When the Best Candidate Isn’t Within the Posted Budget
By Lyn Kleinbach-Reilly, Founder, The Kleinbach Group
Salary transparency solved one problem. It may have created another.
For years, candidates complained that companies wouldn’t tell them what a job paid. Fair enough. Nobody wants to go through three interviews only to discover the compensation would never be acceptable.
And the market has clearly moved toward transparency. Robert Half found that 42% of workers expect to see a salary range in a job posting, and 57% would remove themselves from consideration if an employer refused to provide one when asked. Among large employers, the shift is even more pronounced. Robert Half’s 2027 Salary Guide research found that 95% of enterprise employers include salary ranges in job postings or plan to, and 67% are going beyond what the law requires.
So yes, I believe in salary transparency. But recruiting has taught me something else.
When the Right Person Costs More
A job may have a salary range. People don’t. Two people can technically qualify for exactly the same position and bring completely different value to the company.
Let’s say a company believes a commercial leadership position should pay $150,000 to $175,000. Perfectly reasonable. Then we start recruiting.
We find someone who has already built the exact business the company is trying to build. They know the customers. They understand the technology. They have relationships the company has spent years trying to develop. They have repeatedly produced results. They’re also very successful where they are and weren’t looking for another job in the first place.
It will take $195,000 to move them. Now what?
That’s where a salary range can stop being information and start becoming an anchor. Do we walk away from an exceptional candidate because the number published before we ever met them said $175,000? Maybe. Budgets are real. Internal equity is real. And sometimes $175,000 really is the maximum. But sometimes the conversation should be: Is this person worth more?
That isn’t an argument against transparency. It’s an argument against pretending compensation is more precise than it really is. Robert Half’s own compensation methodology recognizes this. Starting compensation can vary significantly based on skills, experience, certifications, industry, company size, revenue and demand for the role. In other words, the market value of the job and the value of the individual aren’t always exactly the same thing.
The Trouble With Enormous Ranges
There’s another problem. Some companies have responded to salary transparency by publishing enormous ranges: $100,000–$200,000. Technically transparent. Practically, what did we learn?
New research published in the Journal of Applied Psychology examined nearly 10 million U.S. job postings and found substantial variation in posted pay ranges. The researchers also found that the width of the range itself can affect whether people apply and how they negotiate. Providing additional information about the typical starting salary and how the final offer is determined reduced some of that uncertainty.
What Real Transparency Looks Like
That may be where companies need to go next. Don’t just publish a number. Explain it.
What does the range represent? What typically puts someone toward the lower end? What experience would justify the upper end? Is there flexibility for an extraordinary candidate? Are bonus, equity or other incentives part of the compensation?
That’s real transparency. Because transparency shouldn’t mean pretending every candidate is worth the same amount. It should mean being honest about how the company determines what someone is worth.
Where Recruiters Come In
And recruiters have a responsibility here too. If the range is unrealistic, say it before the search starts. If the market keeps producing qualified people above it, bring that information back to the client. If an extraordinary candidate changes the economics of the search, have that conversation. And if the budget truly cannot move, tell the candidate.
No games. No getting someone through five interviews hoping they’ll suddenly accept less money.
The salary range should start the compensation conversation. It shouldn’t replace it. Because sooner or later every company recruiting exceptional talent is going to face this question:
What happens when the best person for the job isn’t within the budget you posted?
Sources: Robert Half, 2024 and 2027 Salary Guide research; Lee, Park and Chang, “The Implications of Pay Range Transparency on Job Application Preferences and Negotiations,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 2026.
1 Comment