Most job postings are internal requisitions with a public URL. They describe the role from the company's side, list everything anyone thought of, and open with a paragraph about the company nobody reads.
For a related Monitask resource on workplace accountability, see the full article.
They attract the people who apply to everything and miss the people who are selective — which is the wrong half of the market.
The first hundred words decide it
A strong candidate is skimming. They will read roughly the first screen before deciding whether to continue.
Put in it:
- What the person will actually do, in plain language
- Why the role exists — new team, growth, replacement, a specific problem
- Where it sits — who they report to, who they work with
- Location and work arrangement, explicitly
- The salary range
Leave out: the company boilerplate, the mission statement, the list of values. Those can go lower down, where the people who are already interested will find them.
Say the salary
The strongest single change most employers can make.
Pay transparency is now required in a growing number of states and cities, so for many employers this is not optional. But even where it is optional, omitting the range costs you:
- Selective candidates filter out postings without ranges, because their time is limited
- You spend screening hours on people who were never in your budget
- Candidates who do apply anchor high, and offer negotiations get harder
If you cannot publish an exact figure, publish a real range with the basis — "$85,000–$105,000 depending on experience with X." A range so wide it means nothing is worse than no range, because it reads as evasion.
Write requirements you would actually enforce
The requirements list is where postings quietly shrink their own pool.
Separate must-have from nice-to-have, and be strict about the first list. If you would interview someone without it, it is not a must-have.
Years of experience are a poor proxy. "Five years of experience" excludes the exceptional person with three and admits the mediocre one with eight. Where you can, describe the capability instead: "has owned a product launch end to end."
Cut the degree requirement unless the job genuinely needs it. Many do not, and it removes capable people for no gain.
Question long tool lists. Naming twelve specific platforms suggests you want someone who has used your exact stack rather than someone who can learn it. Name the two that matter.
There is a well-documented pattern of candidates applying only when they meet nearly all listed requirements, with the effect falling unevenly across groups. A shorter, honest requirements list widens the pool without lowering the bar — because the bar was never really twelve items long.
Describe the work, not the adjectives
Weak: "The successful candidate will be a dynamic self-starter with excellent communication skills who thrives in a fast-paced environment."
That describes nobody and excludes nobody. Every candidate believes it applies to them.
Better: "In the first six months you will take over reporting for three regional teams, replace the current spreadsheet process, and present monthly numbers to the leadership team."
Concrete descriptions do two useful things at once: they attract people who want that work, and they deter people who do not — which is a feature.
Structure that works
- Title — the one people search for, not your internal one. "Senior Accountant," not "Finance Business Partner II."
- One-line summary of the role
- What you will do — five to eight specific responsibilities
- What success looks like at six months — this is the section almost nobody writes and candidates remember
- What we are looking for — must-haves, short
- Nice to have — clearly labelled
- Compensation and benefits — range, plus the benefits that actually differ from the norm
- Location and work arrangement — specific: how many days, which office, which time zones
- About the company — three or four sentences
- The process — how many stages, roughly how long, who they will meet
Point ten costs you nothing and is unusual enough to be noticed. Candidates dislike uncertainty more than they dislike a long process.
Be specific about location
"Remote" with an unstated time zone requirement, or "hybrid" with an unstated number of days, wastes everyone's time and is the most common cause of a candidate withdrawing late.
Say it plainly: "Hybrid — three days a week in our Austin office," or "Remote within the US, overlapping 9am–1pm Eastern."
Length
Between 400 and 700 words for most roles.
Under 300 and you have not given anyone enough to self-select. Over 900 and the requirements list has usually grown beyond what you would enforce.
Watch the legal edges
Postings can create exposure. Avoid language that screens on protected characteristics, directly or by proxy — "recent graduate," "digital native," "young and energetic," or physical requirements not genuinely essential to the job.
Where a physical or scheduling requirement is essential, state it as a requirement of the role rather than a description of the person.
Check your state and city obligations on pay transparency, which vary and have been expanding. See also interview questions that create EEOC exposure.
Test it
Two checks, both quick:
Show it to someone doing that job today — inside or outside your company — and ask whether it describes their work. If they say "sort of," the posting is generic.
Ask a colleague outside the function what the person would actually do all day. If they cannot say, neither can a candidate.
The one that matters most
If you change one thing, publish the salary range. It costs nothing, saves screening hours, and moves you into the shortlist of postings that selective candidates will read at all.
PJP writes postings as part of every search, and as a standalone service. Direct-hire recruitment → · RPO → For broader reference, consult O*NET Online.