You’ve seen it happen.
The job description (JD) is finalized, signed off, and scheduled to go live. Then, just as you post it, the hiring manager swoops in with a new version: a different title, more “must-have” skills, and salary details removed.
Sound familiar?
In a recent episode of The JD Fix podcast, Heather Fenty dives into this scenario. It’s the job description that was done… until it wasn’t. And if you’ve worked in recruiting, comp, or HR, chances are you’ve been here before.
Here’s the good news: these last-minute rewrites aren’t a lost cause. They’re a signal. A sign that something in your job description (JD) process might need a reset.
And with a few smart changes, you can stop the cycle before it starts.
What’s Really Behind the Last-Minute JD Rewrite?
Before we jump into how to fix it, let’s pause and unpack the why.
Because rewrites like this don’t just happen. They’re usually driven by anxiety and misalignment, or a process that leaves people feeling unheard.
1. They Don’t Trust the JD Process
If your hiring manager has seen one too many bad JDs in the past—vague language, recycled copy, or missing context—they might assume this one is just more of the same.
Even if it’s a solid draft, that lack of trust pushes them to rewrite it themselves.
2. They’re Afraid Something Critical Is Missing
Hiring the wrong person is expensive. So when reviewing a JD, especially for a technical or strategic role, some managers panic: “What if we forgot to include that one key tool, certification, or skill?”
Instead of giving feedback, they rewrite the whole thing “just to be sure.”
3. They Weren’t Included Early On
Sometimes, rewrites happen not because the JD is broken, but because the process was. If the hiring manager wasn’t consulted initially, editing the draft becomes their way of inserting themselves into the process… albeit too late.
It’s not sabotage—it’s their attempt to feel heard.
A Real-Life Example (and a Common Pattern)
Heather shares a story from a mid-sized tech company where the recruiting team had recently launched a brand-new JD workflow: new templates, clear approvals, and a structured process in place.
But the night before a high-priority JD was scheduled to go live, the head of engineering stepped in and rewrote the entire thing.
The recruiters were blindsided. It wasn’t just frustrating; it threw off timelines, created confusion, and forced everyone to circle back to a JD they thought was locked.
This incident really highlighted the fact that even the best templates and workflows fall short if you don’t bring people into the process at the right time.
The 3-Part Fix: Boundaries + Collaboration = Better JDs
Here’s the framework Heather recommends to prevent late-stage JD edits and keep hiring workflows moving forward.
Step 1: Bring Hiring Managers in Early—With Guardrails
This one’s simple, but powerful: don’t write the JD alone.
Include the hiring manager at the intake stage, when their feedback is valuable. Ask for their insights early on—just make it clear that changes after a certain point won’t be accepted.
Sample script:
“Let’s spend 15 minutes reviewing the draft together. After that, I’ll finalize it and route it for approval.”
This sets a boundary while making space for meaningful collaboration. It gives the hiring manager ownership without creating an open-ended feedback loop, and they’re less likely to make surprise edits later.
You’re not just avoiding edits—you’re building trust upfront.
Step 2: Use Smart JD Templates That Define the Rules
Templates aren’t just about efficiency. They’re guardrails.
A smart JD template clarifies what’s customizable and what’s locked. Try this structure:
- Locked Sections: Company intro, salary, benefits, DEI language, legal disclaimers
- Editable Sections: Responsibilities, qualifications, tech stack, team-specific language
Clearly label the sections [Editable] and [Locked]. This will eliminate guesswork and help hiring managers know where employees can contribute meaningfully.
Consistently using structured templates makes it easier to maintain tone, readability, and compliance, without micromanaging every sentence.
Step 3: Set a Feedback Window and Enforce It
Edits without a deadline are just open tabs waiting to crash your process.
Avoid the infinite feedback loop by giving hiring managers a set window to review and respond.
Example:
“We’re accepting edits until Friday at noon. After that, the JD goes live.”
This shows flexibility, but also protects your timeline. You’ve created a safe space for input, but one with an end date.
