... get sued or prosecuted by the EEOC. There are reasons things are stated in a certain way and the net has to be cast wider than necessary. First fix the landscape of U.S. labor law, and then a discussion of efficiency and values can be productive
"Do exciting work that has real impact, learn a lot, and have fun doing it."
Do you know how many companies say that on their job descriptions?! All of them.
Here are some examples of being (mildly) divisive and using strong language:
- "We consider it a disqualifier if a candidate does not value our mission to grow and sustain local food systems" (Good Eggs)
- "All of our communications are out in the open, and we have a rule that you cannot send emails to a fellow Remixer and instead must communicate over Slack where everyone can see. (Emails are only used for people externally.)" (Remix)
- "We advocate that everyone leans towards releasing and reverting. It is better to revert small changes than to spend time perfecting code. While this might rub some people the wrong way, we believe that the best way to learn is by doing." (Amplitude)
All of these things will either resonate w/ an individual and make them really excited about applying/joining, or turn them off because it doesn't quite align w/ their personal values/preferences/goals.
So you still have to go through the same number of candidates until you can find a good one.
I must say, this would give me pause. That kind of language tells me that they don't value testing, and likely don't value quality requirements capturing either.
There are lots of things that would attract/repel a candidate from a company that aren't discriminatory. "At our current stage of growth, we value speed over reliability," "we measure employee productivity," "we work early/late," "people here do/don't wear suits," "we do/don't do code reviews," "we do/don't do Scrum," just to name a few.