Yes, reading the job description is important, however with the response level from the companies being low numbers play a great role. It is easy to see from a glance at the job description weather you will be interested or not and 90% you will be correct. It takes too long to modify the resumes to apply to a position that there is only a small chance of response. For me, best strategy proved to be having multiple different resumes designed toward different job descriptors. The real research about the job start with the first contact, when the interview is on the horizon, this is where all the tools come handy such as: Google, email address that the contact used, company website, and hopefully the job description if it still up. This is also a good time to decline the interview if you think that the job is not for you as not to waste anyone's time.

posted 6 months ago

> It seems like a really high number of resumes that come through the pipe these days don't reflect that the applicant reads the description beyond the job title.

I remember being taught in school years ago that lots of job listings list "ideal" qualifications that the company realizes may be hard for anyone to match. So the advice we used to be given was that if you think there's a good fit, go ahead and apply even if you're missing some of the qualifications.

As I look back on that advice, I wonder if that was such a good idea. I do know people who got jobs when they didn't quite meet the qualifications. But personally, I'd feel a little guilty for wasting a client's/employer's time if I didn't have all the qualifications that were asked for.

So far that part of the question, yes, I do take job descriptions seriously. I figure if someone took the time to write it, they meant it.

Years ago, I was working as a freelance writer and doing some resume writing on the side. I was working on a resume for a guy in his 20s and he wanted to get a job with the city. His qualifications were so out of sync with the job listing it wasn't funny. But he needed a job and felt he couldn't afford not to take a chance.

Lots of people, including freelancers, are in that same boat. It's not that they're being disrespectful or lazy about reading the description, they're just trying to get work any way they can to pay the bills. And some are hoping that the "ideal" candidate for a given job isn't out there, so maybe they have a shot.

posted 6 months ago

Bob:

Not only do I read every word of the job description, if I am interested, I copy and paste that job description into a word document and reformat it so each qualification is listed as a bullet point. Then I enter, for each bullet, I list my level of expertise. Do I have no knowledge, some knowledge, intermediate knowledge or expert knowledge?

This is a great tool to get me ready for the interview or to help me decide if I will submit my resume for the position. When I send this analysis to recruiters, they love me. It makes their job, to sell me to the client (if it’s a good fit) much easier and saves us both time that we would have spent on the phone. You know those calls: tell me about your experience in ___________.

I believe job hunting IS a numbers games. But I am stacking the deck in my favor by taking the time to read and analyze the description for a fit with my experience.

Did I mention that I’m an analyst?

posted 6 months ago

I do take the job description literary. I look at the job description to gain the inside as to what the project is, what technology they are using and what my role in it is.

Speaking about honest job-description, there are 3 staffing firms that are in my shit list to date.

posted 6 months ago

I take them seriously,,, so far, although I may soon move to a larger shotgun soon . As I look right now, I feel like there are positions that I am passing on applying for, that if I could get past screening, I could make a good case that I would be good for the job. A personal problem, but problematic in some kitchen sink job descriptions, are the mix of QA process and standard operations which I have solid 10 years plus experience in, mixed in, or with specific automation or product skills where I have small amounts of experience.

I have also seen the occasional descriptions that are almost humorous in the details... several of which appeared for months in several listings. Taken literally, they want someone who is not likely to exist, and if they did, they would be a senior manager, not seeking Software QA or Lead QA

Les

posted 6 months ago

My opinion on this subject is not set in stone primarily because I view each job description individually.
If there is poor grammar, incomplete information, an attempt to "fish" for resumes etc, I pass on it without hesitation. If it is unprofessionally presented then they won't professionally present me or qualify as a potential employer in my eyes.

Sometimes the job description "over shoots" what is actually required to perform the duties to try and collect a higher level of applicants. I research the position on the companies website, net searches etc to see exactly what does qualify someone for this job and act accordingly.

If I am obviously underqualified I WILL NOT apply to the position. Simply for the fact that I value the recruiter or hiring companies time and do not want to be remembered for monopolizing their energies should a position come about later that I am qualified to apply for.

Finally if I have a negative experience with a specific individual that has posted a position then I pass on those as well.

I have been told before that I was "overqualified" and not considered with the understanding that I wouldn't stay long and move on as soon as another position better suited to me came available. That is quite unfortunate don't you agree?

So how do hiring managers and recruiters respond to these applicants that aren't even remotely close to making the cut? Black list them? Interview a few regardless?

posted 6 months ago

Bob,

Depends how long is the job description(JD). In some cases, I have seen JDs going over 1 page with 15+ skills. There is no way the company is going to find that kind of candidate.

I take extra time in going through JDs in which the company has also mentioned what kind of "attitude" or "personality" suitable for the job. This really tells me whether I should apply or not.

My experience with JDs for INFOSEC jobs is that they are poorly defined with just a bunch of skill sets and range of experience/certificates.

