Why job descriptions are useless
Let’s do a quick reality check on job descriptions. Ask yourself these three questions:
1. When was the last time you read your job description?
2. Do you remember what it says?
3. When was the last time you did something at work that you could not have done without your job description?
If your answers are 1) When I interviewed for the job, 2) Ehmmmm… not really and 3) I don’t think that has ever happened - then maybe it’s time to rethink the value of job descriptions.
I say job descriptions as they exist today amount to little more than organizational clutter and could easily be dropped altogether. Here’s why we should lose’em and what to do instead.
Why lose the job descriptions
1: Nobody reads them anyway - Do you? I thought not. I never did. Very few people do. Some companies don’t even have them, and they seem to manage just fine.
2: They’re always incomplete - Nobody’s job description contains all the crucial things they do or all their important resonsibilities. There’s always more to it than is captured on paper. If everybody in the company did only what it says in their job description, the company would soon grind to a halt.
3: They’re a hassle to create and maintain - They’re actually a lot of work to write and especially to update.
4: They’re usually obsolete - Most people’s jobs change a lot faster than their job descriptions. In many cases the job description only says what the job used to be like a long time ago - you know, way back in the last quarter.
5: They don’t help people do their jobs - I don’t think a single person has ever told me “today I accomplished something at work that I couldn’t possibly have done without my job description”. They’re close to useless in day-to-day operations.
Or have I overlooked something? Is there a reason why job descriptions are crucial (or merely useful) where you work?
What to do instead
But without job descriptions, how will people know what to do? Amazingly, most people still get their jobs done, even though the only time they’ve read their job description was 4 years ago when they signed on. Or if - gasp - their workplace doesn’t have job descriptions.
A much more productive and useful system is to let each department or team work out their responsibilities together. Here’s how a group of people who work together, eg. a department or a project team, can do something much more useful:
1: List the department’s tasks
Get the whole group together in front of a whiteboard. Give everyone a block of post-its and let each person write down their tasks and stick’em on the whiteboard, one task one each post-it. Let everybody contribute to this list. Make the list as complete as possible.
2: Ask why 3 times
For each task your department lists ask “Why do we do this?” In fact, for each item ask why three times. It might go something like this:
“Why are we making this report every week?”
“Beacuse Bob in marketing wants it”
“Why does Bob in marketing want it?”
(Somebody calls Bob)
“He gives it to the VP of marketing”
“Why does the VP of marketing want it?”
(Somebody corners the VP and asks her)
“She doesn’t really want it - she says she only ever looks at the aggregate reports”
That would be a good opportunity to stop doing that report every week. For each item on the department’s list, keep asking why until you know why your department does whatever it does. In many cases it’s obvious but some things are done simply because, well, we’ve always done it.
3: Group the tasks
Try to group tasks together that are best done together. For instance “Gathering data for sales report”, “Making sales report” and “Distributing sales report inside company” may be tasks that it makes sense to do together.
4: Let people choose tasks
Let people choose the tasks they would most like to work on. Let each employee go to the whiteboard in turn and pick out tasks they like to work on.
Of course there are two problems that can occur here:
1: A task is popular - more than one person wants to do it
This might be handled by sharing the task so people work on it together or take turns doing it. Another solution is to give the task to the person who does it the best. Or the person who needs to learn to do it. Find a solution.
2: A tasks is so unpopular that no one wants to do it
Take a close look at that task. Is it really necessary? If no, don’t do it. If it’s absolutely necessary people can take turns doing it or work on it together (shared misery is lessened misery). If there are enough unpopular tasks, each person can take one or two, so they’re about evenly disitributed. If the department almost exclusively has tasks that no one wants, then something is very wrong :o)
After all the tasks have been distributed, let each employee write a document containing his or her list of tasks and collect all the documents in a place where everyone can see them. A wiki would be a great place for these lists.
5: Repeat occasionally - Repeat the exercise once or twice a year to drop tasks that are no longer necessary, to re-assign tasks so people get some varity in their jobs and to delegate whatever new tasks may appear.
