Thanks so much for the interesting follow-up, Meg. Improving job descriptions is one of the most cost-effective ways to improve the hiring process–but a lot of companies seem to overlook this low-hanging fruit! I’ve been doing some research on new approaches (such as interactive descriptions) and plan a post on the topic soon. Also, you raise a very good point about “vetting.” I think we tend to consider web presence mainly as a selling opportunity, and forget that it’s also a way to ensure the availability of accurate information.

I’m so glad you mentioned the need for informative job descriptions. On the candidates’ side, when I collaborate with my executive clients to create their resumes and other career marketing communications, we often rely on job descriptions to help us focus and target.

Everyone loses if job descriptions are vague and spare.

If my clients and I don’t know what the companies that she/he is deeply interested in want, how can we align my clients’ expertise and competencies to show what a good fit they’ll be for the company? We strive to make it as easy as possible for hiring decision makers to see the promise of value my clients offer and to differentiate their unique value proposition from their peers.

As far as getting candidates up to snuff with LinkedIn and other social networking sites, I’m doing my best to get my clients to move from being invisible to companies, to having a strong online footprint so that accurate, on-brand information about them is easily accessible to anyone vetting them.

Hopefully, sometime soon, and with education and perseverance, our efforts will converge and make the whole process easier for everyone involved.

Meg Guiseppi
C-level / Senior-level Executive Branding & Job Search Strategist