Question: Why not apply tried-and-true marketing principles to selling an organization?s Employer of Choice value proposition to the targeted candidate market?

We’re hearing more about Employment Branding but it is still a relatively immature emerging movement. Yes, some organizations have employed some of the measures but the exceptions prove the rule.

I spend most of my time for clients proactively recruiting ‘in the trenches.’ I enjoy recruiting a great deal — it’s my career. I can cold-call ‘with the best of them’ and have an excellent track record, but how many of my clients would send their salespeople out without the support of a comprehensive marketing program? Well, that is exactly what most companies do with their recruiters.

I’ve been on the recruitment marketing soapbox since returning to recruiting in ‘96. I look forward to the day when I can work with clients that understand the bottom-line value of a strategic recruitment marketing program in building a rich dynamic talent pool. Such a program would fully leverage the skills of talented recruiting staff and yield revolutionary bottom-line results.

My definition of a job (God knows I have created and written many of them over the years). ‘A job is a generic role that is within a certain business group in an organization, and which should be independant of any of single part of the organization.’

A job ‘position’- is a very specific DAILY occurrance of one job, that is fixed within one specific organization (this is why I keep saying that HR is different than recruiting- and we all know that sales is different than recruiting- I can’t wait to see the responses on this one!!!)

So then the question begs to ask what are the advantages?(counter-point to some of the postings)

The advantages of a ‘job’ are that it is broad based (ever look at some of your own job posting requests and laundry lists?) it is generic in form, can be evaluated company wide- and is in fact a ‘job’. ‘Hey, Joe when you are finished sweeping the floor over here- can you sweep the dining room?’

The advantages of a ‘position’ is that it is used by organizations as a role-based environment, it posseses a deeper role in the organizational structure they report to, at times is a MUST for the procurement/purchasing process, and of course having been a military officer I can tell you that position is in fact ‘REQUIRED’ in any ‘government’ sector position and provides how one is graded (although during battle a bullet never seeks out a Captain over a Corporal).

Ask a Military recruiter if a job description and job position does not matter- and if we were to dispose of them how would we fight a war (yes I know it is all George Bush’s fault anyway)how would we exist? Or for that matter ANY organization? I guess a ’student’ could then teach a class over a ‘professor’ if the student has more work experience than the professor- NO?

Certainly, if we are looking at a SOX environment if Sally (the AR/AP clerk who has been working at ABC company for 40 years) trys to sign off on a financials report as oppossed to the CFO (Jane) who has the roles of the company’s current level of risk tolrance, the management of business performance and the view of the allocation of resources- there are ‘postions’ that must be maintained.

Absent of these ‘positions’ who would be able sign-off on the 10K report? Sally, or the CFO? More importantly when the government (and stockholders) want to hang someone- who do you think they will go after? Yes, Sally might be a working accomplice- but the big bad CFO is who they go after (and is spelled out in the SOX rule).
I guess that is why the word ‘accountability’ is more and more widely used where actual multi-million dollars transactions are taking place and investors are looking at who is running the company.

I guess if we were to get rid of job descriptions and job positions, then we also would not need words like ‘talent manager’ ‘guru’ ‘expert’ ‘Dr’ ‘professor’ ’senior recruiter’ or many of the descriptions we post on ERE.
But then I guess I am ‘old-fashioned’ (and yes to me- that is not only a job ‘description’ but a ‘position’) not created- but earned!

Clarity is a beautiful thing. There is no need to dummy down your job descriptions for a job posting. Write your posting as if it is a brand new exciting thing. Save the detailed description for when the employee and the HR mgr can discuss one to one.

A job description is a necessary internal document. Employees need it to understand expectations of their job, and understand how they fit in with relation to other positions in the company. It serves for many legal purposes as well.

A job posting, on the other hand, is what you use to attract candidates. It shouldn’t be the same as the description. It should be marketing-based and concise.

Rather than saying we should eliminate job descriptions, we should be saying not to use them as our posting copy.

I’m all for Lou’s recommendations, with the provisio that one then needs an automated, engaging, and accurate (Google the word ‘validated’) online talent assessment system that progressively sifts the motivated applicants into becoming candidates for positions at which they add maximum value. Behavioral interviews are good, but with high applicant volumes, starting there makes no practical sense. Virtual Job Tryouts that contain performance-keyed assessments handle the numbers without turning off top talent. Good interviews require more than one question, even if they start with one powerful, performance-focused question that uncovers the behaviors critical to success.

