Latest / The Diversity Career Podcast with Fexingo: Inclusion, Equity, and Underrepresented Professionals / How One Company Rewrote Job Descriptions to Remove Gatekeeping
Transcript
- Lucas: So we talk a lot on this show about what companies do after they bring people in — mentorship, sponsorship, promotion paths. But today I want to talk about the very first gate. The thing that stops a huge number of qualified people before they even get a chance: the job description. Luna: Oh, I have feelings about job descriptions. Go on. Lucas: Right? And I think most of us have had that moment where you read a posting and you're like, 'I could do this job,' and then you hit the requirements section and see 'Bachelor's degree required, five years of experience with X, Y, Z' — and you just close the tab. Luna: Especially if you're a woman or a person of color. Research shows we're more likely to self-select out unless we meet 100 percent of the qualifications. Lucas: Exactly. So a mid-size tech company — about eight hundred employees, based in the Midwest — decided to tackle that head-on. They rewrote every single job posting from scratch, guided by a simple question: 'Does this requirement actually predict success in this role?' Luna: That sounds like common sense, but I bet it's harder than it sounds. Lucas: It is. Because a lot of those requirements are legacy — they were copied from a previous job description, or they reflect what the last person who held the role happened to have on their resume. So the company did an audit. They pulled all their postings and tagged every single line item as either 'essential' or 'nice to have' — and for the 'essential' ones, they asked: 'Can we prove this matters?' Luna: What did they find? Lucas: Over 60 percent of the 'required' qualifications were actually not predictive of job performance. Things like a four-year degree for a software developer role — when many top developers are self-taught. Or 'five years of experience in this specific tool' when the tool had only existed for three years. Luna: Wow. So the audit itself was revealing. Lucas: Right. So then they redesigned the postings. First, they removed the four-year degree requirement for any role that didn't have a genuine licensure or certification need — so software engineering, IT support, project management, even some marketing roles. Second, they replaced the long bullet list of qualifications with a short 'core competencies' matrix — maybe three to five skills that are actually critical, and they explained what proficiency looks like. Luna: I love that. Because a lot of times people don't know if 'proficient in Excel' means you can make a pivot table or you can write VBA macros. Lucas: Exactly. And third — this is the part I find really clever — they added a line to every posting that said: 'We believe in hiring for potential. If you don't meet every listed qualification but you're excited about this role and you have a track record of learning quickly, we encourage you to apply.' Luna: That's not just a nice sentiment — there's actually behavioral science behind it. It signals to underrepresented groups that the company is serious about reducing gatekeeping. Lucas: Absolutely. And they didn't stop at the text. They also redesigned the application process itself. Instead of asking for a cover letter and a resume, they gave candidates the option to submit a short video or a work sample. That alone increased applications from first-generation college students by 28 percent. Luna: Because a cover letter is a huge barrier if you don't have a network that taught you how to write one. Lucas: Exactly. So what were the results? Over six months, the company tracked a 42 percent increase in applications from women, and a 35 percent increase from candidates of color. But here's the kicker: time to hire actually dropped by two weeks. And the quality of hires — measured by six-month performance reviews — stayed the same or improved. Luna: That last point is the one skeptics always question. They worry that if you lower the bar, you'll get worse candidates. Lucas: And the data says that's a myth. Because the bar wasn't lower — it was different. They were screening for actual ability instead of credentials. The hiring managers had to do a bit more work up front to assess candidates, but they ended up with a broader, more capable pool. Luna: What about roles where a degree is legally required — like nursing, accounting, or certain engineering fields? Lucas: Great question. For those, the company kept the requirement but added alternative pathways — like saying 'or equivalent combination of education and experience.' And they made sure the job posting explained why the credential was necessary, so candidates understood it wasn't just a filter. Luna: Transparency helps. I think a lot of people are willing to meet a requirement if they understand why it exists. Lucas: Right. So the broader lesson here is that job descriptions are often a reflection of the company's culture — and if they're full of unnecessary gatekeeping, they send a signal about who's welcome. This company made the conscious choice to rewrite that signal. Luna: And it worked. But I wonder — is this scalable? Can a large enterprise with thousands of roles do the same thing? Lucas: It's harder, but not impossible. A few big companies have done similar audits — one financial services firm I read about found that removing the degree requirement from analyst roles increased applications from Black candidates by 15 percent. The key is to start with one department or role family, prove it works, and then expand. Luna: So it's a pilot and scale approach. That makes sense. Lucas: Exactly. And the cost is basically zero — just time and willingness to challenge your own assumptions. Which, honestly, is the hardest part for most organizations. Luna: Before we wrap, I want to touch on something you said earlier about the application process. The option to submit a work sample — that seems like a game-changer for people who might not have a polished resume. Lucas: It really is. And it ties into something we talk about a lot on this show: the difference between potential and pedigree. A resume is mostly pedigree — where you went to school, where you worked before. A work sample is potential — here's what I can actually do. Luna: Exactly. And that shift is what makes hiring more equitable. Lucas: So if you're listening and you're in a position to influence hiring at your company, I'd encourage you to try something small. Pick one role, rewrite the job description using the core competencies framework, add that encouragement line, and see what happens. The data might surprise you. Luna: And if you've found value in episodes like this one — thinking through real changes that make careers more accessible — I'll just say that listener support is what keeps this show ad-free and independent. Lucas: Yeah, it really does. A few dollars a month genuinely makes a difference — it covers hosting and production costs and lets us keep digging into stories like this. If you've gotten something out of the podcast, you can find us at buy me a coffee dot com slash fexingo. Luna: And we appreciate every bit of it. So back to the topic — one thing I've been wondering: do you think job descriptions will eventually become obsolete? With AI matching candidates to roles based on skills? Lucas: Interesting question. I think the job description as a static document might evolve, but the concept of defining what you need won't go away. The key is to define it in terms of skills and outcomes, not credentials and years of experience. And that's exactly what this company did. Luna: So the gatekeeping doesn't have to be there. It's a choice. Lucas: It's absolutely a choice. And more companies are starting to choose differently.