My last job had close to that range. There is a hiring range is typically 50-70% of the maximum. Below 50% is the developmental range for laddering underqualified internal hires. Over 70% is for very experienced, overqualified candidates. Generally employers won’t go more than 85% of max because they need a couple years of cushion for salary increases. If they hire at max they know the candidate is going to be back on the market in a year.
It almost seems like it would be better to quote only the range at which they intend to actually hire, rather than dangling the best case maximum you could ever potentially earn at the absolute pinnacle of your tenure in the position. But maybe other smarter-than-me people expect the top number to mean that?
I don’t entirely disagree with you. But the higher range is there to attract those hyper-qualified candidates. If you drop the bottom then candidates feel that you are offering them the bare minimum. There’s kind of no winning here.
My last job had close to that range. There is a hiring range is typically 50-70% of the maximum. Below 50% is the developmental range for laddering underqualified internal hires. Over 70% is for very experienced, overqualified candidates. Generally employers won’t go more than 85% of max because they need a couple years of cushion for salary increases. If they hire at max they know the candidate is going to be back on the market in a year.
It almost seems like it would be better to quote only the range at which they intend to actually hire, rather than dangling the best case maximum you could ever potentially earn at the absolute pinnacle of your tenure in the position. But maybe other smarter-than-me people expect the top number to mean that?
I don’t entirely disagree with you. But the higher range is there to attract those hyper-qualified candidates. If you drop the bottom then candidates feel that you are offering them the bare minimum. There’s kind of no winning here.