Many job advertisements contain a long list of requirements. The logic seems to be: the more requirements a job advertisement contains, the more attractive and demanding the position must be. However, this strategy is deceptive - not only for applicants, but also for companies. In fact, such requirement profiles can lead to the very talent that you are actually looking for being put off.
Basically, the criteria in job advertisements can be divided into two categories.
These are clearly measurable and actually necessary for the role. Examples include regulated qualifications (e.g. medical licenses, technical certifications) or specific technical knowledge that is essential for immediate job performance, as well as validatable soft skills.
These are rather arbitrary in nature and are not directly linked to actual performance in the job. They include, for example, minimum years of professional experience, vague personality traits such as "ability to work in a team" or "high resilience", general academic qualifications or further training, and optional language skills, etc.
The assumption that a long list of requirements automatically attracts more qualified applicants has been scientifically refuted. In fact, studies show that detailed requirement catalogs unnecessarily reduce the applicant pool.
A well-known study by Tara Sophia Mohr, published in the Harvard Business Review, found that women only apply for jobs if they meet almost all of the requirements, while men consider themselves suitable if they meet about 60% of the criteria. This means that strict requirements do not necessarily attract the best talent, but systematically exclude certain groups of applicants.
In addition, an analysis by the German Economic Institute (IW) shows that many companies suffer from a shortage of skilled workers despite numerous requirements for applicants. The reason: unrealistic or unnecessary requirements reduce the number of applications and lead to qualified, unconventional candidates falling through the cracks.
Many job offers include requirements for personality traits such as “communication skills,” “flexibility,” or “resilience.” Not only are these terms vague, but their meaning is neither uniformly defined nor objectively measurable.
For example, what exactly does "team player" mean? An extroverted employee who dominates meetings could be considered a team player - as could an introverted person who contributes to group performance by listening and providing targeted input. Without clear definitions and measurable criteria, such requirements remain subjective and unreliable.
It is a fallacy to use high requirements in a targeted manner to reduce the effort of selection in the hope that only truly "suitable" candidates will apply. According to a study by LinkedIn Talent Solutions, too many requirements do not lead to better applications, but to fewer applications - and often from candidates who formally meet the ideal image, but are not necessarily the best for the job. Companies that have more flexible requirements fill positions more quickly and more successfully.
Companies should critically examine their requirements and distinguish between criteria that are actually necessary and unnecessary hurdles. Instead of requiring long lists of vague personality traits, unnecessary university degrees or minimum years of experience, job advertisements should emphasize concrete, verifiable skills.
The key is skills-based recruiting that is geared to the actual requirements of the role. Fewer subjective requirements mean more suitable applicants, shorter filling times and a higher success rate for new hires.
360-Talents is a full-service recruiting platform and enables data-driven, skills-based recruiting. Interested? Register or contact us.
Making the world a better place through unveiling potential.
