Reading the subtext behind job descriptions

Don't let your worst past experiences drive how you sell your org's open positions

Kinder, gentler job descriptions

Despite my vow to focus on fractional leadership roles rather than full-time, my friends still send lots of links to lots of jobs that might be up my alley. I appreciate it…at least a couple of times, I’ve convinced someone to hire me fractional when they thought they wanted full-time, and I believe we all thought it was mutually advantageous in the end. So send away, but I will likely be pitching something a little different than hiring me full-time.

Recently, though, I read a job description and was struck by its subtext.

I first think of subtext as an acting term. It’s the idea that you can be saying one thing (i.e., the actual text), but your meaning can be quite different. It’s the idea of reading between the lines. Another place where subtext often shows up is when people know that they can’t say certain things explicitly (because it’s culturally, socially, or even legally unacceptable), but they really really want to say those things. So they figure out a code. They write or speak text absolutely laden with subtext.

So here was the language I saw in a job description (which, I swear, I can no longer remember where it’s from, so I couldn’t call them out if I wanted to):

This Job Might Not Be For You If You:

• Are status conscious, hierarchy-driven, or resume/credential-focused

• Struggle to give or receive feedback or engage in healthy dialogue

• Don’t want to build alongside young people in leadership roles

I copied/pasted that language into my notes app and added the notation: “Just say you don't want to hire “the Olds” and be done with it.”

This part of the job description is full of negative language that no one is going to immediately resonate with and respond to by saying, “it me.”

Starting with the passive-aggressive “This job might not be for you if you…” I just imagine many people who have been laid off being a little weary of the “It’s not you, it’s me”-ness subterfuge of that.

The first bullet equates credentials with elitism and makes it sound like code for “Don’t come in here knowing your worth, please.”

The second bullet is both disingenuous and kind of obvious. I think most people struggle a bit with feedback. Giving and getting. It’s why there are countless books and courses and articles about how to do it. So, the subtext seems to mean “if you struggle to be cool with us wanting to slam you early and often.” Plus, I mean, isn’t “healthy dialogue” a baseline requirement we all strive for in the workplace? Who is going to say, oh! You’re so right. I don’t like healthy dialogue! Guess this isn’t for me; thanks for the warning. Don’t throw me in the briar patch of “healthy dialogue” amirite?

And finally, the last one crosses the line the most, bringing age explicitly into the criteria, bringing their real concern into very clear focus, but again with the most passive-aggressive phrasing. Again, who says, “Phew, bullet dodged. I sure don’t like ‘building with young people’”???

If I’m being my best self, I think I understand what these folks were trying to communicate based on their own experience and baggage. Maybe they could own what they want and ward off inappropriate interest with a more positive positioning of what they believe their workplace culture represents. Maybe it could have looked something like this:

• Please apply even if you don’t have 100% of the qualifications listed…we will give passion and a growth mindset equal weight with experience doing similar roles.

• We are a flat organization, and we believe in building a work culture where we can all learn and achieve the most while working together across levels of experience and across functional areas of focus.

• We have core values of “radical candor” (or insert similar reference point), data-based decision-making discussions, and bringing up the tough stuff early, before problems escalate.

• We are hiring for a truly cross-generational workforce where we can build together and learn from one another. We respect expertise and lived experience. Vision and values. Strategy and tactics.

I still might see that and think, hmmm, I don’t know if flat orgs really work over a certain size of workforce. Or, ugh, I think “radical candor” is code for being dick-ish*. Or, I wonder if this is giving them cover so they can hire friends instead of the most competent folks. Or any number of concerns that may make me decide that no, this job is not for me, or it might give me some questions to come armed with when I interview. But it probably won’t make me think that they don’t want people over a certain age to show up.

Look, your feelings about how you’ve been treated in the past are valid, but they don’t have to drive how you communicate in the future. When people need a job, when they are feeling the pinch and the anxiety of not having one, they will apply even if you do the best possible job saying what you want and make it pretty clear they’re not it. We can all make the world a little kinder right now, especially for job hunters. So you might as well follow the dictum of that old song and “accentuate the positive” counterpart to any negativity that may drive your first draft of a job description.

*I haven’t read radical candor, so this is a made-up criticism, not an actual opinion of mine.

What do you think? Would you read those bullets the same was I did, or am I over-sensitive? How would you interpret and then write that part of the description? Let me know!