Makes for a good photo, but if you're still searching
in the newspaper, you might as well hang it up.
With unemployment reaching historic levels, online job search traffic is heating up. Sites like Monster.com, Dice.com, and HotJobs.com are gaining steam with anywhere from a 20-90% increase in traffic in February. Somehow CareerBuilder.com managed to dip 3% but SimplyHired.com achieved a 290% increase in traffic, and other sites like Craigslist and LinkedIn.com are also gaining momentum.
Job search sites are gaining traffic and providing a great service to the unemployed and unhappily employed. Unfortunately, the inability of corporations and recruiters to provide prospective applicants with sensible job postings threatens to render these sites useless.
After just 30 minutes of searching across these sites, it is very apparent that something has gone wrong in the world of HR recruiting. The simple art of concise and clear descriptions are long gone and the majority of job postings are filled with more crap than the top-rated toilet at TerryLove.com. Exaggerated requirements and corporate jargon fill these sites like helium in a balloon -- and the balloon is about to pop.
Writing a job posting should be a fairly simple process. After omitting the window dressing, the objective of a job posting is to let prospective applicants know who the company is, what the job is, how the job fits into the company, what they're looking for, and how to apply. For the most part, HR recruiters are fully aware of this but are completely incapable of communicating in plain English.
It seems to me that the problem stems from the fact that HR recruiters are flawed by two characteristics that are quite common in their field: An inflated and/or false sense of importance, and a complete lack of understanding of the majority of the jobs they post.
These two characteristics lead to fairly common practices including:
1. Exaggerating requirement for years of experience - Depending on the industry, most job postings drastically over exaggerate the number of years experience you need. Whether it says you need 10-12 years of experience or 4-6 years of experience, the general rule of thumb is to divide by four. Recruiters seem to be under the false notion that inflating these figures prevents unqualified candidates from applying. In reality, this technique discourages realistic applicants from applying and encourages candidates that do meet the experience requirements but are complete morons and willing to accept the pay of someone that has 3 years experience. Thus resulting in a completely dysfunctional organization (75% of the Fortune 500, bleeding money everyday).
2. Exaggerating the level of education required - Recruiters are still under the impression that there are millions of PhD's out there just waiting for jobs that pay $40k. If they ask for an MBA, a Bachelor's degree with a 2.0 GPA will suffice. If they're asking for a college degree, Argosy counts too. If they aren't asking for a college degree, you're probably reading a legitimate job posting.
3. Exaggerating the professional certifications required - If the job asks for Microsoft Certifications, don't feel ruled out for the job. Go home, open up Excel. Play with it for 10 minutes and you've fulfilled their actual requirement.
4. Exaggerating the quality of the work experience required - Prime example of this available here (original link inactive, archived in Google Doc). The job posting asks for a minimum of 3 years of experience but follows it up by preferring someone with C-Level leadership experience. In essence, this recruiter is looking for a 24 year old that ran his own lemonade stand. Making him both "proven" and "c-level" material.
4. Filling the entire job posting with corporate and industry acronyms, abbreviations, and jargon - By filling the job posting with nonsensical jargon, a recruiter further inflates their false sense of importance and also avoids the issue that they know absolutely nothing about the job. The applicant is left wondering whether they just applied for a job responsible for fixing Boeing 747s or installing Kimberly-Clark toilet paper dispensers. Pretty much a toss up.
5. Elaborating on nothing - Perfect example here (original post inactive, archived in Google Doc). This posting was off of CareerBuilder.com. Recruiters love to take what could be 1-2 bullet points and expand them out to 10-20 depending on the job. Here's a better description of the job posting linked:
- You will test applications in all phases and are responsible for documentation.
Done. Pretty simple and the applicant isn't left scratching their head.
6. Position Titles - Perhaps not the fault of HR Recruiters, the trend of giving everyone a title of Vice President, Director, or Supervisor is spiraling out of control. These titles have become so watered down they literally have no meaning. In an attempt to clarify the meaninglessness of position titles, some companies include a prefix like Jr., Sr., or Assistant. Even worse, some companies add a 1,2,3,4 and 5 after the position title as if this provides external applicants with additional information about the position. Note to organizations: You can't pour crap in a bowl of urine and hope to clear things up. Extra Credit: Go to LinkedIn.com and search "Vice President", "Director", "Supervisor". I'm fairly certain if you combine those terms, you'll end up with results for approximately 1/2 of the LinkedIn users.
It's scary to imagine what job postings might look like in 10 years if this trend continues. If anyone is interested in building a Google Translate with a "Recruiter to English" option, I can serve as your Subject Matter Expert.
or use the ShareThis option at the top of the article for more options.
Comments
Completely agree. Terry Love is the bomb.
