn’t always made pay decisions easier to explain. I was interviewed for a recent article by Courtney Vinopal for Morning Brew, where she reports on how women avoid jobs with broad pay ranges (https://lnkd.in/gGju9zvA). Broad ranges give organizations room to maneuver. They help manage market variation and evolving roles. But they also increase reliance on judgment. And judgment, without shared standards, doesn’t always play out evenly. This is where many #paytransparency conversations get stuck. The issue isn’t whether a range is posted or shared. It’s how starting pay is set, how movement happens over time, and how consistently managers apply those decisions across employees who look and negotiate differently. The harder question isn’t “are our ranges wide or narrow?” It’s whether leaders can clearly articulate what progress inside the range actually requires. In practice, broad ranges don’t create inequity on their own. They expose it when progression logic is vague and discretion does the heavy lifting. That’s the part of the conversation transparency tends to surface—but not resolve. Resolution requires logic.

Gentle reminder: Not including pay in a job advert, or asking candidates to name their salary expectations, is a direct contributor to pay inequality. Research consistently shows that women underestimate their value and underpitch on salary, where men don't. That gap doesn't close after negotiation either. It compounds and continues over an entire career. For neurodivergent people it's even more complicated. Pay is abstract and many will anchor to their previous salary even if that role was more junior than the one they are currently applying for, as it's all hey have to go off. Or decades of being told they're not quite right for things will have quietly eroded any sense of what they're actually worth. They'll ask for less, and not because they are worth less, but because the world has spent a long time convincing them they are. Ff your business doesn't have fixed pay for fixed roles, here is what you should do: 👉 Give a range 👉 Then have a real conversation at interview, not about what they want, but about your honest assessment of their skills and experience 👉 Check whether you're missing anything they consider relevant. 👉 Be transparent about what people in comparable roles earn. 👉 Be transparent about what the previous post holder earned, and why. Pay transparency is the difference between a workplace that says it values their people properly, and one that actually does.

IrishJobs report shows 17pc gap in pay expectations of men and women The data also shows that men are often more comfortable negotiating a pay rise than their female colleagues. Ahead of International Women’s Day on Sunday (8 March), recruitment platform IrishJobs has released data highlighting issues of pay disparity and unequal expectations between men and women of similar skill in the workplace.  IrishJobs and parent company The Stepstone Group compiled the data using research related to salary and benefit trends from 1.3m job adverts, alongside survey insights from 470 recruiters and 670 candidates in Ireland, as well as using data from the UK and Germany. ...

Wide salary ranges might seem like a step towards transparency, but they can have unintended consequences. An insightful piece from HBR reveals that these broad ranges might actually deter women from applying, potentially widening the very gaps they aim to close. Key takeaway: Transparency is crucial, but the way it's implemented can make all the difference. 🔗 Read more: https://lnkd.in/gewXABjj

Salary ranges seem to have quietly disappeared from job postings lately. Let's talk about it. Pay transparency has a real documented impact: → It reduces the gender pay gap, especially in tech, where women still hold around 30% of roles. → It saves everyone time. When candidates know the salary range up front, conversations can focus on fit, and not finances. → It builds trust. Nobody wants to sit through three rounds of screening to find out that the budget was never close to expectation. → It signals to candidates that the company actually walks-the-talk about equity and inclusion. In most of Canada, California, and many US states, it's the law. Are you seeing fewer ranges in postings lately? Curious if others are noticing the same thing. To the recruiters out there: I know you're navigating constraints that aren't always in your control. When candidates are able to ask without judgement, your response is always appreciated.