How important is the job title to you?

Posted Feb 9 2009 7:24 AM by the JobsBloggers

Angela

As you know from a previous blog post, we are currently revamping our careers site, and we asked what you would change about the site. Those suggestions will be an integral part of the improvements we make, and we’ve since come up with another topic we’d like your opinion on: Job titles on careers site postings!

Our careers site committee has developed a variety of questions to consider about this feature: Should we format the titles? If so, how? Should they be uniform?

Now I’m reaching out to you – the ones using our careers site day in and day out – to ask: What would you like to see? What would help you best find the jobs that pique your interest?

Some approaches we’re considering are:

  • Standard Job Title – Group: For example, Software Development Engineer in Test (SDET) – Xbox
  • Alternate Job Title – Group: For example, instead of SDET (because some might not know that abbreviation) the post would read, QA Engineer – Windows Live
  • One of the two options above with a focus: For example, SDET – BOSG – Security
  • Free form text: For example, Ninja Security Engineer to Secure our Borders

I am looking forward to your suggestions and comments! In the meantime, if you are looking for another place to make your presence known with comments, take a look at one of my favorite technical blogs.

-Angela

Work at Microsoft!

11 Comments

  • Chad Ingles said:

    The job title isn't too important. Every company has their own nomenclature anyways. I would vote for some kind of standard though so at least with in the MS-sphere it's easy to sort through the various postings. I would pick #1 or #2 (if it's still fairly standardized).

    Regards,

    Chad

  • Eric Carter said:

    Aloha Angela,

    I think the highest priority in job nomenclature on the updated Careers site is to be consistent in said nomenclature across the spectrum of job reqs. I happen to know of three openings for the same role (with identical job descriptions) that have three different job titles listed. Does that preclude using freeform text titles, rather than one of the other options? Probably. Additionally, freeform titles will make it more time consuming to peruse the offerings, methinks.

    Mahalo,

    Eric

  • n said:

    Including the applicable levels of the position in the title

    e.g., Software Design Engineer, Levels 57, 58, 59, 60

    would make it easier to search for appropriate roles.

    (One of the previous posts on this blog - <a target="_blank" href="http://microsoftjobsblog.com/blog/transparency/">microsoftjobsblog.com/.../transparency</a> - says that "Transparency is a far too rare in the recruiting process, but if it can be achieved, it is the recruiting utopian dream. ... For a recruiter to be transparent, they should provide you: ... The level or seniority of the role")

  • Francesco Esposito said:

    I think that standard titles with focus would be the best way to go. Standard titles make it slightly easier to compare positions to each other and also makes search incredible easier. Free form sounds fun at first, but I think that searching, organizing and setting smart job agents becomes really difficult in that world. Focus helps the candidate to not only indentify what team/product they would be working on but again helps in limiting out opportunities that may not be as interesting to the candidate.

    From the previous thread on the discussion, I still think that the three most value added changes would be:

    1. links off of the standard title and group name that give more details about what the standard position title means and what the group does (Who outside of the company knows what the BMO is or what market SMS&P sells to?).

    2. More powerfull search capabilities, like: easier to use catagories that make it easy to identify positions you are interested in. Search that allows you to find positions not just be position type but competencies required (like years of experience, technical or non-technical, etc.).

    3. Doing a slightly better job of removing reqs which are not being activley recruited for to reduce the clutter that can sometimes build on the list.

    Just my two cents -

    Francesco

  • AngelaMc said:

    I like the suggestions so far - and I TOTALLY agree about transparency. I am not sure that listing the actual levels would mean much to the rest of the world - as referenced by 'n' above. BUT do you feel adding JR, INT or SR might help?

  • Tushar said:

    Hi,

    I think the job title is the most important part of the employment, and suggests what the requirement is. It's very helpful as the job seeker to know what the requirement is, and what is expected.

    Thanks

  • James Sutherland said:

    I think the third example is closest, and also that the first two are mislabelled. Outside Microsoft, it is "Tester" which would qualify as standard, while "SDET" is not. Grab ten random people on the streets of Seattle and ask them what they think a "Tester" at Microsoft would be, then ask another ten what an "SDET" is.

    I'd want to see a job title of "Security Tester, Exchange Server Team", not "SDET BOSG 7-Up WTF R2D2". Free text might be handy for a sort of "sub title" along the lines of option four's example, but that shouldn't be *the* title: that should be something serious, descriptive and understandable to those of us outside MS.

    Think what this person might put on business cards for external consumption: "Keeper of the Blue Badges" might seem like a witty job title internally, but how many outside MS would understand it? "Recruiter" actually conveys what you do, which is what the job title should be there for.

  • Bryan said:

    I think #4 is the best option, and how do I set a career alert for that specific position? :P

    In all seriousness though, I'd have to say #2, it's realistic, yet gives better insight.

Comments have been disabled for this content.