[notahacker]

Because if you can afford to stretch your range up to attract an elite candidate you will do.

Explaining to people who are perfectly well qualified for the job including your own existing employees why they're at the bottom of the range is an uncomfortable conversation... much more uncomfortable than explaining why an actually-hired elite candidate whose been given additional responsibilities earns 50% more salary.

[rmc]

> Explaining to people who are perfectly well qualified for the job including your own existing employees why they're at the bottom of the range is an uncomfortable conversation

I would imagine having to explain to your employees why you're underpaying them is a difficult conversation. But the problem is that's the employee's know, the problem is that you're underpaying them.

[notahacker]

Sure. But just because you're more likely to pay a new hire more than your existing staff than less doesn't mean they're underpaid, or indeed not paid comfortably above market rates for their skillset (above-market payers often have the most opaque salary structures)

Most employers able to pay market rate or better would rather attract candidates for a position that are substantially better than their existing employees than substantially worse, so the feasible salary range is naturally skewed upwards even if you pad it at the bottom. Most employees don't think they belong in the bottom half of the salary range for their position, even if they do. Something has to give, and its usually transparency.

[crdoconnor]

This is bull. It's about concealing from the people who are at the bottom of the range who don't deserve it. THAT'S an awkward conversation to have.

[notahacker]

Sure, that's also awkward, but it doesn't alter the reality that many firms are perfectly happy with their existing employees, expect to fill positions with similar calibre candidates, but are prepared to pay a lot more for better.

[crdoconnor]

This isn't particularly awkward.

[s73v3r]

Too bad?