On the other hand, if you were going to write your job posting the pre-edit way and the said applicant was turned off by it... will they even be a good fit in your org? Do you want to continue editing all of your communications?
I’m kind of being devils advocate here but I do find it a drag to work with people who can’t read between the lines sometimes and get the gist of what someone means rather than feeling excluded by they’re word choices.
I don't think you're being a devil's advocate, I think it's totally reasonable. I don't want to hire individuals with severe self confidence issues. If I'm not sure about your code I'm going to question it in a direct, constructive manner. If you disagree with my criticisms I expect you to pull upon your knowledge and experience to defend it. If expecting competence makes me a brogrammer then so be it.
So you actually do want a workplace culture that alienates women and people of color?
[edit, but leaving original off-the-cuff comment]
I think if your goal is to create an inclusive workplace then editing your communications in ways like this will be useful. I think its incorrect to think that being inclusive means hiring people that aren't confident in their skills.
This is why I had to put the devil's advocate part in my original comment because of this accusation. Obviously, I do not agree with purposely creating a workplace that alienates women but it would take me much editing/censorship and thought than I'm willing to give to make sure I don't write something in a way that you could misconstrue my words.
I'm simply pointing out that what I am for is being who we are as individuals. Everyone. If you exclude yourself because of the way I write my job posting, then we probably wouldn't work well together. If I over edit my job posting and it doesn't reflect the way I actually communicate on a day to day basis; guess what, we probably wouldn't work well together either. Why? Because I'm not going to edit my communication style, I'm going to be who I am.
If I'm the author of the original job posting... You're coming from the stance of assuming that I need to be edited. My communication style is horrible and exclusive. None of those words were offensive, obviously exclusive, etc[1]. So, I don't think I do need editing. I'm not an asshole, I work well with women and people of all types, thus I am not going to change. However your view assumes because I wrote my job posting that way that I am a women alienating asshole that does not value inclusion.
I want people that can work together and not let minor communication issues get in the way of their productivity or happiness. We should be teaching people how to read a job posting and infer that they could be a fit and apply. Applying is far away from accepting the job, if you sense any red flags you will have an opportunity to explore them. Don't get held up by the job posting.
[1] Okay - I do not agree with the use of rockstar & ninja terms
I think that assumption is fundamentally wrong -- that you have to tread softly around diversity or else it might be scared away. People who lack confidence are a liability, and honestly I'd rather leave a headcount unfilled than hire a baby bird who won't ever leave the nest. Maybe Google has the resources to cultivate candidates who make the company look better but I can't justify hiring people lacking important skills (e.g. basic confidence in their skills and experience).
I was actually surprised about the "alienates women and people of color" references. I couldn't find anything in the first job descriptions that was relating to gender, etc.
They were just more focused on personal growth in the second description. Rightfully so! But maybe I didn't get some subtle clues (just European). :-)
I’m kind of being devils advocate here but I do find it a drag to work with people who can’t read between the lines sometimes and get the gist of what someone means rather than feeling excluded by they’re word choices.