how do you write an ad for a job that can be very unpleasant?

by Alison Green on February 6, 2025

A reader writes:

I was working on writing up a job ad today for temporary research assistants for a field biology project, and noticed trends in my ads and in others’. It’s common for early career employees applying to assistant or technician jobs to think that they want to do fieldwork and then quit in the middle of the season because it wasn’t what they expected. There are really fun parts like getting to travel to cool places, camp or backpack, work directly with plants and animals, and meet new people. However, employees are often underpaid (especially at the technician level), work long hours, and must front some transportation or per diem costs before getting reimbursed. They are far from their friends and family camping for long periods of time and without cell service in some cases. Often, these staff are expected to work through bad weather (if it’s safe), hike long distances, do manual labor all day, and deal with biting and stinging insects. This can be compounded if you’re assigned to work with one other person and it turns out that you don’t get along with them. It can be downright miserable!

The solution to this seems to be that we become very up-front about the working conditions in the job and write requirements like, “Must be comfortable carrying 30 pounds in high heat and humidity for 13 hours per day off trail on uneven terrain with biting flies and mosquitos while maintaining a positive attitude.” It doesn’t matter who you are, you’re going to have an off day here and there in those conditions — especially if you have been working and living with the same one or two people for three weeks. I think writing like that just comes off … wrong?

I am worried that, in an effort to be transparent, we make ourselves sound uninviting and expect that green staff will fail. I think it also emphasizes physical tolerance where emotional intelligence and maturity can make or break a field season. Do you have any advice for striking a balance when hiring for jobs that have inherent challenges?

P.S. I make it sound terrible but there are many of us who really love it!

The instinct to be very up-front about the working conditions is the right one! The more transparent and realistic you are, and the more you paint a picture of what the work is really like, the more you’ll attract candidates who will do well and the more likely the “wrong” candidates will self-select out.

When you’re hiring, truth in advertising about the less appealing parts of the job is a good thing. You want people to have a good understanding of what they’d be getting into. It’s true that you don’t want to cross over into “this job sucks! but you’ll need to keep a smile on your face!” … but you shouldn’t shy away from describing things as accurately as possible.

I would also think about what traits and experiences people who do well in the job tend to share, and talk about that as well — “if you’re the person on camping trips who’s always tracking the animal droppings you see and isn’t daunted if it rains, this may be you” or so forth. (These are undoubtedly terrible examples — non-camper here — but you’ll have better ones since you’re familiar with the work and the actual qualities that predict success.) Or, “We’ve found people who thrive in this role generally have ____ (“spent extended time outdoors in various weather conditions,” “a high degree of emotional intelligence and the ability to work in sometimes uncomfortably close quarters with a wide range of people,” or whatever is true).

With a job like this, where you get a lot of people who don’t fully understand what they’re signing on for, I might even consider including one or two short testimonials from people who have done the job successfully and liked it — just a short paragraph from a couple people on what the experience was like for them, what was tough, and why they liked it anyway (without any sugarcoating).

You could also run the draft of your ad by people who are doing the job currently or did it recently and ask for their feedback — do they think it’s a full and accurate representation? Are there other things they wish they knew before they got hired?

But it’s much better to err on the side of too much transparency than not enough.

You may also like:
{ 168 comments }

{ 168 comments… read them below or add one }

  1. Sloanicota*

    My only note – think carefully about the gendered component of your wording here. If needing to carry heavy weights all day is truly an essential component of the job, then by all means, lead with that – but I have found that field work tends to emphasize the “physical” work and de-emphasize the psychological/emotional work that’s just as important. One type of description tends to attract different demographics than the other, but I also thrived at fieldwork coming up also, using different strengths … and I probably wouldn’t have applied if it seemed like they were looking for hulk types. Most of my experiences were less physically demanding than described in terms of needing to hike all day with a heavy pack.

    Reply ↓
    1. Sigh.*

      It’s interesting that you consider his wording gendered, when there is no word anywhere in that sentence that denotes gender preference of any kind. Which makes your assumption come off as if you think all women are but delicate wee waifs who couldn’t possibly carry around 30 lbs, so clearly they must be looking for a man? There are plenty of people of all genders who are strong enough to bear that weight and more.

      Reply ↓
      1. Um, Actually*

        It’s actually super common when writing job descriptions to look out for words that would be considered gendered due to a history of exclusivity. It’s less that it came off as gendered and more that the words used are more likely to turn women away based on historical context. We run into this a lot in the video game industry. It’s not that this commenter is saying that women can’t do the job it’s that there are certain keywords that can infer to female candidates that the expectations of the role for the hiring manager skew male or would be a heavily male-dominated arena which many women don’t want to deal with. I think their initial point is valid, especially since women are statistically more likely to apply only when they meet 100% of the criteria whereas men will apply if they meet 60% of the criteria. It’s about the context and they’re correct to add that when writing a job description it’s important to factor that in to widen the candidate pool.

        Reply ↓
        1. Um, Actually*

          Also, this includes trans, non-binary, and non-white groups. It’s important to review the JD from multiple lenses if you are hiring in roles that attract a specific audience that you want to diversify.

          Reply ↓
          1. p*

            A job description needs to be honest. If there are some of us (definitely me) who couldn’t fulfill the basic requirements of the job, we need to know.

            Reply ↓
      3. Elitist Semicolon*

        I didn’t read Sloanicota’s comment as assuming “women are waifs” as much as expressing the reality that managing frustration (with weather, with never finding what they’re looking for, with other researchers) and managing being in close quarters with/spending literally all day every day with the same people are seriously underrated but critical skills in fieldwork. Including those skills in the description might draw in a more varied applicant pool beyond people who look at the physical requirements and think this is their chance to be badass.

        Reply ↓
      4. Le Sigh*

        A lot of sexism (and racism, homophobia, any many other -isms) aren’t as literal as “He-Man Boyz Club No Girlz Allowed.” So much of this stuff is dependent on cultural and historical context. There is a long history of using subtle wording and other context clues to communicate the message that someone isn’t welcome, while skirting under the radar. Sometimes it’s intentional, sometimes it’s not, but you can inadvertently find yourself sending that message thanks to cultural conditioning and bias.

        Reply ↓
      5. allx*

        It’s interesting that you take the LW to be male, when there is no indication anywhere in the letter that states that.

        Reply ↓
    2. Hastily Blessed Fritos*

      Field work strikes me as an area where physical qualifications are real and legitimate, rather than the stealth sexism they so often are used for. My sister-in-law did biology field work for a while and there’s just no getting around “schelp this gear around in the swamp all day looking for duck nests” when the entire job is tracking duck nests.

      Reply ↓
      1. AcademiaNut*

        I think the difference is that not being able to carry your gear all day will wash you out half way through the first day, having trouble getting along with people in close quarters in a remote site will wash you out half way through the contract.

        Reply ↓
    3. Rocket Raccoon*

      My only fieldwork job paired me (5′ female) with a guy over 6′ tall. Gender wasn’t a problem, but the height differential sure was! I couldn’t keep up with the dude no matter how fit I was. I don’t know how you would word this in an ad, but it would have been really useful info.

      Reply ↓
      2. Grizzled*

        Having worked for a few decades in biology fieldwork, I can say with confidence that his height is not the reason he’s abandoning you – that’s a choice he’s making. When I’m working with someone like that I don’t try to keep up. I don’t let them make all the decisions because they’re at the front. If they abandon me I make my own decisions about where I’m going, when I stop to rest/drink, or how I’m doing my work. I also ensure I have all my own survival gear so I’m 100% self sufficient (bear spray, radio, maps, etc). And I let go of the frustration around keeping up or catching up because it’s physically impossible.

        Reply ↓
    4. vulturestalker*

      This is such a good point! I also used to do field work and I agree that the emotional stuff was under-emphasized but equally important.

