I’m always in a quandary when it comes to writing a job description. If I keep it general, I get flooded with resumes from people who aren’t qualified, and who I’m never going to hire. On the other hand, if I try to describe the dream candidate, and hope that someone will come close, I risk scaring away perfectly good people. Helpful hints, please.

One of the reasons why creating job descriptions is so vexatious is that they’re used for two different purposes. For the purpose of hiring, they need to reflect the job accurately enough so as to attract candidates who will be able to perform the duties. Here each job description is different and stands on its own. For the purpose of job classification, the job description (JD) is used to place the job in a grade to facilitate internal equity in compensation. This process involves looking more for how your JD is similar to others, and less for how it’s different. These two uses often work at cross purposes.

Let’s stick with the hiring situation. The challenge is to create a document that can be thrown into a sea of strangers and retrieve the perfect stranger for the job. Now there’s a tall order! At the same time, job seekers are trolling in the sea of JDs in search of an opportunity that they’re qualified for (in their estimation) and that interests them.

Both parties – the organization and the job seeker – have objective and subjective needs that they’re trying to meet. The hiring manager is looking for a person who has the necessary experience and qualifications, and who is a “fit”. Candidates want a job that fits their abilities, experience, and aspirations. It’s a wonder that this process ever works at all! To maximize the odds that it will, here are some steps to take:

1. Begin by rigorously separating your “must” objectives from your “want” objectives. A “must” is a qualification, experience, or credential that you’re not prepared to live without. Candidates who don’t meet your musts will not be considered, period. A “want” is a nice-to-have. You may hire a candidate who doesn’t meet your wants. The challenge is to know the difference between musts and really, really strong wants. Failure to do this may result in the piling up of musts that are really wants. Too many musts, and nobody qualifies for the position. As a general rule, the fewer musts the better.
2. If you’re replacing someone who’s leaving, be sure that your JD isn’t a description of that person. Describe the job, not the person. Pretend that nobody has ever been in the position before.
3. If you’re hiring a supervisor or manager, stress the supervisory aspect of the job. Most management JDs devote more space to the technical or functional aspects of the job than to the management responsibilities. If you’re looking for someone to manage caseworkers, ensure that your JD communicates that clearly and with emphasis. Otherwise, you may attract caseworkers who just want higher pay.
4. Speaking of pay, consider what you’re able to pay for the position. There’s not much point advertising for an all-star when you have journeyman money.
5. Be careful not to include performance objectives disguised as job responsibilities. Say “Supervise a team of case workers”, not “Hire an additional case worker”.
6. If your organization is large enough to have a formal job classification function, run your JD past the people who look after that, and ask them for a preliminary grade. This will help you decide on pay, which in turn, will suggest how “realistic” or how “dreamy” you can be in the writing of the JD.

This brings me back to our reader’s question. The dream approach may attract candidates who are already earning more than you can afford. If you meet with them anyway, that experience can blind you to the merits of other candidates who are perfectly fine, just not dreamy. When the inevitable happens and you can’t meet the stars’ pay demands, they go away with the impression that you’re trying to get something for nothing, and you may have saddled yourself with the erroneous impression that you’re getting second best.

A JD that’s too general leaves the reader to wonder what the position is about. Who responds to unclear JDs? People who don’t care that much about your job, they just want to get out from where they are. Or, people who are having trouble finding work, possibly for good reason.

Better, I think, to go for accuracy. Fish in the waters where the fish you want are swimming. Use bait that those particular fish like. This is not just money; it’s also your organization’s reputation, the challenges of the position, and of course, the work itself.

To submit a question for a future column, or to comment on a previous one, please contact editor@charityvillage.com. No identifying information will appear in this column.

Tim Rutledge, Ph.D., is a veteran human resources consultant and publisher of Mattanie Press. You can contact him at tim_rutledge@sympatico.ca.

Disclaimer: Advice and recommendations are based on limited information provided and should be used as a guideline only. Neither the author nor CharityVillage.com make any warranty, express or implied, or assume any legal liability for accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information provided in whole or in part within this article.