Thanks,

Amit

posted 6 months ago

Yes and no. I have learned many managers cast a big net to see what they get. I once applied and received a job that listed many skills I didn't have.

Mind you no all managers do this and I have heard a few complain about people that don't read the job descriptions.

posted 6 months ago

I understand your point of view. I just wanted to mention that on the other hand, when a candidate is applying for a job, which is not exactly matching his/her current job, and explains why in his/her submission letter, this is quite often not taken into account.
Candidates are using technology, which allows to send easily resumes, even when not matching job descriptions. And more and more head hunters are using key words search on resume before really reading it.

posted 6 months ago

Bob,

As a former career counselor and training expert also in this field, it is my strong opinion that job descriptions need to be read like contact ads.
In fact, they are! Both sides are trying to find a close match for a (usually) longer lasting relationship, and both sides start out by painting the best picture they can.

You need to take job descriptions seriously, but that doesn't mean you have to take each word literally. Learn to read between the lines to squeeze as much information out of that little piece of information as possible. Any experience with this will come in handy. If you don't have the experience, use someone else's.
Look for any kind of clues, and when in doubt: use the phone number that is listed! I've learned that many people are afraid to do so, but it is not listed for nothing! Use it only for asking informative questions.

Some simple tips:
1) In case of an extensive list of requirements: unless when it's stressed that all demands need to be met, they are not all to be met. Usually the top of the list represents their real demands, and the rest are also-nice-to- have's.
2) Look for clues in the relation between the most important tasks and responsibilities & the requirements, in combination with the job title. E.g. 'management experience 3-5 years' for a senior manager position with lot's of direct reports needs to be taken quite literal. But when they ask the same for a teamleader position (5-10 direct reports) in let's say a call center environment, you might stand a chance with 1 or 2 years of experience as well.
If you're not sure, make sure you find more information (e.g. call).
3) Look if the style and choice of words of the ad and job description attract to you, and try to find out why (or why not).
4) Using exactly the same resume for many applications reduces your chances of being invited for an interview to a large extent. That is a simple fact. Even when the company is very shallow in their description (maybe because they are, mind you...), it is worth the effort of trying to match your resume with their job offer. The importance lies in making sure that your efforts result in interviews that are worthwhile, both for you and the company.
5) Last but not least: don't forget that companies may themselves not be very experienced in recruiting and therefore don't know exactly what to look for or how to put it.

To conclude, it may be clear that I definitely don't believe that job hunting is a number's game, ever. Shooting hail around might hit something, but hunting with aim and a clear vision get's more and better results. And this goes for both applicants and companies.

Kind regards,
Tessa

posted 6 months ago

Taking the job description seriously always help you perform better before (during the interview) & after (when you are on job). As you very well know that you do have right skill set to meet. If don't, I believe, you make yourself in trouble.

posted 6 months ago

I am a job searcher, and I have to say that I always read the announcement. The tragedy is the dual set of standards in the job search arena, where every applicant is expected to do massive research for every job applied for, while job listings are often fraudulent, advertising non existent jobs (just to collect your resume) and with most job applications, once you reply you normally never hear anything in return. It may be frustrating for the hiring managers, but trust me, it is far more frustrating for the job searcher.

Most jobs you apply for you never get as much as a receipt of your application, let alone anything else related to your application. Also, many job descriptions are looking for the bionic candidate, or someone that can't possibly exist like the equivalent of someone fresh out of school (read low salary expectations) with 10 years experience in the latest and greatest cutting edge technologies (read qualified to the hilt). Many are offering dismal salaries to someone with 5 years of university studies and/or 15 years of job experience. Job descriptions in far too many ads are so unrealistic that it is difficult at times to take any of them too seriously.

For me, if the job title is a fit, if I like the company (if it is in the announcement), if I meet more than half of the requirements, and if the salary is respectable I'll apply. Unfortunately, willingness to learn doesn't appear to be important to any employer, recruiter, HR department or hiring manager. I have a broad generalist IT background, I am a jack-of-all-trades-master-of-few, I have a willingness to learn, I have a track record of being a fast learner, I am a mature outside-the-box thinker, a good troubleshooter, I speak 3 languages, ... I'm not a kid fresh out of school and therefore, I expect a good salary (therefore eliminated immediately). I'm told often I have a fantastic profile, but not by anyone in a position to offer me a job.

Don't take this personally, while you might get annoyed by applicants, on the other side it feels like a heartless and soulless competition designed to crush spirits, generate angst and reduce individuals to the point where they will accept any pitiful job they can get at any pitiful salary, which is neither good for the society, the economy or the quality of life.

