Ambition Meets Chaos: Inside Unrealistic Job Requirements

One job, five departments, one salary: What’s happening to job descriptions?

‍41.8% of job descriptions include tools or tasks from two or more unrelated job functions. 

The pattern is easy to spot across Reddit, LinkedIn, X, and more. A thread runs through post after post about job descriptions and applications: 

Do they actually expect one person to do this job? 

These are what the internet has dubbed “unicorn jobs.” 

Unicorn jobs are roles that ask one person to carry out the work of three across teams. Software engineering and customer support. Marketing, IT, and human resources. Strategy and execution. All stacked into a single listing, and all for one salary. 

This isn’t a flex. It’s failure of scoping on behalf of hiring managers. And our analysis shows this isn’t the exception. It’s the norm. In the end? It’s professionals who pay the price.

You niche down to become an expert, then get told you’re not the right fit.

You stay broad and flexible, then get stretched across too many roles, for too little pay.

It creates a frustrating bind: specialize and risk being screened out. Generalize and risk burnout. All while the listing still expects someone to do it all.

‍

Stacked responsibilities and mismatched compensation

27.5% of job descriptions list ten or more distinct responsibilities. And of those? 68.9% span three or more job families.

Think of job families as broader functional areas: marketing, engineering, sales, and operations. That’s not a stretch within one function; it’s three jobs disguised as one. 

Jobs like these aren’t “growth opportunities,” no matter the clever spin employers want to take. They’re signs of poor scoping or internal cost-cutting at the expense of whoever gets brought on.

“Wear many hats” is a warning, not a culture perk

1 in every 9 job descriptions includes “wear many hats” or similar phrases, like “jack of all trades” or “multifunctional position.”‍

“The ideal candidate is scrappy, adaptable, and comfortable wearing many hats in a lean team.”

“You’ll be expected to wear many hats—from strategy to execution—depending on the project.”

“This role requires a hands-on generalist who thrives when wearing multiple hats.”

But “wear many hats” isn’t signaling flexibility.

It’s ambiguity and under-resourcing.

It’s branded burnout with an accessory.

A clever label for roles that lack focus, support, and realistic scope.

But for professionals trying to apply, it creates a catch-22: Focus too narrowly, and you risk looking underqualified. Try to cover it all, and you risk looking scattered.

And while that tension shows up everywhere, it hits some roles much harder than others.

Jobs most likely to blur function and scope

Some roles show up again and again, stacked with responsibilities that don’t match the title or stay within a single job family.

Marketing, product, and ops roles top the list.

To identify which roles qualify as unicorn jobs, we looked for listings that met at least three of the following:

• Three or more responsibility categories
• Two or more unrelated job families
• Five or more tools and/or platforms required
• Ownership of strategy without a manager title

Broad scope and no clarity? That’s not just messy, it’s misleading.

When you have to guess what a job even is, you're not underqualified. You're dealing with a broken job description.

Of course, not every confusing job description you read is trying to merge open positions. Sometimes, even single-function jobs come with excessive expectations. This is where the scope isn’t split across teams; it’s bloated within one role.

Overwritten, overstuffed, over it

59.38% of job descriptions list 10 or more responsibilities.

32.71% list 15 or more.

The highest we found in a single listing? 47 responsibilities.

If you have 47 job responsibilities in an 8-hour day, you’d need to switch tasks every 10.21 minutes just to keep up. No breaks. No deep work. No chance to actually do the job well.

This, however, isn’t a unicorn job. Here, the scope isn’t split across departments. It’s bloated within one.

One title. One function. Dozens of tasks, crammed into a responsibilities section that, in theory, should help professionals understand the actual work.

The responsibilities section of a job ad is supposed to clarify:

• What success looks like
• How time will be spent
• Where the role sits within a team or org

But more than half of job postings don’t do any of that.

Overload doesn’t provide clarity. It doesn't help organizations find the right candidates. It creates confusion. And it’s not just hard to read. It’s hard to apply.

Because when everything’s a priority, nothing is.

You’re left sorting through 20+ bullet points, trying to figure out what the job actually prioritizes so you can decide how to position yourself, or whether to apply at all.

You have to work twice as hard to see through the noise.

And often, it doesn’t stop there.

Leadership expectations without the leadership package

Think like a leader. Act like a leader. Execute like a leader. But don’t expect to be treated—or paid—like one.

19.7% of U.S. job postings for IC roles paying under $80,000 ask candidates to lead cross-functional teams, own strategic initiatives, or serve as the primary point of contact across departments.

These roles pile on leadership-level responsibilities, without the compensation or title to match.

But that mismatch isn’t limited to scope. In many cases, it starts with something even more fundamental: the job title.

‍

Entry-level in name only 

Some roles aren’t over-scoped; they’re mislabeled and rebranding mid-level talent. 

Plainly? The title says “entry-level,” but the responsibilities don’t.

Nearly half (48.7%) of entry-level listings require at least two years of experience. 26.3% require three or more. 

Entry-level once meant just starting out. A first step. Not a full resume. But that’s not what most listings reflect today. 

Only 11.2% of jobs labeled “entry-level,” “early career,” or “junior” require no experience. And most of those are internships, apprenticeships, or support roles with structured onboarding. 

That mismatch doesn’t stop at experience requirements. It shows up in the language and responsibilities, too.

Entry-level language with mid-level expectations 

9.8% of listings labeled entry-level use mid-level language in the same post. 31.5% of those listings also include managerial responsibilities. 

