Well, I mean, does it work for them, really? Or has it just not finished failing yet? I think we can't really get anywhere with this trying to inject hypothetical specifics into talk of generalities anyway. I'm sure there are some positions that just suck no matter how you cut it, and maybe for some employers the most effective tactic really is to misrepresent the job and see who they manage to keep. But overall I get the sense that more clear and open communication of needs and offers would benefit all parties. Unfortunately I also get the sense that the problem starts upstream of the candidate interaction points, and may not be easily and clearly blamed. The results are no less easy to see, though, when you can witness the transformation of three different jobs into one -- that they somehow manage to hire someone for -- or watch over time as job role "duties" and "requirements" are snowballed along through iterations of the role. All the while, quite possibly none of the people who are touching it have real insight into what they're actually looking for, or whoever does seems to be the office cryptid.
Anyway, assuming that the core of a given job posting's problem wasn't simply inherited by people who can't do much about it, I must think, at the very least, that being more truthful will be likely to help and unlikely to hurt.
Edit: Saw another comment from someone else about how the companies in general are succeeding as things are. So in that sense I guess I can see wrt why would they change what's working. For some reason I got the sense of the focus shifting unaccountably from abstract to particular but without any actual particulars happening.
At the end of the day, as well as most of the rest of it, I guess I don't really know. I'm definitely not the guy who's going to miraculously fix this problem. I do wonder, though, if companies aren't merely succeeding despite everything -- or maybe a constantly churning majority with a crust of established players plus a bit of sawdust and super glue just manages to give the impression that the practices generally seen are the same ones that generally work.
Anyway, assuming that the core of a given job posting's problem wasn't simply inherited by people who can't do much about it, I must think, at the very least, that being more truthful will be likely to help and unlikely to hurt.
Edit: Saw another comment from someone else about how the companies in general are succeeding as things are. So in that sense I guess I can see wrt why would they change what's working. For some reason I got the sense of the focus shifting unaccountably from abstract to particular but without any actual particulars happening.
At the end of the day, as well as most of the rest of it, I guess I don't really know. I'm definitely not the guy who's going to miraculously fix this problem. I do wonder, though, if companies aren't merely succeeding despite everything -- or maybe a constantly churning majority with a crust of established players plus a bit of sawdust and super glue just manages to give the impression that the practices generally seen are the same ones that generally work.