>I think this still smacks of too-situational thinking. [...] It's rare that I see a req that interests me, I understand. There are 2 sides on how to describ

>I think this still smacks of too-situational thinking. [...] It's rare that I see a req that interests me, I understand. There are 2 sides on how to describe the existence of a job: (1) for the executive manager approving of the requisition and (2) for the candidates In other words, when the hiring manager goes to the vice president asking for another FTE, the exec is going to ask the justification. The hiring manager could say, "well, we can teach him the latest cutting edge functional programming techniques, and also let him build up some AWS architecture skills which will boost his resume and make him more valuable to other companies, and he can play in our foosball ping pong table area, and eat our catered food, and take 4 weeks of vacation." Obviously, the vice president would think those are silly reasons for paying someone. Instead, he needs to know what value-added tasks will justify the job position. (1) hiring manager perspective: the real work that needs to be done is highlighted, the employee's benefits are implied (2) candidate perspective: the employee's benefits are highlighted, the "real work that needs to be done" is implied The thread was about Kerri Miller who was talking about job positions from the company's perspective instead of the employee's and that's what guided my examples. Behind every job ad that says "change the world and come work for us at our beautiful campus!" from YC, Google, or Apple, etc is a list of tasks that need to get done.