Most finance teams don't think of the job description as a signal. It's a checklist – skills required, years of experience, software proficiency, apply here. The assumption is that the description filters in qualified candidates and the interview process evaluates them.
That model works reasonably well for domestic hires who are actively searching job boards. It works less well for the global accountants who are often the best candidates for US remote roles: experienced, credentialed professionals who are selective about what they apply to and who read JDs carefully before committing to a process.
A poorly written job description doesn't just fail to attract these candidates. It actively screens them out.
A credentialed accountant in Asia-Pacific or Latin America who is considering US remote work has options. They can apply to multiple US companies, and they tend to be deliberate about where they invest their time. When they read a JD, they're evaluating a few things that most US job descriptions don't address well.
First: is this a real accounting role with defined ownership, or is it a support position that will end up being reactive and undefined? Strong candidates want scope and accountability. A JD that lists responsibilities as bullet points without conveying any ownership structure signals the latter.
Second: does this company understand how to work with remote professionals? A JD that assumes in-person norms – 'must be available during all business hours,' no mention of async communication or remote tooling – tells a global candidate that the working relationship will be difficult.
Third: is the role at the right level? Global accountants with Big 4 backgrounds and strong US GAAP credentials who see a JD written for a generic bookkeeper will disengage, even if the actual role is more senior.
The most common mistake in accounting JDs is listing technical requirements that are generic to the entire profession rather than specific to the role. 'Strong knowledge of US GAAP' appears in roughly every accounting JD ever written. It signals nothing.
What actually helps a qualified candidate self-select is specificity. If the role requires ASC 606 revenue recognition experience, say so – and say why. If the close cycle is five days and the candidate will own reconciliations for ten accounts, put that in the description. If they'll be working in NetSuite with access to a specific module, name it.
Specific requirements signal two things simultaneously: that the company has actually thought about what the role requires, and that the company knows enough to evaluate whether a candidate meets those requirements. Both signals attract stronger applicants.
For US companies hiring global accountants, the remote work section deserves more than a single sentence at the bottom. Strong global candidates want to know: what does collaboration look like? How does the team communicate? What does onboarding involve? Is there a trial period?
A JD that addresses these questions – even briefly – tells a candidate that the company has experience managing remote professionals and has thought through the working relationship. That's a differentiation signal in a market where many US companies are still figuring out remote management.
Time zone expectations deserve specific treatment. If you need four hours of overlap with US Eastern time, say that. If the role is primarily async with weekly video check-ins, say that. Ambiguity here is read as a red flag by experienced remote professionals who have lived through poorly structured engagements.
This is a point of genuine tension. Many US companies don't include salary ranges in JDs, either by habit or because they're uncertain what to offer for a global hire. That uncertainty is understandable, but silence on compensation creates friction specifically with strong candidates who have a realistic sense of their market value.
If you can include a range that reflects the global market rate – which is lower than a comparable US rate but competitive within the candidate's local market – it tends to attract more serious applicants faster. If you can't include a specific range, at minimum signal that the compensation is competitive for the role and the candidate's region.
In some ways, yes. It should be more explicit about remote working expectations, time zone requirements, and what collaboration actually looks like day-to-day. The technical requirements should be the same – you're hiring for the same skills regardless of location.
Detailed enough that a candidate can visualize their week. List specific deliverables (monthly reconciliations, close support, AP processing) rather than functional categories (accounting support, financial operations). Specificity signals clarity of role design.
Avoid requirements that are implicitly US-centric without being relevant to the actual work – physical presence, participation in in-office events, US employment eligibility. Also avoid credential requirements that aren't meaningful for the role (requiring a US CPA for a staff-level accounting position, for example).
You still need to communicate the role requirements clearly – scope, systems, close timeline, collaboration expectations. MAVI uses that information to match you with candidates from its pre-vetted pool, which means you're not sourcing from a JD but you're still specifying what you need.