I recently had occasion to look at a job description for an IT contract position. I could recognize a lot of the words, but the way they were put together gave me almost no clue what the company really needs someone to do. So I called a friend who’s pretty far up the IT food chain and read it to him, just in case I was being dim. Neither of our secret decoder rings was up to the task, however, so we could only speculate about what the job might really be—or who could do it well.
This description came from a big company and went through a reputable recruiting agency. In this case, of course, part of the problem relates to the process itself, since in many cases outside recruiters cannot talk to the hiring manager in order to clarify the description and requirements. So if the hiring manager—or whoever wrote the description—is not very good at describing jobs, an HR intermediary may not know the difference, and the mystery document will just get propagated out to the recruiter(s) and passed on to the prospects.
Internal processes can be just as problematic–and when a confusing or inadequate job description makes it onto the Careers site or the job boards, job-seekers are at a considerable disadvantage, since they have nothing else to go by. In these days, when applications are many and keywords often rule, applicants have to figure out how to highlight their qualifications; and that’s tricky when the requirements are not clear.
In the description that prompted this post, I found several common problems, such as:
- Requirements that just say “Understanding of X”. (The spectrum of interpretations that can be applied to “understanding” is broad indeed! Define the word? Know X when you see it? Eat, sleep and breath X?)
- Requirements that seem to be repeating other requirements in different words. (Is there a subtle-but-important distinction? Or just two different authors? Perhaps a careless revision?)
- Requirements that use names in a vague way, and/or acronyms. (Is the requirement referring to ” X the product” or “X the methodology”? Is that unfamiliar acronym a variant, a typo, an internal reference, or just something that hasn’t made it to Wikipedia yet?)
I could go on. But the net result is that candidates for this position will not have a good idea of what’s involved in the job until/unless they get as far as an interview. Therefore they won’t be able to make an informed decision about applying or not. They won’t be able to tailor their resumes appropriately. Et cetera.
And the manager(s) will spend unnecessary time looking for the “right” person, who might not even be found. A lot of misfire hires result from failure to define and describe a job effectively.
People can learn to write better job descriptions, and they should. But in the end, there are two really basic practices that will make a huge difference:
- Use simple sentences.
- Use simple words.
Just following those “simple” rules will eliminate ambiguity most of the time. And don’t take my word for it. Get some good advice from HRDailyAdvisor. (Yes, they’re selling something, but the advice is good anyway.)
(Want your own “decoder ring”? Get it from the Exploratorium.)
Latest posts by Cynthia Giles (see all)
- A Nice Place to Work . . . - January 27, 2011
- Economies of Scale: Small Business Resources for Big Business Ideas - November 8, 2010
- The Global Gender Gap Report - November 3, 2010
- Alphabetical Order: More about the Candidate Experience - October 14, 2010
- The (In)Famous Candidate Experience - October 5, 2010