How to Write a Job Description That Actually Attracts the Right Candidates — Not Just the Most

Candidates do not need to be sold on applying for a role they found on a job board — they are already there. What they need is enough honest context to decide whether the role is genuinely right for them. The opening paragraph should describe what the organization does, who this role reports to, and the specific problem or opportunity the role is being created to address. Two to three sentences. Factual, specific, honest.

The language that almost never helps: ‘dynamic,’ ‘fast-paced,’ ‘passionate team,’ ‘results-driven culture.’ These phrases appear in so many job descriptions that they have become invisible to candidates and they communicate nothing specific about your organization.

This is the section most descriptions get most wrong. A list of day-to-day tasks tells a candidate what they will be doing, but not what they will be accountable for. The distinction matters because outcomes-oriented language attracts outcomes-oriented candidates.

Weak: Responsible for managing social media channels and developing content.
Strong: Own the organization’s social media presence across LinkedIn, Instagram, and X, with accountability for growing engaged follower counts by 20% over 12 months and increasing content-driven lead generation by Q3.

The second version tells a candidate exactly what they will be evaluated on. The candidates who are excited by that clarity are the ones who can deliver it. The candidates who are unsettled by it are giving you useful information.

Requirement inflation is one of the most documented problems in recruitment research. A role that genuinely requires five years of experience and a working knowledge of two or three tools frequently gets posted with ten years of experience, four mandatory certifications, and a degree requirement that has no functional relevance to the actual work.

The practical cost: qualified candidates self-select out of roles they could perform excellently because they meet 70% of the requirements rather than 100%. Research from LinkedIn consistently finds that women in particular apply only when they meet nearly all listed requirements, while men apply at 60%. An artificially inflated requirements list does not produce better candidates. It produces a narrower and often less diverse applicant pool.

Split your requirements into two explicit categories: genuinely required (the role cannot be done without these) and strongly preferred (these would accelerate the person’s effectiveness). Apply honest judgment to which items belong in each category before you post.

Ontario’s Bill 149 now requires a salary range in all public postings for employers with 25 or more employees. But beyond compliance, a credible compensation range does specific work in the applicant pool: it signals the seniority level of the role, filters candidates whose expectations are genuinely misaligned, and communicates a baseline of organizational transparency that starts the employment relationship correctly.

Post the real range. Not the floor you hope to pay. Not the maximum you’d pay for a perfect candidate. The actual range you would offer to a qualified person at the appropriate level for this role.

If you are going to say something about your culture — and most descriptions do — say something specific and observable. Not ‘we value work-life balance’ but ‘our team works core hours of 9 to 5 and does not send emails on weekends.’ Not ‘we invest in professional development’ but ‘every employee has an annual learning budget and dedicated time for development in their quarterly goals.’

Specific, verifiable culture claims attract candidates who want those things specifically. Generic claims attract everyone and help no one filter accurately.