Hi from the Minneapolis Cooking Examiner - I am a training/career/hr consultant for almost 15 years in my "real life" and while a lot of HR communications seem to be really ridiculous, much of the time it is not the HR people writing the job openings - it comes from management. Just wanted to point that out because I know a lot of very good hr recruiters personally who effectively find the right person despite the crazy job descriptions they are dealt. Just my two cents.
Funny article - loved it!
I worked in HR for 3 big companies in Minneapolis but quit the biz a couple years ago.
I disagree with the post by Rebecca Adams, and it was one of the reasons I did not like my job.
Hiring managers usually had a good sense for what the job entailed and the type of person they were looking for such as the experience level and the necessary skills.
However, every organization I worked for had a strict policy on how these requisitions were posted to the public, and it was these strict policies that made requisitions look like scrambled eggs.
A hiring manager would provide our HR department with a job description in language that was very easy to understand. That same manager would also provide us with what he or she felt were the necessary skills required by any candidate.
Without fail, every organization I worked for had templates we were to use that would substantially shred the original message the Hiring Manager wanted. The more upsetting aspect was that much of this was done to block "serial applicants" from applying for positions. The general thought is that making the requisition look more professional (in the eyes of those who created the templates), would prevent those types of people from applying. Our requisitions were also written from a the perspective of the ideal candidate, not the typical candidate. The unfortunate aspect of that was the "ideal" candidate never existed and we probably prevented good talent from applying for jobs.
The piece about job titles is completely accurate. My focus was not on job retention but I have friends that do. The easiest way to retain an employee is to give them a new title and call it a promotion. Most companies that have levels provide enough flexibility to increase an employee's level without requiring an increase in salary.
I am not sure if he ever worked in Human Resources, but in my opinion, this piece nails everything that is wrong in the world of job requisitions.
Amen to Dudley!
Based on this nonsense of an article I am one of the people with an inflated sense of self importance.
Dudley has no idea what he is talking about. When a job is posted externally a corporation must present themselves in an impressive manner. It has nothing to do with inflated importance or a lack of understanding and has everything to do with simple elementary marketing skills -- apparently Dudley didn't take Marketing 101.
If you are going to market your brand, you can't simply post jobs that say "we need someone to sell lipstick". It is unimpressive and it will not attract any candidates. In order to attract talented, qualified candidates you must provide them with a professional appearance.
And it's obvious from reading this article that you are not professional.
Actually, if you wrote "we need somebody to sell lipstick" you might attract a person who is well-qualified to sell lipstick. When you put things in abstract terms: a "physical-enhancement marketing technician" the lipstick sales-lady will think that the job requires some sort of academic or formal understanding of physical enhancements.
Why would you think that people respect "big" words when they don't mean anything. I respect "little" words because they are more efficient and clear, and you don't waste any time second-guessing their meaning. You also don't bore the crap out of people.
I have been in the industry for 23 years and I can say, without a doubt, that you missed the mark on this article.
Did you do any research before writing this? I have never, in 23 years, encountered a job seeker that is confused by the listings available on Monster.com or any other website.
If you are confused you should not apply for the position. This is exactly why they are written with what you call corporate and industry jargon. Had you worked in the industry you would understand the language presented to you.
I would say to stick to journalism but after reading this article you might want to lower your career goals.
He obviously hit a sensitive nerve with you or you wouldn't be insulting him.
I can speak for myself, that the language is confusing and boring in a lot of these ads. Perhaps he doesn't need to say that this linguistic bloat has to do with an inflated sense of self importance, but I can say, with confidence, that the language in these ads is out of control.
When you are in college and graduate school, they teach you technical jargon in your field. But then they ask you to limit its use to professional communities that also use that jargon. An entry-level sales or IT job bulletin does not require you to post in any language except for common English. In fact, your best candidates are going to be turned off by that because you will bore them.
Then there is pseudo-jargon. A sanitation-engineer (a janitor) sounds jargonish, but people see through that immediately. It is a common joke actually.
Administrative assistant for secretary is fine. But listing the responsibilities in great detail, and in technical language might turn off a well-qualified candidate who might be intimidated by phrases like "management and client interface," or be culturally turned off by words like "strategic and fast-paced problem solving."
But if your corporation or organization wants a ball-biting and social climbing secretary maybe that is the right strategy. It is all about what we bargain for.
Foxy Lady: Too bad you're no longer in the biz. Sounds like you were one of the few who got it. And you're probably hot.
Recruiter: Jargon is not impressive. It suggests incompetence, insecurity, or both. A good company can write its posting in crayon and attract good candidates. The job should be able to stand on its own merits, if it has any. If you need to try to sound impressive, you're in trouble. You can polish a turd, but you're just going to be left holding a dirty rag.
Ms. Wilcox: It's not so much that these postings are impossibly confusing (although some are). It's that they are needlessly so. And the worst ones will repel selective, sensible and prudent applicants more than they will attract them. Or you will get people who like to say "utilize" instead of "use." And nobody, and I mean nobody, likes those people.