Why is this different from regular job descriptions?
· It’s more complete and a truer reflection of what people really do
· It’s easier to update
· It’s more likely to be relevant to people in their jobs
· It results in the team working together on the department’s tasks, rather than everyone working alone on “their” tasks
The result of this exercise:
1. The department eliminates unnecessary tasks
2. People spend more of their time working on tasks that they like and have chosen for themselves - remember that one person’s chore is another person’s dream job
3. The group identifies unpopular tasks and distributes them evenly
4. You avoid the situation where Johnson is always making the sales reports even though she hates doing them, while at the same time Smith, who loves making reports, is grumbling that Johnson always gets to do them
I’m betting that groups who do this or something similar will see:
· Vastly increased productivity
· Higher quality
· Lower absenteeism
· Lower employee turnover
· More happiness at work
We did it at the IT-company I co-founded and to our great surprise we found that almost every single task was taken by someone who actively wanted to do it. For example, I got to write our newsletter, ’cause I really liked that challenge while Brian managed our intranet - a task he relished. Because we liked doing what we did we did great work. If we’d switched tasks, they would have been badly or not at all.
This approach may be a bold move for some companies and a slam-dunk for others but it gives a group something far more useful, relevant and inspiring than traditional job descriptions!
Sing it:
Job descriptions
Huh!
What are they good for
Absolutely nothing
Say it again!
Source : HIRE STRATEGY
From India, New Delhi
22Let’s do a quick reality check on job descriptions. Ask yourself these three questions:
1. When was the last time you read your job description?
2. Do you remember what it says?
3. When was the last time you did something at work that you could not have done without your job description?
If your answers are 1) When I interviewed for the job, 2) Ehmmmm… not really and 3) I don’t think that has ever happened - then maybe it’s time to rethink the value of job descriptions.
I say job descriptions as they exist today amount to little more than organizational clutter and could easily be dropped altogether. Here’s why we should lose’em and what to do instead.
Why lose the job descriptions
1: Nobody reads them anyway - Do you? I thought not. I never did. Very few people do. Some companies don’t even have them, and they seem to manage just fine.
2: They’re always incomplete - Nobody’s job description contains all the crucial things they do or all their important resonsibilities. There’s always more to it than is captured on paper. If everybody in the company did only what it says in their job description, the company would soon grind to a halt.
3: They’re a hassle to create and maintain - They’re actually a lot of work to write and especially to update.
4: They’re usually obsolete - Most people’s jobs change a lot faster than their job descriptions. In many cases the job description only says what the job used to be like a long time ago - you know, way back in the last quarter.
5: They don’t help people do their jobs - I don’t think a single person has ever told me “today I accomplished something at work that I couldn’t possibly have done without my job description”. They’re close to useless in day-to-day operations.
Or have I overlooked something? Is there a reason why job descriptions are crucial (or merely useful) where you work?
What to do instead
But without job descriptions, how will people know what to do? Amazingly, most people still get their jobs done, even though the only time they’ve read their job description was 4 years ago when they signed on. Or if - gasp - their workplace doesn’t have job descriptions.
A much more productive and useful system is to let each department or team work out their responsibilities together. Here’s how a group of people who work together, eg. a department or a project team, can do something much more useful:
1: List the department’s tasks
Get the whole group together in front of a whiteboard. Give everyone a block of post-its and let each person write down their tasks and stick’em on the whiteboard, one task one each post-it. Let everybody contribute to this list. Make the list as complete as possible.
2: Ask why 3 times
For each task your department lists ask “Why do we do this?” In fact, for each item ask why three times. It might go something like this:
“Why are we making this report every week?”
“Beacuse Bob in marketing wants it”
“Why does Bob in marketing want it?”
(Somebody calls Bob)
“He gives it to the VP of marketing”
“Why does the VP of marketing want it?”
