In the dynamic world of hiring, job postings have evolved from mere listings of roles and responsibilities to comprehensive glimpses into company culture and expectations, if done right.

Among the various elements that companies choose to reveal, one contentious point remains: Whether to include the pay rate in job postings.

This practice, while gaining traction in some circles, sparks debate about transparency, competitiveness and its overall impact on the hiring process. As with most matters, there are valid arguments on both sides of the divide.

The Good: Transparency and equity

Transparency has become a buzzword in the modern workplace, with companies embracing it as a core value. Sharing pay rates in job postings aligns with this principle by providing candidates with clear expectations right from the start. When pay information is provided up front, it ensures that candidates have a realistic understanding of the compensation they can expect. This eliminates the potential for wasted time and effort on both ends, as candidates who find the pay inadequate can self-select out or in of the application process, allowing recruiters to focus on candidates who are genuinely interested.

Moreover, sharing pay rates aligns with the broader goals of promoting pay equity and fairness. Historically, salary disparities have disproportionately affected underrepresented groups. By disclosing pay ranges in job postings, companies signal their commitment to equitable compensation practices. This move can contribute to closing the wage gap and fostering a diverse and inclusive workforce.

In addition, transparency can create a positive reputation for a company. In a world where employee experiences are shared widely on platforms like Glassdoor and social media, companies that are open about compensation are seen as more trustworthy and employee-friendly. This can lead to increased interest from potential candidates who are actively seeking employers that prioritize transparency.

The Bad: Oversimplifies and unintended consequences

While the arguments in favor of sharing pay rates are compelling, there also are drawbacks that warrant consideration. One concern is oversimplification. Job roles can be complex, and the compensation package may include various elements beyond just the base salary, such as bonuses, benefits, stock options and more. Providing a single pay rate might not accurately reflect the entirety of the compensation package, leading candidates to underestimate the true value of the offer.

Furthermore, the act of sharing pay rates can lead to unintended consequences. For instance, candidates might self-select out of the application process solely based on the pay rate, without fully understanding the opportunities for growth, professional development, or the unique aspects of the job that might make it more appealing. This potentially could result in a loss of talented candidates who would have thrived within the company but were deterred by a seemingly uncompetitive pay rate.

Another potential downside is the impact on competitiveness. When companies post pay rates, they are effectively showing their hand to competitors. This could lead to a situation where rival companies adjust their own offers to undercut the posted rates, ultimately driving down compensation across the industry. While this might be beneficial for job seekers in the short term, it could create an environment of wage stagnation in the long run.

Most concerning is companies that commonly do not share pay rates among current employees risk causing morale issues if the new posted pay rates for incoming employees meets or exceeds longer term employees’ current pay rates.

Striking a balance: The middle ground

Given the complexities and implications of sharing pay rates, is there a middle ground that allows for transparency without oversimplification or competitive repercussions? Some companies have adopted a compromise approach. Instead of explicitly stating a specific pay rate, they provide a pay range that reflects the scope of the role and the level of experience expected. This approach offers candidates a ballpark figure while acknowledging the nuanced factors that contribute to compensation decisions.

Furthermore, companies can provide more information about the comprehensive benefits package that accompanies the role. This includes health insurance, retirement plans, stock options, flexible work arrangements and opportunities for professional growth. By highlighting these additional benefits, companies can offer a more holistic view of the value they provide to employees beyond just the paycheck.

While this approach can cause issues with applicants expecting the mid-to-high range of the posted pay rate, it could be the most favorable approach.

The decision to share pay rates in job postings is not one to be taken lightly. It hinges on a delicate balance between transparency and the potential for oversimplification or unintended consequences. While transparency in compensation is a laudable goal, companies must also consider the intricacies of each role and the broader implications for the industry.

As the workforce continues to evolve, the conversation surrounding pay rates in job postings will likely persist. It’s essential for companies to critically assess their approach, considering their values, industry norms, and the needs of their candidates. Ultimately, the goal should be to create a fair, inclusive, and competitive hiring process that attracts the best talent while upholding the integrity of compensation practices.

Tina Hamilton is founder & CEO of myHR Partner Inc., a Lehigh Valley human resources outsourcing firm that manages HR for clients in 41 states across the U.S. She can be reached at

Originally published in the Allentown Morning Call on October 10, 2023