|What Developers are actually looking for…|
So what does this tell us? Firstly that Hire my Friend’s users are very much on target. The majority of users are looking for work in small, startup teams. It’s the the details here that are more interesting for me. I have always said that offering a job that is both rewarding and challenging is attractive, i.e. referring to actual problems to solve. This is borne out by the answers given, the words problem, challenging, learning, solving and knowledge feature heavily. The second biggest takeaway for me is the importance in stressing the “why” of the role you’re hiring for. Why is the work important? How will it impact the larger team and the rest of the company? In describing the work we should ensure that we stress those elements that are “creative”, “fascinating”, “exciting” and “cool”.
So given these answers how can we measure a job description against the data? The same process can be used to evaluate our own job descriptions – here’s mine
|From the advert|
For me the obvious difference here is between the active and the passive. The job description has some of the same elements but still has some scope to be a better match. In a passive sentence, the subject of the sentence is acted upon rather than performing the action. For a potential candidate this could mean that they are left with a sense of being used like a resource or that their individual importance in being downplayed. What job seeker wants to be part of a massive swathe of hiring to become a cog in a machine? None I’d want to hire. As William Zinsser says in his book On Writing Well, “active verbs push hard and passive verbs tug fitfully” a job advert should be a compelling call to action.
I’m going to use the Hire my Friend data to write different adverts and do my own A/B test. It will be interesting to see if matching the word choice and elevation of individual over the companies own needs makes the difference I think it will. I’ll let you know how I get on.