Everyone should be guaranteed employment doing something they find rewarding. The system must change so that connecting the dots is actually doable.

posted 6 months ago

Well, let's say I would if I actually saw one! In most cases, at least in my experience, the companies I've worked in didn't actually provide a "written" (documented) job description for various reasons, the most obvious of which is, it provides them the latitude to add responsibilities as they go -- that the written description, without adding a general statement of "and other duties as necessary" would not provide them ..

That said, it's cleared the way for me to innovate things and grow both the position and the company's abilities and opportunities to succeed! Not having one can and has been a win, on several occasions!

As for the hunt? .. I don't limit myself .. I always love a challenge and, an old Manager said to another colleague that, "the quickest way to get something done, is to tell Marietta is can't be done .. then go away and leave her to it!" .. it's worked very well -- for me, and for the employer!

And, IMHO, a good HR leader will, regardless of the volume of resumes, find the cream in the bowl! The job title, for both the Candidate and the HR leader, don't always describe the position -- so don't limit yourselves!

Excellent question Bob -- thanks! Marietta

posted 6 months ago

Hi Bob,

When looking at position descriptions I read the entire description fully, focusing on required skills and qualifications. However, I also try to read between the lines because in my area (SharePoint) employers and/or recruiters often aren't really sure what they're looking for in a candidate. I've seen position listings calling for a SharePoint Developer, yet the description describes an integrator/administrator. I've also been on a couple of interviews where a recruiter has told me I'm a terrific fit only to find the employer is seeking someone with a completely different background.

I don't think job hunting is a "numbers game". Perhaps in some job fields and/or locations you have to let your resume fly in many directions and land where it may, but I feel quality will win out over quantity every time.

posted 6 months ago

I am currently engaged in a job search and take job descriptions very seriously. In reading a number of questions/answers here on LinkedIn, it is quite clear that recruiters and hiring managers are frustrated and bogged down by the receipt of resumes from job seekers that are obviously unqualified for the posted jobs. In addition, it wastes my own time to both apply for and monitor my applications for such jobs, as it distracts from finding a job that is desirable and appropriate for both the employer and me.

The first thing I do in looking at job ads is evaluate job titles. If the title suggests that I might fit the job requirements, I read the description and, if appropriate, apply for the job. In doing this, I again save time and energy for myself and others by selectively targeting only those jobs for which I am qualified. Though this practice results in my applying for fewer jobs, I receive proportionally more interviews from taking the time to evaluate whether I possess the skills and experience considered necessary for the position.

That said, I must agree with the point made in several of the other answers that job descriptions are often so long and detailed that no one could actually meet all of the stated requirements. In these cases, I make a judgment call as to whether I would be considered a viable candidate and whether the job would be a good fit for me.

posted 6 months ago

There is so much variety in the titles for my industry. We are Executive Administrators, we are called Secretary I, II, III, we are called Senior administrators, and the list goes on.

I am all about the job description itself, because in a nut shell, I am a corporate house-mom......I do everything so you do not have too.

posted 6 months ago

I absolutely make sure that I'm qualified to do everything stated in a job description. Job definitions often collapse inside companies and become moot. That could be causing appplicants to wonder how far, in the long-term, employers are thinking when creating or filling a role.

posted 6 months ago

When organizations post, they're looking for the ideal candidate on paper, but they don't have the sense of an individual with all the intangible skills. I like to say that a hiring manager is looking for two things:

1. Do you have the knowledge, skills, and experience that I need in this positon?
2. Do I trust you?

If you're just sending resumes and a hiring manager has to make the decision just about what you've written on your resume, you better be a pretty tight match. If I already know you and have that trust (or if someone I trusts trusts you) then I'm probably going to be less stringent on what's on the resume.

The best is when you have nailed everything in the job description, and you have people who vouch for you. You then make it easy on the hiring manager to say yes. If you make they work too much for it, it's not going to happen.

Links:

• http://www.resonare.com

posted 6 months ago

What for ?
There is too many difference between the job description and the reality; sometime, nothing: in particularly in software company.

posted 6 months ago

Actually, what worries me more is that HR will. A lot of job descriptions are either taken from the corporate book of job definitions, or, in the case of a hiring manager with a definite need, an impossible laundry list is made up and published, to then be taken as literal gospel.

More often than not, the job I end up doing is completely unlike the advertised position. Usually it's better.

posted 6 months ago

I was once told that job descriptions are straight-jackets. They confine what you should be doing. What you should be doing is whatever your boss asks of you to the best of your ability regardless of whether it's on your 'job description' or not.

However, as has been mentioned, in many cases what ends up happening is a person ends up with a nebulous job with tasks pulled from....well most times nobody really knows where the work comes from...but it still needs to be done, on time, under budget and it must be flawless.

I like the well written job description because it helps management more than it helps the employee. If they (management) are paying attention they can see exactly what they have assigned and to who they have assigned it. When reviews come around you already have a list of what the employee did and hopefully the results of those tasks.

