As someone in recruiting and hiring, I love the concept of salary transparency on many levels, and I hope more companies at least make attempts like this to provide insight.
That said, salary ranges and transparency can create two obvious issues.
1. Negotiations - I can tell you from vast past experience that when you tell an applicant "the salary range for this position is 80-100K", in almost every case any offer below 100K is considered a slight regardless of the experience of the candidate. "...but I thought you said the position paid 100K?" is a common thing to hear. Candidates hear the top of the range, and apply/interview with that expectation.
This is only an issue when a candidate's true market rate is at the bottom of a range. A minimally qualified candidate doesn't typically see himself/herself as 'minimally qualified'. So even if 80K is true fair market rate for this candidate, and 80K is offered, the offer still has a good chance of being rejected simply because of the emotional attachment to the higher number and the feeling of "leaving money on the table".
2. Internal employees - Stack Overflow said this has been available internally for a bit, but when employees find out what others are making they are inclined to compare their own efforts/abilities vs others. It can lead to people either asking for raises to match their co-workers, or perhaps feeling slighted and seeking other employers.
Being that it's not easy to truly measure productivity in most environments - other than perhaps consulting (billable hours) this is likely to cause issues. The next step is being prepared for how to handle those issues when they arise.
That said, salary ranges and transparency can create two obvious issues.
1. Negotiations - I can tell you from vast past experience that when you tell an applicant "the salary range for this position is 80-100K", in almost every case any offer below 100K is considered a slight regardless of the experience of the candidate. "...but I thought you said the position paid 100K?" is a common thing to hear. Candidates hear the top of the range, and apply/interview with that expectation.
This is only an issue when a candidate's true market rate is at the bottom of a range. A minimally qualified candidate doesn't typically see himself/herself as 'minimally qualified'. So even if 80K is true fair market rate for this candidate, and 80K is offered, the offer still has a good chance of being rejected simply because of the emotional attachment to the higher number and the feeling of "leaving money on the table".
2. Internal employees - Stack Overflow said this has been available internally for a bit, but when employees find out what others are making they are inclined to compare their own efforts/abilities vs others. It can lead to people either asking for raises to match their co-workers, or perhaps feeling slighted and seeking other employers.
Being that it's not easy to truly measure productivity in most environments - other than perhaps consulting (billable hours) this is likely to cause issues. The next step is being prepared for how to handle those issues when they arise.