Home » Our Blog » 5 Reasons Your Job Postings are Broken … and How to Fix Them
back to the top
Broken Job Postings

5 Reasons Your Job Postings are Broken … and How to Fix Them

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on LinkedIn Share on Google Plus Share through email Print it More share options

5 Reasons Your Job Postings are Broken … and How to Fix them

Employers are finding it increasingly difficult to fill mission-critical positions, due to lack of available applicants and candidates not having the necessary experience or skills. A 2016 survey by Manpower revealed that United States talent shortages are getting worse. But, is the labor market completely to blame? Or, could part of the problem be that your job postings are broken? If your job postings aren’t attracting top-talent candidates, it could be for the following reasons.

1. Not Listing Expectations

“Would you rather hire someone with all of the skills, or someone who can deliver the results?” to quote Lou Adler, HR and recruiting consultant and Adler Group CEO. If your current job postings disregard the role’s goals, potential for growth and how they fit within your culture, then your current postings are probably broken.

Are You Struggling to Find Good Talent?

This new breed of descriptions presents your job openings as a career opportunity instead of an intimidating “must have” checklist. By doing so, your job posting may organically inspire interested talent to think of their own comparable accomplishments and to remain interested as they read through the learning opportunities. A performance-based job posting has stronger chance of attracting diverse candidates as well as military veterans and mothers returning to the workforce and who may not fit the traditional mold.

Remedy: Define the real work involved, not skills or experiences, but the challenges and deliverables expected. Describe the objectives, instead of the person. List the top six annual goals of each role.

For example:
• “Achieve $60,000 in sales every quarter,” instead of “three years of sales experience”
• “Analyze performance trends to improve closing rates,” replaces “detail oriented”
• “Must manage several projects while working in an open-office, deadline-driven department,” rather than “able to multitask”

2. Vague Job Descriptions

In a study by AgCareers.com, respondents cited job responsibilities as the most important information to include in job postings. In addition, respondents were most discouraged by job descriptions that were too brief or not descriptive enough.

Prospects like to have a solid idea of responsibilities from the outset because it helps them determine whether they may be a good fit. Therefore, employers should provide position details in the listing – but keep it concise enough so applicants don’t become overwhelmed or lose interest.

Remedy: Be clear about the job functions, compensation, required skills and education level. If you’re flexible on certain requirements, convey this in your language – for example, “Master’s degree or equivalent work experience.”

3. Overlooking Passive Job Seekers

There’s a good chance your ideal candidate is already employed. But passive candidates typically only engage in conversations if a job change represents an exciting career move. Even if a passive seeker is satisfied with their current position, keep in mind that a recent poll found that 45 percent of employees claimed they are open to learning about new opportunities, According to Morgan Hunter Corporate Search.

Remedy: In addition to utilizing a recruiting firm, consider casting a wide net via your social media channels or forwarding the listing to your industry contacts who may be able to recommend a worthy candidate.

4. Not Reaching Mobile-Savvy Candidates

Nearly fifty percent of job seekers use their mobile phones to look for work at least once a day, according to Mediabistro. Further, one in four job seekers will not apply to job listings if the description or application process isn’t mobile friendly.

Remedy: To attract mobile applicants,

  • Keep job titles short, such as 50 characters or less. Long titles take up too much screen space on a mobile device.
  • Include key search terms in your job description to increase the chances of prospects finding the listing through search engines.
  • Minimize scrolling time. The general consensus is that mobile applicants shouldn’t have to scroll down the page more than four times to reach the end of the job description.
  • Ensure the design is clean, easy-to-navigate and looks good on all mobile units.
  • Give candidates the ability to apply to – and share – the listing from their mobile device.

 

5. Not Ending with a Call to Action

According to Entrepreneur magazine, a survey in which the call to action (CTA) was placed near strong supporting information yielded a 304 percent conversion rate increase – indicating that calls to action should be placed in the area that best supports the decision-making process.

Remedy: To increase your job posting response rate, insert a CTA that gives applicants clear directions at the end of the description. For example:

  • Place your “Apply” button “above the fold” so candidates don’t have to scroll down the webpage to find it.
  • Encourage prompt response by stating the closing date for receiving applications.

 

Job postings are the first real form of communication that prospective employees have with your business. It’s imperative to make them count.


Tiffany McGowen

by Tiffany McGowen


Author Bio: Tiffany McGowen, Paycom’s national director of recruiting, is responsible for the oversight of staffing corporate headquarters and growing the nationwide sales force. She has more than 10 years of recruiting experience, ranging from executive-level talent to interns, with a specialty in sales professionals. Passionate about motivation, McGowen is constantly on a coast-to-coast hunt for the best and brightest talent in every market.

How to Seriously Drive Employee Engagement

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on LinkedIn Share on Google Plus Share through email Print it More share options

If you won the lottery tomorrow, would you stop working? Chances are you’ve mulled it over before, even if you don’t buy a ticket often. When jackpot amounts grow to rival pro athletes’ salaries, the subject inevitably creeps into everyday conversation. At that point, it’s hard not to think and talk about what we would do as the recipient of a massive windfall.