      Reply ↓
      1. Hazelfizz*

        I remember trying to read Master and Commander once, and being pleasantly surprised that a mention of close quarters requiring emotional intelligence was in approximately the first chapter. I’ve lived unhappily on a boat in the past. it’s very true.

        Reply ↓
    5. bamcheeks*

      Excellent point! There is an online generator somewhere that lets you input a job ad and description and it’ll give you a score for whether it trends masculine or feminine and suggestions to neutralise it.

      Reply ↓
    6. HannahS*

      This is such an interesting point. From my own field, I found that surgery was often advertised as a specialty for people who like things that are FAST MOVING and INTENSE and WORKING WITH YOUR HANDS and was stunned when a female surgeon told me she liked it because it’s sort of like a craft project–you do a thing with your hands, and then you put it down and it’s done and you’re on to the next thing. It helped me articulate what I liked about surgery (though I didn’t become a surgeon for other reasons.)

      It occurred to me then how much the description of the specialty was being defined by how the (mostly) men who did it saw themselves. Surgery could also be described as precise, slow, requiring serenity under pressure, and well-suited to people who like craft projects.

      Reply ↓
      1. Sashaa*

        Ha, as a female physician, if you want to tease a surgeon, try enthusing that hand tying sutures is “just like making friendship bracelets!” (which it is, it’s the same knot).

        Reply ↓
        1. Nightengale*

          Perri Klaas is a pediatrician who wrote about her experiences in medical school and residency in the 1980s when there were fewer female physicians than there are now. (“A not entirely benign procedure” is the title of her book about medical school.”) I don’t have a copy to hand but I recall she wrote about a surgeon complementing her mattress stitch and she thought he would not take it well if she told him she had practiced it previously on mattresses. . .

          Reply ↓
          1. Grandma*

            Right around 1980, my daughter who was in the 8-10 age range told me definitively that girls couldn’t be doctors. “Why?” I asked. “There aren’t any lady doctors,” she replied. I was horrified, then realized she’d never seen a female doctor. I spent more time after that reinforcing that she could anything she wanted regardless of gender, and that there were women doctors, just not in out town.

            Reply ↓
            1. boof*

              I’m told recently a friend’s son had the flip side – youngish kid was surprised men could be doctors as he’d never seen one (dad was not a doctor, mom was and most social events with colleges + kids also happened to be women doctors I think!)

              Reply ↓
      2. Laura1*

        I’m afraid of surgery and hearing the words “fast-moving” and “intense” make me hope I never have to have it. I want my surgeon to be careful, methodical, precise, slow etc.

        Reply ↓
        1. Honoria Lucasta*

          on the other hand, I want my surgeon to be able to move quickly when closing up blood vessels! The longer those are open, the worse my experience is likely to be! and it’s probably good to be able to do surgery methodically and carefully, but also quickly, because the longer your body is sitting open the more you’re going to have to recover from

          Reply ↓
    7. Rock Prof*

      This is a really good point. I sometimes get the really individualist students who want to work with me in field-based research/projects, and they might be absolutely great at hiking for miles and miles carrying stuff, but they can sometimes be absolutely terrible at working with, talking to, and strategizing with a group (or even just waiting for people at points where we need to stop). Emotional intelligence is these situations is really important!

      Reply ↓
  2. Dark Macadamia*

    This is a small change, but maybe say something like “resilience” instead of “positive attitude”? Presumably you don’t need people to be cheerful 24/7 so using language that reflects grit/perseverance might be a little more accurate and less off-putting.

    Reply ↓
    1. toolegittoresign*

      I was coming to write the same thing. You don’t want to suggest a toxic positivity culture. Instead something like “cope with tough conditions while remaining committed to getting the work done and being a team player.” You don’t have to be pleasant, you just can’t be miserable and holding everyone back by complaining or sulking.

      Reply ↓
    2. TCO*

      That’s a great point. I do backcountry camping for fun, not work, but there will always be moments where conditions are tough and I do not have a positive attitude. It happens to everyone. What matters is being able to keep going and then shake that unhappy attitude off quickly. And the emotional self-awareness to understand the impact you’re having on the group and what steps you personally need to take to snap out of it.

      Reply ↓
    3. JP*

      Yeah, the positive attitude part rubbed me the wrong way as well. Maybe even just saying a professional attitude or something like that?

      Reply ↓
    4. iglwif*

      Yes, was coming here to say this. People can be very resilient and get along great with others in close quarters through other means than a textbook positive attitude, such as

      – good-natured sarcasm
      – dark humour about the circumstances
      – being comfortable being silent with other people
      – flexibility
      – self-deprecating humour
      – skill in defusing tense moments
      – perspective taking
      – willingness to pitch in where needed

      And you don’t want to suggest that toxic positivity is part of the culture, either!

      Reply ↓
    5. Analyst*

      eh…positive attitude doesn’t mean cheerful 24/7. And having done fieldwork, yes, a positive attitude is pretty important. You do actually need to be pleasant to be around when things are going poorly

      Reply ↓
      1. Honoria Lucasta*

        Yeah, there is a difference between toxic positivity and just generally having a disposition towards cheerfulness in challenging circumstances. You didn’t have to actually be cheerful all the time, but you can be a person who wants to be cheerful more often than not!
        Someone whose default reaction is dark humor or sarcasm might not be as good a fit for a small field team; high agreeableness may actually be the desirable quality. The person writing the description would know their team and could nuance the posting accordingly.

        Reply ↓
      2. calonkat*

        Well, these are suggestions, and several other people also mentioned it struck them the same way (me too, for the record).

        I think being aware of a potential read of words is fine, and if there’s no better way to say it then fine. But the letter writer asked for help in finding people who understood the job prior to applying for it, and the comments are going over the words looking for potential issues. Multiple people believe this is a potential issue (note, not an “absolute, omg how can you say that” issue, a potential issue), so I think it’s a fair point to consider.

        Reply ↓
  3. spcepickle*

    I hire for an entry level job that can be unpleasant (hours that are always shifting, outside in all kinds of weather, physically demanding, possibility of getting yelled at by the public). We try to make our job postings clear, but we also always have someone who is either doing the job now or recently got promoted in the interview (we interview with a panel of 3). Our last interview question askes if people are willing and able to do the things already listed in the job posting (Are you willing and able to work all shifts including nights and weekends. This includes your shift being changed with as little as three days notice). I have found the ending the interview with these questions then naturally opens the door to talk in detail about the working conditions and let the candidate ask questions about how we do things and what the job is really like. Adding these questions to the interview has increased our retention rate. It also increase our withdraw rate after the interview – but I am good with that.

    Reply ↓
    2. Observer*

      It also increase our withdraw rate after the interview – but I am good with that.

      VERY smart!

      It’s annoying to have people withdraw at that point. But it’s *really* disruptive if they quite a couple of weeks in. And if they keep on but radiate discontent or make everyone around them crazy, that’s even worse.

      I agree that this is a really useful way to operate. Win – win.

      Reply ↓
    3. iglwif*

      Extremely smart! Withdrawing after the interview is enormously less disruptive and annoying than quitting 3 weeks in.

      Reply ↓
    4. Sparkles McFadden*

      This is a really great approach.

      I worked for a well-known company and the entry level jobs featured crazy schedules that were subject to change with little to no notice and everyone was expected to do whatever needed doing regardless of job titles. I thought it was great, but people looking for a predictable job would hate it. HR would sometimes soften the wording of the job description to get a wider applicant pool, and some hiring managers would neglect to say things like “We’re going to ask you to work 14 hour days sometimes, or maybe pick up boxes from the loading dock, or work in the neighboring state for two days.” The result was that, on at least three occasions in my first couple of years, we’d have a new hire come in and say “I’m so excited because this is my dream job!” and then quit two days later. One woman quit two hours into her first day. (That was very exciting for the guy who had “Quits before lunch” in the betting pool.)

      So yes…please be transparent and get people to self-select out.