There's nothing wrong with an under written description so long as the things that are added are tracked somewhere. Otherwise the employee ends up leaving (too much stuff...too little time) and then you have to write another job description and hire someone! What that also means is that in the interim you know what tasks aren't being covered and can unload them on other people. Plus your job description is already mostly written for you.

posted 6 months ago

I do take a job description seriously. The full description gives you some idea what the company is like and what they expect from the title they are trying to fill. In the case of accountants. Senior accountant can mean a wide range of things to different companies based on the size of the company. It could be a very basic job with little or no supervisory responsability or it could be akin to assitant controller. Its not just job qualification or salary that matter but will you like the job and the company.

posted 6 months ago

Absolutely. If I take my job seriously, then I'm reading the description–seriously. As for the numbers game, I still think that networking is far more beneficial then a blind send-off. However, today, networks are far less discriminant and people can be validated and qualified through a number of resources. This also applies to the company doing the hiring.

The only drawback to a description today is; many industries are experiencing a shift in their services, their talent pools and their respective ideas, products and services. With this said–some companies don't really know who they're looking for. Or why they might need them. This can potentially hurt negotiations and salary requirements and obviously, the job description.

An employer hires the wrong person initially. Or the employee takes a job for far less then what the employer really needed in the first place.

Words like: Innovator, multi-tasking, leader, articulate, client-oriented, etc., are not specific enough. Jobs and titles are evolving very fast and turnaround is happening even quicker for some industries.

posted 6 months ago

When I read your question I was thinking about reading ones present job description. My experience is that less than 5% of people even bother. And that in every department in companies there is ‘one’ person who knows it by heart. Interested me what other people have to say about this.

After readling your full question I found out that it’s more about people applying for a job (the same is true for contract assignments).

It may well be that the same sequence is followed by people looking for a job. They respond to the title (ergo job description). Of course some send their reply immediately (there are a number of valid reasons for doing that) and some read the full question.

Interesting is that a number of LinkedIn questions indicate that the same happens (more and more) the other way around. Recruiters not reading or understanding (I don’t think it’s fair to ask a recruiter who just left school to mediate people with 10-20 years experience) resume’s and sending people job descriptions or invitations that don’t fit at all. A recent one was by Kevin Stakelum.

I recently had a chat about this with a headhunter in the UK that may be of use to some of you. He called me to ask my why is was not in their database. My main reasons were simple:

1. I was asked to fill in if I had experience in either field A or B or C. My experience as in all three of them and I do not not want to be limited to one.
2. They asked me what I had done and not what I wanted to do.

Our combined conclusion was that the 80/20 rule applies. The 80% bulk of applications might be covered by a CTRL+F search, counting the hits and send the ones with the highest hitrate. You don’t get the best applicant but is there time and budget to go that far. The other 20% ‘beats’ the flexibility and quality of recruitment databases and requires time and experience to search, find and mediate. How many take the time … be honest 

Conclusion may well be that two-way recruitment traffic standards are below what they have been and that everybody has some homework to do.

posted 6 months ago

I just read enough of it to make sure that I'm not completely unqualified for the position. The problem with with reading the job description in detail, is that I've been on the other side and I've learned that companies tend to hide exactly what they are looking for, since giving too many details will give away valuable competitive information.

posted 6 months ago

Aha......Ask someone who needs a job desperately !!! You cant blame him or her....he/she will get to hang on any damn rope that takes him/her out of the slumber !!! Why not !!

But yes it is wise to check the job description ! I do it at times !

Best

posted 6 months ago

99% of the time, yes.

My field: communications.

The times I don't read the full description is because job descriptions are increasingly homogenous. While those looking to hire emphasize the need to make one's resume stand out, the job descriptions themselves are almost all the same so after a while I end up just skimming through because I can tell what the description will be like based on the posting title.

posted 6 months ago

For better or worse, I read the whole description. Typically, when I am looking for a job, I'm not unemployed - I'm still at my current position, so I don't have a ton of hours in a day to just job hunt, though I wish I had that luxury (scheduling interviews while working is a real pain). Reading the description, in the end, saves me time. I don't want to spend time sending my resume and cover letters to companies that wouldn't be interested in me. And even if they were initially, I wouldn't want to make the time for an interview for a position that turns out to pay way less than what I am looking for, isn't the kind of company I want to work for, etc etc.

Sometimes, if I honestly feel like a great opportunity is right in front of my eyes and I'm not missing a major qualification requirement, I'll take a chance and apply for the position. But, that doesn't mean I didn't take it seriously - it means I did read the description and after considering it, still felt like I could be a potential candidate because of other areas I'm strong in.

But as a person who has, on numerous occasions, done the initial resume screenings for other people (clients of mine mainly), I've definitely noticed that some people clearly don't read the job descriptions from start to finish.

posted 6 months ago