Most of the people who get this are managers and have certainly written job specifications before. While writing specifications for a new job can be a common managerial function, it is not something that gets a lot of time or attention. I often get job specs emailed to me from managers and HR people as starting points on some of my assignments. Unfortunately, there is often a key element in many job specs that is sometimes ignored. An understanding of a good job spec can often make the actual hiring decision easier. A well-written job spec gives a manager something against which to benchmark candidates. In other words, it allows a manager to compare a candidate against the spec and not just against other candidates.
A job spec should have two functions. The first is the one that often gets the most attention. Part A of the job spec is a listing of what the person will do at that company. This is the part that often gets the most attention from a manager because it is the one with which they are the most comfortable. After all, before considering hiring someone you should have a good idea of the job they will do for you. But Part A is only the beginning of the job spec.
Let’s use a fictional example. Let’s make up a company, Acme Diagnostics. They make electronic diagnostic equipment for the medical community. Now let’s pretend they are looking for a Manufacturing Engineer. The manager’s obvious first step in putting together the specifications are to list the responsibilities the person will have at Acme Diagnostics (Part A). This is the easy part. Usually it includes phrases like "work with R&D", "provide engineering support to production", "design tooling", "work with vendors", etc. Sometimes this part of the specs include HR generated phrases like " be able to lift 50+ pounds" as well. Part A of the job spec should give the candidate a very good idea of what he or she will do in that job and most managers are very good at that.
The second part of the job spec, Part B is where things sometimes get confusing. Part B of the job spec is where you, as a manager, must communicate to yourself and to your recruiter and/or HR person, what it is that the person is doing now, in their current job, that will allow them to do the job you want filled. This is where an understanding of the market, other industries and other companies, can be incredibly helpful. As an example, let’s look at the Acme Diagnostics position and see how they addressed Part B of the job spec.
Part B is where the manager includes experience level and other criteria that he/she will use in evaluating resumes and candidates. Experience usually takes care of itself because it is often a direct function of salary. If a manager says he will pay $50,000 for an engineer yet wants 10+ years experience, you have a disconnect. However, with salary being the simplest part of the equation, the rest can cause a problem.
To fully flesh out Part B of his jobs specs, Acme Diagnostics manager needs to explain what it is he wants to see in a person’s background that will allow them to do the job he wants filled. This is best described as a list of the skills/experiences a candidate must have to fulfill the job requirements. It’s what they bring to the table. It is at this point that the manager needs to step back and look at his situation from an outsider perspective. Not every manager does this well and it hurts him or her
Once we get past experience level, we get to the description of the specific experience we want to see in a resume or candidate’s background. It becomes too easy for a manager to just take Part A of his job spec and paste that onto Part B as a list of the experience and skills required for his job. Here is what I often see:
Required Experience:
3+ years experience in engineering support to manufacturing in the production of medical diagnostic equipment. Knowledge of FDA/GMP codes as they relate to the manufacture of medical diagnostic equipment. Good communications skills. Good energy level. Ability to get along with others.
What those specs are really saying is that the manager wants someone from a direct competitor, whether he needs that or not. He wants someone he won’t have to train at all. Leaving aside the personality traits required (I have never had a company ask me to find someone with a bad energy level), this manager has not done a good job of writing his specs. What if the only other medical diagnostics manufacturer is in San Diego and he has no relo budget? That’s a problem.
But the bigger problem is that, by limiting his vision, the manager will get a poorer caliber person. The bigger the market of candidates to choose from, the better, more talented, more motivated person you will likely find. That is common sense. If there are two potential people at the 3+ year level in competing medical diagnostics firms locally, that is a small universe to choose from, even assuming they are both interested. If a manager can balance his short-term technical issues with his longer-term view he would see more resumes and have more and better people to compare. Of course, the specific technical skills the candidate brings to the table are important but there needs to be a better way of defining those skills. A more inclusive way. You can’t write specs so broad that they include everyone.
Here is the spec I would have written for that job:
Required Experience:
3+ years experience in manufacturing engineering or project engineering in the production of sophisticated microprocessor based equipment for specialized applications. Experience in low to mid volume production. Experience in a regulated product line or experience in working within a formalized design/manufacturing culture with a strong methodology. Ability to maintain documentation.
In my specs, I am broadening my definition of Acme Diagnostics products and defining them as sophisticated microprocessor based products, not as medical diagnostics. My spec will get the candidate from within the diagnostic industry but will also include people from outside my specific product niche who may also have the skills I require. At that point, I can evaluate the candidates as people and not just as abstract collections of skills. Maybe the best person will be from a competitor but maybe they will be from a product sold to the aerospace market that utilizes related technology. This way you will find out for sure.
One of the unsaid truisms of HR and recruiting has always been that the tighter the specs, the weaker the manager. Unusually tight specs can mean the manager does not have the self-confidence or personal skills to train a good person in ANY aspect of the job. Sometimes, when I ask managers about this the response is, "But I don’t have time to train". I have two answers for that. One, training is always part of a mangers job. If you don’t have time to provide training to your staff, either you are doing something wrong or your employer hasn’t given you enough tools. Two, training is a department function. If your department is composed of people who can’t help train a talented individual in ANY part of his or her job, than you have either done something wrong in hiring those people or you don’t have enough tools, once again.
I remember a spec I got last year for a Design Engineer. It was from a company I had done business with before but it was from a new manager. I had never worked with him before. The spec was so tight and so narrowly written that I had no one even close and had no hope of finding anyone. I patiently explained that, based upon the specs, there may be only two people in the country capable of doing that job as it was written. The odds of anyone identifying those 2 people and then getting them interested in the job were astronomical.
Last I heard was that the company gave up on filling the job and hired a fresh grad instead.
On the other end of the spectrum is a fellow I do a lot of business with. He is a an engineer and he owns his own company. It’s one of the regions fastest growing companies and over the last year we’ve been helping him put his new management team together. He doesn’t write official specs. He calls me and we spend about an hour talking about what he wants to the person to do at his company; who will report to them, things he wants upgraded in the department, etc. He expects me to be able to tell him the industry, experience level and specific skills of the person he wants. Since no one in the region has a related product, he knows that he needs to reach out to other companies and industries and expects me, as his vendor, to be able to help him identify target industries that would have relevance to his needs.
So please, give a little thought to two things. One, what do you really want in a person? Do you want someone who has designed identical products for identical markets or someone who has designed similar products for different markets? Those are two very different things and that difference can get you a better person in the long run. The second suggestion, in closing, is to invest a little time in speaking to the person who will be doing the recruiting. A 5-minute discussion of your needs vs. the market may build you a better staff.
And before I forget, don’t forget Right Recruiting for your hiring needs. Thanks for your time. Jeff