      Reply ↓
  4. ZSD*

    What do people think about framing the ad as, “You’ll have lots of good days when you’ll…There will also be tougher days when you’ll…”?
    Or, “Things you’ll do every day…Things you’ll do once a week…things that will come up at least once a season”?
    My thought is that one of these approaches would let people know up front what some of the more challenging aspects of the job are without making it sound like every day would be a nightmare.

    Reply ↓
    1. Hlao-roo*

      I like the idea of an every day/once a week/once a season breakdown! It’s a very different experience to front travel costs every week vs once a season, or to hike every day vs once a week for some examples.

      Reply ↓
      1. Annika Hansen*

        I like this approach a lot! Tolerance for some of these issues would tied to frequency/duration for most people.

        Reply ↓
    2. Daniel*

      I was going to say something similar to this–is there any way to write a day in the life, or week in the life, narrative for this project and maybe augment it with a couple of examples a tech would have to do occasionally?

      Reply ↓
  5. Sloanicota*

    Also, as with other “how can we torture young people without them trying to leave, since though that’s the way we’ve always done it in the past” questions … is there any chance the org can think creatively about mitigating some of these conditions? I know budgets are punishingly tight in grant work (none of my funders seem to have ever heard of COLA, they are giving out the same $20K they awarded in 1970 and expecting the exact same results) and academia in general is brutal rn … but – could the field season be broken up into two sessions so it’s not AS long away/ could some of those up-front costs be covered by a stipend/ could you collaborate with other groups to bring in more hands so it’s not always 24-hour shifts, etc … ? Sometimes the group of us doing the work could have offered 50 suggestions that didn’t even cost anything to improve the experience, but it seemed like the higher-ups didn’t really care …

    Reply ↓
    3. Snax*

      This! I do outdoor education work and an up-front stipend for good boots, snow tires/chains, gaiters/waders and other gear that one might not already own (and might not need in my non-work life) would go a long way for entry level staff.

      Reply ↓
  6. Kelly Martin*

    I wonder if you can fix the expense issue, so that there’s one less thing to upset a new hire. Can you get your Finance department to issue a travel advance so that these low-paid employees are not out the cash for a few weeks at a time?

    Reply ↓
    1. Some Internet Rando*

      I had the same thought. If people keep quitting the job, maybe its time to adjust the job. I can see this type of work appealing to someone who is outdoorsy and independent, but who wants a job where they are unexpectedly (or even expectedly) having to shoulder some of the expenses, especially when they are underpaid. Maybe its time to start covering those expenses.

      Reply ↓
    2. Sara without an H*

      +100. Asking low-paid staff/grad students/untenured faculty to front expenses (with reimbursements taking as long as 8-9 weeks) is one of Academia’s unlovelier habits. LW, you may not be able to fix all of the negatives about this job (blisters and insect bites are always going to be par for the course), but see if you can iron out some of the other irritants that are actually under administrative control.

      Reply ↓
  7. constant_craving*

    I agree with being really transparent.

    In Search and Rescue, we call this sort of stuff “Type 2 fun.” That might be too slang-y for a job posting, but the people you will want to hire probably are familiar.

    Reply ↓
      1. Arrietty*

        This may be a divided-by-a-common-language issue, but I don’t know what type 2 fun means (I assume it’s not related to diabetes).

        Reply ↓
        1. Not Tom, Just Petty*

          I googled because like you, mind went to diabetes, but eyes stuck on two people writing the same thing. Type 2 fun: tough and/or strenuous in the moment; satisfied happiness after. Examples: backpacking, white water rafting.
          The first result was from REI, so it really is one of the, “if you know, you know terms” that would work well in this situation.

          Reply ↓
        2. WorkerDrone*

          Type 1 fun is when the activity you are doing is actively enjoyable while doing it.

          Type 2 fun is when the activity is (to a certain extent) un-enjoyable while you’re doing it, but once it’s over, you look back and think, “Wow, that was amazing! So much fun, can’t wait to do it again.”

          For example, I did a hike challenge last summer that was basically climbing all 4 sides of a hill – 4 climbs, each of ~1200 feet elevation gain. I made it up the first two climbs okay, but the last two were tough with the last one being mostly dragging my corpse one miserable step a time up the incline.

          If you asked me on that last climb if I was having fun – I would have answered “you walnut NOOOOOOO this is not fun.”

          If you asked me five minutes after I completed it if I had fun – I would have answered “YES so much fun I’m already registered for next year.”

          That’s Type 2 fun.

          Reply ↓
          1. nnn*

            Type 2 fun is when the activity is (to a certain extent) un-enjoyable while you’re doing it, but once it’s over, you look back and think, “Wow, that was amazing! So much fun, can’t wait to do it again.”

            So I didn’t know until right this minute that this is a way any human being on the planet experiences emotions, and you’ve just inadvertently explained something I didn’t understand about how my parents’ “vacation” decisions

            Reply ↓
            2. Lexi Vipond*

              Well, it shouldn’t be no fun at all, if that’s what you mean. It’s not going somewhere terrible so that you can talk endlessly about how terrible it was. It’s more than there’s a balance between discomfort or effort in the moment and the satisfaction or pleasure or excitement of having *got* there, or of being in the middle of something wonderful despite the discomforts.

              Something like knitting a huge or complicated project and feeling like you’ll be doing it (or undoing it) for the rest of your life then being immensely proud of the finished object would probably count. Or writing a book!

              Reply ↓
            3. GammaGirl1908*

              Appreciate the quotes around “vacation.” Hard same. Never for one moment have I equated things like sleeping on the ground with bugs and snakes, days of hard physical exertion, getting giardia, being hot and filthy, or anything that happens on Naked and Afraid with vacation.

              Reply ↓
          2. GammaGirl1908*

            Ha, as I was reading this question, I was like, this just sounds like … camping for a living. They need to advertise to people who love camping! I LOATHE camping and outdoorsiness and hiking and all the rest of it and have no idea what is appealing about it to anyone on the planet.

            But! This explanation of Type 2 Fun sheds some light! I had never heard the term until now, but okay, that helps a little.

            I’m still not doing it, because I don’t want to suffer to kind of have fun in retrospect — I’ll just skip over the pain and get to the fun that I can appreciate while I’m having it, thank you very much — but I can kind of see the idea of enjoying working hard for a payoff.

            Reply ↓
        3. Turnipnator*

          It’s a concept that’s gotten momentum now but I think originated in the 90s in climbing communities. The ‘fun scale’ is roughly:
          type 1 fun – things that are fun now (a game, a movie, etc)

          type 2 fun – things that are not fun now but are fun later (uncomfortable in the moment but they either give a sense of accomplishment or are a good story)

          type 3 fun – not fun now, not fun later.

          Reply ↓
            2. Not A Raccoon Keeper*

              that’s type 1 fun, or what normal people just call “fun”. regret/no regret is unspecified by this typology!

              Reply ↓
        4. all the star wars*

          A very brief definition is that “Type 1” fun/activities are things that are both fun now and fun to reminisce on. Which could apply to outdoor activities but also all sorts of things like a bar crawl, going to the movies, a chill vacation, etc.

          “Type 2” activities (which are usually outdoorsy stuff like hiking, mountaineering, extreme sports, etc) are more like, “I’m not necessarily having actual fun right this second* but when I look back on this experience, I’ll have enjoyed myself.”

          (Anyone else, feel free to correct me if I’m wrong).

          *The weather sucks, you’re tired, etc. But overall you’re glad you did the thing and when you reminisce about it later, you know you did have fun.

          Reply ↓
    2. nnn*

      I would recommend against using “Type 2 fun” in the job posting, simply because I think there would be very little overlap in the set of people who would have been exposed to the term “Type 2 fun” and the set of people OP wants to screen out.

      (I say this as someone who OP wants to screen out. “Type 2 fun”, as defined elsewhere in this thread, isn’t something that I would even consider a type of fun, whereas when I first saw the phrase before encountering the definition, I would have assumed it was something I’d consider a type of fun.)

