By Leigh-Ann Athanasius
Salary transparency has moved from hushed conversations around the office to mainstream professional debates with people being actively encouraged to discuss their pay. The aim usually is to hold companies accountable. Some regions are even introducing laws that require salary ranges to be listed on job postings. So, where it is not a legal requirement, the burning question for candidates and companies is, should salary ranges be disclosed when advertising job vacancies?
The candidate’s perspective
From an employee’s perspective, when companies hide salary ranges, they introduce uncertainty and frustration into the job-hunting process. Candidates are not negotiating for the thrill of it; they are assessing their financial future and making decisions that directly affect their families, lifestyles, and long-term plans. Salary is not just a number it represents security, stability, and recognition of skills.
A common candidate sentiment around salary transparency is that employers are simply wasting time when candidates could reject the positions once they find out what salary is on offer. After several rounds of interviews, skills assessments, and cultural fit evaluations, the process may collapse in a single conversation about pay. Candidates often walk away disappointed, while employers have to restart the search, losing valuable time and resources. This cycle not only impacts efficiency but also leaves a negative impression of the company in the job market.
Without a salary range, candidates may invest weeks of effort only to discover that the offer falls far below their expectations or needs. It’s less about demanding the highest possible number and more about knowing what’s on the table before they invest their energy. For employees, publishing pay ranges is seen as a basic courtesy.
The employer’s perspective
From the employer side, the issue is a little more complex. HR teams often work under pressure to manage costs, fill roles quickly, and maintain company reputation in a competitive talent market. Additionally, they are tasked with identifying the right talent at the right cost.
The main concern employers often raise is that publishing salary ranges may limit their opportunities in the talent market. If a company discloses the salary range for a role, some candidates may dismiss the opportunity, meaning the company could lose out on a talented individual based on a surface level detail. Hiring teams aren’t always clear on what potential candidates are out there and the recruitment process can present the team with talent that, under the right conditions, the budget could be stretched for. Additionally, candidates might dismiss a company with lower base pay, but considerable factors such as a flexible work culture, career growth, or benefits, which are sometimes difficult to articulate in a job description. Transparency, in this sense, risks oversimplifying a process that is inherently nuanced.
The other side of this concern is the possibility that the company may be flooded with applications because of the salary listed, even though candidates are not qualified for the role at any compensation level. ATS’ have, for the most part, eliminated this problem; but they are imperfect and can still be frustrating for the recruitment team when sifting through CVs that are unlikely to be suitable, further slowing down the recruitment process.
There is also the very real issue of internal satisfaction and brand perception. If salaries are openly disclosed across industries, internally, employees might also begin comparing pay across departments or regions, creating dissatisfaction even when their compensation is fair within their specific context. For employers, this raises the questions: does transparency strengthen the employer brand by signalling fairness, or does it unintentionally damage it by exposing pay gaps across the market?
What’s the middle ground?
The debate around salary transparency ultimately highlights a shared goal between employees and employers. Both are looking for efficiency, fairness, and trust in the hiring process. While employees see transparency as a baseline courtesy that saves time and demonstrates respect, employers weigh it against budget constraints, internal dynamics, and brand positioning. Both perspectives are valid, and this shows why there is a continuous push-and-pull around the salary transparency conversation.
Pay transparency doesn’t have to be an all-or-nothing policy. Some companies opt to publish broad salary bands that indicate a role’s potential range without committing to a fixed figure for every candidate. This is usually given with the context that experience level and other qualifications contribute to the given range.
A good option would be to include information about benefits, performance expectations, and career progression opportunities in addition to the salary information. Providing context alongside the numbers shifts the conversation away from a single figure and toward the broader value of working with the organisation. Some candidates may be willing to accept lower than their expected salary if there are benefits that they deem high enough to offset that difference. Thus, being transparent with the diversity of the compensation package could work in the employer’s favour.
This approach offers the employer flexibility while still showing fairness and respect for candidates’ time. It also reframes the compensation discussion from “what’s the number?” to “here’s the value we place on this role and how you can grow within it.”
Why this is important
Global shifts in labour laws, increased competition for talent, and general expectations for openness, mean the transparency conversations is not going away any time soon. Ultimately, the future may lie in smarter transparency practices. Provide enough clarity to help candidates make informed choices yet have enough discretion to let employers balance budgets and brand.
