How to draft a female friendly job advert ?

[Blistory]

So as part of my mission to embark on positive discrimination, I.m having to reexamine how to draft our job adverts.

Women are not under- represented in any of our organisations so I'm on sticky ground in the legal sense but it's occurred to me that whilst I've always ensured that the interview stage is somewhere I can put across a positive message, the actual ad itself may not be attractive to women. I'm absolutely not looking to exclude men but I do want to avoid corporate wankery and terminology that appears to be gender neutral but is really male orientated.

I've thought about specifically referring to our maternity and flexi time policies but have been told by a recruitment company that these are code for crappy jobs rather than careers. One of the roles is ideally suited to someone with life experience, a prior career but just in need of a confidence boost and a bit of on job training. It would suit someone looking to return to work after a break but how do I get this across without it sounding like a waffly non job or scaring people off ?

Keywords like dynamic, ambitious, goal orientated are absolutely not allowed. So, what would attract you to a job ad as a woman and make you think I really, really want to work in that kind of organisation ?

We're also looking to develop a couple of 1 year paid placements for women leaving prison but that's longer term as it needs skilled input from various parties but if any one has any comments on that, feel free to chip in.

What is the typical male/female split in the jobs you are advertising? If you offer roles that are widley dominated by men, surely you will expect more men to apply, because there simply are more qualified men, so what you really want are more women to take up whatever career you are offering?

If it's plumbing, bricklaying or heavy engineering for example, there will be qualified women out there, but many times more men, so there are simply more qualified men out there to apply.

But It's well known that women are less likely to apply if they don't meet all the job spec/person requirements, but men will give it a go if they meet some of the job spec/person requirements.

Maybe something about 'we welcome applications from candidates who may not meet all the requirements for the role but would be willing to undertake further training or qualifications'.

But I'm also confused why you need more women to apply, if you are already attracting more female than male candidates.

I had a look at this recently, as also work in a male dominated industry, and reworded a job description with the aim of encouraging more women to apply.

We emphasised working as a team, good communication skills, flexible and friendly working environment, opportunities to learn and grow within the organisation (ie you don't need to know it all from day 1). Also some of our job descriptions had sentences that were quite short and curt (and so felt aggressive), so I made them a bit more conversational.

We have got quite a few female applicants at the moment, so maybe it's working. I do need to compare the numbers to previous years to be sure though.

I think the "women only apply if they can tick all the boxes" point is an important one. Phrasing the ad so that the boxes specified are all genuine "must have" requirements and then adding on something like tribpot's "in addition we are looking for well-rounded candidates who can bring diversity - of experience, of opinion, of approaches to problem solving" seems like a sensible option, rather than listing your nice-to-haves (given that studies show that men will apply even if they have very few nice-to-haves while women won't apply unless they have all of them, you aren't really gaining anything by putting them in the ad). You can still think about your nice-to-haves when filtering applications and CVs, but you will probably get a better spread of applications in.

"I'm also confused why you need more women to apply, if you are already attracting more female than male candidates."

OP says "This role tends to attract a 70/30 split of male/female applicants." So it's not already attracting more female than male candidates. So that's why they want more women to apply.

Again, thanks for all the replies - some very helpful suggestions.

My aim, in case anyone is uncertain, is simply to ensure that I have a diverse pool of applicants. At the moment, there aren't enough women applying - it's a professional services role but not requiring professional qualifications. I'm curious as to why it attracts a disproportionate amount of men and why it doesn't attract women returning to work. I suspect that you're all right about ensuring that I get across that the skill set is not dependent on recent work experience but largely, to be honest, common sense and empathy.

Emphasising that we can adapt the hours to suit the right candidate and provide any necessary training and support is obviously critical. And again, I've taken notice of any language that posters feel is off putting to women.

It's very heartening to see this issue being taken seriously, but most disheartening to see the number of people who are willfully misunderstanding your aim.

I wouldn't pay too much notice of job ads that say they're an equal opportunities employer. I can't imagine that any employer is going to advertise any short-comings in that area. It's a bit like no candidate is going to admit to being rubbish at time-keeping or anything like that in their application, even if it's true.

Still, I suppose it does show it's something they think about. And I quite like sashh's version.

Yes, I like sashh's comment as well - I think it would encourage applications in a way 'we are an equal ops employer' wouldn't - everyone says that, whether it's true or not.

By the way, like sashh I am job hunting at the moment so the obvious thing is just to employ both of us - sorted

I've got a couple of job specs, and I'm looking at them and thinking, "I don't even know what that's talking about, let alone know whether I can do it." Though the people who sent them have my CV already. Have to admit I have mostly focussed on the technical requirements, rather than desired traits, so I'm not sure if it's male-focussed.

(Actually, I think I probably need to change field a bit, rather than going for more of the same. I'm not quite sure how to go about it, though, despite being quite good at being able to advise people on how to review their own careers and what they're good at and like...)