      Reply ↓
  8. EA*

    I agree with being as transparent as possible! In my line of work we often have to do field assignments that are long, tiring, and sometimes in tough conditions. When hiring, I always ask about prior experience in similar conditions, even if it’s not work related. Mabe you could phrase it as an optional qualification: Prior wilderness or camping experience is highly recommended. And I would bring it up in the interview to see how they react.

    I would also make use of a “please note” section at the end of the job description, that aren’t qualifications exactly, but rather things for the candidate to consider, e.g. “Please note that this role will demand field work with long hikes (up to XX hours a day) and outside of cell service for up to XX weeks at a time.” That might help you find the right candidates.

    Reply ↓
    1. Nesprin*

      Its worth also asking for applicants to address interest in this sort of job in cover letters or resumes.

      “We encourage applicants to describe in their cover letters: past experiences with field work, experiences with wilderness camping/backpacking or other off grid experiences, working in team environments in resource poor settings and/or demonstrating resilience in adversity”

      Reply ↓
  9. Ms. Ann Thropy*

    Instead of simply making the job posting more enticing, try making the job itself more enticing, namely by paying more.

    Reply ↓
    1. ThisOneWeirdTrick*

      That’s great if the organization can magically make funds appear. If the money doesn’t exist they cannot promise it.

      Reply ↓
      1. Pescadero*

        …and if the money doesn’t exist – there is likely nothing they can do to change their issues.

        When the reality is “We underpay for a really tough job so people quit” – your options are “money” or “live with things the way they are”. There are no solutions to the issue that don’t cost more.

        Reply ↓
        1. Grizzled*

          One option is to pay the techs the same amount for fewer hours. Perhaps these research projects can scale back so that they only have techs working 4 days a week for the same wage, so that the wage is reasonable. I’ve seen too many times where these “do good” organizations say yes to every opportunity, overfilling their schedules and executing huge plans only by taking advantage of people who are willing to work for next to nothing.

          Reply ↓
    3. nnn*

      I’m guessing you’re not familiar with nonprofits and govt-grant funded work, much of which is really important and not at all well funded.

      Reply ↓
    4. all the star wars*

      Oh wow, a govt-grant-funded/non-profit being told to just pay more for a thankless, entry-level job. Never heard that one before.

      Non-profits with entry-level, grunt-work jobs usually do not have an endless supply of funding for said jobs. Or an endless supply for like, anything. ESPECIALLY if said funding is government grant-related. Especially because grants have a lot of strings attached to them, generally. You can’t receive a grant for say, eagle research, and use it to hire a general receptionist for the company. Compliance gets REALLY twitchy about that for some reason (/s).

      So unless you want to write a check to the LW to better fund this role, maybe take a seat.

      Reply ↓
    6. Snax*

      But the job IS enticing, which is why people put up with the bad pay. The OP isn’t looking for ways to retain staff, just to be transparent in the hiring process. Plus, work like this tends to be seasonal. Higher pay = higher retention just isn’t relevant. This isn’t a desk job with high turnover.

      Reply ↓
  10. Alex*

    I think a lot of people would be interested in that kind of job! It reminds me of when I was a camp counselor, the best and most fun job I ever had. It certainly isn’t for everyone, but the job requirements could definitely have been similar:

    Be on duty 130 hours a week.
    Live in rustic cabins with about 25 square feet of personal space and no electricity.
    Share 3 toilets and 2 showers with 50 other people. There will be spiders watching you every time you pee.
    Spend 3-4 days a week every other week primitive camping with only the supplies you can carry.
    Keep a positive attitude! Even when the kids are whining or misbehaving!
    Oh and pay…is less than minimum wage!

    I think you can neutrally describe the working conditions. “Field workers spend up to 13 hours a day hiking in all weather conditions, carrying a 50 pound pack, and may be out of cell phone or internet range for days at a time.” Some people will think that sounds great, so don’t make the decision for them that it is terrible.

    Reply ↓
    1. Sloanicota*

      Yeah, I think you’re right. One problem we had is a lot of people THINK that sounds fun, but may not truly understand what they’re getting into … I think your wording and discussion of past similar experience during the interview will get you to the right people.

      Reply ↓
    2. Meaningful hats*

      >There will be spiders watching you every time you pee.

      I chuckled at this one. We’re a camping family and my kids were icked out by the bathroom spiders the first few times we camped with them. I told them the spiders were inevitable, so they better get used to it. They love all other aspects of camping, though!

      Reply ↓
      1. Timothy (TRiG)*

        I was brought up in a camping family which mostly camped in the mountains in the west of Ireland, well away from anyone. Toilets, with or without spiders, were a very occasional luxury.

        Reply ↓
    3. MassMatt*

      I think this is on the right track. Be transparent, but given that it’s probably not possible to pay more or shorten the remote trips, etc. I think you should lean into the reality of this field work experience. Maybe you’re doing this already, but instead of general job boards (or at least, along with them) I would target outdoorsy people, extreme backpackers, people who went to wilderness survival school, etc. A table at an extreme backpacking convention or event might not get the same # of responses as a conventional listing, but I bet their success rate would be far higher.

      There are definitely people out there that would see this job and think “whoa, I can camp and hike AND get paid! Awesome!” and really mean it.

      Reply ↓
    4. Momma Bear*

      I agree. I know people for whom office work is torment and traipsing around in the mud is fun. You want those people. Maybe mix up the description. One of my favorite charity orgs puts some humor into the job description but the reader understands that sometimes it’s long hours, lots of packing and moving, and can be emotionally and physically exhausting. Beautiful views and once in a lifetime experiences but you need to be able to handle 14 hr days in challenging conditions and carry x amount of weight regularly. Field work will include…

      Reply ↓
  11. Goose*

    I’ve helped write a “Is This Position Right for Me” that lays out requirements and expectations–food, privacy, accommodations, activity level, schedule flexibility, initial adjustment time etc. that we’ve found breaks these types of things down. Be upfront! You’ll and the folks you hire will be better off for it.

    Reply ↓
    1. learnedthehardway*

      This is a good idea – get people to ask themselves the questions about whether they would be okay in the role. Some people will be enthusiastic about it. Others will say “No Way!!” and opt out.

      Reply ↓
  12. Falling Diphthong*

    Physical aptitude ain’t bupkis.

    This sounds like a job where the ability to carry heavy equipment while hiking is a necessary condition. Physical aptitude is also much easier for people to self-assess than emotional intelligence and maturity, and there is little shame in admitting that you aren’t taller than this sign. Lots of people will say “I could not carry a 30 pound pack on a 10 mile hike as a routine part of the job. Also I really hate humidity. And bugs.” Very few people will say “I’m immature and lack emotional intelligence.”

    I like the specific example Alison gives–you should talk about what maturity and emotional intelligence look like in this situation. Do you need to make a lot of decisions on the fly, or to meticulously follow every step of the plan? Do you need to get along in close quarters with a variety of people, or be okay working alone for long stretches?

    Reply ↓
  13. Shrimp Emplaced*

    Bookmarking this post, I can tell already that it’ll be more widely applicable beyond writing job descriptions!

    Reply ↓
  14. Pomodoro Sauce*

    I have done literally this type of job for a decade with great success, and people being very open about work conditions in the ad was always a green flag.

    Attempts to sell it, or be like “not all days are terrible days!” was a sign of management that wasn’t willing to face the emotional realities of what we were doing — that they’d be uncomfortable with safety issues like us needing to take a morning off to dry all of our soaking wet sleeping bags at a laundromat, or would be weird about professionalism issues — our datasheets being muddy and torn, or being really strict about not using extra time filling out our timesheets on unfamiliar software when we rarely saw computers and were sharing a single workstation.

    Also, some people are going to think this sounds amazing, and then it’s not going to work for them — they’ll have a knee that can’t take 13 hours of hiking, or they’ll get injured, or it’s not a good emotional fit. That’s going to happen even if you’re perfect at communicating the challenges of the job.