Setting an editing window prevents endless back-and-forth and keeps recruiting timelines intact. When managers know a deadline, they tend to review faster, making it beneficial for both parties.
When It Becomes a Pattern
Let’s say you implement all this and still get a rewrite from the same hiring manager every time.
That’s not a one-off. That’s a pattern. And it’s time to talk.
But instead of confronting them, invite a conversation. You can start by saying:
- “What’s missing from our current JD process that’s making this harder than it should be?”
- “What are you looking for in a JD that you feel isn’t reflected?”
It’s usually not about the JD. It’s about role clarity, trust in the process, or a desire for more control.
By asking these questions, you position yourself as a strategic partner, not a roadblock.
3 Tips for a Smoother JD Process
Here are a few practical tweaks we’ve seen make a difference:
- Use comment-only access for JD drafts to avoid conflicting edits.
Comment-only access keeps things structured. It invites feedback without allowing the underlying template or locked sections to be altered. Managers can highlight phrases they want to tweak and suggest changes in real-time. They can also flag concerns without accidentally deleting required content or derailing the JD’s flow.
This small setting change does big things for your workflow:
- Maintains the integrity of your templates
- Preserves legally required or DEI language
- Prevents conflicting edits and miscommunication
Use Google Docs’ comment feature with tagging (e.g., “@RecruiterName”) to route specific questions or suggestions for review.
- Create a JD feedback form with key questions so managers can submit insights in one place.
Build a structured JD feedback form that centralizes input and guides the conversation. Here are a few questions to include:
- What are the top 3 skills or competencies this role requires?
- What specific tools, platforms, or certifications are must-haves?
- Who does this role report to, and with what teams do they collaborate?
- What would make this JD more accurate or attractive to the right candidates?
- Are there examples of previous hires in this role that set the benchmark?
Having a standard form helps you avoid vague feedback and creates documentation you can refer to when questions come up later in the process.
Link a tool like Google Forms or Typeform to your JD intake checklist. It’s easy to share, keeps everything in one place, and helps speed up review cycles.
- Track how long JDs take at each step—identify bottlenecks and optimize.
Track the average time it takes to complete each step.
Look for patterns, such as drafts sitting with a hiring manager for more than 5 days, legal reviews taking longer than expected, or inconsistent final approvals across departments.
Once you’ve identified the bottlenecks, you can use platforms like Ongig to automate much of the workflow: structured approvals, version tracking, and smart templates that reduce friction across the board.
This will not only help speed up your hiring process, but it will also improve transparency across teams and make it easier to set realistic expectations.
Why This Matters More Than Ever
Job descriptions are often overlooked, but they’re foundational. They impact candidate quality, recruiter efficiency, pay equity, and employer brand.
When JDs go through an inconsistent, chaotic review process, the damage ripples across the hiring funnel:
- Candidates drop out because the JD feels vague or misaligned. e.g., The hiring manager wants someone with 10 years of experience, but the JD says “2+”
- Recruiters waste time chasing edits instead of sourcing talent. Every last-minute change eats into time that could be spent reviewing applicants or running candidate outreach campaigns.
- Stakeholders lose trust in each other and the process. For instance, when the recruiter sends over a finalized JD, only for the hiring manager to rewrite it at the last minute.
But when is your JD process smooth, collaborative, and structured?
Everything changes. Recruiters work faster, managers feel supported, and candidates get a clearer picture of the role and company they’re considering.
A Final Word
To the hiring managers, we know you’re juggling a lot. You care about getting the right hire. You want your voice reflected in the job description.
And you should. But the earlier we collaborate, the stronger the JD—and the faster we find the right person for your team.
To the recruiters, HR teams, and comp partners: your work behind the scenes makes all this possible. But you don’t have to go it alone or tolerate chaos. Structure creates sanity.
So next time a last-minute edit lands in your inbox, take a breath—and take control.
Why I wrote this
Ongig helps companies streamline JD creation with role-based workflows, version tracking, approval automation, and smart templates with locked sections. Request a demo to see how it works—and finally fix your JD process for good.
