[jshen]

I think we pay very well because when we do find a good person, we offer them enough to get them unless there is some non monetary reason they went with another company. We do not have a problem with people turning down offers, we have a problem with finding enough good people.

Another interesting wrinkle to this is the fact that hiring someone at a high salary is a big gamble. How confident can you really be after interviewing someone?

[PhantomGremlin]

> we have a problem with finding enough good people

I'd love to see one of your job postings. I'd bet at least one of the following is happening:

1) unreasonable academic requirements

2) unreasonably broad list of required previous experience

3) unqualified HR people pre-screening and discarding resumes

You need to be willing to "kiss a lot of frogs", i.e. do phone screens and onsite interviews, of people who might generally be suitable. Then be willing to hire not-quite-perfect candidates who are willing to learn and are willing to work hard.

> How confident can you really be after interviewing someone?

I've seen an increase in contract employment postings. That might be a way to go. Start someone on a six-month contract. You might find some takers. Not everyone is ready to "get married" after a single days worth of job interviews.

[jshen]

The answer to all three questions is no.

[jacalata]

So you're asking people to apply for a job without telling them how much you will pay, and you think that this lack of information shouldn't affect whether they apply? Salary sensitive potential hires might be ruling themselves out at the application stage: for instance my assumption (as a software engineer) would be that if I have no idea what your salary offer will be, then it will be shit - if it's going to be decent then you'd advertise that publicly. Therefore people that actually apply to your company is the subset that either find out your salary beforehand (eg by knowing someone else there) or don't care what salary you offer or I guess there might exist people who think it makes sense to keep good wages secret.

[jshen]

Show me a company that advertises it publicly.

[jacalata]

1. http://open.bufferapp.com/introducing-open-salaries-at-buffe...

2. glassdoor.com

3. my network of people who work at various companies and will tell me what they make.

I'm assuming that you are a small company that doesn't actually show up in either of 2 or 3.

[mehrdada]

If no one is doing it, perhaps it's worth trying?

[jshen]

Perhaps I have an invisible dragon in my garage.

What do you think is more likely, that no one is doing it because it's highly effective or that no one is doing it because it causes problems?

[nostrademons]

The answer to that could very well be "Yes".

I've found that most practices that make for visionary, distinctive companies are both highly effective and cause large problems. For example, Google has a massive shared codebase, does promotion & performance reviews via peer feedback, and shares information very widely inside the company at the expense of being a black box externally. Fog Creek makes all salary data public within the company. Palantir, I've heard, pays all engineers the same (relatively low) salary but doubles down on perks and work environment. Apple under Steve Jobs let the CEO berate any employee over the slightest product detail. Facebook releases new software via IRC chatroom.

All of these practices cause major problems, but they also fix major problems. Moreover, they're distinctive. They draw a certain type of employee, one who's willing to give up convenience in some dimension to gain autonomy, or excellence, or collaboration. It's often better to be differentiated than good.

[jshen]

Could be yes and is likely to be yes are very different things. Since you mentioned fog creek, notice they don't publicly publish their salaries.

[droithomme]

Please state the salary you offer, the location of your company, whether or not you pay full relocation, and the skill set you are looking for.

[jshen]

We have engineers making up to $250k total comp most are in the $150-200 range, we have offices in LA, Palo alto, and NY, we pay relocation of some kind, and we want generalists that are really good.

[chrisbennet]

It sounds like your comp is great - as in truly competitive. That salary range would probably make you standout from the crowd. If only there were some way (short of interviewing and getting an offer) for a possible candidate to know that..

I see salary ranges advertised all the time in the New England area so its not impossible.

Like some else mentioned; when I don't see a salary range I assume it isn't great or maybe they don't want to piss off the current employees that are working for below market rate.

[jshen]

I can't change HR policy, so I can't publish it, but I bet if I did it would cause a lot of headaches. Very few people are worth the top end salary, and most aren't self aware enough to realize it.

[firstOrder]

ExxonMobil brought in $469 billion in revenue last year, on which they made $44 billion in profit. It's not a big gamble for them at all if some programmer who gets $100k, $150k or whatever does not work out.

Of course, some bootstrapped company, or some company which had minimal angel funding or the like is taking more of a gamble, but everything is a gamble when you have no product/market fit and only 18 months or less worth of cash in the bank.

[jshen]

Exxon is in the top ten for revenue, that is not a good example on your part. also, $100k is not a large salary in my book. Doubling it is the sort of gamble I'm talking about.