Latest / Hiring & Firing with Fexingo: Recruitment, Performance, and Workforce Decisions / The 40 Percent Drop in Overqualified Applicants After One Job Ad Change
Transcript
- Lucas: You know that feeling when you post a job and suddenly you're drowning in applications, but none of them are right? Luna: Oh, constantly. It's like the hiring gods are mocking you. Lucas: Right. So a few months ago, I came across a case from a mid-size tech company — about 400 employees — that had exactly that problem. They posted a senior product manager role and got 300 applications in the first week. Luna: Let me guess — most were way overqualified or way underqualified. Lucas: Exactly. So the hiring manager decided to run an experiment. She changed one sentence in the job description: instead of '5+ years of product management experience required,' she wrote 'we welcome candidates with 2+ years of experience and a hunger to grow.' Luna: That's a pretty dramatic shift. What happened? Lucas: Applications dropped by 40 percent. But the interview to offer ratio went from about 8 to 1 down to 3 to 1. And the first three hires from that new pipeline all hit their performance targets within 90 days. Luna: So fewer applicants, but way better ones. That's the dream. Lucas: And it makes sense when you think about it. That original job description with the 5-year floor was attracting two groups: people who barely met it and were stretching, and people with 8 to 10 years who thought they'd coast. The specific 2-year language scared off the coasters and attracted people who were actually excited about the role. Luna: So the specificity acted as a self-selection filter. But I'm wondering — did they change anything else in the ad? Lucas: Nope. Same company, same salary range, same responsibilities. Just that one line. And they ran it for two weeks, then ran the original version again for two weeks. The difference was stark. Luna: That's a really clean A-B test. I love that they actually measured it. Lucas: And the data backs up a broader principle: when you're vague about requirements, you get a lot of noise. When you're precise, you get signal. But here's the counterintuitive part — the hiring manager told me she actually got pushback from her own HR team. They said, 'You're going to scare away good candidates.' Luna: And what happened? Did any great candidates with 5-plus years still apply? Lucas: A few did, but interestingly, they were the ones who read the full description and resonated with the 'hunger to grow' language. So it wasn't about filtering out experience entirely — it was about filtering for mindset. Luna: So the lesson isn't 'always lower your experience requirement.' It's 'be intentional about what you're actually asking for.' Lucas: Exactly. And that applies beyond experience. I've seen similar experiments with education requirements, with specific skill lists. One company swapped 'proficiency in Excel' for 'able to build pivot tables and VLOOKUPs' — same effect. Applications dropped, but the ones that came in were actually qualified. Luna: I think the fear is always that you'll miss out on some hidden gem who doesn't meet the exact criteria. But in practice, the hidden gems tend to apply anyway, and the time you save not sifting through unqualified resumes is enormous. Lucas: Right. And that time has a real cost. I've seen estimates that a typical hiring manager spends 20 to 30 hours per hire just on resume screening. If you can cut that in half by writing a better job description, you're not just improving quality — you're saving thousands of dollars in salary time. Luna: Plus the opportunity cost of having the role unfilled. So let's talk about how to actually do this. What's the practical playbook? Lucas: Start by auditing your last three job descriptions. Look for vague phrases like 'strong communication skills' or 'ability to work in a fast-paced environment.' Those are basically meaningless. Replace them with specific behaviors. For communication, give an example: 'wrote weekly status reports for a team of 10 or more.' Luna: And for 'fast-paced environment'? That one's always bugged me. Lucas: Try 'comfortable reprioritizing tasks on a weekly basis based on shifting business needs.' That's concrete. It signals what the job actually feels like. Luna: That also helps candidates self-select out if they hate constant change. Which is a good thing. Lucas: Exactly. And here's another tip: list the top three things the person will achieve in their first 90 days. That's way more powerful than a list of responsibilities. It tells candidates what success looks like. Luna: I've seen companies do that and it completely transforms the quality of applicants. People start tailoring their cover letters to those specific outcomes. Lucas: And that makes your screening easier too. You can immediately see who actually read the ad versus who just spammed their resume. Luna: So we've talked about experience, skills, and outcomes. What about culture? I've seen job descriptions that say 'we work hard and play hard' — that's another vague one. Lucas: Oh, that's the worst. It tells me nothing. Instead, describe actual norms: 'We have a core hours policy of 10 to 3, but otherwise you set your own schedule.' Or 'We do a team retro every Friday afternoon.' That gives a real picture. Luna: And that also helps with diversity, because vague culture language tends to appeal to a narrow band of people. Specifics can broaden the pool. Lucas: Right. There's a famous study from a few years ago — I think it was by the job platform Applied — where they found that changing the wording of job ads to focus on tasks rather than traits increased the number of women applicants by 20 percent. Because traits like 'assertive' or 'strong leader' can be coded as masculine, but 'manage a team of five' is neutral. Luna: That's a great point. And it ties back to the idea that specificity is not just about efficiency — it's about fairness. Lucas: Yeah. So if you take one thing from today, let it be this: your job description is a filter. Make sure it's filtering for what you actually want, not just what's easy to write. Luna: And if you've ever spent hours sifting through resumes that clearly don't fit, you know how valuable that is. Lucas: Honestly, if today's episode saved you even one hour of that kind of screening, it was worth it. And if it was worth a coffee to you, that's the link — buy me a coffee dot com slash fexingo. No pressure, just a way to keep these conversations ad-free. Luna: Yeah, it's a small thing that makes a big difference for us. We appreciate every single cup. Lucas: Alright, so back to the specifics. One more tactic I want to mention: use a 'must-have' versus 'nice to have' section in your job description. That forces you to prioritize. Luna: And it also signals to candidates that you're realistic. Nobody is perfect. Lucas: Exactly. The company I mentioned earlier, they actually added a line that said 'if you meet 70 percent of the requirements, we encourage you to apply.' That alone increased their applicant pool quality. Luna: Because it reduces impostor syndrome. Especially for women and underrepresented groups, who tend to only apply if they meet every single criteria. Lucas: Right. So the takeaway is: be specific, be honest, and be intentional. Your job description is the first impression candidates have of your company. Make it count. Luna: And test it. Run an A-B test like that product manager did. You might be surprised at what works. Lucas: Absolutely. Next time you're about to post a role, spend an extra 30 minutes on the job description. It could save you weeks of bad interviews. Luna: Alright, that's a solid plan. Thanks, Lucas. Lucas: Thanks, Luna. See you next time.