    You want to hire people who are stoic, frank, and straightforward — the ad also needs to be stoic, frank, and straightforward.

    Reply ↓
  15. ecnaseener*

    I agree with LW that the “Must be comfortable…” phrasing is a bit off-putting, but just reframing it as part of the job description rather than the candidate requirements would help quite a bit. “This role often involves carrying 30 pounds of equipment for 13 hours a day, including in high heat and humidity, on uneven terrain, in areas with biting flies and mosquitos” conveys the same information but feels less like you’re putting up a barrier and more like you’re just being transparent.

    Reply ↓
  16. Generic Name*

    I was a field biologist for many years, and yeah, it really does take a certain type of person to thrive doing that kind of work. I agree with being up-front and very blunt in the job ad. Alison’s example quote of the type of person who would like that job really isn’t all that far off! In addition to being really clear in the job ad, asking the right questions in the interview is also helpful. I suggest asking folks what their hobbies are/how they like to spend their off time. Ideally, you’d hire people who hunt, fish, hike, geocache, camp, do literally anything outdoors for long periods of time voluntarily.

    Reply ↓
  17. LinesInTheSand*

    If you’re hiring entry level staff, the challenge is that they probably don’t know either if the job is a fit. What you’re describing is pretty far outside many people’s day to day experiences and no one knows how they’re going to handle extreme conditions until they’re in extreme conditions that have to be handled.

    So I don’t know what to do about that in the hiring process. Is there a way you could arrange a paid “audition weekend” as the last round of your hiring process? Narrow your pool to a few strong candidates and make them work a few 13 hour days in adverse conditions, see if they want to self-select out then?

    Or alternatively, beef up your organizational training around supporting your field techs so they stick it out through the end of the season?

    Reply ↓
    1. Hastily Blessed Fritos*

      Depends a lot on the specifics, I’d think. “Field season” is often just that – a season – so if you need someone tracking bears coming out of hibernation next spring, the only way to do this would be to have the “trial” this spring, a full year in advance.

      Reply ↓
    2. Ultegra*

      We’ve hired for similar positions and we invite our top candidate to shadow someone for a few hours to get a sense of what the job might be like before accepting our offer. We also try to hire in the winter when conditions are the worst so new hires can quickly determine if the job will be a good fit for them or not. If not, we’ve hopefully minimized the amount of wasted time for both of us.

      Reply ↓
  18. northernbiologist*

    I’ve hired for this type of position. I agree about being up-front about the conditions. The only thing I would add is that this is the perfect type of job for someone to demonstrate their qualifications using non-work examples, which is especially helpful for those without much work experience. Usually the type of person who will thrive in this type of job already spends a lot of their free time suffering in the wilderness voluntarily. As one of their references, I get candidates to give me someone with whom they’ve spent a prolonged period of time in the wilderness (not necessarily from work), so that I can ask about some of the things you’re concerned about.

    Reply ↓
    1. Generic Name*

      Yup. As I mentioned in another comment (maybe it got eaten??), I was a field biologist for many years, and pretty much every biologist I know recreates outdoors in addition to doing it for work.

      Reply ↓
  19. northernbiologist*

    Also, this reminds me of an an old remote wilderness-based construction job ad from 1942, which read:

    THIS IS NO PICNIC

    Working and living conditions on this job are as difficult as those encountered on any construction job ever done in the United States or foreign territory. Men hired for this job will be required to work and live under the most extreme conditions imaginable. Temperature will range from 90° above zero to 70° below zero. Men will have to fight swamps, rivers, ice and cold. Mosquitoes, flies and gnats will not only be annoying but will cause bodily harm. If you are not prepared to work under these and similar conditions, do not apply.

    Reply ↓
    2. RLC*

      ALCAN (Alaska) Highway? Family member was a civilian construction manager on said project, this is how he summed up the experience.

      Reply ↓
      1. northernbiologist*

        Very close… this was the Canol Project: a pipeline built in remote northern Canada by the US military to get oil to Alaska during WWII. It cost a ton of money and was completed right around the time the war ended, and so was almost immediately abandoned after construction. You can hike the old pipeline route now, but only if you really like suffering in the wilderness…

        Reply ↓
  20. Ninersfsn*

    I realize it’s not quite the same thing, but I wonder how many people would be willing to help rethink this job description or what to put down if it was for a job describing “need someone to answer phones, keep supplies Stocked, and interview candidates for upcoming jobs, as well as keep the place, clean and reassign offices as needed.” I’m all for the fact that there are people who love the job that you’ve described, but I wonder if there is something offputting about the low pay, they need to be reimbursed, etc., that isn’t going to be fixed by describing it differently or being more transparent. Maybe it’s a crappy situation and it would be important to work on making it less crappy.

    Reply ↓
  21. Not A Manager*

    I agree that you should *describe* the work conditions accurately and then *name* the character traits that correlate with success. “This job involves heavy labor in variable weather conditions, primitive camping, and periods of limited social interaction” (or whatever). “People who thrive in this job are generally flexible, cooperate well with peers, have good problem-solving skills,” etc.

    Reply ↓
    1. natalie*

      Their motto that appears on the front door of the main office is “Hard Work, Low Pay, Miserable Conditions.”

      Reply ↓
  23. Rage Against the Mosquitoes*

    I think a lot of people skim bulleted job requirements that don’t sound like hard skills/experience (“yeah yeah, team player, communication, blah blah”) so sticking this in a less formally written paragraph might serve you well:
    “We’re going to be upfront here: this job can be demanding! In addition to all the perks of travel, camping, and working with nature, you’ll face challenges like hiking in all weather, battling mosquitos, and spending plenty of time in close quarters with your coworkers. If those sound like challenges you’re ready to take on, we want you on our team! Candidates who progress to the interview stage will have the opportunity to talk to current employees about their experiences, both ups and downs.”
    (Then make sure that last part happens.)

    Reply ↓
  24. Educator*

    In addition to being candid about the requirements, I would also think about how to get this posting in front of people who have already demonstrated that they love rustic conditions and physical demands. You don’t really know if you will like that until you have lived it, but a lot of us have and love it!

    For example, my university’s bio department would swing by our outing club meetings to make us aware of entry-level field positions. They knew anyone in the outing club would not bat an eye at the physical labor or isolation because that was how we chose to spend our free time anyway. The posting is important, but showing it to the right people probably matters more.

    Who won’t find this job unpleasant, and who will really know what they are signing up for? Seek them out!

    Reply ↓
    1. me*

      Similar to your outdoor club, I had peers in scouts (girl and boy) that would have really enjoyed these opportunities (and peers who would not touch them with a ten foot pole). While high school students and grads are probably too young for current opportunities, there’s often a lot of programming about different types of career paths. Connecting with a local scout council may (1) inspire future field biologists and (2) connect with an alumni association that likely has interested parties

      Reply ↓
  25. Hell in a Handbasket*

    My daughter is currently applying for jobs like this. It never ceases to amaze me, reading descriptions that are almost exactly like LW’s example, followed by something like “Living quarters may be crowded and primitive. Stipend $15/hr” and then having my (pretty qualified) daughter tell me she didn’t even get an interview because there are SO many applicants.

    Reply ↓
    1. handfulofbees*

      Honestly if I were a bit younger, I’d be all over something like this lol. These days I have much more emotional maturity which would help, but the low pay is untenable. I think these are really geared towards young people who don’t have much money and $15 an hour might be the most they’ve ever made.

      I’m a full time farm worker lol, get paid well for the industry (still poor), and honestly love my job! I do get to come home every night, which helps a lot lol.

      Reply ↓
    2. vulturestalker*

      Former field assistant here: yep! It’s mind boggling. The frustrating reality is that these jobs are important if you want to go into many kinds of ecology research, but that field also has NO money. Grants that fund e.g. PhD projects often come with prohibitions or limits on using them to fund field assistant wages. It’s a really bad situation and I know a lot of well-meaning folks who try and fail to pay people better… just a mess. I wish your daughter all the best in finding a position!