Recruiter: I deal with people like you every day. You completely missed Dudley's point. He isn't saying the posting should be one sentence. He's correctly observing that most of these postings are 4+ paragraphs long, but lack any real substance. They are all just pure HR fluff. Why? Because people like yourself are more interested in 'image' rather than actually filling positions.
Sandra Wilcox,
"Had you worked in the industry, you would understand the language presented to you".
That would only be accurate if you were posting an HR position. As Foxy Lady already pointed out, most big corporations use Requisition 'templates' that are heavily generalized with HR jargon NOT industry jargon related to the actual position. Unfortunately, employees who spend their entire career sheltered in the bizarre make-believe world of HR and Recruiting usually lack the necessary perspective to create functional templates. Even if the hiring manager is creating the requisition, they have been trained to use HR jargon within their own posts, even though they know it doesn't make any logical sense.
I work in this field and we submit many jobs to sites like monster.com, indeed.com, and more.
It is a huge jump to make the conclusion that this is in fact a problem. If requisitions were written at an 8th grade level, everyone would apply for every job.
In order to limit the number of applicants it is important to post the job with descriptions that essentially scare off those that are unqualified.
If you are qualified, and you are too scared to apply, as this author uses as his argument, than you do not deserve to be interviewed because you lack confidence.
I'm a professional headhunter and these arguments don't really matter when you look at the stats. Only 24% of external hires come from jobs posted on sites like monster.com.
Considering the number of resumes dumped on organizations through these job spam sites is somewhere in the thousands, this means you have about a .12% chance of being hired by applying for a position through a site like Monster.com.
Job search engines are a dinosaur. If you are going to get hired in a bad economy like we have today you need to rely on the advice of experts like myself or know people in high places.
Sara,
Again, you missed the point of this article. He isn't saying that these job postings should be written at an 8th grade level. He's saying that when you remove all of the BS HR Fluff, they lack substance. The proper way to limit applicants is to give a clear and concise description of the job requirements using ENGLISH, not HR jargon. And yes, I know you think think you are using 'industry' jargon, but you aren't. You are using HR jargon.
Dale,
Your numbers are actually way too high. Its not even close to 24%, more like 12%
add www to the link below ...
careerxroads.com/news/SourcesofHire09.pdf
Spot on, spot on.
I perform my own research on the industry. The 12% figure stated in your link is highly inaccurate. Much of the hiring attributed to the company's website job posting is falsified information. Corporations attribute the success of their own website without investigating the referral source. Over 80% of company website job postings are reached from job search engine postings.
Thus, 24%. Next time you want to take on an expert, you should at least due the courtesy of having a legitimate argument.
Just to add on to some of the comments here...
Sandra - In your 23 years of experience, how many cookies and balloons have you purchased for new staff members coming on board?
Dale Gustafson - You have an awesome name.
Dale,
I really enjoy your writing style. I'll write this in words that you can undertand.
You are joking write? You due your own research? Due you understand what 'falsified information' means? Are you saying that companies are intentionally falsifying they're recruiting and hiring statistics? Four what purpose? Are we just supposed two take your made up numbers as fact? What are you're sources? If you are a headhunter, their is know way you would have any sort of insider data. You are a fraud sir. A fraud.
Remember the 60's and before when we didn't have HR departments and things ran just fine.... yeah....
What they're asking for is not B.S. Jobs are tight and employers know it. I had a recruiter from Career Builder call me after I sent my resume. The company was looking for someone to start up a new branch office for engineering consulting. They wanted someone that could bring $1-$2 million of local business. I laughed because anyone that could do that would just start their own company. Good luck.
Ted - didn't you just contradict yourself in your own short comment? First you say it isn't BS because the 'jobs are tight'. Then you follow that with an example that proves my point that these job listings are exaggerated BS. As you said, someone who can bring in $1-2 mil in business would own their own business. So....ahhh....how is this not BS to place in a job listing?
I have been in the industry for less years than Sandra Wilcox below, and I can say without a doubt, she is the reason I hate my job.
I recently just applied for a job that asked for someone with 15+ years of experience with .NET.
.NET 1.0 was released in 2002. If they can find someone that can turn 7 years into 15, they might as well let him run the business.
As a recruiter, who just so happens to not report to HR, your oversimplification of what "we still think" is shoddy reporting. Furthermore, those that blame recruiters for why they don't get the job might want to take a look in the mirror. The recruiter is there to facilitate a process which is dictated by the HIRING MANAGER. While no doubt there are brain dead recruiters out there, simple blanket statements are insulting.
This was a great read. I completely agree. I have worked with HR people before and they seem to use acronyms as a power tool. "What -- you don't know what that means? You must not have much experience in this."
