Why job titles and salaries aren't all the same

I should probably start with the elephant in the room - if two people are doing the same job but being paid differently due to their gender, that is wrong and companies that do this should be fined with the fines going directly to the people they've underpaid.

What I'm talking about though is when job titles and the salaries on offer differ from company to company and industry to industry, something that a lot of people fail to understand or accept.

I've seen this hundreds of times over the years, with the most common scenario looking like this:

Sam works at a big corporate company as a generic title, lets say Head of Marketing.

They are frustrated by the bureaucracy (I've never spelt that word right the first time FYI), the red tape, the slow pace of getting anything done, the unwillingness to adapt to new technology and feeling like one cog in a massive wheel.

Sam sees roles at startups and applies and then the topic of salary comes up.

"I'm on $250k base + 25% bonus + yearly stock grants, with a car allowance, health insurance and catered lunches everyday you go into the office"

And then this line:

"In order to move, I'm seeking at least a 10% increase"

I'm not against Sam looking for an increase but the math ain't mathing.

The company they currently work for is a $9 Billion dollar company with tens of thousands of employees. The company they are interviewing with just completed a Series A round of $10m.

That startup does not have the same budget as that huge multinational so when you say things like "I want to be paid a fair market rate", which market are you referring to? Because unless it's a role governed by award rates, there is no one market when it comes to most jobs.

Even if we use a less polarising example and you came from a company at the same size and revenue as the next, some industries will pay more or less than the average.

Sports betting, Tobacco, Micro lenders - these are examples of industries that typically pay overs as they can struggle to attract the quality of people they want without doing so.

Others like Not for Profit, Fashion or Gaming may pay less because more people are willing to take less to work in industries where their passion and interests lie. Forgive anyone that finds this insulting but I'm not sure how many people are genuinely passionate about Big Tobacco.

Many companies pay for tools to access market salary data and something I think a lot of people outside of hiring/HR roles may not know is those tools categorise companies and the salary markets. You can run a search to see what ASX listed Heads of Marketing earn vs Series A to B startups and companies will usually benchmark themselves against their own size and stage.

Now we haven't even spoken about the different in role responsibilities for the same title, having recruited mostly for startups I see this often.

Sam's Head of Marketing role oversees a team of 10, reports into a VP and CMO, with counter parts in other offices Globally.

The startup they are interviewing for currently has 1 junior and is hiring this person to build a team but for a while, they are going to have to be very hands and do work that Sam hasn't had to do themselves for years or at all.

Sam sees the job title and apply without really reading the job ad, it's often details like this as why Sam isn't selected for an interview or gets past the first interview. Leading a team of 10 is good for some and totally wrong for the next company.

Sure, life would be easier if job titles were universal and maybe startups shouldn't use Head of Marketing for that hire but you can't revolutionise the entire job market over night and life would also be easier if Tim Tams gave you abs, but life isn't fair.

Now wouldn't life be easier if everyone had to advertise the salaries upfront and save everyone time, so why doesn't everyone just do that?

That's a topic for another day.