The posting document that is used to attract candidates should definitely NOT be the job description. It should be a marketing-based, compelling ad for the position and the company.

Job descriptions should still exist as internal documents and should be used as supplemental information during the secondary stages of recruitment.

That said, our job descriptions still need some work. A move away from generic responsibilities is in order. I’ve been using descriptions that include more goal-oriented information: what the position must accomplish in the first 6 months, 12 months, etc. As well as a concise narrative ‘picture’ of a successful employee. Responsibilities are listed not just in terms of what the employee will be doing, but some context of how that fits into the overall position relative to company objectives. So far, I’ve had very positive feedback from the users of the descriptions. They seem to like having a better idea of how the position works within the company as a whole.

Uniform Consistency in employment is necessary.. Maybe sticking with the Minimum may make ‘life’ easier in some aspects, but when having to prove intent, it does become difficult -

some may not even consider the FSLA and job descriptions.. but it is imperative to figure out via a job description who is exempt, what overtime is, how does one get promoted, what about bonuses and comissions? what is required to meet exemptions, what about performance reviews? .. then there is the issue of wrongful termination.. those duties, responsiblities, expectations and qualifications are the very thing that could help save your companies check book in this litigious society.

Job descriptions are indeed necessary for recruitment, interviewing, selection, hiring, and of course even termination

I agree that many posted job descriptions are too long, uninteresting and contain information that is not pertinent to the position. Employment brand marketing can drive candidates to a company, but I am concerned about dismissing job descriptions as unnecessary, particularly for OFCCP compliance.

The OFCCP Final Ruling on the Definition of an Internet Applicant FAQ discusses issues related to Job Descriptions as it relates to Basic Qualifications.

‘Basic qualifications for a position could be, but are not required to be, stated in a job description. Under the Internet Applicant rule, basic qualifications need to be advertised to potential applicants or, if the [federal] contractor does not advertise for the position, need to be established in advance by making and maintaining a record of such qualifications.?

Since candidates are likely to transfer resumes or job-related information electronically to a recruiter, all candidates will fall under the Internet Applicant ruling. Jobseekers still need to meet all four prongs of the ruling to be considered an applicant, but the candidates, related recruitment process, components and recordkeeping are subject to discovery at time of audit.

I am concerned that if the Job Description is abandoned and published documentation does not state the basic qualifications for the position, the ability for the basic qualifications to have been ?uniformly and consistently applied to all other similarly situated individuals? can be compromised.

The job description and related postings are the best places to establish the basic qualifications and demonstrate that all basic qualifications were established prior to the selection process. Basic qualifications are the qualifications advertised to potential applicants as being required in order to be considered for the position. If the federal contractor does not advertise for the position but, for example, searches an external resume database, the contractor must make and maintain a record of basic qualifications to be used in the search prior to considering any expression of interest for that particular position.

It is inconvenient at times to work within the parameters of the OFCCP ruling for recruiters, but the elimination of systemic discrimination is the goal of the ruling. Creativity is built upon a standard, not in place of it. I agree that poorly written job descriptions and postings can dissuade talent from interest in a position. I also agree that splash pages and good employment branding can help attract talent, but I think Job Descriptions containing Basic Qualifications are important to recruitment compliance and a standard part of the practice.

Regards,
Kurt

Related point: If the job descriptions are of poor quality, does that mean they should be ditched or that our documentation method is flawed? Let’s not confuse process with product.

Smart selection of supervisors, impactful training programs, and a strong collaborative HR shop can go a long way toward preventing these problems. Good post.

We have moved more to a war-footing and all the good (for TiVo) candidates we have source never demanded a description up front. Rather it was the discussion (how well-informed the recruiter was about the company, the role etc.), the selling of the idea (a potential match with what the candidate wants and where TiVo is going), and a first step in relationship - that persuaded them to move forward in the conversation.

Job profiles/descriptions can serve a marketing purpose very well when (written well and) narrow-casted.

Having said that, I do agree that most job descriptions are poorly written, and have minimal value in the real world.

As a successful engineering recruiter, I would rather talk to the hiring manager and get a good understanding of what the job really is. However, as a former engineer, I realize this is not always possible.

Anyway, that is my opinion, and since we do not exist in a vacuum, we must considered our customer’s needs before ours.

Jay