- Company Name
- Viant Technology
- Job Title
- Sr. Director, Sales Training & Enablement
- Job Description
-
<think>
Okay, let's see. The user wants me to normalize the job description into a concise mini-job profile for job matching. They specified to exclude company details, location, benefits, and fluff.
First, I need to parse the original job description. The title is Sr. Director, Sales Training & Enablement. Let me make sure that's the exact title. The key sections are "WHAT YOU’LL DO", "THE DAY-TO-DAY", and "GREAT TO HAVE".
Starting with the Role Summary. The Sr. Director needs to own the national training strategy, elevate Sales and Account Management through onboarding, product fluency, and skill development. The goal is to build a high-impact function that makes teams trusted advisors, aligned with GTM priorities, confident in the platform, and drive revenue with excellence. So the summary should capture that: leading the training strategy, building the function, and ensuring teams act as trusted advisors with confidence and revenue focus.
Next, Expectations. The user might mean what the role is expected to do. The original mentions influencing and collaborating across teams, building scalable content, and understanding SaaS or ad-tech GTM. However, the user said "expactations" might be a typo for "Expectations". But since the user wrote "Expactations", maybe they meant Expectations? Wait, the original instruction says "Expactations" in the output structure. Wait, looking back: "Expactations, Key Responsibilities, Required Skills..." Oh, that's a typo. It should probably be "Expectations". But the user's instruction might have a typo here. Let me check the user's exact wording: "Expactations, Key Responsibilities, Required Skills, Required Education & Certifications." So "Expactations" is how they wrote it. Probably a typo for "Expectations". But I need to follow the user's instruction exactly as they wrote it, maybe they intended that. Hmm. Maybe in their schema, "Expactations" includes both expectations and maybe other points. Wait, looking back at the structure they want: "Expactations, Key Responsibilities..." So perhaps "Expactations" is meant to capture expectations, maybe including the responsibilities? Wait, the user's instruction says: "Provide a concise summary for job matching. Max 500 words. Exclude company details, location, benefits, or fluff. Output only: Job title, Role Summary, Expactations, Key Responsibilities, Required Skills, Required Education & Certifications." So "Expactations" is a heading. Since it's a typo, maybe it's best to write "Expectations" as that's the intended meaning. Alternatively, maybe they meant "Expectations" and just made a typo. Since the output needs to be factual and ATS-friendly, and ATS usually uses "Requirements" or "Expectations", I think correcting it to "Expectations" makes more sense and aligns with standard terminology. The user might not have noticed the typo. But since the output is for a mini-job profile for matching, I'll follow the structure as given but use the correct term. Maybe the user intended to say "Expectations" but wrote "Expactations". I'll proceed with "Expectations".
Looking at the "GREAT TO HAVE" section. The user mentions that these are the desired but not required skills. But the user's instruction says to exclude fluff. Wait, the instructions say "Exclude company details, location, benefits, or fluff." So "GREAT TO HAVE" might be considered fluff if they are not required skills. However, the user's output structure includes "Required Skills", so maybe some of these "GREAT TO HAVE" items are actually required? Or maybe the user wants only the required skills. Wait, no, the "GREAT TO HAVE" section is listed as "GREAT TO HAVE" in the original job description. So in the output, the user wants to include "Required Skills", so "GREAT TO HAVE" are not required? Or maybe some of them are part of the key responsibilities. Wait, the user's instruction says to exclude fluff. So if the "GREAT TO HAVE" are not required, they might be fluff. However, in the sample response provided by the user (since the user is providing a sample input and expects a sample output), perhaps they want some of these to be included as part of the responsibilities or expectations. Wait, the user's sample output includes the "Key Responsibilities" and "Required Skills". Let me check the sample input's job description. The example given for a similar task in the assistant's training data might have different parameters, but since this is a new instance, I have to follow the user's current instruction.
