8 words to leave out of job descriptions
March 30, 2009 by Sam NarisiPosted in: Attracting talent, In This Week's E-Newsletter, Latest News & Views, Law
Job descriptions are an important tool for laying out exactly what’s expected of employees. But when they’re not written carefully, they can also unfairly exclude applicants with disabilities.
Most of the problematic phrases refer to bodily positions or physical actions that a disabled person may not be able to perform — even if they can still do the job effectively.
Here are some of the most common phrases that should be avoided, and a safer alternative:
- “stand” or “sit” — use “remain stationary” instead
- “walk” — say “move”
- “climb” — replace with “ascend and descend”
- “talk” or “hear” — just say “communicate”
- “stoop” or “kneel” — say “position self to … “
Another key to non-discriminatory job descriptions: Omit physical demands that aren’t essential to job performance.
April 3rd, 2009 at 10:29 am
Dear Sam,
While it may be more “politically correct” to use your terms, I’m afraid I need to say the “Emperor is wearing no clothes.” The words you use are just garbage. The terms you reject are more specific, accurate, and descriptive than the words you use. You are using words because of false ideology and self-delusion than because of truth. I don’t doubt you are well-meaning.
I suggest it would be more fair and accurate to use the terms you put down and then proclaim the company policy to make accommodation(s) to people with disabilities. I think that is the better way to handle the issue than to play politics and self-delusion. Face the problem head on instead of avoiding it. I believe people with disabilities in general will be able to demonstrate their ability to perform the work in spite of their disabilities. I can think of no better example than Helen Keller, both deaf and “dumb” who demonstrated her incredible abilities to speak and learn foreign languages.
If we pursue the road you are traveling, I can imagine we will get to the point where we can only say in job descriptions that the person must be “alive” in order to qualify. And THAT will probably be objected to by somebody.
Gary Lindberg
April 8th, 2009 at 9:35 am
Gary,
Although I understand where you are coming from, I do also understand the point of not using the terms referred to in this article. I can imagine a wheelchair-bound applicant who was not hired filing a lawsuit because the job description stated that the employee must “stand” for long periods in the same spot, or “walk” from from area to another.
The world is a different place today and people are all too inclined to file a lawsuit for a completely stupid reason. Remember the woman who sued (was it McDonalds?) because she spilled her “hot” coffee and burned herself? I’ll bet she wouldn’t have been happy to have received cold or luke-warm coffee.
All I’m saying is that in today’s lawsuit-happy world, a company must be careful what they put into print for their own sake – no matter how dumb it may seem.
April 9th, 2009 at 3:54 pm
You will have to determine which terms to use based on a job-by-job, or even position-by-position analysis. For example, a lot of those terms recommended might be perfectly fine for an office environment, but not for someone who has to go into a ditch to repair a pipe. In general, you may want to use the more generic wording unless you can show that business necessity absolutely requires that particular action to be performed (e.g. an essential function that can’t reasonably be done by another means).