Decoding Job Description Jargon

What is "Influence without Authority?" How about "High Tolerance for Ambiguity?"

The best thing I've seen in a job description (henceforth “JD”) is the slogan “Work medium, play hard.” All the foosball and chair massages in the world can’t compete with an employer who says, right at the top, “your wellness matters to us.”

The worst thing I’ve seen in a JD is, well, it’s only Tuesday. The thing that’s bothering me lately is how disappointingly unremarkable they all are, even for companies I know are filled with amazingly talented people.

Tasked with the challenge of competing for the best of the best, employers seem content to rely on cliches and milquetoast aphorisms about what they’re looking for. The hands of my favorite recruiters are tied, they say, by legal, compliance, and other political constraints. I have studied the situation carefully, and I can assure you that there is almost nothing that’s wrong with recruiting that is really the recruiters’ fault.

There’s an idea going around that JD’s are suddenly much more specific and demanding because of the sudden glut of talent on the market. I don’t know if that’s true, but maybe it explains the growing wall of hyphenated adjectives I see in some JD’s. If you’re a hands-on self-starter who enjoys a fast-paced environment, you probably know what I mean.

There are two idioms that turn up frequently, often in JD’s for senior professional roles, and especially in the tech/product world. Let’s unpack them, and see how hiring managers and job seekers can make the most of the important ideas behind them.

They are:

• Influence without Authority: Often seen in the context of senior roles where people management is not the biggest part of the job.

• Tolerance for Ambiguity: This is like “self-starter” but worse. It’s used by managers afraid to hire someone who will get that “deer in the headlights” look when faced with a difficult situation.

Can we do Better?

But first, let’s ask why employers weigh down JD’s with this type of jargon, with red-flag terms (like “perks” or “we’re like family” or “competitive compensation”) that only attract candidates who aren’t wise enough to know better? Why do they routinely omit information from job descriptions that every candidate needs — like the daily responsibilities of the role, the hiring manager’s title or role, or the applicable location policy?

The reason is the same reason for so many silly things. It’s a failure of empathy on the part of the hiring manager and/or recruiter. They’re operating the way they do because It’s always been done that way. Nobody’s taken the time to recollect their own experience looking for a job, and asked “what would make me want this job?”

Jargon is useful when it’s used by professionals to communicate with precision about a complicated subject. Is that what’s going on here? Let’s attack these top two phrases, try to unlock their real meaning, and discuss how hiring managers and candidates can relate to them in an emotionally intelligent way.

Influence Without Authority

Photo by Ty Williams on Unsplash

Whoever first wrote the words “Influence Without Authority” (IWA) most likely didn’t have enough of either. It’s by far my favorite thing to see in a JD. It means everything to some people, and yet nothing to almost everyone. It’s the “Live Laugh Love” of job descriptions.

These words are a signal that the person who takes the role will not be empowered to achieve the goals they’re given. Well, it wouldn’t be the first time!

The depressingly benign idea behind IWA is that many roles (and all Product Managers, famously) do not directly command the resources they need in order to make their product or get their job done. Through hook or by crook, by bribe or by blackmail (next week’s post) this person must influence the necessary people to behave the way they want, since they lack the authority to simply command them to do so.

What is this doing in the JD, you might ask? It doesn’t belong there, really. It’s a statement about the “how” instead of the “what” or “why” which I prefer to keep the focus at this stage. “Influence” usually means the ability to persuade, collaborate, and inspire people to pursue a common goal. Casting that as “influence” gives the impression of a charismatic, magnetic, glad-handing personality. What you really want, though, is someone who knows how to overcome obstacles to getting things done.

Rather than drafting “influence without authority” into your JD, why not describe instead how successful and influential people thrive in your culture. Tell candidates how the people who do have the authority will be engaged in supporting this role. Ask them for stories that show they understand that it’s not enough to have a good idea, and to tell you how they overcame obstacles to get something amazing done.

That’s the compelling idea behind IWA. It recognizes that no idea is good enough on its own to get people in line behind it. Ideas are supported by the hard work of leaders who bring teams together. Nobody wants to hire somebody who insists they know what needs to be done, but who needs the social, political, and evangelical aspects of the job done for them.

Some of the key characteristics that make that happen are trust, credibility, persuasiveness, and accountability. Why not come right out and say that, instead of making it sound like you’re looking for some kind of mentalist?

