# How to write a job description that attracts the right candidates

> A good job description says what the job is for, what the person will do, the few things they must already be able to do, what it pays and how you'll decide. A structure, a worked example, and the mistakes that cost you applicants.

Ashley at SortTheStack, October 19, 2026. Original: https://sortthestack.com/blog/how-to-write-a-job-description

**A job description that attracts the right people says, in plain words and in
this order: what the job is for, what the person will actually do, the few
things they must already be able to do, what it pays, and how you'll decide.**
Most of what fills the average posting, such as adjectives about the company,
a long list of "requirements" and a personality wish list, makes it harder for
the right people to recognise themselves.

This guide covers how to define the role before you write, a structure you can
fill in, a worked example, and the mistakes that cost you applicants.

## Job description or job posting?

Strictly, a **job description** is the internal document that defines a role:
its purpose, duties, requirements and where it sits. A **job posting** is the
advertisement built from it. In a small business they're usually the same
document, and that's fine, as long as you remember that the posting is read by
strangers deciding in a minute or two whether to apply.

## Before you write: define the role

Most weak job descriptions are weak because the role wasn't decided before the
writing started. Answer four questions first, in a sentence or two each:

1. **What is this job for?** The outcome the business needs, not the title.
   "Close the books accurately by the fifth working day each month" says more
   than "Senior Accountant".
2. **What will the person actually do, week to week?** Five to eight tasks,
   roughly in order of time spent.
3. **What must they already be able to do on day one?** Not what they'll learn.
   Three to five items at most.
4. **What would success look like after six months?** This is the test you'll
   judge the hire by, so it should shape the requirements.

If you're stuck on the tasks, the U.S. Department of Labor's
[O\*NET database](https://www.onetonline.org/link/summary/13-2011.00) lists the
typical tasks, skills and knowledge for hundreds of occupations. For
accountants and auditors it includes tasks such as "Review accounts for
discrepancies and reconcile differences." Use it as a checklist to prompt your
own list, not as text to paste: a generic description attracts generic
applicants.

If the job is new to your team, it's worth working out first whether you need
more of something the team already does or something nobody does yet. Our
guide to [hiring for your team](https://sortthestack.com/blog/hiring-for-your-team) walks through that.

## A structure you can fill in

```text
JOB TITLE
  The plain title people search for. Seniority if it matters.

WHY THIS JOB EXISTS (2–3 sentences)
  The outcome you need, and who the person works with.

WHAT YOU'LL DO (5–8 bullets)
  Real tasks, most time-consuming first.

WHAT YOU NEED (3–5 bullets)
  Things they must already be able to do, each written so an
  applicant can tell whether they have it.

NICE TO HAVE (2–4 bullets)
  Labelled as optional. They rank applicants; they never reject.

PAY AND TERMS
  Pay or pay range, hours, location or remote, start date.

HOW WE HIRE
  The steps, roughly how long each takes, and when people will hear.
  Whether you use AI to screen applications.
  Whether this is an existing vacancy.
```

## A worked example

Here is the structure filled in for the fictional Senior Accountant role at
Larkspur Partners, used throughout our guides. Pay is left as a placeholder
because the right number depends on your market.

> **Senior Accountant**
>
> **Why this job exists.** Larkspur Partners is a small accounting
> practice. We need someone to own the monthly close for our own books and for
> three small business clients, so that the partners can spend their time on
> advisory work.
>
> **What you'll do**
>
> - Run the month-end close for four sets of books, finishing by the fifth
>   working day
> - Reconcile bank, payables and receivables accounts, and resolve
>   discrepancies
> - Prepare schedules and working papers for the annual external audit
> - Review the work of one junior bookkeeper
> - Explain monthly results to clients who aren't accountants
>
> **What you need**
>
> - A CPA designation, or be a CPA candidate with an expected completion date
> - Experience running a month-end close yourself, including sign-off
>
> **Nice to have** (we'll still want to hear from you without these)
>
> - Experience preparing audit working papers
> - Experience with a cloud accounting ledger
> - A background in public accounting
>
> **Pay and terms.** $[minimum]–$[maximum] a year. Full time, Monday to
> Friday, hybrid with two days a week in our office. Starting in January.
>
> **How we hire.** We read every application against the requirements above.
> Shortlisted applicants get a 15-minute call, then a short practical exercise
> using sample data, then a structured interview with two partners. We aim to
> decide within three weeks of the closing date and will tell everyone we
> interview what we decided. [Statement on AI use.] [Statement on whether this
> is an existing vacancy.]

Notice what isn't there: "five years of experience", "detail-oriented
self-starter", "excellent communication skills", "fast-paced environment".
Each was either a proxy for something said more precisely elsewhere, or a
claim every applicant would make about themselves. Communication hasn't
disappeared: it's in the tasks ("explain monthly results to clients who aren't
accountants"), and it will be tested in the interview.

## Requirements: fewer, and written as evidence

The requirements section does two jobs. It tells people whether to apply, and
it decides who you screen out. Long lists fail at both.

In a survey of 2,275 employers in the United States, the United Kingdom and
Germany,
[Harvard Business School and Accenture (2021)](https://www.hbs.edu/ris/Publication%20Files/hiddenworkers09032021_Fuller_white_paper_33a2047f-41dd-47b1-9a8d-bd08cf3bfa94.pdf)
found that 88% of employers using software to filter or rank applicants said
it screened out qualified high-skills candidates at least some of the time
because they didn't match the exact criteria in the job description. The fewer
and more precise your requirements, the less of that happens.

