[FireBeyond]

> otherwise everyone will want the top end of the range, even if (in our opinion) their experience matches closer to the bottom or middle of the range.

My perspective of this, sometimes stated, sometimes not, is that if I'm getting the offer I should at least be in the top 50% of the range.

Why?

How many candidates did you interview, with all their experiences, some more than me, some less than me, but you chose me, which means you saw me as the highest caliber candidate, but you also see me as "closer to the bottom of the range"? Barring other contributing factors, "does not compute".

[cj]

I can’t speak for every company.

As a 12 person engineering team, we really need a strong team lead or someone who we can put on a management track over the next 2-3 years (SWE to Lead to EM to Director to VP). We prefer to promote from within rather than hire those roles directly.

So, the top end of our range for engineering roles right now is reserved for people with management potential because we’re willing to pay a premium for that, but doesn’t mean we will reject good individual contributors.

(This is my last reply on this thread, the debate could go on, e.g. “how do you know if someone has management potential”, etc - hiring and finding a job is an art, not a science, no right answers, nothing is perfect)

[FireBeyond]

Actually, that's a good perspective that I hadn't considered. I can appreciate that.

I can't really find much justification for hiring in the lower third of a band, but I could see what you've said, or middle third being the default, upper third.

I usually don't like the "we prefer to leave room for raises and such", because that's trite - you set the bands, you can adjust them.

(I also get - and have been burned by companies who didn't - the need for a pipeline: not every engineer can be a senior engineer, you need juniors to be able to grow and evolve and be the seniors when those people become EMs etc.)

[jghn]

As an EM I've also had circumstances where the person we're interviewing is borderline between two levels. They rate out as very promising, but really should be leveled at the lower level. However, for a variety of reasons they need to be leveled at the higher level.

And in those cases when it seems worth it, I've offered the higher level at the lower end of the range.

[dbalatero]

Also, do those raises ever come...?

[simoncion]

> We prefer to promote from within rather than hire those [management] roles directly. ... So, the top end of our range for engineering roles right now is reserved for people with management potential...

So, disclose that.

You clearly have two ranges, one for folks who are decent tech folks, and one who are decent tech folks who can (and are willing to) do management.

Disclose both pairs of numbers, along with the caveat that the company is very, very highly unlikely to hire (and pay for) an external management-potential employee.