      Reply ↓
    3. Generic Name*

      I know. I’m kindof laughing at the people going, “have you considered paying more and making the field season shorter?”. The problem isn’t people don’t want to apply to these jobs, but they can’t make it through a whole season once hired. I think there is a fair amount of romanticization of this type of career, especially if you’ve never done it. Back when I did field biology, I would tell people what I did for a living, and people would be “ooooo coooool!” and ask me all kinds of questions. Now that I do something different, no one reacts in that way, amusingly. A lot of fieldwork frankly just sucks, but the people who do it, really love it. I loved it. I was sad when I realized that my joints just couldn’t take fieldwork anymore and had to move to project management.

      Reply ↓
      1. Bella Ridley*

        This is it. I don’t want to say the money is irrelevant, but when you are struggling through the mud and being eaten alive by mosquitos and you’ve been up for nineteen hours and the only sleep you’re going to get is going to be damp and your feet are covered in blisters and you’re living off jerky and noodles from a camp stove…an additional five grand per season is probably not going to change your mind if you’re on the fence about quitting. Fieldwork (and anything in that vein) is not for everyone, which is fine, but the money is very rarely the root of the whole problem. Vanishingly few people who were on the verge of quitting because of physical discomfort are going to say “I can keep doing this for another month to make another few hundred bucks,” and organizations who need this work done are not going to have the budget to make an appreciable difference in that salary bucket.

        Reply ↓
      2. Analyst*

        I’m dying here, because the majority of these jobs are not only unpaid, but actually cost money to do (ie, fly yourself to Africa to do field work and pay a fee to live here). And people do it cause it’s required to gain entry to the field. yes, it’s a problem…but if OP’s position is actually paid? they’re way above the majority already, no matter how bad the pay…

        Reply ↓
  26. BatManDan*

    For reference (although it’s not proven to be true) – I just copied this from the web.

    Many of you have probably seen the famous advertisement which, as the story goes, Ernest Shackleton ran in the newspaper to try to recruit men for his Endurance expedition:

    Men wanted for hazardous journey. Low wages, bitter cold, long hours of complete darkness. Safe return doubtful. Honour and recognition in event of success.1

    This advertisement is one of the most famous in history. It is frequently quoted as one of the best examples of copy writing, and has been quoted many times, in books covering topics all the way from Introduction to Evangelism to Web Application Defender’s Cookbook, and even printing on tee shirts.
    However, the origins of the ad are very obscure. No one has actually seen the ad printed in a newspaper, though the Antarctic Circle has a $100 reward out for anyone who can find it, a reward which has not yet been claimed. They have also gathered a lot of information about the ad, the basis for much of this post.

    Reply ↓
  27. 3-Foot Tall Inflatable Rainbow Unicorn*

    Just… do not lie. Do. NOT. Lie!

    I worked a job with a notorious revolving door – one person quit within 2 hours of starting – because the people doing the hiring lied, lied, lied. They promised training in new skill sets, promised all kinds of learning opportunities – and then when people got in, they found themselves stuck in very narrow jobs with no chance to branch out and no control over tasking.

    Be absolutely up front about the downside of field biology, bugs, mud, and all. Let people know what they’re getting into.

    Reply ↓
  28. Tech editor*

    Having “We’ve found people who thrive in this role generally have ____” in the job description would make it harder to ask the AAM Magic Question!

    Reply ↓
  29. Serious Sillyputty*

    We have an unusual work environment. I started including a link to an “about us” video in the job description. We also added an optional tour of our facility before the interview with a current person in that role who is NOT part of the hiring process. My hope is that this gives people more understanding so they are able to better assess if it’s a good fit— and to speak to that better in the interview.

    Reply ↓
  30. TokenJockNerd*

    So I’ve done and loved the WORK of this kind of job, but “btw you’re underpaid, underappreciated, and paying your own money for work, you’ll get paid back…eventually” is an honest to goodness dealbreaker for a lot of good people and something you should definitely fix at all possible. These positions don’t pay enough for that to be, like, reasonable. I really encourage you to find a way. (I know that’s not what you asked, but I’m gunna really encourage you anyway, because while “you’ll be paying your own money” is something you need to be honest about up front, taking that factor out entirely is BETTER)

    Be honest about the things that can’t be mitigated (rain! mud! mosquitoes!) and mitigate what you can (people on entry level hourly pay paying to do their job. I had problems with that while doing similar jobs and still do bc it’s the people who can least afford to spend their own money who have that burden placed on them the most)

    Reply ↓
    1. Elbe*

      100% agree here. “Agree to live in near poverty so that you can do labor for us” isn’t really a fair job listing, even if some people are willing to make those sacrifices to get a foot in the door. It’s going to weed out a lot of passionate, qualified people who are just not able to take on the financial burdens.

      I understand that the LW probably doesn’t have the authority to change this (yet), but it is something to keep in mind and push back on wherever possible.

      Reply ↓
      1. Nesprin*

        Eh, “live near poverty to do labor for someone” else sure sounds a lot like my PhD- I theoretically worked in “safe, controlled” environment (not fieldwork) and still ended up with a life-threatening allergy.

        And yep, my PhD training was something I would do again in a heartbeat.

        Reply ↓
        1. Elbe*

          I understand that these types of setups are very common at the moment, but I honestly think that that’s a problem that, culturally, we should work to change. Similar to unpaid internships, it really restricts the type of person who can hold certain jobs.

          Just before I graduated college, I decided not to go into a field I was passionate about when I realized that, realistically, I would have to get a second job (likely for years) just to be able to eat, and that I would be competing with coworkers who came from family money and could show up at work well fed and well rested and well dressed and not stressed.

          These types of setups are slow to change and I don’t blame the LW for needing to work around this right now. But it is a problem.

          Reply ↓
  31. Elbe*

    I think a good thing to do here is to find out how the pros and cons of the job are understood by people who are well-suited vs. people who are ill-suited for the role.

    Focus on everything that the ill-suited people consider cons, as well as everything that the well-suited people consider to be the pros. You’ll end up with a balanced listing that attracts some people and weeds out the rest.

    Reply ↓
  32. Eeyore is my spirit animal*

    When I was hiring college students for summer field work, I had a formula for the announcement they liked us to follow, so the job announcement covered the hiking distances, amount of equipment carried, temperatures etc. but had to be more formal sounding. So, I couldn’t just say the conditions will suck.

    In the interviews I was very, very blunt and expansive about the specifics of heat, humidity, mud (a third of the area was wetlands/swamps), snakes (I saw something venomous once a week), ticks, the possibility of gators, etc. I also was very specific of the quirks of working on an Army base. The constant sound of gunfire, artillery, or hand grenades and the simulator version of all of the above. The active hazards of tanks and other large equipment or the presence of UXO.

    It seemed to effective. Over the 50ish students I hired over the years, only two had problems. One developed heat injuries and had to be put on half days. One never got used to the sound of the simulators and left about 2/3 of the way through.

    Reply ↓
  33. CubeFarmer*

    Yup.

    I’ve been in my organization long enough to have recognized where past employees have struggled. So, the last time I wrote a description I added “must be comfortable occasionally driving in dense urban environments,” because we had a couple field workers decide, after they were hired, that they didn’t like city driving!

    Reply ↓
  34. BatManDan*

    For reference (although it’s not proven to be true) – I just copied this from the web.

