• Join the conversation
• 
• 
• 
• 
• Subscribe

The JobsBlog

Trackbacks

• - Dew Drop - February 10, 2009 | Alvin Ashcraft's Morning Dew
• - BlogMS Weekly Articles Published – 9th February to 15th February

Comments

• #1  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

  2.09.2009 4:54 PM
• #2  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

  2.09.2009 7:24 PM
• #3  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 - microsoftjobsblog.com/.../transparency - 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")

  2.09.2009 7:52 PM
• #4  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

  2.09.2009 7:52 PM
• #5  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?

  2.09.2009 8:12 PM
• #6  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

  2.10.2009 6:48 AM
• #7  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.

  2.10.2009 4:07 PM
• #8  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.

  2.11.2009 12:37 PM
• #9  وظائف خالية في السعودية said:

  Ofcourse it is very important to me

  2.28.2009 3:30 PM