If you’re applying for a job that asks for IWA, or something like it, describe your track record of being persuasive, overcoming the reservations or objections of potential collaborators, and motivating teams with different or even competing interests.

Some great IWA tactics are:

• Earning trust through a track record of successful accomplishments achieved through collaboration with a functionally diverse team.

• Setting the right goals for teams, showing they’re likely to be attained, and measuring the meaningful outcomes of compelling magnitude.

• Cultivating relationships with teammates, colleagues, partners, and vendors that accelerate your ability to bring a team together.

If you’re a hiring manager tempted to write “IWA” in a job description, try something like this instead:

At [company] we achieve greatness by bringing our amazing people together around excellent ideas. We prize leaders who know that authority doesn’t come only from a job title, but also from the practice of influence, persuasion, collaboration, and alignment. Tell us about your track record bringing people together around the need to do something difficult, how you got the team on board, and describe the end result.

This is longer than “IWA” isn’t it? But it’s also way better. The extra bytes don’t cost you anything, and they show the candidate that you care.

High Tolerance for Ambiguity

Photo by Brands&People on Unsplash

Another favorite, “HTA.” I never get tired of this one. Ambiguity is such a weird word to use here. Before ambiguity married tolerance, it went by its maiden name — which is bullshit.

Back in my day, we’d never have said “Oh, Becky is on 17 managing some ambiguity right now.” We’d say “Oh, great, Becky is back on her bullshit.”

Just once I’d love to read a job posting that said:

“This role calls for the ability to persuade people you cannot locate or identify of something you do not fully believe in or fully understand. A high tolerance for bullshit will be essential to your success. It’s not a great situation, but we’ll sure you’ll do fine, good luck!”

The word ambiguity will appear next to roles that are poorly defined, lack a clear statement of purpose, and often that involve some dotted-line reporting structure (which is actually a scar on the org chart covering a wound left by someone with “influence without authority”). It often means the hiring manager can anticipate obstacles to success but can’t be bothered, right now, to say exactly what they are.

Spit it out, hiring managers! We can handle the truth, and you can’t hide it anyway, not for very long. If the candidate you want to hire shouldn’t be afraid of an unknown obstacle, why are you afraid to say so in the JD?

Don’t waste your words, just write the JD to answer this very relevant question: “What’s the most difficult thing about this role?” Describe what a great candidate will need to do to be successful in the role. Say you don’t exactly which dragons will need to be slain, but that you’ll have our back when we gear up for battle. You’ll sound empathetic, honest, and like you really know what you’re doing.

The words “High Tolerance for Ambiguity” sounds like a giant shrug. It’s like saying “This place sucks sometimes.”

The first manager to ever write the words “HTA” was hoping to hire people who don’t need every aspect of their role spelled out for them. They wanted someone who, if given specific instructions, would still find an even better way to solve the problem. Someone who’ll demonstrate good judgement as they avoid pitfalls, overcome obstacles, recruit sympathizers, and neutralize objectors along the way.

If you’re a hiring manager and that appeals to you, use your words instead of a more ambiguous phrase. Try this:

“In this role, you’ll be empowered to take on some of the most difficult challenges faced by our team. The solutions won’t always be obvious, but what is certain is that you’ll have the backing of our senior team to help drive the changes necessary to make sure you’re successful. They’ll look to you for a decisive, concise, and specific view of what it will take to execute the plans you make together. If that sounds appealing, tell us about your experience solving problems when the solution wasn’t obvious. We’re eager to learn more.”

Let’s Do Better

Hiring managers and recruiters have the opportunity to express that they’ve considered how a job search feels to the candidate. A great way to do that is to avoid saying anything that could apply to any role in your company. Focus solely on the aspects that are essential to our success.

As candidates we should try to overcome our distaste for repetitive pablum. Hard things are hard, and writing a good JD is one of them. Try to find the aspects that seem to reflect the most interesting, unusual, or challenging thing about the role. Hone in on those ideas in your cover letter, and ask questions about that in your first interview.

All of us in the job market can do better at meeting each other where we are. The words we use are a great first step towards doing that.

Let me know your favorite or most-hated turns of phrase, please. Leave a comment with your ideas and maybe I’ll take them up in a future post.