Job Postings That Don't Screen Out Half Your Candidates
A job posting is a filter. Most employers know this and think of it as filtering for the right people. In practice a large share of what it filters out is qualified candidates who read a requirement they cannot meet — one that was never actually necessary.
For a separate commercial perspective on attendance tracking, see employee attendance tracking software; it should be evaluated independently against accessibility, privacy, and employment-law requirements.
Employers can compare inclusive-employment practices with resources from the Employer Assistance and Resource Network.
Nowhere is that more true than with physical requirements copied from templates nobody has reviewed in a decade.
Physical requirements
Start here, because it is the biggest single source of unnecessary exclusion.
"Must be able to lift 50 lbs" on a role where lifting is occasional or incidental. "Must be able to stand for extended periods" where the standing is not the work. "Valid driver's licence" where no driving is involved. "Must be able to work in a fast-paced environment" as a proxy for something unnamed.
Each of these removes people who could do the job.
The test: is this an essential function, or is it a description of how the job has historically been done?
If lifting is genuinely essential — a warehouse role, a care role — state it, state the actual weight and frequency, and state it as a requirement of the job. If it happens twice a month and a colleague could help, it is not essential, and putting it in the posting costs you candidates for no benefit.
Where a requirement is real, describe the outcome rather than the method. "Must be able to move inventory between the floor and shelving" is accurate and leaves room for someone who does it differently. "Must be able to lift 50 lbs repeatedly" describes one method.
Requirements generally
The same logic applies beyond physical ones.
Years of experience are a poor proxy and exclude asymmetrically. People with disabilities more often have interrupted work histories — which is a fact about circumstances, not about capability.
Degree requirements outside regulated professions. Many are inherited rather than justified.
"Continuous employment history." Excludes anyone who has taken time out for health, caring, or anything else.
Long tool lists. Naming twelve platforms suggests you want someone who has used your exact stack rather than someone who can learn it.
Separate must-have from nice-to-have and be strict about the first list. If you would interview someone without it, it is not a must-have.
Language
Cut personality adjectives. "Dynamic," "high-energy," "self-starter," "thrives under pressure," "wear many hats." They describe nobody, exclude nobody on merit, and read to many candidates as a description of an environment that will not accommodate anything.
Describe the work instead. "In the first six months you will take over reporting for three regional teams" tells a candidate what they would do and lets them assess whether they can do it.
Watch coded phrasing. "Recent graduate," "digital native," "young and energetic" screen on age. "Must be available at all hours" screens on caring responsibilities and health. Some of these are legal problems as well as recruitment ones. See interview questions that create exposure.
What to add
A real accommodation statement with a working contact.
"We provide accommodations at every stage of the hiring process. If you need one, use the accommodation-request process described in this posting. Requesting an accommodation will not affect your application."
A boilerplate EEO line at the bottom does not do this. A clearly documented request process does. The difference is between a legal statement and a usable invitation.
The salary range. Required in a growing number of jurisdictions and useful everywhere.
The work arrangement, in specifics. Not "flexible" or "hybrid" but how many days, which days, at which location, and what hours or time-zone overlap. Remote and hybrid arrangements matter disproportionately to this group of candidates, and vagueness costs you people late in the process — after they and you have both invested.
What the process involves. How many stages, roughly how long, who they will meet, and whether there is a test. Candidates who need to plan around transport, personal assistance, or fatigue cannot do so without this, and nobody else objects to knowing.
Essential functions, stated plainly. Not as a warning, as information. A clear description of what the job requires lets a candidate assess for themselves — which is more respectful and more accurate than a filter based on assumption.
Format
The posting has to be readable by the people you want to read it.
- Real headings, not bold paragraphs
- Bullet lists in actual list markup
- No text inside images
- Sufficient colour contrast
- Plain language, expanded acronyms
- Readable at 200% zoom and on a phone
If your applicant tracking system renders postings badly, that is a system problem worth raising with the vendor — and worth testing before you find out from silence.
The test
Two checks, both quick.
Show it to someone doing that job today and ask whether it describes their work. If they say "sort of," the posting is generic.
Go through the requirements list and ask, for each one: would I actually reject someone who could do the job but not this? Every item where the answer is no should come out.
Most postings lose two or three requirements to that question. Each one you remove widens the pool at no cost to quality — because the bar was never really that long.