Job postings are a relic of the past
Job postings are a relic of the past
Red flags galore.
I'm writing this from a hotel about 10 minutes from my house. I've checked myself in for 44 hours of uninterrupted focus time.
Being a solo operator means there's no backup for your work. It's just you. In July, we took two trips to my home state of Wisconsin and my husband has had some health issues. Which meant double duty for me and our three kids for about six weeks. I stayed on top of client work, but other things I do for my little one-person business fell by the wayside. I needed to catch up.
So now I'm sitting with my coffee, my laptop, and a list of everything I want to get done this weekend. Wish me luck!
At one point in my career, I was responsible for writing job postings. The company had no HR department, and my only models for what job postings should look like were other job postings.
Not only that, but these are also forever memorialized because the postings are tied to my personal LinkedIn profile instead of a company profile. (Side note: LinkedIn really needs to do something about that because past employers can be traumatizing for a lot of reasons, and no reason former employees should be forced to stare at work they once did for that employer. But I digress.)
I have access to three postings I wrote between 2014 and 2017. They contain gems such as:
"Seeking dynamic and self-motivated individual..." (oof, cringe)
"We need and have a culture that supports rapid innovation and excellent execution..." (this was a flat-out lie)
But, of course, these were relics of the time period. Even though that time period was less than 10 years ago.
I was listening to a podcast (I start a lot of conversations that way) about the spread of misinformation online, and how prevalent it was in 2016 — especially during the 2016 election — and how different it is now. Now, if something feels "off," people will quickly accuse it of being AI-generated, even if it wasn't. I think the bar for authenticity is incredibly high. When I look at the job descriptions I wrote, they easily could have been generated by AI because they were generic and buzzwordy.
In the job market, I think this translates to job descriptions. Candidates want to feel that the job posting is authentic: it says something about the work culture, the job description feels reasonable, and it doesn't feel like the company is blowing smoke.
In an article for HR Magazine, business consultant Rob Baker writes:
"Job descriptions, in their traditional form, are not only rigid but also reductive. They attempt to capture the entirety of a role in a few paragraphs and a blitz of bullet points, often missing the nuance and complexity of what people actually do, and perhaps even more importantly why they do it."
Candidates are more discerning. Not only that, but the rise of remote work and the number of people on the job market (particularly in tech, which is still being ravaged by layoffs), means candidates are reviewing more job postings.
Here are a few red flags... that maybe weren't even red flags 10-ish years ago.
"We're a family."
Translation: We will guilt you into doing work. You're expected to be loyal, no matter how you're treated.
Work is not your family. I’m also nervous around companies that try to frame work as a primary source for socialization. (Snacks! Ping pong tables!)
If anything, work is a team. You might be working toward a common goal, but at the end of the day, the team is only part of what you do. It's not everything you do.
Misalignment between the title and job description.
Sometimes, job titles are nonsensical or completely out of line with what the role entails.
Someone I know interviewed for a job, and she pressed the hiring manager on the title. He admitted that he made the title up and asked, "What do you want your title to be?" When she asked for clarification on the responsibilities, she was told that the company hadn't quite figured that out yet.
When companies don't have a clear vision for a role, it's a recipe for disaster. There will continue to be a misalignment between expectations and what the person actually does (which sets the employee up for failure).
No salary range
In 2024? Hard pass. In some states in the U.S., this is now required by law (and no, not a range of $50,000 - $950,000 — which I've actually seen).
I know this game. I've played this game (before I knew better). No salary range gives the employer the upper hand because if the candidate expects something lower, it's like saving money in the budget for the role.
But it's also a waste of everyone's time. Candidates typically have fixed expenses (like housing, food, car payments, etc), and there's no reason to apply for a role that won't meet their minimum.
Companies need to stop making salary negotiations a game they're trying to win. Lack of transparency leads to gaps by gender, age, and other discriminatory factors.
Side note: This also applies to self-employed people. I'm usually working with companies that have a specific budget. I share my pricing immediately - before ever getting on a call. If the client has a drastically different idea of what I should be paid, it's not worth taking the call.
I made a mistake recently of taking a call without sharing pricing first (because it was a referral from someone I knew). We reached the end of the call, and the person revealed that the budget was 1/4 of what I usually charge. I'm willing to work for a little less than my rate — IF it's the right fit — but not that much less. I have bills to pay.
College degree required
Unless the role is something like an accountant or some other specialized field (which usually has a certification or licensing anyway), college degrees today only indicate that the person can afford college. Which, by itself, is problematic.
I also saw this job description, which made me want to reach into the computer and smack the person who wrote it (as I sit here with my "non-rigorous" degree in English)
Education — and even a prestigious former employer — is a type of hiring bias. The company assumes that because the person was accepted into college or got a particular job, the experience can translate to the posted job. HR tech platform Homerun reminds us: "Remember that a candidate's former employer or education does not equate to quality work."
Instead, companies should look for any ways that a candidate has obtained relevant experience. In a young person who has not worked a full-time job before, that might be college. Or it might be an online boot camp, designed to teach a specialized set of skills in a short period of time. Or it might be an internship. In a more experienced candidate, relevant job experience is more than enough.
No one should care what specific skills were taught during coursework for a degree obtained 10 years ago. (Even five years ago is likely highly outdated.)
Inaccurate remote work descriptions
When I wrote job descriptions, the company wanted to hide the fact that the company was fully remote. Remote work was far less common back then, and the company didn't want candidates to apply who were only interested in remote work and not the job itself. So, my job descriptions contained the mysterious line, "Our employees are not limited by geography."
Today, it seems to be the opposite. Companies will try to trick employees into applying for roles by touting them as remote when they're not.
Fully remote! Three days in-office required per week. (That's not a remote role, that's a hybrid role)
Remote role! You can work from home four days per month. (That's not a remote role.)
You can work remotely! If your manager agrees. (Good luck with that.)
Not sure what these companies are thinking... that a candidate will be so enamored by the role that they're willing to take it, even though it's not remote?
Run away, run away...
When I see red flags in a job description, it can only mean one of two things. The company knows the job description contains red flags (like no salary range) and simply doesn't care and assumes people will apply anyway. Or the company is wholly out of touch with the modern job description. Either way, it's bad.
The job market is also bad, and I don't fault candidates for needing to apply for jobs, no matter how bad the description seems. But I also think the candidate needs to brace themselves for what could be a terrible job experience if hired.
What to read next:
If you love this newsletter and look forward to reading it every week, please consider forwarding it to a friend or becoming a subscriber. Subscribers get access to additional stories I publish.
Have a work story you’d like to share? Please reach out using this form. I can retell your story while protecting your identity, share a guest post, or conduct an interview.