 KHS People has previously covered the salary history bans, along with the debate highlights and the impact on hiring managers. It's timely for a further review as there is now an added step of compulsory salary disclosure in some cities and States. First, below is a table of the updated various States and cities impacted by region. Note that this table only includes established bans that impact professional services firms. FIGURE 1: Salary history ban laws in effect Secondly, below are the areas that now have salary range disclosure laws in effect. This means that firms must provide the salary range for the role to the applicant. Some areas have conditions, or quirks, to note about this request. The biggest region to be included to date is New York City, which is expected to come into effect later this year. FIGURE 2: Salary range disclosure laws in effect Welcome!The inaugural KHS People Salary Survey for legal marketing professionals was conducted during June and July 2021. 405 respondents provided their input. The purpose of the KHS People Salary Survey was to capture important data to help educate and drive our industry forward by ensuring there is transparency and equality. A summary of the results will be available to everyone. Specific, curated data will be provided upon request. The survey questions Each respondent answered these eight simple questions:
It was a requirement to answer each question, and each question had a multiple choice format to ensure accurate and clean data at the conclusion of the survey. AnnotationsThe sheer volumeEight simple questions multiplied by 405 people produced a wonderful plethora of data. This data is expansive and can be viewed from different angles, depending on your purpose. When looking at the data points relevant to you, keep in mind that they are accurate snapshots of salaries at this moment in time. For some, the data may be validating. For others, the data may be surprising or even disappointing. Remember that this data is a guide only. Voluminous data can be viewed differently by different people. It is possible for each person to have a different interpretation; there will be context for each interpretation. This is perhaps both the best and worst thing about salary surveys. The "lagging effect"As this data is an accurate snapshot of salaries at this moment in time, know that this means it does not give you data as to what may be achieved if one were considering a move to a different role at a different firm. We're calling this the “lagging effect”. What is - and is not - providedGiven the volume of data, decisions need to be made how best to present this data for the majority. The KHS People Salary Survey reveals the median salaries. This means that the data is not skewed by especially high or low salaries. For this reason, the median is typically seen as a more neutral data point; it can't be pulled higher or lower (unlike an average). The higher and lower ends of each range are not shown. This decision was the hardest one to make when presenting the data points. Ultimately, while helpful to some, these more extreme data points are simply too open to interpretation without the proper surrounding context. We are happy to provide this context and these data points to any person who wishes to see this. We have said from the start that a summary of the results will be available to everyone and, specific, curated data will be provided upon request. Let us know what specific need you have. Round numbersTo ensure accurate and clean data, the survey questions relating to salary and bonus asked for a number range by way of an answer. These ranges were very small so they would not impact the quality of data. For example, the majority of the salary ranges provided were in ranges of $2,500 each (such as: $100,001-$102,500 and $102,501-$105,001). Therefore, where you see data points ending in “001” or “501”, this is the reason. AnonymityWhere it seems to us that revealing a particular data point will jeopardize anonymity, this data point has not been revealed. As a general rule, we applied the “less than three respondents test”. That is, if there were less than three respondents on a particular data point, it would not be shown in order to protect the confidential information and identity of the respondents. This piece is of the utmost importance. And - given this - not every single data point is available. CitiesThe responses span 33 different cities. The bigger cities naturally attract the bigger number of responses. The smaller cities naturally attract a smaller number of responses. In this context, we reiterate our comments above: where a data point in a smaller city may jeopardize the anonymity of the respondents, it has not been provided. Please reach out to us with your specific request if this applies to you. We will provide some general salary information and greater context to assist you. FeedbackWe sincerely appreciate the CMOs and Directors who gave their feedback on the initial points of this survey. Your independent and wise comments helped guide this end result, and for that we express our heartfelt thanks and genuine gratitude. We also wish to encourage legal marketers to reach out to offer their feedback on this final product. The KHS People Salary Survey will be run each year, and hearing from you as what was helpful, what wasn’t helpful, and your thoughts on tweaks going forward to continue to provide rich and quality data is a very important part of this process. We will always value your feedback: kate@khspeople.com Data by title & firm sizeFIGURE 1: CMO & Director FIGURE 2: Managers FIGURE 3: Pre-Manager Data by title onlyFIGURE 4: Title only Specific city dataYour specific city
Additional qualificationsFIGURE 5: Additional qualifications GenderFIGURE 6: Gender RaceFIGURE 7: Race What else do you need?
Thank youThis data would not have been possible without youWe thank the 405 respondents who provided their data to make this survey relevant and rich.
We appreciate you. Thank you.  KHS People has previously covered the salary history bans, along with the debate highlights and the impact on hiring managers. With 2021 well under way, its timely for a further review. Below is a table of the various States and cities impacted by region. (Note that this table only includes established bans that impact professional services firms.)  (This piece was first published in the Association for Accounting Marketing's 'AAM Minute' on September 24, 2020: https://bit.ly/335Jvu0)
The compensation structures for the Business Development Executive (BDE) in an accounting firm is widely varied. For context, a BDE is typically a senior and experienced client-facing professional, tasked with growing revenue at their firms. The compensation structure variations are, generally speaking, most easily defined by looking at the relative firm size. Alongside these generalizations, the top influencing factors can also be analyzed and understood. The following table outlines a formula for determining a compensation structure for a BDE based on three things: experience in conducting executive searches, experience in negotiating compensation structures, and anecdotal evidence. See this table to help determine compensation structure. When determining compensation, it is important to remember that there are exceptions to every rule, with some individuals having vastly different experiences. These exceptions should be balanced against the generalizations and best practices when creating compensation structures for Business Development Executives. Hiring managers of BD and marketing professionals, what do the salary history bans mean for you?5/30/2019
(For updates on which States and cities are impacted as at the time of reading this article, please visit this blog for the most up-to-date information: Salary history bans in 2021.)
