Let’s Roast.
A “Culture Coach” role lands in Jen’s inbox—and it’s either the future of people ops or an HR identity crisis with a fresh coat of paint. We unpack what the posting accidentally reveals about structure, workload, AI screening, and who actually holds the risk when “coach” starts sounding like “manager.”
Follow along with the full job ad here :
The Bigger Picture
How do you design a people-support role that’s genuinely modern… embedded, trust-based, and outcome-oriented… without blurring accountability, creating compliance risk, or turning “culture” into a performative label? This episode treats the job posting like a systems diagram, even if the job ad didn’t provide meaningful context.
At a Glance: The Job Profile
Job Title: Culture Coach
Report-to Title: Unknown
Company Size: 501-1,000 employees (584)
Industry: IT Services and IT Consulting
What do they do?: Use AI-first software solutions to bridge the gap between technology and business strategy to drive faster execution, lower risk, and scalable growth.
Head Office Location: NY, NY
Job Location: Remote, Canada
Geographical Operating Area: Global
Job Type: Full-Time, Permanent
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:
When they say “coach,” who actually does performance management, promotions, compensation, and PTO approvals?
What does “minimum 40 hours/week” mean in practice, and what’s the real workload pattern?
What is the interview process, step by step, and is AI used to screen you (and how)?
What would success look like at 30/60/90 days if the role is “emergent” or ambiguous?
What’s the scope: coaching individuals, building training programs, running culture initiatives… or all of the above?
What benefits are real (and consistent), and what policies exist behind vague phrases like “flexible family leave”?
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:
Problem: Vague roles attract everyone, overwhelm screening, and increase “ghosting” risk. Fix: Tighten scope, include org context, and explicitly describe who this role serves and how.
Problem: “Coach + manager” ambiguity erodes trust and creates conflict of interest. Fix: Separate coaching from evaluative authority; clarify reporting lines and decision rights.
Problem: One-way video screening creates bias and distorts candidate signals. Fix: Offer a human phone screen option, publish prep guidance, and disclose AI use clearly.
Problem: Benefits listed twice (and inconsistently) signals sloppy ops and undermines credibility. Fix: One benefits section with specifics (PTO model, health coverage, leave policies, growth path).
Problem: Missing mission/values makes “culture” feel cosmetic and reduces applicant quality. Fix: Add MDV (mission, direction, values), examples of how culture shows up day-to-day, and why the work matters.
The Verdict
Paul Austin-Menear: 4.5 / 10
Even with the additional information provided on benefits… the second time… there wasn’t a lot here to help the job-seeker contextualize what they’d be doing or getting themselves into. It was a sea of ambiguity wrapped in a cozy sweater of pseudo-innovation.
Jennifer Houle: 2 / 10
Definitely my lowest score yet. They did something, so… yay… but it was woefully lacking. I’d rather give them a participation ribbon than a score. Maybe they were being vague by design to attract a broader mix of skill sets, but they executed poorly. It’s like the person who wrote this job ad spent five minutes on it in the toilet after lunch.
Roast the Post is a passion project of Jen Houle and Paul Austin-Menear. The show helps job-seekers and employers get dud job ads out of their lives. We use contributions made on Buy Me a Coffee to help pay for our production costs, and donate anything raised beyond our costs to charity.
