Some thoughts on getting a little creative with your salary range design.
A "classic" salary range for an exempt professional position looks something like this:
Typically anchored at its Midpoint (or Control Point) to the external market value for an incumbent position, it provides a range of salary opportunity from the Minimum (the lowest possible pay rate for someone in the position) to the Maximum (the highest possible pay rate for someone in the position). This range, from its Minimum to its Maximum, reflects a 50% increase in width, which is the norm for exempt professional positions (broadbanding strategies aside).
This is the standard, and most organizations with traditional base salary programs have salary ranges close to, if not identical to, this design (they may be a little narrower for nonexempt/support positions and a little wider for senior management/executive positions). It allows new, developing employees to be hired in (or promoted in) at a rate below the market salary, with the thought that they will be moved closer to the Midpoint (or market) as they gain experience and competence in the role. It also allows for an above market salary - a premium, if you will - for the pay of experienced employees who perform consistenty at a high level over time. And, in the face of the constraints put upon it by today's salary increase budgets, it works reasonably well.
But in today's world of heightened focus on talent management, I would submit that it makes sense to consider whether something other than "classic" salary ranges would better fit your organization's talent plan. Consider the different twists that some employers have made to the classic in order to better align salary ranges with the way they truly staff their positions.
There's the professional services firm whose talent strategy is to hire experienced players with the capability to hit the ground running and little need for on-the-job development. Trying to hire seasoned people at 80% of the going market rate (which is where the Minimum of a "classic" range sits) is not realistic for them. They know that their starting offers can't be much (if at all) below market, given the kind of talent they need to attract. So they created salary ranges that look like the one below, with a shortened bottom end, to mirror their talent strategy.
There's also the asset management firm who places an emphasis on deep client relationships, and who wants to encourage employees to grow within a role long enough to form lasting connections with the people they serve - whether that be as a Relationship Manager or a Wire Transfer Clerk. These relationships and connections are valuable enough to pay premium levels to long-term employees - even over the 20% premium represented by the Maximum of a "classic" salary range. So they created salary ranges that looked like the following, with an extended upper end, to reflect their talent management objectives.
Or, as a final example, the technology company whose staffing approach is to bring relatively inexperienced, but promising talent and give them big jobs to grow into. With this talent management approach, they want to hire low but provide room to grow salaries along with capability. They created salary ranges with an extended lower end (coupled with an aggressive increase policy for employees in this "developing zone", as shown below.
You get the picture. Of course, a key element of success with "customized" ranges like the ones illustrated above is thoughtful oversight and maintenance. Talent management strategies are dynamic things, forced to change periodically either because of conditions in the external labor market or internal priorities and needs - or both. A "customized" salary range approach that has outlived the talent strategy it was designed to support can produce negative repercussions.