Special guest Dan Korus joins us on Roast the Post Podcast today, and you should check out all of his stuff!
The Updraft - Substack Newsletter
Kestryl Edge - Leadership for teams who know that trust is built
Let’s Roast.
One job ad promises the technical authority role of a lifetime and pays like it's the second one. A venture-backed hypersonic aerospace shop in Los Angeles wants a single engineer to build, run, staff, and quality-assure an entire manufacturing facility… for a salary that doesn't cover the 405 commute.
Job seekers: this is what scope creep looks like before you sign.
Hirers: this is what it costs when you haven't decided what the job is.
Follow along with the full job ad here:
The Bigger Picture
A job ad isn't a wish list, it's a design document. When one role carries the scope of a department, the budget of a junior hire, and the compliance burden of aerospace, the real question isn't who will take this job.
It's whether the organization has decided what it's actually building.
Apply that lens to any job ad: if you can't tell whether they want a builder or an executor, they haven't finished the design.
At a Glance: The Roasty Profile
Job Title: Components Manufacturing Engineer
Report-to Title: Unknown
Company Size: 201-500
Industry: Aviation and Aerospace Component Manufacturing
What do they do?: Research, design and test hypersonic aerospace technologies in a proprietary rapid prototyping environment. Head Office in LA, manufacturing facilities in
Head Office Location: Los Angeles, California, United States
Job Location: Los Angeles, California, United States
Geographical Operating Area: United States
Job Type: Full-Time / On-Site
For the Job Seekers
Did you come across a job ad like this? These questions might help you shed some light on what working there is really like:
Ask these before you touch this application, or any ad like it:
Is this a hands-on engineering role, a people leadership role, or both? Who do the technicians actually report to, and what authority comes with that responsibility?
What are the escalation boundaries? “Operate autonomously” is meaningless without a decision-making matrix and a named person you escalate to.
Who owns quality? If you’re responsible for hitting production targets, who signs off on corrective actions… you, or someone with separation from your deliverables?
Is the company funded and organized for R&D or for production compliance? The support, rigour, and resources required are completely different.
Why is the experience bar set at three years for a scope this large? Is it deliberate budget engineering, or do they not know what seniority the work demands?
Is there a 401(k) match (or RRSP in Canada)? If it isn’t stated, assume there isn’t one.
For the Job-Seeker Seekers
Are you writing a job ad for a similar role? Consider these hidden issues that might impact the success of your recruitment campaign:
What this posting costs the organization, and how to fix it:
Undefined role identity. The ad straddles process engineer, production manager, and quality lead without committing to any.
Outcome: applicants self-select out or in for the wrong job, screening drags, and the hire fails within months.
Fix: run a real role analysis first. Decide builder versus executor, write one job, and pay for the one you chose.
Compensation misaligned with scope and geography. Management-level expectations, founder-level building scope, Huntsville pricing, LA cost of living.
Outcome: the only people who accept are the desperate or the delusional about scope, and both churn.
Fix: benchmark against defense primes for the actual role scope in the actual location, or split the role into multiple process engineer positions.
Quality and production in the same hands. The ad puts corrective actions inside the job scope of the person accountable for throughput, which cuts against AS9100 separation-of-duties logic.
Outcome: a compliance failure, a contractual penalty, or worse on hardware that can’t fail.
Fix: separate the inspection function from the production function and document it before hiring.
A shopping-list skill set. Four CAD packages, five welding methods, every aerospace material… a fishing net that signals you don’t know what your own facility runs on.
Outcome: candidates conclude the company is disorganized, and your best prospects never apply.
Fix: name your actual toolchain and your actual two or three critical processes. Specificity is credibility.
Politicized language as an accidental filter. “Department of War” in the ad, “Department of Defence” everywhere else narrows the talent pool and muddies your employer brand.
Outcome: strong candidates opt out on values, not qualifications.
Fix: use contractually correct, neutral terminology, and put mandatory eligibility requirements like export-control status at the top, not the fine print.
Hollow physical requirements and safety silence. Sitting, walking, and flexible hours is not a risk disclosure for a shop-floor role around laser and friction welding equipment.
Outcome: safety gaps, a legal exposure if someone is hurt, and a signal that health and safety isn’t systematized.
Fix: write real physical and safety requirements, state what certifications you provide and pay for, and include an accommodation statement.
Extractive benefits framing. Pet insurance and paid lunches are fine, but nothing in the ad sells the opportunity… the mission, the technology, the equity story… to justify the trade being asked.
Outcome: the people you most want read the ad and feel pitched a bad deal.
Fix: lead with what the candidate builds and gains; if there’s equity, say so; if the match exists, say so. If neither exists, fix that instead of the perk list.
The Verdict
Live Studio Audience (Average Score)
4.25 / 10 (Job Ad)
2.5 / 10 (Role Design)
Dan Korus
3 / 10 (Job Ad)
3 / 10 (Role Design)
This job ad makes me mad. Unrealistic expectations, poor salary, role design that sets the candidate up for complete failure… and the company doesn’t seem to realize it, or even know what they want. Double boo.
Jennifer Houle
3 / 10 (Job Ad)
0 / 10 (Role Design)
Yuck. What more is there to say? The job ad describes something that’s barely there, the role design is nowhere to be found, and the private equity people are lurking and hangry in the shadows.
Paul Austin-Menear
2 / 10 (Job Ad)
1 / 10 (Role Design)
Whoever wrote this job ad was in a hurry, and they didn’t think through the structural consequences of their words. The ad writes like they think that hero engineers live on every corner, and will work for peanuts.
Have Your Say!
What did you think about this job ad and role design? Now’s the time to put on your Roast the Post Podcast judge’s hat and weigh in. Leave a rating for the job ad, and a rating for the role design here :
No sign in or personal information required to weigh in. We shout out the juiciest comments from voting on our TikTok and Instagram every Friday.
Support the Show
Roast the Post is a passion project of Jennifer Houle and Paul Austin-Menear. The show helps job-seekers and employers get dud job ads out of their lives. There are several ways that you can help us on our mission to unf*ck the hiring process…
1 —> Share this episode with someone who’d like it.
2 —> Pick up a copy of our new e-Book, the Job Description Decoder and leave a review. The price is pay-what-you-can (even free), and all proceeds will be donated equally to Ronald McDonald House BC & Yukon, and the Toronto Humane Society.
3 —> Send us a one-time or recurring tip on Buy Me a Coffee. This helps pay for our production costs.