So how do you think others responded? The answer may surprise you.

According to a study by Gallup, two-thirds of American workers would keep their nose to the grindstone, even after winning $10 million. A CareerBuilder survey reported that half of U.S. workers would continue working after winning the lottery, even “if they didn’t need a job financially.”

That’s right: If over half the working population’s biggest financial hurdles disappeared tomorrow, they would come to work the day after. But why?

What exactly is the employee experience, and how does it impact your bottom line? Find your answers in this podcast interview with Jacob Morgan.

In addition to the desire to maintain relationships with co-workers, 77% of respondents told CareerBuilder they would be bored without a job, and 76% said their work gives them a sense of purpose and accomplishment.

Why Purpose Is a Must

As those survey results show, in order to lead a fulfilling life, people need more than money. They need a reason to get out of bed in the morning. They need to know their actions matter in the grand scheme of things. They need to feel part of something bigger than themselves.

Work can help meet those needs, and when it does, employees feel purposeful, connected and intrinsically motivated: the winning trifecta of long-term engagement. Passion for helping achieve the company’s mission will sustain them when you’re unable to reward them extrinsically with cash or perks. Purpose will keep them going for the long haul.

Without purpose, employee engagement strategy becomes little more than a series of rewards that prod employees forward, but never inspire them to greatness. Not only is a piecemeal strategy ineffectual, it’s unsustainable. The pressure to constantly invent and implement ideas to motivate them quickly can exhaust resources and even the most zealous HR pro.

Your employee engagement strategy should include both extrinsic, short-term rewards and high-level purpose.

Building a Purpose-Driven Strategy

If you currently give employees annual or short-term goals and financial incentives, you’re on the right track toward building a purpose-driven strategy. If not, consider incorporating those aspects into your performance management plan. Then share your business’s ultimate purpose – its reason for being – with your people.

“A reason for being is a non-typical mission statement that has four criteria,” writes Jacob Morgan, futurist and author of The Employee Experience Advantage. “It rallies employees, is not centered on financial gain, is unattainable and talks about the impact the organization has on communities and the world.”

According to Morgan, major companies like Starbucks and Airbnb already have established their “reasons for being” and are seeing positive results. If you’re interested in doing the same, listen to this week’s episode of Paycom’s HR Break Room podcast. In it, Morgan will share steps companies take to define their reason for being, and tips on how you can, too. Click here to subscribe.

Once you’ve defined your business’s ultimate purpose, share it with employees. Doing so will make it easy for them to understand how their contributions count toward reaching the larger, common goal. That combined with other efforts – like pulse surveys, financial incentives, goal setting and professional development opportunities – will increase your odds of building a winning strategy and engaging employees for years to come.

 

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Blog, Employee Engagement, Employee Experience, Featured

Amy Double

by Amy Double


Author Bio: Amy, a tenured professional in sales and marketing with over 10 years of experience, is dedicated to creating content focused on helping organizations achieve their business goals. As an experienced writer, Amy is committed to researching and blogging about topics that affect businesses across multiple industries, including manufacturing, hospitality and more. Outside of work, Amy enjoys reading, entertaining and spending time with family.

DOL's Request for Information

Back to the Drawing Board: The DOL’s Overtime Overhaul Request for Information

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on LinkedIn Share on Google Plus Share through email Print it More share options

The U. S. Department of Labor is taking comments on how it should move forward with overtime overhaul

Since the newest regulations to the overtime law were found invalid, employers are subject to the previous version of Fair Labor Standards Act. However, the roller coaster has not ended.

On July 26, 2017, the DOL published a Request for Information in the Federal Register, indicating it intends to attempt an overtime overhaul. Comments to the Request may be submitted until September 25, 2017. The request asks the public for a response to 11 specific questions.

We can use the questions proposed to help uncover some of the possible changes the DOL is considering. Below are five of the more telling questions and what we can infer from them.

1. Should we just update the 2004 salary level based on inflation?

The Court suggested it would be permissible if the DOL adjusted the 2004 salary level for inflation during questioning at the preliminary injunction hearing. In fact, the Court stated, “[I]f [the salary level] had been just adjusted for inflation – the 2004 figure – we wouldn’t be here today … because [the salary level] would still be operating more the way it has … as more of a floor.” This question indicates the DOL may be referencing inflation because they believe it would be acceptable with the courts

2. Should the regulations contain multiple standard salary levels? If so, how should these levels be set: by size of employer, census region, census division, state, metropolitan statistical area or some other method?

The DOL attempts to make a more malleable test here, which, of course, would serve to be more sensitive to changing demographics. However, a change like this would clearly make compliance tough for employers.

3. Should the DOL set different standard salary levels for the executive, administrative and professional exemptions as it did prior to 2004 and, if so, should there be a lower salary for executive and administrative employees as was done from 1963 until the 2004 rulemaking?

Much like the question above about multiple salary levels, this question would likely provide a more effective test. However, would it come at the cost of convoluting the analysis for employers?

4. Would a test for exemption that relies solely on the duties performed by the employee without regard to the amount of salary paid by the employer be preferable to the current standard test?