Looking at the original job description's "GREAT TO HAVE" section: Exceptional communication, storytelling, facilitation skills; ability to influence and collaborate; experience building scalable enablement content; understanding of sales processes, SaaS, etc.; organizational rigor; proficiency with tools; 7-10 years experience; bachelor's required. The user's instructions say to exclude "fluff", which includes benefits and maybe parts of the "GREAT TO HAVE" if they are not required. However, the user wants to include "Required Skills", so some of the "GREAT TO HAVE" items may actually be required. Wait, the job description mentions "7–10 years in sales enablement..." and "Bachelor’s degree required" are part of the required. So need to separate those. The "GREAT TO HAVE" section includes both required (like experience duration) and optional items. Wait, the original job description under "GREAT TO HAVE" lists several points, but in the "About the Job" section, the user specifies that the required education and certifications are bachelor's, and the required experience is 7-10 years. The rest under "GREAT TO HAVE" are not required but are recommended. So in the mini-profile, "Required Skills" should include the bachelor's and the experience. The rest of the "GREAT TO HAVE" items under the job description are not required but are "great to have", which the user says to exclude as fluff. Therefore, the Required Skills section would include the bachelor's degree and the 7-10 years in related roles. Other skills like "exceptional communication" are listed as "great to have" but not required. Wait, but the user's instruction says "Exclude company details, location, benefits, or fluff." So the "fluff" here might refer to the company details in the job description, not the "GREAT TO HAVE" section. Wait, the user says to exclude fluff, but the "GREAT TO HAVE" section might contain some fluff. Alternatively, maybe the "GREAT TO HAVE" is part of the responsibilities or expectations. However, the user's output structure includes "Key Responsibilities", which would include the main duties. The "Required Skills" are the must-haves, and the "Great to have" are not required, so they might be excluded. However, the user's example might need to include all the required skills. Let me parse the original job description again.
Under "GREAT TO HAVE" in the job description:
- Exceptional communication, storytelling, facilitation skills
- Proven ability to influence across teams
- Experience building scalable content
- Deep understanding of sales processes, SaaS, ad-tech, enablement best practices
- Strong organizational rigor
- Proficiency with enablement tools
- 7-10 years experience
- Bachelor's degree required
But the last two (7-10 years and bachelor's) are in the "GREAT TO HAVE" section but mentioned as required. Wait, the last bullet point says "7–10 years in sales enablement... required" but in the original job description, it's under the "GREAT TO HAVE" section. Wait, no, looking back at the original job description:
The user provided the job description as follows:
GREAT TO HAVE
7–10 years in sales enablement, training, revenue operations, commercial strategy, or related roles in digital media, SaaS, or ad-tech.
Bachelor’s degree required.
So the "7-10 years" and "Bachelor’s degree required" are under the "GREAT TO HAVE" section, but the "required" part is there. Wait, but they are part of the requirements. Wait, that seems contradictory. The title is "GREAT TO HAVE", but then the last two points are marked with "required". So perhaps the original job description has a formatting mistake. Maybe the user intended that some items under "GREAT TO HAVE" are required. However, given the structure, perhaps the user wants to extract the required education and experience from there. So in the Required Education & Certifications, it would be "Bachelor’s degree required" and "7–10 years of experience in..." under the Expactations (though the user wrote "Expactations", but we should correct it to "Expectations" if that's a typo).
Wait, the user's instruction says:
Output only: Job title, Role Summary, Expactations, Key Responsibilities, Required Skills, Required Education & Certifications.
Assuming "Expactations" is a typo for "Expectations", and the user wants "Expectations" as a separate section. But the user's example might have "Expectations" as part of the structure. If "Expactations" is a typo, perhaps it's supposed to be "Expectations" but the user made a mistake. In any case, the user's output structure includes these elements. Let me proceed to parse the job description into the required sections.
Role Summary: Should be a concise summary of the role's purpose. The Sr. Director is responsible for the national training strategy, enhancing Sales and Account Management through on