Verified against ChatGPT · 2026-08-09
Write an internal job post that's honest about who this move is and isn't for
Drafts an internal-mobility job post that states eligibility and transfer mechanics plainly, so people self-select accurately instead of applying blind and finding out the constraints in an awkward conversation later.
The prompt
Ready to copy — highlighted parts are example details you can swap.
You are writing an internal job posting for Northwind Logistics's internal mobility board. This is not an external job ad — the audience already works here and needs different information than an outside candidate would. ROLE AND TEAM Senior Data Analyst on the Revenue Operations team, reporting to the RevOps Director. WHY THIS OPENING EXISTS New role created to support a fast-growing forecasting function; not a backfill. ELIGIBILITY AND TRANSFER RULES Must be at current company 12+ months and in current role 6+ months; needs current manager's sign-off before final interview, not before applying. WHAT CHANGES FOR THE PERSON WHO MOVES Moves from IC-3 to IC-4 level, new manager, comp reviewed at next cycle rather than immediately. STATE UP FRONT, PLAINLY: who this role is realistically for (tenure, current level, current manager sign-off needed or not), what happens to the person's current team when they leave (backfill plan or not — internal applicants worry about this and rarely ask directly), and any transfer mechanics that are non-negotiable (notice period, whether current manager gets a heads-up before or after the internal application, cooling-off period if it doesn't work out). Do not write this the way an external posting would be written — skip the "about our company" boilerplate entirely, since the reader already works here, and spend that space instead on the specifics above. Write the role responsibilities as what's actually different from a typical external posting for a similar title: call out what carries over from the person's current role versus what is genuinely new, since an internal mover's biggest uncertainty is usually how much of their existing expertise transfers versus how much they're starting over. End with a short, honest paragraph on the realistic downside of taking this move — not a legal disclaimer, but a plain statement of the actual trade-off (lower visibility for a while, learning curve, whatever applies) so no one is misled by an ad optimized only to attract applicants. OUTPUT FORMAT 1. Role title and one-line summary. 2. Eligibility section, stated plainly. 3. Responsibilities, split into "carries over" and "new." 4. What changes for the mover (team, manager, level, comp process if relevant). 5. The honest trade-off paragraph. 6. How and by when to apply, and what happens to their current role once they do.
Customize
Optional — swap in your own details for the highlighted parts above.
Why this works
The core failure mode this avoids is that internal job posts, left to a model's default instincts, get written as slightly-shortened external ads — the same generic "about us" framing and marketing tone — because that's the dominant pattern in the training data for "job posting." Explicitly instructing the model to skip the company-boilerplate section forces it to recognize the audience difference structurally rather than stylistically, since an internal reader already has that context and the space is better spent on mechanics an external ad would never need to cover. The eligibility-and-mechanics section is the highest-value part of this prompt because internal movers' real anxiety — what happens to my current team, does my manager find out before or after I apply — is exactly the information a generically upbeat job post omits; asking GPT-5.1 to state it plainly counteracts its tendency to default to positive, recruitment-optimized framing when given a "write a job post" instruction, since without an explicit override it treats the task as persuasion rather than disclosure. The "carries over versus new" responsibilities split works because it forces a concrete comparison against the person's current role, which a generic template can't produce since it has no notion of what the reader currently does — this only works because the prompt requires the model to reason about the specific transition, not just describe the destination role in isolation. The honest trade-off paragraph exists to counteract a model's default optimism bias in any "write an ad for X" framing; without it, the output reads as pure upside, which internal audiences recognize immediately as spin and discount accordingly, undermining trust in the posting process itself.
What you get back
Eligibility: open to anyone at Northwind 12+ months, in their current role at least 6 months. Your current manager is looped in after you clear the first interview, not before you apply, so you can explore quietly. Carries over: your SQL and dashboarding skills transfer directly. New: you'll own forecast modeling end-to-end, which is a step up in ambiguity from your current reporting-focused work. The honest trade-off: for the first two quarters you'll have less visibility than you do now, since RevOps reports up through Finance rather than the exec team directly.
Verified against
ChatGPT GPT-5.1 · 2026-08-09
Changelog
- 2026-08-09 — Initial publish, verified against ChatGPT GPT-5.1.
Need this built into your business?
If a prompt isn't enough — what Scult builds, built and maintained for you — that's Scult's day job.
EXPLORE WHAT SCULT BUILDS
