How to Write a Job Description That Attracts More (and Better) Candidates
"Write more inclusive job descriptions" is common advice with rarely any specific edits attached. The concrete version is narrower and more actionable: certain patterns in job postings measurably shrink the pool of people who apply, independent of whether the role's actual requirements changed at all. Fixing those patterns is a straightforward editing pass, not a philosophical rewrite.
The requirements-list problem: research-documented, not just anecdotal
A frequently cited internal Hewlett-Packard finding — that men apply for a job when they meet about 60% of listed requirements, while women tend to apply only when they meet close to 100% — has been widely referenced in hiring research since, and while the exact numbers vary study to study, the underlying pattern holds directionally across multiple studies: long, inflated requirement lists disproportionately filter out qualified candidates who read requirements literally rather than as a rough wishlist. The fix: split your list into "required" (genuinely non-negotiable, kept short) and "preferred" (nice-to-have, clearly labeled as such) — and audit every "required" item by asking whether a candidate missing it would actually be rejected. If the honest answer is no, it belongs in preferred, or it shouldn't be listed at all.
Gendered wording that shrinks your applicant pool without you noticing
Linguistic research on job postings has found that words like "dominant," "competitive," "aggressive," and "ninja"/"rockstar" skew a posting's applicant pool more male, while words like "collaborative," "support," and "nurture" skew it more female — the effect is subtle per word but compounds across a posting with several of these terms. Neither direction is objectively "better" language; the goal is noticing when a posting has drifted toward one register by habit rather than intent, and balancing it so the posting doesn't unintentionally signal who "belongs" applying before anyone's even read the role details.
Vague titles and internal jargon cost you searchable candidates
A posting titled "Growth Ninja" or "Rockstar Developer" doesn't just carry gendered connotation — it's also functionally unsearchable. Someone searching "senior backend developer" or "growth marketing manager" won't find a posting using unconventional internal branding, no matter how well-written the description underneath is. Use the actual, conventional title candidates search for as the primary title, and save internal team nicknames for the body copy if you want them at all.
Years-of-experience requirements that don't match the role's actual seniority
"5+ years required" attached to a role that's genuinely mid-level (not senior) filters out strong candidates with 3-4 years who could clearly do the job, purely because of an arbitrary number that often gets copied from a template rather than calibrated to this specific role. Calibrate the number to what the role actually needs — what would someone genuinely be unable to do with 1 year less experience — rather than defaulting to a round number that sounds appropriately senior.
What to actually put at the top: the real content of the job, not the company pitch
Candidates scanning a posting decide whether to keep reading in the first few lines. A posting that opens with three paragraphs of company mission and culture before describing what the role actually does loses candidates who can't tell yet whether this job matches what they're looking for. Lead with what the person will actually do day to day and what's genuinely required — save the culture pitch for after that, where it reinforces interest rather than delaying the information a candidate is scanning for.
Compensation transparency: increasingly expected, not just legally required in some markets
Beyond the jurisdictions where salary-range disclosure is now legally mandated, postings with a stated range consistently attract more applicants and save real recruiter time — candidates self-select in or out on compensation fit before ever reaching a screening call, instead of that mismatch surfacing after a full interview loop. A stated range doesn't need to be narrow; even a realistic band communicates good faith and filters more efficiently than no information at all.
Frequently asked questions
Do long requirement lists actually reduce who applies to a job?
Yes, directionally — research (including a widely cited internal Hewlett-Packard finding) shows candidates, especially women, are less likely to apply unless they meet nearly all listed requirements, while others apply meeting only a majority. Splitting requirements into a short 'required' list and a clearly separate 'preferred' list reduces this filtering effect.
Does the wording of a job posting really affect who applies?
Yes — linguistic research has found words like 'dominant' or 'aggressive' skew applicant pools more male, while words like 'collaborative' or 'nurture' skew them more female. The effect per word is subtle but compounds across a posting, so it's worth an audit rather than assuming word choice is neutral.
Should job titles use creative names like 'Growth Ninja' instead of standard titles?
No — beyond any gendered connotation, unconventional titles are functionally unsearchable. Candidates search standard titles like 'growth marketing manager'; a creative internal nickname as the primary title makes the posting invisible to that search behavior.
Should I include a salary range in the job posting?
Where not already legally required, yes — postings with a stated compensation range consistently attract more applicants and let candidates self-select on compensation fit before a screening call, rather than that mismatch surfacing after a full interview loop.