#JobDescriptionGate: the workplace’s most needed audit
Last week alone, five different hiring managers came to my office and mentally broke down. It was surprisingly unrelated to Black History Month and instead, was out of frustration that they couldn’t get young or diverse people to fill the open roles on their team.
I asked the same question of each: “What did you include in the job description?”
I’ve painfully watched as talented applicants of all shapes and colors get rejected for reasons that don’t entirely add-up. A key perpetrator at most rejection crime scenes is a thoughtless job description (JD).
Sifting through JDs is arguably harder than achieving a high score on the SAT’s Reading Comprehension section. The day-to-day responsibilities are often written ambiguously (‘you’ll work on projects that are big picture, while most of your time will be spent getting deep into the details’), the overall rhetoric is complex yet stale (‘leverage’ this, ‘align stakeholders’ that), and the background requirements feel way too stringent relative to the skills needed to do the job (I need a MBA to teach religion to a bunch of 3rd graders?).
If you spend enough time sifting, you’ll notice that the requirements and language start to look the exact same. It’s as if there is a massive copy-and-paste scandal going on across all companies and JDs that no one wants to talk about. #JobDescriptionGate
How can any team expect to hire for diversity of thought when they’re screening for the same type of mind?
Just to prove #JobDescriptionGate is real, I went through 150 job descriptions across 12 large technology, financial services, and consulting companies, and found a few quick issues and fixes worth considering.
1. Do I really need a degree?
100% of the JDs required a bachelor degree while 35% required an advanced degree
Don’t get me wrong, college and graduate school provide incredible social and intellectual value (all the ‘-als’!). Completing either shows a lot about an individual’s drive and ability to ‘finish’ things. Seeing a four-year degree on someone’s resume is the easiest way to say “yup, this candidate is solid.”
But let’s not forget that attending a four-year program is a privileged choice. In 2019, the median household income in the United States was roughly $65,000 (there are almost three people per US household). In the same year, it cost nearly $50,000 a year to attend a four-year private college in the US and $20,000 for four-year public college.
Sure, one can take out loans or get financial aid. But if you didn’t know, student debt is pretty brutal and financially cripples most who have it. #IYKYK
Now, it’s certainly true that many professional jobs require knowledge introduced in college or graduate school (I’d love for my ACL surgeon to be a real medically-trained surgeon); but it’s also true that many do not. All jobs require skills, which can be built in formal educational environments but also through real-world experience.
Let’s also not forget that history is filled with changemakers that have opted-out of college (and student debt) because they developed skills outside of formal schooling. Two randos named Ellen DeGeneres and Steve Jobs come to mind.
Here’s the edit: before publishing your JD to the world, ask yourself, do I really require an applicant to have a four-year degree or can I think of a threshold of past work experience that would make me just as comfortable in their competency?
Original:
Edited:
2. What can you do for me?
0% of the JDs articulated the unique value of the team
You know that one friend that is a serial taker but also a perpetual celebrator of what they didn’t give you? Job descriptions feel like that friend. They articulate what the employee can expect to do for the manager, the manager’s team, and the company, but offer very little in terms of what the employee gets in return.
This is a missed opportunity to showcase a hiring manager’s unique value proposition for the applicant. Just a few sentences could help alleviate the apprehension felt by many women of color that I’ve talked to, for example, who are frustrated with being hired “to fill a job” and not “to grow into a career”.
Here’s the edit: add a section to the JD called “What I’ll Do For You” and list the key things that you will bring to the applicant (think of themes like career development, travel, company events, inclusive culture).
Original:
Edited:
3. Are there positive attributes that exist in our blind spots?
0% of the JDs articulated the explicit value of competitive or athletic accomplishment
I’m a big believer that competitive activities or sports are like an additional parent for young kids because of the life lessons they teach beyond the game. Regardless of talent level — even if you are utter garbage at basketball, or plain-Jane at soccer, or downright buns at baseball — they teach the power of teamwork, resilience, hardwork, and many other things.
