That’s the question Heather Fenty posed to job content strategist Sarah Akida in a recent episode of The JD Fix. The pair reviewed a real-world JD that was riddled with red flags. Think biased language, vague phrases, confusing acronyms, and a title that didn’t match the actual role.

While these issues may seem small, they send powerful signals — ones that can either attract great talent or even turn them off.

The good news?

You don’t need to spend hours rewriting. With a few thoughtful edits, you can transform a weak job description into one that’s clear, inclusive, and also effective.

So, let’s dive into what went wrong and how to fix it.

Red Flags That Ruin Candidate Experience

Some job descriptions don’t just miss the mark; they also actively hurt hiring efforts. The JD Sarah and Heather reviewed had several problems that can alienate candidates and damage the employer brand.

Here’s what stood out:

1. Biased Language: “Accent Preferred”

The biggest red flag? A line that said an “American accent” was preferred.

Aside from being exclusionary, this kind of request may violate fair hiring standards. It also reinforces bias and implies that only a certain type of candidate will succeed. In global or multicultural hiring, this is especially harmful.

A Harvard Business Review study found that listeners can accurately infer a speaker’s socioeconomic status within seconds, based solely on speech patterns such as accent, word choice, and pacing.

This means that referencing or favoring a specific accent instantly introduces bias based on class or background, even before qualifications are reviewed.

The same study showed that hiring managers tend to rate candidates who “sound upper class” as more competent and a better cultural fit, even when their actual credentials are identical. Accent-based filtering doesn’t just limit who applies. It also unfairly skews who gets through the screening.

Fix it:  Focus on communication skills, not accents.  Say:

Instead of “American accent preferred”, use “Clear spoken and written English skills”.

2. Misleading Job Title

The job was titled Appointment Setter, but its responsibilities leaned heavily toward sales development and lead qualification, more closely aligning with an SDR (Sales Development Representative) role.

Indeed reported that 36% of job seekers who use job sites search for a job using the title of the job they’re looking for.  When a title doesn’t match the role, it confuses candidates and undermines trust. It can also impact visibility in job board searches.

Fix it:  Choose a title that reflects the actual scope of the role and aligns with industry norms.

3. Fluffy, Vague Language

Phrases like “must be a go-getter” or “rockstar communicator” may sound appealing. But they don’t add clarity. They’re filler words that fail to describe actual qualifications. They also create uncertainty, which disproportionately affects women and underrepresented groups.

Research from Harvard Business School findings indicates that women are less likely to apply when job descriptions are vague about whether a candidate is a “good fit.” On the other hand, when job descriptions include clear, concrete qualifications (such as skills or years of experience), women are significantly more likely to apply.

This means that vague or fluffy requirements fuel self-doubt among women, making them more likely to opt out, even when they’re fully qualified. Meanwhile, men are more likely to apply despite a looser fit.

Fix it: Replace them with measurable, concrete skills. Say:

“Able to make 50+ outbound calls per day and follow up using CRM tools.”

4. Acronyms Without Context

The JD was littered with acronyms (like “CRM” and “KPIs”) without explanation. While these terms are common within the company or industry, they may confuse candidates, especially those who have just transitioned from a different industry or are applying internationally.

Fix it: Spell out the first instance of each acronym and provide context. Say:

“Customer Relationship Management (CRM) platform such as HubSpot.”

The 5-Minute Fix: What We Changed in Bad Job Descriptions and Why

Here’s what Sarah and Heather did to fix bad job descriptions. They turned a flawed JD into a stronger, more inclusive one, without a total rewrite.

1. Removed Biased Phrasing to Fix Bad Job Descriptions

That “accent preferred” line? Gone. Instead, they emphasized strong communication and interpersonal skills.

“Ability to communicate clearly and professionally with clients via phone and email.”

Removing that phrase doesn’t just make the job description more inclusive; it also makes it more effective. It protects the brand. Candidates talk, and language like that could land the company in hot water.

2. Retitled for Accuracy

They updated the title to better reflect the core responsibilities—Sales Development Representative (SDR)—which aligned with industry expectations and search behavior.

Original: Appointment Setter
Revised: Sales Development Representative (SDR)

So, why does this matter?

Job seekers rely heavily on titles to understand what a role entails. Mislabeling a job not only reduces your visibility in searches but sets up mismatched expectations from the start.

‍

Read the full article here: