Are ‘Competitive’ Salaries Losing You Candidates?
A battle has been waging over the last decade between candidates and employers over describing salaries as ‘competitive’. While this popular tactic for those creating job postings delays discussions around wages until later in the job process, this ambiguity around wages is costing organisations potential candidates – and that’s just the start.
It is no secret that the vast majority of candidates loathe finding ‘competitive salary’ on job descriptions. It was named by JobsGoPublic as the most common advert feature deterring jobseekers from roles with 44% of those surveyed being affected – compare the scale of this figure when the next highest were ‘lack of information about the recruitment timeline’ (12%) or ‘Lack of information about how to apply’ (12%) to know it’s a major obstacle at the first encounter with jobs.
It can also be argued that this suggests an employer is open and amenable to negotiation when it comes to salary, which could be seen as a bonus by candidates. However, this can be a risky tactic, given a sizable majority of candidates will be dissuaded from applying at all.
75% of job applicants would be more likely to apply for a role that included a salary range.
As well as putting off candidates, ‘competitive’ salaries could be damaging for your brand in other ways. Read on to learn more about possible ramifications of not disclosing your salary band early.
Competitive Salaries Are Bad for Candidates
With candidate audiences wanting a recruitment process that’s as streamlined as possible, employers get more applications when applying is as simple and painless as possible.
When employers set the salary as just ‘competitive’, this gives candidates the additional burden of defining and negotiating the salary – without guarantee that their basic expectation is in scope for the role before the potentially extensive process of submitting an initial application.
It can also suggest to candidates that they may face questions in interviews about their current or past salary – questions that make 80% of applicants feel uncomfortable or very uncomfortable (The Fawcett Society). 62% of candidates believe they should not be asked this at all, with marginalized groups more affected, such as 73% for Asian and 75% for black candidates.
90% of candidates say that salary history questions are an unfair way to determine someone’s salary.
Descriptions of ‘competitive’ salaries therefore, for many candidates, suggest employers are seeking to not reward them fairly for their work – which, when ‘pay is too low’ is the biggest motivator for candidates to search for a new job (ResumeBuilder), makes ‘competitive salary’ in job descriptions a major red flag for many candidates.
Competitive Salaries Are Bad for Equality
Recent campaigns such as #ShowUsTheMoney led by the National Union of Journalists come after the US, Canada and countries across Europe began mandating greater salary transparency in law.
Why get involved? It’s becoming more recognized that people may have salaries that are not equal to their labour for many reasons, such as being from underrepresented groups that have been historically underpaid, to time off for mental and physical health, or caring responsibilities.
When wages are based off what people were previously paid or determined by negotiation where bias can play a part, the cycle of underpaid labour is perpetuated.
Salary transparency can help break this cycle. A research study in Denmark saw pay transparency legislation close the gender pay gap by 13%, while US states that prevented employers asking about salary history also saw a comparable 13% pay increase for black employees and an 8% pay increase for women, compared to their neighbours without these new laws.
With more discussions around salary transparency at an international level, be ahead of the curve and move to a more transparent salary band approach before it gets written in as compulsory to benefit from more trusting relationships with candidates.
Competitive Salaries Are Bad for Discoverability
What people want to see affects what search engines prioritise. That’s why a ‘competitive’ salary can hamper your candidate search by lowering your search ranking.
Google for Jobs, for example, uses a stringent 23 point criteria when accessing roles for its job aggregation – with a key one of these being the role’s salary. Failure to include these figures will see your posting demoted down the rankings, as posts that state a salary are given priority.
Our research shows that candidate conversion rates can be up to 3 times higher when candidates reach careers sites from Google for Jobs compared to other channels, so those looking to attract top talent ignore the detrimental effect of unoptimised postings at their peril.
Competitive Salaries Are Bad for Your Employer Brand
Another drawback to not revealing your salary expectations as an employer is the perceived lack of transparency. By not disclosing the full remuneration package, candidates can feel that potential employers aren’t being entirely honest with them, and can call into question other aspects of the role as well.
Candidates view salary transparency as the #1 indicator of an employers long-term potential.
Should you stay ‘Competitive’?
While not listing your salary may seem more convenient at an operational level, the detrimental effects on your job posting far outweigh the positive. It might even prove risky to your brand reputation and undermine your organizational diversity, equality and inclusion goals.
Being forthright with your offered salary shows you to be honest and transparent, and helps to boost the search rankings of your job posts – which in turn should increase the amount of high-quality applications you receive.
If you are looking for ways to improve your application rates, or are looking to improve your digital marketing strategy, why not contact us at [email protected], or call us on 01483 719020 to discuss how we can help.
- Topics:
- Ongoing Candidate Attraction