Competitive salary???

[MrsWhirling]

What does it mean if a job advert doesn't give a figure for the salary, but just says 'competitive' instead?

It usually means it's nothing of the kind. Job ads are designed to attract candidates therefore they include the most attractive aspects of the job.

If the salary they were planning to offer was attractive, it would be included, either exactly or in the form of an approximate range.

There are exceptions to this but generally that's the case.

I always think, 'Competitive for whom?' For the potential employee (i.e. comparable with the best for the industry) or low to allow the employer to compete in the industry? Being an old cynic, I would have every expectation that it would be the latter.

It is a device to lure applicants.

Thanks all, I won't bother applying!

Job I went for recently said competitive salary.

€200 a month less than I am getting now, less holidays, longer commute, no bonuses, no health insurance and had to work on public holidays. I nearly took it even so.

Was my dream job but I heard some not so good things about the company so I declined it.

It doesn't automatically mean it's not a good salary, especially if it's a more senior position.

The description is often used as shorthand when either the company dont want to make a public disclosure as to their salaries, or the range would be very broad depending on experience.

E.g for a role we currently filled in my organisation we had x figure in mind and were willing to pay up to 50% more for the right candidate. Advertising such a large salary band would have been odd. So we didn't.

Well, as I have recently advertised a role on Mumsnet Jobs with the exact term I can categorically say it is NOT because it's a poor salary.

We are happy to pay market rate for the role, and we have excellent holidays, very generous pension, free medical coverage, flexible working, gym subsidy, childcare vouchers.....

The reason we don't put the salary is because jobs here are graded. People know the salaries linked to the grades if they are internal but we don't want to put an actual salary as we tend to keep salaries unpublicised. There are other internal people who have similar roles who may want to apply, they are welcome to come and see me and ask about the salary, and external candidates can email and ask. Those going through an agent will be told the range.

But it's not because it's a low salary. To some extent, for this role, we don't really know what to pay so we need to test the market and see what applicants we get and what they are looking for.

It's a shame if that puts people off and would suggest people should rethink that strategy.

I don't think it necessarily means anything, but I would consider flagging my current salary at an early stage (usually with an HR type person rather than the recruiting manager) so they were aware of expectations against what they could offer.

I have worked in recruitment and hr for both agencies and a few different organizations and I can assure you it doesn't mean it's not worth applying. Generally, as the poster says above, it's because salary bandings are usually more flexible than you might think - the exception being the public sector- and the salary offered will often depend on how strong you are as a candidate and how much experience you have as compared to the rest of the team. I would urge you to do your research into what you think a fair market rate for the role actually is so you can make sure you don't get paid as per your last salary but what you could actually get elsewhere.

Agree with others, it's a full-of-hot-air phrase. But it can also mean negotiable salary; you make the case what you're worth.

"It's a shame if that puts people off and would suggest people should rethink that strategy."

Yes I think rethinking that advertising strategy would be sensible. You are giving the impression that the salary isn't particularly attractive, and if you are happy (as you say you are) to share a range with both internal and external candidates, there's surely no reason not to put that range on the ad.

Employers who are so cagey about salaries that they won't even give an approximate range in a job ad are giving the impression that either salaries are poor, or that there is a complete lack of transparency (and therefore potentially fairness) in pay within the organisation.

Neither of those things may be true, but that will be the impression given.

It doesn't necessarily mean the salary isn't good - it's a phrase that's used for a number of reasons in my experience (ex-recruiter!);

People are often put off and won't apply if the salary range advertised is significantly higher than their expectation even if they have the correct skills. Believe me it does happen!

Companies may have a policy not to advertise salary bands in adverts as current employees may be paid less - i.e. I work for a global company and our salary bandings are confidential and by that I mean that staff don't know what they are (crazy I know!) Therefore if the salary banding is revealed in an external advert it would cause chaos internally.

The company need someone for the role and they have an idea of what they want to pay BUT getting the right person is the key factor -they don't want to put anyone off applying by capping the upper limit they are willing to pay incase it puts a good candidate off.

My experience is only in recruiting for senior roles though (think £100k +) so this may not ring true in lower paid roles.

"Yes I think rethinking that advertising strategy would be sensible. You are giving the impression that the salary isn't particularly attractive,"

Only to negative people who we don't want to employ anyway, thanks.

"People are often put off and won't apply if the salary range advertised is significantly higher than their expectation even if they have the correct skills. Believe me it does happen! "

Quite (or lower, but you might be able to pay more but it's hard to explain all that in a job ad). If the range is huge, or you don't even know what the range is, there's now way you can put it in an ad. If you put a range I guarantee everyone who applies thinks they are at the top of that range, and they are not.

If you're not sure what the salary is/needs to be, you ask people what they are expecting and then make a decision based on that and the skills and experience.

We've certainly had no problem attracting people and I know I have applied for jobs with that phrase so it must only be a certain type of person who allows it to influence them negatively.

No, I can assure you it's not just "negative" people who will form an unfavourable impression. Experienced people, and people who are keen to work for a company which prioritises fairness, transparency and equality in pay, will do the same.