May HR people rot in hell.
God bless this story.
Pretty informative article.. Thanks. Just ditch the potty humor though, eh? It detracts from the rest and sounds unprofessional.
C Ya
The only ones defending HR fluff is HR itself.
Don't understand the position? Add more jargon! Unqualified applications will be deterred from clicking that "send resume" button one more time.
Need a higher level of expertise for a "mission critical" position? Crank up the experience requirements! This will exclude young, energetic, and talented workers who are too busy drilling their brains out in an entry level job.
Funny piece. The author makes the assumption that many of the companies posting those jobs want to fill them. Often times they're structured the way they are so they can make the case for H1-B labor.
You all need to read, "Up the Organization" by Robert Townsend.
OOGA BOOGA BOOGA THE WORLD IS DOOMED BECAUSE OF PEOPLE WHO THINK THEY ARE SMRT, AND PEOPLE WHO GET ANNOYED BECAUSE THEY THINK THEY ARE SMRT-R THAN NOT SMRT PEOPLE, WHEN WE'RE ALL JOBLESS SUCKERS IN THIS ECONOMIC CRISIS. KILL ME NOW
I don't know which is more annoying; jargon filled job postings, your winey smartass "I'm sooo funny" writing style, or your style attacking the former. You're right, job postings are usually full of exaggerations and BS - and who could spot that quicker than you?
dave - when did I say I was sooo funny? would you prefer a boring career & workplace article that focuses on the hard hitting issue of job ad jargon and the implications to society? I do real journalists the courtesy of covering such topics in that manner. Go read a newspaper.
I think that there is some truth here. My guess is that the delivery upset some folks. However, I think that you could say the same thing about job seekers that use jargon on their resume. Maybe it is just human nature to make things more complicated then they have to be. Maybe the ego gets in the way of one communicating effectively?
Enjoyed the article. Ask for the detractors complaining about it, go stick your own head in a toilet. I have worked at a staffing agency for 13 years. Most of the time, we usually post the job descriptions our clients give us, and much of them ask the impossible. One client wanted CAD designers and only wanted to pay them $9/hour. We've had good candidates who were qualified and interviewed well, but they said they'd make more money flipping hamburgers at McDonald's. Or clients who ask for someone to have some experience with an application that is so industry-specific, that it excludes people looking to switch careers.
Let me add an annoyance. On LinkedIn bboards and elsewhere, recruiters will post headlines which omit key information. As an exaggerated example:
"Looking for VP, Business Development -- $200K"
Pretty good, eh? So then you click in your summary email to get to the bboard. And then you click on the bboard listing to get to the job post. And THEN you read paragraphs of BS... to find out that the job is in some place like "Antarctica". Gee -- save me a bunch of time and just put that ^&% location in the original headline.
By the way, I second the recruiter who discussed the hiring manager. Bad job posts are a conspiracy among HR's poor understanding of the role, a bad hiring manager (or one who is going through the process because they have to, but already knows the internal candidate for the job), and company bureaucracy and/or culture. Take the hint -- a bad job description describes a bad job.
Dudley:
Divine providence brought me, the most sarcastic "team player" in the state to your site yesterday. As I have just been scooted out the door for being brave and honest in Management, I am utilizing your columns as cheap therapy (sucky insurance beats NO insurance!) I have some paramiliary personal protection background in case one of the many indignant literal thinking PMPs or MBAs that take your amazing skill for sarcasm seriously becomes an issue in person. It's a long commute, but I belive the few of us that have a real sense of humor should watch each others' backs. I crack up thinking about how excited they must get when they think that they are making a valid point. You must really spend a lot of time reading moronic posts aloud to someone, I know I would because I would need validation that YES, they are really serious and YES, they are dimwitted morons (lots of folks from the HR discipline, no?) "Tu ne cede malis"
That's why anyone working in recruitment with a chance of actually succeeding will always try to take a job spec directly from a hiring manager, and not from the HR Department..
You hit the nail on the head my friend.
excellent article again, Duds. As someone who embarrassingly admits to have worked in the cess pool of the "staffing and recruiting" industry, HR is the ultimate in uselessness and futility. They write incoherent high-brow, self important descriptions and then they complain about resumes being inflated or written poorly. Of course you'll get a wide swath of resumes when readers cannot understand what the real job is.
I have been searching for jobs related to my field but couldn't get hired. So I tried searching for something totally unrelated. I ended up realizing that job descriptions have a commonness. Multi-tasking skills, team player, diligent are but some of the job ad jargons used. I came upon a recent Fortune article that offers straight-forward, if somewhat negative, interpretations of those shop-worn key phrases to alert job-seekers to red flags about prospective employers. My article source: Decoding the jargon in help wanted ads. I learned a lot from it and got a job now. I am sharing it hoping others could land a good job too.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!