    Many of you have probably seen the famous advertisement which, as the story goes, Ernest Shackleton ran in the newspaper to try to recruit men for his Endurance expedition:

    Men wanted for hazardous journey. Low wages, bitter cold, long hours of complete darkness. Safe return doubtful. Honour and recognition in event of success.1

    This advertisement is one of the most famous in history. It is frequently quoted as one of the best examples of copy writing, and has been quoted many times, in books covering topics all the way from Introduction to Evangelism to Web Application Defender’s Cookbook, and even printing on tee shirts.
    However, the origins of the ad are very obscure. No one has actually seen the ad printed in a newspaper, though the Antarctic Circle has a $100 reward out for anyone who can find it, a reward which has not yet been claimed. They have also gathered a lot of information about the ad, the basis for much of this post.

    Reply ↓
  35. Beboots*

    We’ve had a similar issue with hiring staff who work outdoors in all weather conditions. We do provide uniforms, including sun hats, rain jackets, warm underlayers, bug spray, sunscreen, bug net hats… we have provisions for taking your breaks in an air conditioned vehicle or in a basement office where it’s cooler on hot days, or choosing lower-exertion tasks in the event of a really hot or smoky day… but at the end of the day, while there are supports, you’re still on your feet, outside, in hot/rainy/smoky conditions, for an 8 hour day minus lunch and two fifteen minute breaks. We’ve tried putting that information in our job posters, and we’ve taken to reiterating it in the interviews, discussing what the season looks like and what a typical day looks like… but we still have people who complain about working in outdoor conditions, and had a few people leave early because they found that being outside all day doing the advertised job as described in the job poster and the interview was too hard on their bodies. By that I mean they’re not hiking for 13+ hour days with a 30kg pack on, but they’re like, tired and sweaty at the end of the day. I’m not quite sure how to make these conditions of employment clearer?

    Reply ↓
  36. But not the Hippopotamus*

    It might be helpful to have a web page for people who are interested in field work but haven’t done it. Think something like a FAQ and Stuff I Wish Someone Had Warned Me About. You can link to it, include the testimonials Alison mentioned, and get some details without having to put it all in the ad. You could even reference it in the ad.

    Reply ↓
    1. Yvette*

      That’s a great idea. It could even include short videos nothing professional just done by people who currently holds the job showing with a typical day is like typical projects typical tasks typical heat, typical mud.

      Reply ↓
  37. FattyMPH*

    I’m wondering if including some examples of ‘helpful work history’ could help. Especially if this is a position contributing to academic or public service work where most of the other jobs on are office jobs, specifying some similar non-office jobs might help people with those experiences recognize that they are what you’re looking for. To me, the working conditions sound similar to full time dog walking or landscaping/lawn care or being a summer camp counselor in terms of the expectation of being outside so much of the time doing physical stuff that could be unpleasant. I also think getting clarity on what is inevitable unpleasantness of the job vs what is exploitative working conditions that could be changed will help you be more effective as a manager. Weather is not fixable — but expecting the lowest paid employees to effectively make loans *to* the organization by floating funds and waiting to be reimbursed really should be.

    Reply ↓
  38. Fluffy Fish*

    I would also consider somewhere in the interview process be very clear and upfront about people taking the job and leaving because of xyz reasons. With a line somewhere about “we know these type of conditions aren’t for everyone even if the work seems interesting otherwise, so we really want candidates to consider all this information and really think about if the job is for them”

    Reply ↓
  39. wounded, erratic stink bugs*

    I want to join the “be transparent” and “fix the things you can fix, like pay and reimbursement issues” choruses, but also:
    Is it possible that this a job where you’ll never be able to avoid having more turnover than you’d like, because there will always be some people who won’t know if the work is for them until they try it? Even with the hardships it might sound good on paper to some people who decide it’s not for them after a few months. Getting them to finish out the field season would be ideal, but some portion of this problem might be inherent in the job.

    Reply ↓
  40. Deb*

    Have you thought about posting the job or advertising on thru-hiker blogs and threads on Reddit / facebook groups? Long distance thru and section hikers want to continue their hikes in new ways even after doing the big hikes (AT, CDT, PCT) but also looking to fund the next one with a temporary job. Almost everyone tries to find an outdoors job like this after hiking long distance. 10-30 mile days are normal with 20-30lb packs too. Depending on your season, many thru- hikers might love this idea.

    Reply ↓
  41. Banana Pyjamas*

    My last workplace redid job descriptions completely. They have a section “Physical/Mental Demands and Work Environment” that I think would fit the bill here.

    Reply ↓
  43. HR Lady*

    I hire people for a different type of job that can be unpleasant. It involves a lot of driving and general unpredictability, in the healthcare space. While there is a ton my company has done to minimize issues, there are just times when it’s impossible to avoid unpleasant days- that is the nature of patient care in the settings we work in. Our solution has been to be very upfront about it- those who won’t love it will filter themselves out. In our interview we make a lot of comments about things like audiobooks and podcasts since the driving really does affect everything.

    And then- we get people who *think* they will like it, or at least think they can tolerate the drives, and decide after a short while that they actually can’t. That’s always frustrating. I often find myself repeating to my company leadership that, unless somebody has previously worked in a job where they did 5+ hours average of driving per day, there is no way to know if they will like it or not, and people will just have to experience it to get the real idea of what it will be like. But hey, now I can tell people that we aren’t spending 3 weeks camping!!

    In all seriousness, OP, this is a tough one and I know how it feels! Good luck, and I hope you find somebody who LOVES what you do!

    Reply ↓
  44. Anon, anon*

    Years ago I was at a job fair where one of the employers was looking for staff to work on a remote Arctic island. Basically a rock in the ocean– an icy rock at that– with a few people and many thousands of birds.

    He got up onstage and spoke about the birds. And only the birds. The diversity of species. The excitement of watching them do all their birdy stuff. No mention of the realities of the living situation. As soon as he finished speaking, a long line formed at his booth.

    I always wondered how that worked out in the long run.

    Reply ↓
    1. Ialwaysforgetmyname*

      It’s a tough balance. I spent years working in national parks and had to recruit/hire for low paying seasonal jobs. I learned I had to balance promoting the amazing stuff (you live in a beautiful national park! You have amazing access to hiking and wildlife!) with the bad stuff (you live in a cramped dorm room with 1-3 other people, the food we provide isn’t so great).

      Reply ↓
  45. Spearmint*

    I wonder if this would be best addressed at the interview stage. Maybe schedule an initial, brief phone interview with each candidate where you can give a more nuanced and detailed description of the pros and cons. I think people would be more likely to think about it and internalize the information when it’s delivered that way. It’s too easy to skim over job ads and not think too hard about them, because after all you’re probably reading hundreds or thousands of them over the course of a job hunt.

    Reply ↓
  47. in dreams begin responsibilities*

    I hire for a job like this: a “dream job” in many people’s minds but actually very physically, mentally, and emotionally taxing. Imagine, for example, someone who wants to work at a vet clinic but hasn’t thought through what it will be like to have to comfort grieving people on an almost daily basis. Our solution is to be up front about the easier to summarize physical difficulties (e.g., “outdoor manual labor in all weather”) in the job ad and then, with applicants who are actual prospects, including information about mental and emotional challenges at every turn, understanding that it make take some repetition to make it sink in for someone who is convinced that they want to do this. In interviews, we stress that one of the purposes of the conversation is for them to decide if they want the job and then ask them to imagine themselves in various common scenarios. We also do a “working interview” during which the applicant is able to physically feel what some of the most onerous daily tasks are like and then say something like “imagine doing this for at least two hours every day, rain or shine, blizzard or heat wave.” Those do tend to dissuade applicants who look and sound perfect but are not, in fact, prepared to cope with the regular ravages of the job.

    Reply ↓
  48. Annony*

    Not all of it has to be in the ad. Definitely make sure they understand the physical requirements, but people are not generally very good at identifying if they have a high degree of emotional intelligence. That part is probably better screened for in the interview.

    Reply ↓
  49. postdooc*

    I completely sympathize with this letter. I also work in a field science (in academia), and come across a lot of challenges with recruiting for field work. Lots of students are really excited about the idea, but don’t have the practical understanding of what it entails.

