Stop Hiding the Salary Range in Job Postings
Within the same week, two recruiting clients asked me not to include the salary range on the job descriptions for senior administrative positions.
Two sophisticated organizations. Two important searches. Two requests to hide one of the most consequential details of the job.
And my professional response to both was, essentially: Not without a very clear warning about what this will do to the search.
I will ultimately follow a client’s direction. They are paying me to recruit for their organization, and the final decision belongs to them.
But I will not pretend that withholding compensation is a harmless preference.
In fact, it’s an outdated practice that creates more work, attracts the wrong candidates, repels some of the right ones, slows down hiring, and starts the relationship with an unnecessary lack of trust.
Salary Is Not a Minor Detail
Salary is one of the primary ways candidates determine the level, viability, and overall seriousness of a position. This is especially true in the administrative profession, where job titles, salaries, and functions are a hot mess.
“Executive Assistant” can describe a $40,000 receptionist-level position, a $90,000 traditional calendar-and-travel role, a strategic partner earning $150,000, or an elite executive business partner earning well over $250,000.
The title alone tells candidates almost nothing.
The salary range helps explain what you’re actually hiring for.
Without both, candidates are left guessing whether the role is truly senior or just “senior-sounding.”
When an organization removes the salary range, it should not be surprised when the applicant pool includes:
People whose experience is significantly below the level required
Candidates whose salary expectations are far above the available budget
Applicants coming from reception, hospitality, customer service, food service, office management, and junior administrative positions
Experienced senior assistants who take one look at the missing salary and move right along
Also, in case no one has mentioned this to you lately: money is important. People cannot pay their mortgage with hope and optimism. We can’t buy an $11 box of strawberries with a “great company culture.”
Life costs money, and pretending otherwise is completely out of touch.
The Job Market Has Moved On, and the Data Proves It
Organizations can continue debating whether candidates “should” care about salary transparency or if “the way we’ve always done it” still works today.
But the candidates have already answered… and they care.
SHRM found that over 80% of U.S. workers are more likely to consider applying for a position when the pay range is listed. LinkedIn found that 91% of respondents said salary information would affect their decision to apply, while 82% said it would give them a more positive impression of the company.
And this isn’t just about candidates saying they prefer transparency. Employers are reporting tangible recruiting results.
Among organizations that publish salary ranges: 70% receive more applicants, 66% see an improvement in applicant quality, and 65% say transparency makes them more competitive for talent. (SHRM)
Indeed also reports that jobs containing salary information receive 31% more application starts per impression.
So before you write salary transparency off as an aspirational ideology, I want to reiterate: this is cold hard recruiting data. It’s what actually works in the market now.
Pay Transparency Is Actually Becoming the Legal Standard
Colorado began requiring compensation information in covered job postings in 2021. Since then, more states, including California, New York, Illinois, Minnesota, New Jersey, Washington, and others, have adopted their own requirements, with additional states and municipalities continuing to expand disclosure rules.
The specific rules vary, but the direction is obvious: publishing compensation is becoming a standard hiring practice.
But even if your organization operates in a state without posting requirements, it’s important to pay attention to where the market is headed. Smart organizations should not wait until the law forces them to behave in a way candidates already expect.
Hiding the Salary Wastes Precious Time
Of the two organizations I mentioned recently recruiting for, one position was a confidential search that would not be publicly advertised.
Which made transparency even more important.
When a search is confidential, I have to contact promising candidates directly. Here is exactly what happens when I privately contact a strong, currently employed senior assistant:
I send the job description via email.
They read it.
Then they immediately email me, “What is the salary?”
I answer in another email.
Then they decide whether they are interested and then we talk about the position.
Notice that removing the number from the document didn’t prevent the conversation—it simply turned what could have been one clear communication into three or four unnecessary emails.
And let’s be honest: What am I supposed to say to an accomplished senior assistant?
“Hi! I have an exciting confidential opportunity that may require you to leave a stable job, change your commute, reconsider your schedule, take on an intense workload, and participate in 2-10 interviews. But I can’t tell you whether it pays enough to support your life.”
No strong candidate is buying that.
Strong candidates know their worth and are not going to rearrange their lives for a mystery salary.
You’re Screening Out the People You Want: Discerning Candidates
Here’s the ironic part: the candidates these organizations want are often the candidates least willing to participate in an opaque hiring process.
If you’re looking for someone who could:
Evaluate information carefully
Assess risks
Exercise sound judgment
Ask thoughtful questions
Make informed, data-based decisions
That exact person is likely to notice when important information is missing.
They will not simply think, “Oh well, I am sure they have a good reason.”
They may instead wonder:
Is the salary below market?
Are they hoping to base the offer on my current compensation?
Will the range change depending on how little I am willing to accept?
Is this what communication and transparency will look like after I am hired?
Why am I being asked to disclose my entire professional history while they withhold the basic economics of the role?
The absence of information is actually information… and not the kind you want a strong candidate to have.
Experienced assistants are professional pattern recognizers. That is part of why they’re good at their jobs.
You Can’t Demand Transparency While Offering None
Most applications require candidates to provide their entire employment history, education, contact information, salary expectations, references, work samples, 3-minute videos, written responses, sometimes multiple assessments, full PowerPoint Presentations, or upwards of 10 interviews.
Employers ask these candidates to explain gaps, transitions, career decisions, compensation expectations, and why they want to leave their current employer.
Then they turn around and say, “We would rather not disclose what the job pays.”
Come on now.
You can’t demand vulnerability, detail, preparation, and honesty from candidates while hiding one of the most important facts affecting their decision.
What Employers Lose When They Hide Pay
When an organization refuses to publish or disclose a salary range, it may lose:
Qualified candidates. Many experienced professionals will not even engage without knowing whether the opportunity is financially viable.
Time. Recruiters and candidates spend additional time exchanging information that could have been provided immediately.
Applicant quality. The organization receives more applications from people who cannot accurately determine whether the role matches their level.
Trust. Candidates may interpret the omission as evasive, disorganized, or intentionally misleading.
Employer-brand credibility. More than four out of five LinkedIn respondents said seeing a range would improve their impression of the company. The reverse should not be ignored.
Leverage with passive candidates. A recruiter cannot effectively persuade a strong, currently employed person to consider an opportunity while refusing to disclose whether the compensation is competitive.
Momentum. Every unnecessary question, email, and delayed decision creates another opportunity for a candidate to disengage.
My Recruiting Policy Is Transparency
My recruiting practice is built around giving candidates enough accurate information to make an informed decision.
Now, that doesn’t mean you have to reveal every confidential detail before the first conversation, but it does mean being honest about the fundamentals:
What the job actually requires
Where and when the person must work
Who the person will support
How demanding the role will be
Whether travel is involved
What the organization can pay
In truth, I would not personally apply for a position without a disclosed salary range.
As such, I advise my coaching clients to be cautious about investing significant time in a hiring process when compensation is withheld.
And I will continue telling my recruiting clients when their decisions are likely to damage the search, even when that feedback is uncomfortable.
They hired me to get them the best results possible, at the best price, in the shortest time frame. And I’m going to be transparent about how they will (or won’t) accomplish that.
Bottom Line: The Salary Comes out Eventually
The only question is whether you disclose it early enough to help candidates make a responsible decision, or force everyone to waste time discovering it later.
Publishing a salary range does not weaken your hiring position.
It screens the applicant pool.
It improves candidate trust.
It strengthens the employer brand.
It makes recruiting more efficient.
It helps protect pay equity.
And, according to the data, it produces more applicants and better applicants.
Candidates expect transparency, and employers who refuse to adapt will lose talent to those who have.
