>That is one explanation, but I will suggest another. The Bosses don't
>really have an interest in keeping these jobs "insider"; their
>interests are opposed to the interests of the workers in this field
>who do want it to be "insider".
>
>Usually though the Bosses are writing the job descriptions.
>
>I recently moved out of that very field - information security. My
>old boss wrote a job description and it was terrible - exactly as you
>described. It was so full of acronyms and jargon all jumbled together
>in a manner as to be unintelligible. I feared it would scare away
>competent people who might read it and think the company had no
>talent, so I rewrote it for her and removed all of that junk and wrote
>one that stressed what we really needed: an aptitude for learning on
>one's own, good writing skills, and the ability to self-direct and
>direct a small project team.
>
>My suggestion was rejected and the alphabet soup was used instead and
>the quality of respondents was not what I had hoped.
>
>Sure that is anecdote but I can't be alone in experiencing a boss who
>has no idea what their worker actually does, who ends up writing an
>awful job description because of that ignorance.
Oh. I agree. No one plans to do this. It is, as you say, the result of the writer of said job description being clueless as to what the person actually does.
You're right to point this out and I thought of it later, telling R about the conversation. He sounds like it's planned. It's not.
Write me offlist and tell me what you're up to.
"You know how it is, come for the animal porn, stay for the cultural analysis." -- Michael Berube
Bitch | Lab http://blog.pulpculture.org