    Couple of suggestions:
    1. When hiring, often I’ve seen people lean towards picking people with lots of camping experience, which can be great, or can lead to hiring people that might expect this to be more like a vacation. There are many folks (I am one!) who will get into fieldwork successfully, even without a strong camping or outdoors background. One of the key indicators that I’ve found is that these people tend to have additional experiences that can point to being good at ‘type 2 fun’ and the diligent grind of field work: camp counselors, extensive childcare experience, physical jobs (warehouse, restaurant jobs, etc…)… that have similar levels of physical exertion and need to work around other people. College athletes were also often great pulls who have the physical ability but clearly understand the grind.

    2. Clearly lay out the typical field work schedule for your advertised position. There’s a huge range, but field work can be REALLY different depending on the project, and clearly laying out an un-edited typical field schedule can help techs identify the type of field work it is. For example, we had two field positions to hire for last year. One was to assist on a summer of remote sample gathering, and so the person had to be very comfortable with carrying a heavy pack, backwoods camping, orienteering, etc….The other was to be the field tech for our more local projects, which involved more field work, but a lot of it was driving in and out, setting up and installing field equipment, and collecting frequent local samples. The two techs had very different schedules that we could lay out (i.e. 2-4 five day backpacking trips a month, where you are working sunup to sundown for the period? vs. 40 hrs a week, flexed based on needs in the field).

    Reply ↓
  50. H.C.*

    Ha, this posting could’ve been tailored towards me right at the start of college (when I declared Environmental Science major with an interest in ecologist career – which I nope’d out of when I found out how much field work is involved in early-career roles… down to the extended standing around & lifting heavy equipment in humid, insect-laden environments.)

    Reply ↓
  51. Grizzled*

    I’ve worked a job just like this, and they weren’t up front about it at hiring. My boss was horrible and I had to spend 2 weeks at a time camping with her in the middle of nowhere. The day rate was for 7 hours, but the days were 13 hours. The works was amazing – flying in helicopters, hiking through glorious mountains, and having incredible experiences with wildlife. I didn’t mind the long days, mosquitos, and physical labour. I actually loved the closeness to nature. But I consistently felt taken advantage of and disrespected because of the expectation to work 6 free hours each day. At the end of the season my boss and I parted ways without saying goodbye. The previous year’s intern became my boss’s best friend – so clearly she didn’t mind the challenges. So yes – be up front with everything you mentioned here. Some people will enjoy this experience.

    Reply ↓
  52. lpkxwk*

    I’d consider having 2 documents made available with the advert, 1) the position description, and 2) a job dictionary that clearly spells out tasks and the physical and psychosocial elements of the role.

    Reply ↓
  53. double spicy*

    I think transparency is key. Being up-front about the realities of the job helps people self-select into or out of your candidate pool. It’s also likely to reduce the likelihood of new hires quitting so soon, since they will have a more realistic idea of what to expect from the work. Given the reality of nonprofit/academic/government funding, it may be worth looking into non-monetary benefits that could help your staff have a more satisfactory experience.

    Reply ↓
    1. Ialwaysforgetmyname*

      Yes, this. In my 20s and 30s an honestly described fieldwork position would have sounded like heaven to me vs. being a turnoff.

      Reply ↓
  54. Analyst*

    As a former field worker- Alison’s examples were actually perfect

    and you absolutely need to describe the difficulties, and yes, emphasize both the mental and physical resilience needs

    nut the reality is…a lot of people will still try this kind of work out and realize it’s not for them, whatever you say. There’s just no substitute for doing the work. That’s why a lot of these jobs in isolated/foreign sites require previous experience (too expensive to risk a green person who may or may not be able to handle field work)

    Reply ↓
  55. Alton Brown's Evil Twin*

    OP might want to look up those old Peace Corps ads – “It’s the toughest job you’ll ever love” for some inspiration.

    Reply ↓
  56. Perihelion*

    When we used to hire field techs, we made an effort to talk quite honestly about the conditions in the ad and interviews. As far as assessing the ability to work in a group, I remember that we would ask the references to speak to that specifically—it was a good way of getting some insight that wasn’t just assurances from the candidate.

    Reply ↓
  57. Ialwaysforgetmyname*

    In 1998 I volunteered with the National Park Service on the Appalachian Trail in Great Smoky Mountains National Park. The volunteer coordinator sent each volunteer to a different section of trail for a 4 night backpacking trip to monitor the trail, educate users, pick up trash, etc.

    The coordinator sent me (a hardcore backpacker who loves solitude) to the busiest section of trail in the park but sent an 18 year old kid who had never camped alone to the most remote section. That kid bailed after 1 night, but I would have been delighted to cover his section.

    Reply ↓
  58. Mummy1111*

    I was actually thinking the job description won’t make a difference. People who think they want to do field work aren’t going to be deterred by the description.

    Reply ↓
  59. Atomic Tangerine*

    Could you also tie in the purpose and meaning behind the work? I suspect it’s the connection to the greater good that makes it so rewarding to those of you who love it – maybe appealing to the folks who share those ideals will help select for the candidates you want.

    Reply ↓
  60. anonymouse*

    After being in a number of different professions I’ve concluded that all jobs have things that are terrible about them, so the trick is to find a job where they are the kinds of terrible things that are not a big deal to you personally. So be honest! You will appropriately drive away people like me who like to work with animals but can’t stand getting their feet wet (etc), and only people who think that’s not a big deal will apply. That is a win-win.

    Reply ↓
  61. Bruce*

    There is a wildlife refuge that has volunteers come out and spend 3 to 6 months pulling invasive plants, clearing debris from beaches and counting birds, all while on an island in the Pacific. It sounds like it would be a blast for a week or two, but the clear job description helped me realize that I would not have fun beyond that. This is real work for people younger than me!

    Reply ↓
  62. George*

    Retired NPS backcountry ranger (45 years) here. Point out the physical demands of the job but don’t overdo it and be realistic — e.g. not macho, which was a tendency in my youth. A woman friend was asked if she could carry a 50 lb pack and she asked, rightly, “why.” She’d been hiking forever and, with careful packing saw no need for over 35 or 40 lb, if even that.

    Also important is, if people are expected to be in the field overnight or for several, put that in. Research friends found most of their field teams wanted to hike out (2+ hours), drive home, hike back in for the morning. Puts a major dent in accomplishing research tasks.

    Park I worked in found even hires in “frontcountry” — accessible by road — were often really unhappy with poor or no internet, no cell connection, and long drive to stores etc. Some would leave within a couple of weeks.

    Our crew — about 14 backcountry rangers — stayed in small tents & cabins 10+ miles from nearest road, brought all our food for 3+ months, no resupply, only 2 way radio to base for coms… . Got a core group of 10 who stayed for decades until age & failing body parts had us having to leave over time. Still, most of the newer generation stays at least a few years.
    I think it’s mostly word of mouth — that is, people who have met or work around b/c rangers or work in the frontcountry will apply when there’s an opening so they know what the job is. Very few hires from folks “off the street” — though some.

    I suppose take-home there is try to choose from a group of people with some experience or who otherwise show basic physical ability, enthusiasm, skill, and are self contained (don’t need to be entertained, held by the hand, have good common sense and quite happy by themselves).

    Heck, I’d apply but am a bit gimped up, alas.

    Reply ↓
    1. George*

      Another thought: assuming the field work isn’t super-specialized (people can be training at beginning or on the job), take a look at outdoor jobs: river guides, climbers, backcountry guides (Outward Bound, Knolls — are they still in business?), California Conservation Corp, trail crews, etc. Those would be great resources of people who are used to gnarly living. Most field work I’ve seen you can train folks fairly quickly to collect data, id plants, whatever.
      Good luck!

      Reply ↓

Leave a Comment

Before you comment: Please be kind, stay on-topic, and follow the site's commenting rules.
You can report an ad, tech, or typo issue here.

Subscribe to all comments on this post by RSS