Job postings are often a source of disappointment rather than a source of qualified candidates. Too often, blame for the poor outcome falls on the advertising venue or candidates themselves, when the real problem is the text of the ad.

The most common and serious problem: posting a "job description" instead of promoting (marketing) the job. Don't do this! It is absolutely guaranteed to scare away the best candidates. Most job descriptions are ineffectively written, listing every conceivable task or expectation without regard to priorities.

There is no reason to place this tedious inventory of minutiae in a job posting, unless you seek to minimize your resume reading workload. Job ads should highlight that which the employer and position have to offer. One or two paragraphs of positive, factual statements about the employer is sufficient. Examples: "a fast-growing nonprofit", "the leading firm in this market", "consistently profitable", "a well-funded organization with a 20-year record of growth."

Briefly describe some advantages or features of the job: "senior level management", "reports directly to the President", "responsibility for five departments", "one of four managers with decision-making responsibility for strategy", "opportunity to move up to Executive VP within three years." Provide just enough detail to allow the reader to make their own first-cut screening decision: qualified and interested, or not. Ideally, desirable candidates will learn just enough to entice them to apply.

It is not necessary to describe the job in detail. Why? Because you are trying to find candidates with experience in this type of work--if they don't know what the job entails, they aren't qualified to do the job. Some employers believe they must provide detailed information about the job. There is, however, no such obligation, and a look at other postings will confirm it's not common practice. Listing responsibilities, expectations, procedures or any other buzz kills will just ruin the ad. (You can email more detailed job information to the candidate after you phone screen them and decide you are interested in an interview.)

The second biggest mistake: not stating the pay range. You have to give candidates some idea of what the job pays so that they can self-select. Those earning a lot more or a lot less than the range know they shouldn't bother applying--saving time for both you and them. But qualified candidates will be encouraged to pursue the position if they are within the pay range (or reasonably near).

If no salary or compensation information is provided, some candidates will just skip the ad. Depending on how the candidate searches for job postings, ads lacking salary information may not even be displayed. Finally, candidates often assume the pay is below average if the employer does not provide specifics.

The third mistake: overlooking keywords. Job postings are not just "classified ads" published on the web instead of the newspaper; the purpose is the same, but the process is entirely different. Job seekers don't "go to" career sites and "look at" job postings, they find open positions using keyword searches, keyword alerts and keyword-based rss feeds. A savvy employer includes every important keyword in a posting to assure it can be found by job seekers. (Additional keywords may be inserted at the end of the ad, they need not appear in the copy.)

As an example, a free market, public policy think tank--such as CATO, American Enterprise Institute, or Mackinac Center--should include keywords a job seeker might use to find work with such an organization: "free market", "public policy", "think tank", "freedom", "liberty", "limited government", "libertarian", "conservative", and "economics". In fact, since I've included all these keywords, along with "jobs", "employment", "resume" and others, this posting will show up when libertarian and conservative job seekers search for jobs.

Here is a tip for increasing the quality and quantity of candidate responses: state that the employer pays a bonus in addition to salary. This works because excellent candidates know they perform well above average and wish to be rewarded for their performance. Also, applicants view the existence of a bonus plan as a sign of a dynamic, well-managed organization.

Michael G Smith

One of the chief reasons that recruiters are hired to fill job openings is that the employer lacks the time or manpower to deal with job seekers responding to ads. It makes more sense, for a number of reasons, to outsource that responsibility by hiring a recruiter.

One might assume that providing the employer's name in a job posting would be fine, so long as interested candidates are instructed to apply through the recruiter rather than the employer. But an astounding number of people think that it is perfectly OK to ignore those instructions and contact the employer anyway. They figure that, by applying to both the recruiter and employer, they increase their odds of getting an interview. Or, if they don’t hear from the recruiter (which only happens if they are unqualified for the job), they then contact the employer directly, figuring they have nothing to lose at that point.

The large number of utterly unqualified individuals who respond to a job posting is a sight to behold. Then there are those who feel the need to apply two, three or even four times. In fact, these two categories constitute the majority of responses to most postings.

Unlike most employers—especially those lacking a human resource department—I deal with this every day; I know what to expect and have put in place automated systems to handle the avalanche of responses. From the employer's perspective, I reduce the workload arising from job postings in two ways: pre-screening qualified candidates, and insulating the employer from unnecessary outside contacts.

Michael G Smith