Title: Junior Product Manager 
“As a mid-level contributor, you’ll work closely with senior stakeholders and define roadmap strategy.” 

For professionals with existing experience, these blurred lines make it more challenging to advocate for their level. They’re expected to lead and operate independently, but are handed a title that limits negotiation and pay. 

And for those without experience? They’re blocked before they start. And the same titles keep showing up at the center of it.

Titles most likely to inflate entry-level experience

A role labeled as entry-level shouldn’t require years of experience. And yet, across 129,000+ job descriptions, these are the ten titles most likely to ask for it anyway:

These patterns in titling don’t just skew expectations; they undercut clarity from the first click.

But the disconnect doesn’t stop there.

It’s not just about what you’ll be doing.

It’s also about where.

Because even when the role seems right, the fine print often tells job seekers a different story.

‍

Remote, with fine print

Eat lunch in your own kitchen. Be physically present for the people around you, rather than spending hours at a place that offers cold brew and calls it culture. For people who prioritize that kind of autonomy, remote work isn’t just a perk. It’s a filter. A requirement. A non-negotiable.

But the truth of remote work isn’t in the filter. It’s in the fine print.

49.6% of remote job descriptions include location requirements.

From hybrid schedules and required travel to timezone restrictions or mandated office attendance, they aren’t exclusively remote.

Only 24.9% of roles tagged as remote are actually remote, without any in-person conditions.

And in thousands of listings, it goes beyond misleading. It’s a full contradiction.

Thousands of job listings contradict themselves

Some roles don’t just stretch the definition of remote, they contradict it outright.

7,439 job descriptions use the word “remote” in the title or job board filter but later include location requirements like mandatory office attendance, specific regions, or hybrid expectations.

“This is a remote position, but candidates must be based in the Greater Boston area and able to come into the office 2–3 times per week as needed.”

Sometimes the contradiction is obvious. Other times it’s hidden behind phrases like:

• “Hybrid flexibility”
• “Team meets in person”
• “Must be based near headquarters”
• “Quarterly travel required”

These aren’t just small details. They shift what the role actually is and how it fits into your life.

Read the fine print. And before you apply, make sure their version of “remote job” matches yours—especially if you find yourself job searching in one of the industries where this is most prominent.

Industries quietly redefining remote

Some patterns are harder to spot than others. But certain industries are far more likely to include quiet caveats in “remote” job listings.

Clarity around where you’ll work is just one piece. Just as common—and just as confusing—is the language used to describe how candidates are expected to work.

‍

Soft skills as buzzwords, no substance

“Problem-solving.” “Detail oriented.” “Self-starter.” You’ve seen these words in job descriptions. But what do they actually mean?

Over 90% of job descriptions list three or more soft skills—traits like communication, collaboration, and problem-solving.

But 78.5% include soft skills without any explanation or context.

No examples. No link to actual responsibilities. Just a list of traits, dropped in without clarity.

And while soft skills are essential to how work gets done, this leaves professionals unsure of how to respond.

Do you list all of these skills? 

Do you explain them? 

Are they just looking for someone who vibes on Zoom?

The result? Expectations that are hard to tailor to—and even harder to meet—because they’re never clearly defined in the first place.

Expectation without definition

Soft skills are the backbone of how we interact with others, make decisions, and move through teams.

But the way they show up in job descriptions? Entirely subjective.

54.3% of job postings list soft skills as must-haves.

But they don’t show up in the responsibilities section.

Instead, they’re treated like personality traits:

“Adaptable.” 

“Team player.”

“Thrives in fast-paced environments.”

Without clear context or examples, these traits aren’t measurable. They’re not tied to performance.

They’re just words.

Here’s what those traits might look like if they were written to focus on performance:

Strong communicator → Lead weekly team syncs and cross-functional status updates with stakeholders across product and engineering.

Adaptable → Navigate shifting project priorities and adjust timelines in response to changing business needs.

Team player → Collaborate with CX and marketing to align on messaging and handoff points ahead of launch.

When soft skills are tied to the work, they become observable.

Actionable. Real.

Without that? Professionals are expected to demonstrate qualities that are never defined, and judged on traits that mean different things to different people. 

Some traits are so common, they feel required. But still, no one defines them.

Which soft skills show up most

Soft skills show up in nearly every listing.

Here are the most frequently repeated. They’re listed often, and almost never clearly defined or connected to the actual role.

Taken alone, these soft skills might seem harmless. But stacked on top of vague titles, bloated scope, and contradictory expectations?

They become one more layer of noise in an already broken system—complicating your job search pipeline one by one.

And yet—this isn’t just a breakdown. It’s also a wake-up call.

‍

It’s time to rethink what a job description is for

If you’re a professional reading this, none of it is surprising. You’ve felt it—listing after listing that doesn’t add up, doesn’t align, doesn’t even sound like one job.

But this isn’t just frustrating. It’s foundational.

Because when listings are overloaded, unclear, or misaligned, they don’t just make it harder for perfectly qualified candidates to apply—they make it harder for companies to hire well.

And no matter how many resume optimizations or interview prep sessions a candidate goes through, clarity has to come from the source.

You can’t build a great team of top talent on a broken ask.

The hiring process doesn’t start with interviews. It starts with the description. And right now, the description is the problem.

Professionals are already doing the work to read between the lines. And now it’s time for companies to write better ones.