Why We Have to Abolish the Job Description

Why We Have to Abolish the Job Description

No alt text provided for this image

Jobs as we know them today, have only been around for a little over 200 years since the first Industrial Revolution; they are like a grain of sand on the beach in the context of human history. Before industrialisation, there was no such thing as a job, as we know it today. Work yes, jobs no.

By job, I'm talking about a clearly defined job specification which covers a chunk of organisational work. Usually a job is captured on a piece of paper we refer to as a job description.

The work people do in organisational change management program is profoundly different from the work done on the Ford Motor Company assembly line of the early 20th century. The job description was a spin-off from the job specification that Frederick Taylor so passionately believed to be the panacea for performance.

So why do we persevere with the job description 100 years later in the second decade of the 21st century? Much of what people are expected to do at work isn't even on their job description. It is quite amusing, isn’t it, that most job descriptions contain that all-too-familiar disclaimer at the end of the document that says the employee must perform any other duties assigned by the supervisor? This legal qualification implies that the job description fails to capture all the work requirements the employee is expected to perform.

No alt text provided for this image

It's hard to imagine a worker on the assembly line of the Ford Motor Company needing this kind of legal disclaimer. In those days, jobs were very specific and clearly defined. What was expected of workers in those work-settings was very apparent and task-specific. But that's not the case now.

We need to move from a job-focus to a performance-focus.

By linking work performance to the job description, we narrow the meaning of performance. Performance is linked to the job specification. But there are many non-job roles employees are increasingly expected to perform in the changing workplace. These non-job roles such as

  • showing enthusiasm,
  • being a team player,
  • being a lifelong learner, and
  • improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the organisation

are not usually covered in the job description. But they are undeniably important to organisational productivity. Not being listed on the job description devalues the relevance of non-job roles.

What do we replace the job description with?

FREE WEBINAR - Converting Job Descriptions to Role Descriptions for Better Performance

I'd like to continue this conversation with you. Join me on Friday 24th of June at 9:30am (AEST) for Converting Job Descriptions to Role Descriptions for Better Performance

You can register here.

No alt text provided for this image

Job descriptions don’t capture the non-job dimension of performance. The non-job roles people perform in organisations are becoming increasingly important. In this presentation we cover four non-job roles and how they can be incorporated easily in the work document with measurable KPIs. The job description then becomes a role description.

Get your signed copy of The End of the Job Description here.

Dr Tim Baker is a thought leader in organisational change and leadership development, bestselling author, and international consultant. Having consulted across 21 industries in 11 countries over 18 years, Tim has discovered what makes people tick. To find out more, go to WINNERS-at-WORK Pty Ltd.

You can book Tim Baker for you next conference at [email protected]

If you enjoyed this article follow me for more upcoming articles. Simply click on the "Follow" button at the top of this page!

Gray Paterson

Independent Board Chairman, Director, and Chief Executive Officer.

8 年

In my view Job descriptions are for average employees. They are completely restrictive documents for highly talented executives

Heidi Casey

Head of People & Capabilities - Strategy | Development | Culture | Technology

8 年

Is it not the abolishing of such documents but making them more holistic and transparent to ensure the person is set up for success in the role? I developed our organisational position descriptions to include missional behaviour statements such as 'model the organisational values and ethics through your personal leadership framework' to list just one example. To support this expectation we have strong Values comms and a leadership capability framework to support this requirement. May be we just need to consider what a person needs to know about how to be successful in the role, rather than list the tasks of the job.

Graham Little

Director OPD International

8 年

Imagine a goal, any goal, in order to achieve the goal quite specific actions need to be delivered, I call such actions ideal actions which are of the quality doing them does not guarantee success, not doing them guarantees failure. If a person is clearer about what they need to do, do you judge they have a chance of doing it better? Have you ever had the experience of thinking in mind, okay, I can do that. But when asked to write it down, it was only clear to say 8 out of 10. But writing it down, thinking it out in advance, then it was clear to 9.5 out of 10. As a result of writing it down one could do it better than one would have without writing it down. Is business immune from these quite well understood propositions? It is not eliminating job descriptions we need, but making them more supportive and helpful so they contribute more to a persons striving for work life success. OPD-HCD does that...and integrates all HR functions, cultural, engagement, training, coaching, recruitment, retention, talent management, etc. ... into a single simple and clear system.

回复
Mark Shaw

I help managers and employees regain your lost time and focus on meaningful work. How? As a business process improvement subject matter expert, specialising in HR, risk management, and compliance. Connect to learn more.

8 年

Issa. Wonderful question. If someone is NOT performing, I'd argue not only are they NOT doing their job but they NOT adding value where value is defined as "the judgement that someone is using their skills, competencies and experience to undertake activities of importance, worth, or usefulness to the organisation”. In my personal experience, discussions around this definition are possible, valuable and defendable where ‘poor performance’ occurs. Trust that helps.

回复
Mark Shaw

I help managers and employees regain your lost time and focus on meaningful work. How? As a business process improvement subject matter expert, specialising in HR, risk management, and compliance. Connect to learn more.

8 年

Crispin, I agree 'job description describes the job, not the person' but to challenge another assumption, do we get paid for "doing a job" or "adding value". Certainly in Henry Ford's assemble line it was the former. Today I would argue we should get paid for "adding value". Thanks Tim

要查看或添加评论,请登录

社区洞察

其他会员也浏览了