You Must Be This Magical to Apply
A satirical decode of the overhyped, under-honest world of job postings.
A shout-out to jobseekers everywhere—especially those tired of the hype, the hustle, and the “we’re like a family” nonsense. For those deeply curious jobseekers wondering that they’ve actually signing up for. This one’s for you.
🚨 BREAKING: Organization boldly seeks “qualified applicant,” shocking absolutely no one.
“We just really want someone qualified, who can do the job,” says a hiring manager, describing the literal purpose of jobs.
When asked what exactly they meant by “qualified,” a recruiter paused before whispering, “.. you know. One of us.”
Also required: high emotional intelligence, low ego, strong opinions, zero boundaries, willingness to work across time zones, and a personality that reads well in Slack.
Salary is listed as "competitive," which one insider translates as: "It exists."
Enter: The Job Translator™
Inspired by Key & Peele’s Obama’s Anger Translator (a classic), I found myself dreaming up a similar tool—one that decodes job postings in real time.
Let’s call it the Job Translator™, a smart little AI assistant that sits quietly beside every careers page, whispering the truth beneath the jargon.
Here’s a preview:
Job Title: Exceptional Program Manager
Location: Fully remote
Job Translator (JT): Until we decide hybrid is better. This depends on vibes, our lease, and who complained last. We reserve the right to switch it up with one Slack announcement and a glitchy Zoom call.
Scope:
Exceptional Program Managers oversee the development of initiatives that align with organizational goals.
“Organizing daily activities”
JT: We don’t exactly know what these are yet. But, this will be your *first task.* Due within 72 hours.“Devising new programs”
JT: Remember when we asked about your bold ideas during the interview? That was a trap. Please don’t disrupt anything for at least 12 months - unless we suddenly panic because we need to fundraise. Then move quick.“Collaborating with other departments”
JT: Make friends for political survival. Or else.“Evaluating strengths and weaknesses”
JT: We love a SWOT! Bonus points if you make a deck. But don’t point out anything we’re not emotionally prepared to address.“Meeting with stakeholders”
JT: Schedule meetings. Lots. Make them brief, but deep. With clear agendas, but flexible tone. But also make it feel like therapy. Ideally while no one is paying attention.
Preferred qualifications not quite listed but inferred (imagine a long list of sentences now). JT will provide the BLUF (bottom line, up front):
JT will share easily accessible gems:
Be innovative – but not too disruptive
Be collaborative – but know how to lead (and defer to leadership)
Be strategic, tactical, operational, emotional, and magical, like a unicorn as needed
Work independently, as a team, and without asking too many questions
Other duties as assigned (duh)
Salary: $101,000–$102,000, non-negotiable.
JT: After you’re hired, you’ll learn others did negotiate. Cherise? She’s at $107K. But you missed that window. Oh well, get ‘em next time tiger!
So … What’s the Point?
It’s easy to laugh (and cry) at how ridiculous job postings can be. The overuse of “qualified.” The redundancy of “exceptional talent.” The wild promises about culture that dissolve within two onboarding sessions.
But underneath the absurdity is a trust gap.
Too many orgs say they want innovation, agility, and equity—but post job descriptions that read like they were written by a 2011 HR generator.
And as someone who was hiring back then, I get it, and once wore the scarlet letters PJD for a “poor job description.”
Too many brilliant people enter workplaces based on those skewed promises, only to realize they’ve stepped into a system not built for them to survive, much less thrive.
I’ve reviewed hundreds of job descriptions over the years, and yes, many are getting better, more contemporary, more thoughtful (thank you!). So yes, there’s a shift happening.
But we need more. More honesty. More clarity.
Less “organizational cosplay.”
Snark aside, the gap between what’s written and what’s real in job postings is part of a broader trust issue. Jobseekers want transparency and organizations want exceptional talent. But instead of meeting in the middle, we’re all dancing around the truth in increasingly absurd language.
It’s a tough market right now. I have friends, former colleagues, and mentees stuck in these recruitment swirls, by either missing the unspoken culture cues in interviews, or getting dizzy in the revolving door of hiring and leaving shortly thereafter.
These processes cost a lot to both the candidate and the organization desperately seeking to fill seats.
Here’s the wild thing: it doesn’t have to be this way.
Positive organizational psychology teaches us that the best workplaces don’t just say what sounds good — they say what’s true. They focus on the real strengths of their people, the growth edges of their systems, and the kind of culture they can actually support.
So it’s ok if you’re not the kind of organization or culture you aspire to be yet. But naming that upfront, and giving candidates space to choose whether they want to be part of that climb, goes a long way in building trust with the very people you hope to hire.
I’m all about grabbing the low-hanging fruit so that your stomach is sated as you reach for higher heights. Small steps will get us there.
So, what if job descriptions actually said what they meant? Not just to “attract talent,” but to build real alignment? And save time, money, and frustration for everyone involved?
Now that’s a unicorn I want to see.