Titles are incredibly malleable and don't always line up to comp. And situations are almost always complicated by external factors. Not all employers are enormo

Titles are incredibly malleable and don't always line up to comp. And situations are almost always complicated by external factors. Not all employers are enormous Microsofts/Googles either, where there's a line out the door of candidates. E.g. Imagine you have a software business with < 20 total staff. What would you do in this situation: Candidate is interviewed and we think they would be a good fit for the role, say it's a mid level role. We're desperate to fill it as we have xyz project to complete. The candidate has an offer somewhere else that is 15k higher than the usual mid-level title compensation. They say "I'd love to work with you, but money is important to me right now as I'm saving to buy a house". Do you... 1. Offer the standard, lower mid-level amount, lose them to the other offer and allow the business to suffer a larger impact. OR 2. Match the other offer and undermine your "standard compensation based on titles" rule. Either option is problematic and compounded by pay band/published salaries rules. If you overpay them and then can't give them a raise for a while because they were hired above their pay band, then they will be annoyed/offended and may leave. "Sorry we overpaid you when you were hired so no raises for a while until you can progress to the next title" If you overpay them and everyone's salaries are published internally, then their peers will be annoyed and demand the same salary, which your business can't afford. If you don't hire them you are letting a hiring rule affect your broader business strategy and risk missing out on opportunities that would benefit the whole team. This has been my experience. Yes this is quite one dimensional, and money isn't always the driver. But sometimes it is, and I think "standard compensation based on titles" is a one dimensional solution. Open to ideas