This question suggests the DOL seems to be accepting the court’s analysis that duties are more important than salary.

5. The 2016 Final Rule, for the first time, permitted non-discretionary bonuses and incentive payments (including commissions) to satisfy up to 10% of the standard salary level. Is this an appropriate limit or should the regulations feature a different percentage cap? Is the amount of the standard salary level relevant in determining whether and to what extent such bonus payments should be credited?

This question indicates the DOL may propose a version of regulations that still allows for bonuses to apply to the salary level.

Given the nature of the questions found in the Request for Information it’s clear the DOL has gone back to the drawing board and may propose something completely different from both the recent failed regulations as well as the 2004 revisions.

Disclaimer: This blog includes general information about legal issues and developments in the law. Such materials are for informational purposes only and may not reflect the most current legal developments. These informational materials are not intended, and must not be taken, as legal advice on any particular set of facts or circumstances. You need to contact a lawyer licensed in your jurisdiction for advice on specific legal problems.

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Blog, Compliance, Featured, FLSA, Overtime Expansion

Zachary Gregory

by Zachary Gregory


Author Bio: As a compliance attorney for Paycom, Zach Gregory monitors legal and regulatory changes at the state and federal levels, focusing on payroll and garnishment laws, to ensure the Paycom system is updated accordingly. He previously worked at a law firm as a tax attorney. He holds a bachelor’s degree from Oklahoma Christian University and a J.D. from Oklahoma City University. Outside of work, Gregory enjoys playing in the backyard with his two boys, and finding new restaurants with his wife and high school sweetheart, Kellyn.

FLSA Overtime Regulations

Court: DOL’s FLSA Overtime Regulations Invalid

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on LinkedIn Share on Google Plus Share through email Print it More share options

In case you missed it, on August 31, 2017, Judge Amos Mazzant of the Eastern District of Texas determined that the 2016 Final Rule issued by the U.S. Department of Labor, which increased the minimum salary threshold to $47,476, was not a valid action by the agency.

After finding that the case was ready for judicial decision and the parties at hand could be injured if the court did not intervene, Mazzant addressed all three of the plaintiff’s arguments.

First, the court addressed the state plaintiff’s argument that the Fair Labor Standards Act’s (FLSA) overtime requirements violate the Constitution by regulating the states and coercing them to adopt wage policy choices that adversely affect state budgets. The court held the Supreme Court precedent of Garcia v. Metropolitan Transit Authority established that Congress has the authority under the Commerce Clause to impose FLSA’s minimum wage and overtime requirements on state and local employees.

Next, the court declined to accept the plaintiff’s argument that based on the clear statement rule, the FLSA does not apply to the states. Under that rule, “if Congress intended to alter the ‘usual constitutional balance between the states and the federal government,’ it must make its intention to do so ‘unmistakably clear in the language of the statute.”

The court discarded this argument simply by pointing out the law is applicable to any “enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce,” and this phrase, by statutory definition, includes the activity of any public agency. Therefore, the court held that the Congress was clear enough in its intention to impact the states.

 Failing the Test

Finally, and most importantly, the court agreed with the plaintiffs in finding that the Department of Labor acted outside of the scope of its delegated authority by implementing a salary-level test that effectively eliminated the duties test.

The court adhered to the test established in Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., which requires courts to determine whether Congress has spoken directly to the precise question at issue. If Congress has, then the court and agency must follow the intent of Congress.

After interpreting the plain meanings of “executive, administrative and professional,” Mazzant found Congress intended the exemption to apply to employees who perform those duties, rather than those who simply are paid a certain amount. Furthermore, because the new regulations focused more on the salary level than Congress intended, they were found invalid, and the court held the agency acted outside of its delegated authority.

What’s Next?

The Department of Labor published a Request for Information in the July 26 Federal Register, which indicates the agency intends to continue its attempt at overhauling overtime.

Disclaimer: This blog includes general information about legal issues and developments in the law. Such materials are for informational purposes only and may not reflect the most current legal developments. These informational materials are not intended, and must not be taken, as legal advice on any particular set of facts or circumstances. You need to contact a lawyer licensed in your jurisdiction for advice on specific legal problems.

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Blog, Compliance, Employment Law, Featured, FLSA, Overtime Expansion

Zachary Gregory

by Zachary Gregory


Author Bio: As a compliance attorney for Paycom, Zach Gregory monitors legal and regulatory changes at the state and federal levels, focusing on payroll and garnishment laws, to ensure the Paycom system is updated accordingly. He previously worked at a law firm as a tax attorney. He holds a bachelor’s degree from Oklahoma Christian University and a J.D. from Oklahoma City University. Outside of work, Gregory enjoys playing in the backyard with his two boys, and finding new restaurants with his wife and high school sweetheart, Kellyn.

X

Learn more about Paycom

  • Are you a current Paycom Client?

    Yes

    No

    • Talent Acquisition

    • Time & Labor Management

    • Payroll

    • Talent Management

    • HR Management

  • Subscribe me to Paycom's newsletter.

*Required

We promise never to sell, rent or share your personal information with a third party unless required by law. By submitting this form, you accept our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.