[relet]

It is a negotiating problem, and I think that that is an issue (be it gender-related or not). It rewards competitive thinking over cooperative thinking - people who'd rather work in a fair and equal environment are more likely to accept the same salary they perceive others will get - i.e. usually the proposed salary. Competitive minds have less qualms about claiming higher rewards.

Mechanisms like publishing salaries allows for a fairer salary whether you are cooperative or competitive. If you earn more, you probably can justify it in front of colleagues and bosses.

Some say cooperation over competition is a 'female' trait, but personally, I feel the same. I am successful at negotiation, but I'd rather know that my colleagues earn the same when they work the same, which is why I try to encourage talk about salaries.

[golemotron]

We need to get out of this mindset that competitiveness is wrong. Competitiveness is a creative force. It's a way of seeking and incentivizing value.

The problem with open salaries is that it spurs continual second-guessing. And if anyone thinks that open salaries are less susceptible to popularity contests, they're wrong.

Assessing value is hard. We'll always get it wrong somehow. Encouraging people to become better negotiators may be the best way to handle salaries. When people make a case for their value and are rewarded in money for it there is at least an extremely grounded avenue for correction. The company will continually look at whether a person is worth that amount of money.

[kriro]

I think it's not necessarily an edge if you are competitive instead of cooperative when negotiating. Both styles can work at least according to the theories I've read. The problem is of course some people are generally less likely to negotiate and they are the ones that are shafted.

[latch]

Not sure that I buy into the argument that negotiating salary is "competitive thinking". The goal is to reach a compromise that everyone is happy with, which, to me, seems rather cooperative.