If one argument for requiring a college degree is that “it shows you can finish things”, then it’s impossible to exclude sports and competitive events from that same boat. Think about the determination, work ethic, and grind of a long-distance runner vs. a self-absorbed high-performer whose time is more valuable than your’s and mine. When the boss hits you with an assignment at 4:59pm that’s due at 11:59pm the same day, I think I’d prefer the runner more times than not.
Let’s also not forget that organized sports at all age levels (from peewee football to flag football for senior citizens) have a hugely diverse population of participants. I’m not saying that a sports background replaces a MBA, but it’s another example of a valuable source of skills beyond our ‘formal’ paths that we exclude from JDs.
Here’s the edit: most JDs have minimum and preferred requirements. While requiring physical activity or athletic achievement is the opposite of inclusive (it should not be a ‘knock’ on someone’s resume just because they didn’t participate in organized sports), thoughtfully listing athletic achievement as a bonus or preferred attribute can really broaden the applicant pool in a diverse way.
Original:
Edited:
4. Why do all roads have to lead to the HQ?
100% of the jobs based at the company’s headquarters (HQ) required applicants to relocate to that city
Even though the largest companies have small satellite offices in anywhere-USA (or “anywhere pick a country”), it’s not a secret that a company’s HQ usually has the highest concentration of employees, executives, energy, and career development (spoiler alert). This is what I call the “All Roads Lead to the HQ” model.
Yes, there are many jobs that are location-specific and require individuals to show-up in-person (for example, a person working for the California state government probably needs to reside in California). It’s also true that hallway chatter helps streamline certain business decisions and provides a rich source of workplace gossip.
But recognize the blind spot. What happens when the largest companies are headquartered in cities with an insultingly low number of diverse individuals across gender, race, income, and sexual orientation? I’ll take “A Problem” for $600, Alex. Answer: diverse applicants don’t apply to those companies and opt-out of the job offers they do receive.
Here’s the edit*: It’s 2020, where teams are more globally dispersed than ever. We have all of the collaboration software in the world (Microsoft Teams, Slack, Zoom, etc.). Ask yourself, if my goal is to hire diverse talent, do I really need this potential hire to relocate to the HQ knowing that it will reduce the chances of them being diverse and/or increase the chances they leave after a year? If the answer is really yes, then peace.
If the answer is no, then it’s important to be creative and intentional as a hiring manager. Allow that individual to work remotely and find creative ways to bring them to the HQ when possible or needed.
*: if your company doesn’t have the infrastructure or tools to deliver a quality experience for remote employees, please please please don’t set them up for failure by hiring them in a remote role.
Original:
Edited:
5. Are we obsolete or is the bar too high?
15% of the JDs were over six months old
For real? Either the job sounds so bad that no one has applied to it for six months (which, is a sign to anyone applying…like, don’t apply) OR hiring managers are not circling back to all of the places they’ve posted the JDs after hiring someone. In most cases I’ve witnessed firsthand, it’s the latter (people are busy, I get it).
A third explanation is that the hiring managers have written a JD that is so unrealistic, no candidate could possibly meet the requirements.
No matter how you slice it, obsolete JDs feel unapproachable, and the result is that applicants feel deterred from applying.
Here’s the edit: if you hire someone for the job you’ve posted a JD for, take it down! If you can’t seem to hire someone after six months of trying, it’s time to look yourself in the mirror and refine the requirements.
Original:
Edited:
Why It Matters: The unemployment rate in the US is historically low (as of January 2020). Competition for talent has never been higher. To attract anyone, especially diverse candidates, hiring managers will have to go the extra mile and articulate how applicants can bring their whole selves to work.
Today, our job descriptions stink and look the same. Their obtuseness limits the applicant pool to a homogeneous set of thinkers and accidentally (or maybe on purpose?) filters out genuinely talented individuals. It’s a missed opportunity to have a more diverse and productive workforce.
Simple fixes, powerful impact.