If you’re a hiring manager in a firm, what does that mean for you with the numerous cities and states that are now impacted by the new salary history bans? Below I set out the three key things you must do as a hiring manager to ensure compliance with the new laws. But first, know which new geographies have been recently added to the list: Kansas City, Washington state, Colorado and Maine. Here is a list of the affected geographies for firms: 2017:
2018:
2019:
2020:
2021:
An important note: the following geographies currently only affect city or state employers. So, not firms. However, precedent would suggest that best practices should be followed as if it did impact your firm; over time similar bans could also be enacted which will impact more than just city or state employees: 2017:
2018:
2019:
As a hiring manager, here’s what you need to do:
Your firm leadership should be standing on the right side of this issue. Your clients and prospective employees will care. Get on the front foot to establish yourself as an employer who is actively addressing these issues. (NOTE: This article is not to be taken as legal advice. The author is not a practicing attorney, nor does the author purport to be. For any legal question or issue related to these topics in your state or city, you should seek advice from a practicing attorney.) (For updates on which States and cities are impacted as at the time of reading this article, please visit this blog for the most up-to-date information: Salary history bans in 2021.)
Unequal pay between men and women exists: it’s been widely reported that women earn around 80% of what men earn. One issue contributing to this is a lagging effect. Offers that are based on what salaries are currently being paid, which for women can be around 20% less than men, perpetuates the status quo. Numerous states, cities and counties in the US are trying to address this issue by enacting new laws and regulations to address what questions employers can ask around salary and salary history. By doing this, the hope is that people are offered salaries that accurately reflect their experience and skill set in their market. This affects professional services firms because as laws have changed, and are still scheduled to change, this will affect the hiring practices within firms, written or otherwise. These new laws prohibit hiring practices which ask a potential candidate about their salary or salary history. Firms would be prudent to take a stand on this issue early. First, to get ahead of compliance, and secondly, to impress potential candidates through their proactivity to be on the right side of these discussions. We are having many conversations with firms on this topic to help ensure both compliance and best practice going forward. Current status on law’s affecting the question of ‘how much did you make last year’ Some states, cities and counties have specifically banned questions on ‘how much did you make last year’. Here is a list in order of the date the bans or prohibitions were enacted: 2017:
2018:
2019:
2020
2021
Bans or prohibitions not affecting the private sector Other states and cities have some form of salary history ban, but as of yet they do not affect employees in the private sector: 2017:
2018:
2019:
As an employer located in a banned state or city, what is prohibited
Debate highlights Some employers have argued that a candidate’s current salary is an indicator of their market worth. Other employers feel ill-informed without a current salary read because they use that salary as an indicator when offering a new salary for the role they’re recruiting for. But these new laws prohibit that exact practice, as it perpetuates the gender pay gap (and other discriminatory practices). Experienced HR professionals and search professionals will already know good salary ranges for the role they are recruiting for. If employers don’t know this, that’s an area where search professionals can show their value. A salary is rarely an indicator of worth. Salaries are more often than not a reflection of the prior employer’s pay policies and attitudes relating to their employees. And employers can have outdated or behind-market salary ranges that they try to retroactively apply, particularly if they haven’t gone to market for some time. And, as we’re seeing, one effect of this is that it can disadvantage some women and other groups in the workforce. On the candidate side, they are often reluctant to reveal their salaries. It is highly sensitive and personal information that – if they don’t have a rapport with the firm or recruiter they’re working with – they don’t yet know or trust what is to happen with that information. Whilst recruiters and HR professionals might be used to dealing with salary information on a daily basis, it shouldn’t be lost on them as to how candidates can feel about talking about salary generally. Going forward Going forward, firms need to develop better and different strategies for finding the right candidates for the right roles, and in turn paying them the right package. Firms can use interviewing techniques or specific-issue reference checking to test a candidate’s experience, skill set, knowledge and individual value. These methods don’t rely on salary and therefore don’t go up against these now prohibited questions on salary. High value search and recruiting partners differentiate themselves by using these techniques, and don’t rely on prior salary as a short-cut. Firms should ask questions around salary expectation. Firms should know, either through their experienced HR professionals or their search and recruiting partners, whether those expectations are realistic. (If they’re not, that is a different conversation.) If a candidate’s salary expectation does not align with a salary range for a role at a firm, then that role the candidate and firm are discussing together is not going to be the right fit for both at that time. And that discussion is fine to have. But a firm can’t use salary history or data to formulate an offer. A national firm would be wise to have only one policy across their firm which deals with their hiring policies to comply with the salary ban laws, as these new laws are simply the first of many. Savvy firms should draft a policy based on the strictest interpretation, and apply that across all offices to avoid a complicated state-by-state approach down the road. Taking a fair and modern approach will become a selling point for your firm. Your clients, your employees and your potential employees should know about this. Where does your firm stand on this greater issue These new laws go to the heart of a very important discussion in our society. This affects both women and men. Your firm leadership should establish where they stand on this issue on principle, and beyond that which is currently required by law. Your clients, your employees, and potential employees, will all appreciate you being prudent and aligning yourself on the right side of the discussion. Enjoy the discussions. We are in exciting times. (NOTE: This article is not to be taken as legal advice. The author is not a practicing attorney, nor does the author purport to be. For any legal question or issue related to these topics in your state or city, you should seek advice from a practicing attorney.) |
AuthorKate Harry Shipham is the Principal of KHS People LLC, an executive search firm for BD and marketing people in professional services firms. Kate has done search and recruiting for 10 years and prior to that was an attorney. She loves what she does, and is always open to continuing the discussion: kate@khspeople.com Categories
All
Archives
October 2022
|
RSS Feed