4 areas I’d strip from a Procurement job spec

We need to stop this in our Procurement Profession

Hey Procurement Legends,

I’ve been meaning to post this one for a while.

Let me know your thoughts especially if you disagree.

Would like to get a good conversation in the comments.

Whilst you’re here, if you’ve not subscribed, please do so now.

---

In the ever-evolving world of procurement recruitment, job specifications are essential in attracting the right candidates.

Many of these SUCK though!

Writing a good JD is part art, analysis, and clarity on what you need. However, it feels like the what you need fails when it comes to procurement roles.

When it comes to procurement roles, four areas commonly included in job specs are due for reconsideration.

And by that I mean we should always get rid of them.

1 - "Competitive Salary"

Competitive salary sucks!

I know I’ve said suck a lot and I’ll probably say it more and more.

Sadly, competitive salary is overused in recruitment messaging, is highly subjective and often leaves prospective candidates in the dark about the actual compensation the job offers.

I actually have a rule that I don’t apply for roles that do not show the salary, a banding, or give some actual indication of how much I can get paid.

As you can see in this screenshot from CIPS Salary Guide 2023 (for the UK), many roles have some overlap in potential earnings. I’ve earned more than many Heads of Procurement for a more junior role.

I wouldn’t take a £20k pay cut to move up a level.

Show that upfront.

Get better applications.

Stop wasting yours and everyones time.

2 - Insistence on Category Expertise

While it's valuable for a candidate to have specific expertise, the skills acquired in procurement are incredibly transferable, even beyond procurement roles.

And I’m seriously confused why hiring managers in procurement and so called procurement recruitment experts get this seriously wrong.

The amount of good talent being wasted for not having the ecxact skill set baffles me.

Someone could have depth and width in just about every category under the sun but not in the one you’re hiring for and you’d exclude them.

It’s messed up.

To caveat this somewhat, if it's an interim position where immediate expertise is crucial, this requirement can be relaxed to attract a broader pool of talented individuals.

But we should nonetheless remove this requirement.

3 - MCIPS as a Required Qualification

While I appreciate the value of a MCIPS qualification, it's important to remember that not everyone has had the opportunity or resources to obtain this certification during their career.

Most JDs make a good case on this - they say it’s a nice to have.

But too many make it a hard requirement.

Instead of making it a hard requirement, consider it as a 'nice to have', opening doors for those who have relevant experience but lack this specific certification.

Also, if you’re gonna sponsor it, make that super clear.

4 - Mandatory Degree Requirement

As a holder of two degrees, I value education.

I seriously value it.

However, insisting on a degree for many entry-level roles can exclude talented individuals who have chosen different educational paths.

Some of the best people I’ve worked with didn’t have degrees but they were insanely talented when it came to the entire procurement process.

This should never be a reason to exclude someone.

Also - I saw a lot of people get degrees who didn’t really do that well.

A degree really means nothing for those people.

Closing Thoughts

I’m keen to hear what you think about this.

What have I missed.

What have I got wrong (it happens from time-to-time).

Let me know in the comments.