Be especially wary of asking for a previous job title. Ask for the experience
instead: "has run a month-end close", not "has been a Senior Accountant".
Using its members' profiles, LinkedIn's Economic Graph Research Institute
([Lara, 2025](https://economicgraph.linkedin.com/content/dam/me/economicgraph/en-us/PDF/skills-based-hiring-march-2025.pdf))
estimated that defining eligibility by shared skills, rather than by having
held the same title, made the pool of eligible people for a typical job 6.1
times larger across the countries it studied, and 15.9 times larger in the
United States. That's a model of who could be considered, not of who was hired,
but it shows how many people have done the work under a different title.

Write each requirement so an applicant can tell whether they meet it: "has run
a month-end close independently" rather than "strong accounting background". If
you can't say what evidence would show it, you won't be able to screen for it
consistently either. [Must-have vs nice-to-have](https://sortthestack.com/blog/must-have-vs-nice-to-have)
has a four-question test for each item and a free worksheet.

## Wording: describe the work, not a personality

Word choice changes who applies. In a series of studies,
[Gaucher, Friesen and Kay (2011)](https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022530) found that
job ads for male-dominated occupations used more masculine-associated words
such as "competitive" and "dominant", and that ads written with more of these
words made the jobs less appealing to women. The studies used constructed ads,
so treat the size of the effect with caution. The fix costs nothing anyway:
describe the tasks and the evidence you want, and drop the adjectives.

A few more wording choices that help:

- **Use the title people search for.** "Senior Accountant", not "Numbers
  Ninja". Applicants search for titles they recognise.
- **Put pay in the posting.** In a growing number of places it's required,
  and everywhere it saves both sides a wasted conversation.
- **Say how you'll decide.** Applicants who know there's a work sample and a
  structured interview can prepare for the job, not for guessing what you want.
- **Write in the second person.** "You'll run the close" is easier to picture
  than "the successful candidate will be responsible for".

## What the law may require in the posting

Depending on where you hire, the posting may have to include specific
information. Since 1 January 2026, most Ontario employers with 25 or more
employees must state the pay, say whether AI is used to screen, assess or
select applicants, and say whether the job is an existing vacancy, and must not
require Canadian experience. Several U.S. states require pay ranges. Our
article on
[what a job posting must disclose](https://sortthestack.com/blog/job-posting-disclosure-rules) sets out
the rules with links to each official source and a
[posting checklist (PDF)](https://sortthestack.com/downloads/job-posting-checklist.pdf). This is not
legal advice; check the rules where you hire.

## Common mistakes

| Mistake                            | Why it hurts                                                          | Instead                                                        |
| ---------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------- |
| Copying last time's description    | The job has usually changed, and the old list grows with each reuse   | Answer the four role questions again                           |
| Ten or more "requirements"         | Screens out people who could do the job and discourages them applying | Three to five must-haves; the rest labelled nice to have       |
| Duties listed as requirements      | Only people who've held the exact title qualify                       | Duties under "what you'll do"; qualifications under "you need" |
| Year counts and degrees by default | Weak predictors that remove capable applicants                        | Ask for the thing the years stood in for                       |
| Personality adjectives             | Every applicant claims them; some wording deters good applicants      | Describe the work and how you'll assess it                     |
| No pay, no process                 | Fewer applicants, more drop-outs, and in some places non-compliance   | State the pay and the steps                                    |

## Where SortTheStack fits

When you create a job in SortTheStack, it drafts requirements from your job
description as Must have and Nice to have, written as qualifications rather
than duties, for you to edit before anything is screened. Each job can have its
own careers page, and every application is then read against your final list,
with the evidence quoted. If you use it to screen applicants for a posting
covered by Ontario's rules, that posting needs the AI statement.
[See how the screening works](https://sortthestack.com/product).

## Sources

- Fuller, J. B., Raman, M., Sage-Gavin, E., & Hines, K. (2021).
  [_Hidden workers: Untapped talent_](https://www.hbs.edu/ris/Publication%20Files/hiddenworkers09032021_Fuller_white_paper_33a2047f-41dd-47b1-9a8d-bd08cf3bfa94.pdf).
  Harvard Business School Project on Managing the Future of Work and Accenture.
- Lara, S. (2025).
  [_Skills-based hiring: Increasing access to opportunity_](https://economicgraph.linkedin.com/content/dam/me/economicgraph/en-us/PDF/skills-based-hiring-march-2025.pdf).
  LinkedIn Economic Graph Research Institute.
- Gaucher, D., Friesen, J., & Kay, A. C. (2011). Evidence that gendered wording
  in job advertisements exists and sustains gender inequality. _Journal of
  Personality and Social Psychology, 101_(1), 109–128.
  [doi.org/10.1037/a0022530](https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022530)
- U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, O\*NET
  OnLine,
  [13-2011.00 Accountants and Auditors](https://www.onetonline.org/link/summary/13-2011.00),
  accessed 19 October 2026.
- Ontario Ministry of Labour, Immigration, Training and Skills Development,
  [Requirements related to publicly advertised job postings](https://www.ontario.ca/document/your-guide-employment-standards-act-0/requirements-related-publicly-advertised-job),
  accessed 12 October 2026.