Being very cagey about salary gives the impression that you'll pay as little as you can get away with, and also gives the impression that salaries in the organisation are decided that way - on an individual, how-low-can-we go/how-hard-do-they-negotiate basis.

"Asking people what they are expecting" as a strategy for deciding salary is really bad practice, and is one of the things that leads to inequality of pay between men and women. It's well-known (and evidenced) that men will oversell themselves and will ask for more, and negotiate harder, while women won't do so. And voila, we have a pay gap.

But each to their own. Do what works for you. You've been advised about the impression you are giving and only you can decide whether that's important to you or not.

Speaking as an excellent employee and someone who is very good at my job, I make it a point not to apply for anything saying 'competitive salary'. Wouldn't want to work for an employer who didn't mind potentially inconveniencing applicants, which you are when you refuse to put the information in the advert, for such a silly reason as 'we tend to keep salaries unpublicised'. Doing something because that's the way we've always done it is a bad sign. As is keeping staff in the dark about pay brackets!

If I never applied for anything offering a "competitive salary", I wouldn't have anything to apply for in my field. It's pretty much standard in IT, at least private sector. (Though my skill set and job role means I can do the same thing in both private and public sector, I won't be applying for public sector roles again (unless I am unemployed and desperate), because they simply do not pay as much as the private sector - and public sector jobs do tend to give a salary in job ads.)

So for me, it usually indicates that it could be a well-paid job. You do have to negotiate, though, and that's not always easy. (There's been quite a lot written on women working in technology and how negotiating salaries tends to work against them.)

I'm assuming that with changing rules on publishing salaries (for companies over 250 employees, is it?) - that will change things, and most job ads will end up publishing a salary. But then, as people in larger companies will know more about what salaries are within their company, there wouldn't be much to gain in just putting "competitive salary" as the data would be available anyway, and you won't get people being brought in on massively higher salaries than their peers just to attract them in and things like that.

Agree with Ebearhug

I've been headhunted for jobs where there is no disclosure of salary during the recruitment process - it is a given that if successful you'll get an an uplift on existing salary (15-20%) how much more you get is then a matter of negotiation.

I've just recruited for my team and existing salaries of candidates varied by almost 100%. I would not have offered the role to the person paid least with a 120% increase.

A salary is not fixed for the role it it is offered commensurate with experience and background

"It is a given that if successful you'll get an an uplift on existing salary (15-20%) how much more you get is then a matter of negotiation."

The trouble is that kind of practice disadvantages women and is a significant reason for pay inequality. I realise that unfortunately in some sectors this practice is widespread so candidates may not be able to avoid it, but otherwise it's not at appealing imo.

The trouble is that kind of practice disadvantages women and is a significant reason for pay inequality.

Totally agree with this - but as you say, it is currently very difficult to avoid in some sectors.

I can imagine it is. I'm fortunate to be able to take a stand, and avoid employers who engage in practices that they must know will disadvantage women.

I definitely wouldn't apply for a job with a "competitive" salary. It's relative - if it's truly likely to be better than average then say so.

It's a big deal knowing the salary because you need to know if you can still afford the mortgage etc. Why be secretive? In my opinion it's a pointless hurdle and when I rule the world it will be another thing that I don't allow

I'm sure non disclosure contributes to pay inequality but I'm not convinced it does so "significantly" especially at the top end on the market where the phrase is most commonly used.

If I take the position I recently filled I'd have paid what was necessary to secure the right candidate. Until you start the recruitment process it's difficult to ascertain who the right candidate is and where in the market they sit.

I have just declined An interview where the add said 'competitive salary' got interview details and they attached the oh so competitive salary. If competitive means taking a 12k pay cut (identical job just different organisation) then they are quite frankly deluded. I wish they'd just have said in the ad cos I wouldn't have wasted mine or their time applying

"I'm sure non disclosure contributes to pay inequality but I'm not convinced it does so "significantly" especially at the top end on the market where the phrase is most commonly used."

It's not just not putting a salary range on an ad though, it's the practice of having salaries secretive and all negotiated on an individual basis in an organisation or sector that contributes (imo) significantly to inequality in pay between men and women. Women undersell themselves, don't negotiate as hard, don't lie about existing salary in recruitment (which men are more likely to do), are more likely to be put off applying in the first place and less likely to ask for a pay rise when in post.

Multiply that over a whole sector over a number of years and including recruitment and salary reviews for existing staff, and the effect of that kind of reward culture becomes much more significant.

I'm not sure whether the practice of putting £competitive or £attractive is more commonly used in highly paid positions. I do think though, that in lower paid positions where it's used, the problem is likely to be that the salary actually isn't "competitive " at all. Whereas when those phrases are used in highly paid positions, the problem is more likely to be an equality issue.

While i understand the theory about women in general having a history of being disadvantaged in this model, I'm not sure the solution is make salaries more inflexible. That could easily entrench the disadvantage.

How about supporting and encouraging us to understand the thinking, as explained in this thread and encourage women to be prepared, apply for and negotiate a great salary package? It's what i have done and am very glad to have been supported in this strategy, by other women. I would love the pass on this to the next generation.

Sorry, came on here to say that I entirely agreed with Bearhug upthread, too.