(Somebody corners the VP and asks her)
“She doesn’t really want it - she says she only ever looks at the aggregate reports”
That would be a good opportunity to stop doing that report every week. For each item on the department’s list, keep asking why until you know why your department does whatever it does. In many cases it’s obvious but some things are done simply because, well, we’ve always done it.
3: Group the tasks
Try to group tasks together that are best done together. For instance “Gathering data for sales report”, “Making sales report” and “Distributing sales report inside company” may be tasks that it makes sense to do together.
4: Let people choose tasks
Let people choose the tasks they would most like to work on. Let each employee go to the whiteboard in turn and pick out tasks they like to work on.
Of course there are two problems that can occur here:
1: A task is popular - more than one person wants to do it
This might be handled by sharing the task so people work on it together or take turns doing it. Another solution is to give the task to the person who does it the best. Or the person who needs to learn to do it. Find a solution.
2: A tasks is so unpopular that no one wants to do it
Take a close look at that task. Is it really necessary? If no, don’t do it. If it’s absolutely necessary people can take turns doing it or work on it together (shared misery is lessened misery). If there are enough unpopular tasks, each person can take one or two, so they’re about evenly disitributed. If the department almost exclusively has tasks that no one wants, then something is very wrong :o)
After all the tasks have been distributed, let each employee write a document containing his or her list of tasks and collect all the documents in a place where everyone can see them. A wiki would be a great place for these lists.
5: Repeat occasionally - Repeat the exercise once or twice a year to drop tasks that are no longer necessary, to re-assign tasks so people get some varity in their jobs and to delegate whatever new tasks may appear.
Why is this different from regular job descriptions?
· It’s more complete and a truer reflection of what people really do
· It’s easier to update
· It’s more likely to be relevant to people in their jobs
· It results in the team working together on the department’s tasks, rather than everyone working alone on “their” tasks
The result of this exercise:
1. The department eliminates unnecessary tasks
2. People spend more of their time working on tasks that they like and have chosen for themselves - remember that one person’s chore is another person’s dream job
3. The group identifies unpopular tasks and distributes them evenly
4. You avoid the situation where Johnson is always making the sales reports even though she hates doing them, while at the same time Smith, who loves making reports, is grumbling that Johnson always gets to do them
I’m betting that groups who do this or something similar will see:
· Vastly increased productivity
· Higher quality
· Lower absenteeism
· Lower employee turnover
· More happiness at work
We did it at the IT-company I co-founded and to our great surprise we found that almost every single task was taken by someone who actively wanted to do it. For example, I got to write our newsletter, ’cause I really liked that challenge while Brian managed our intranet - a task he relished. Because we liked doing what we did we did great work. If we’d switched tasks, they would have been badly or not at all.
This approach may be a bold move for some companies and a slam-dunk for others but it gives a group something far more useful, relevant and inspiring than traditional job descriptions!
Sing it:
Job descriptions
Huh!
What are they good for
Absolutely nothing
Say it again!
Source : HIRE STRATEGY
From India, New Delhi
Dear Friend,
sorry to agree with you that job descriptions are useless.They are just base for the Job profile for each and every employee/department. Though the employees are asked to do some other work other than described, it is based on the situations only
Thanks
p.ramachandran
From India, Madras
sorry to agree with you that job descriptions are useless.They are just base for the Job profile for each and every employee/department. Though the employees are asked to do some other work other than described, it is based on the situations only
Thanks
p.ramachandran
From India, Madras
Dear Hari, Article very informative & the topic is definitely thought provoking.Heard that in many good mgt. schools abroad they are no longer studying abt JD probably because of the many reasons mentioned in the article.It is just a matter of time that organisations also phase out JD, that is ,if points mentioned are really facts .Rgds,RGS.
From India, Bangalore
From India, Bangalore
Dear Hari I do not agree with you that jd is useless. With out the base, one can not achieve the result of organisation and hence I do not agree. Anyhow, it is a good posting L.Kumar
From India, Madras
From India, Madras
JD helps in defining one’s roles and responsibilities and also it clearly defines the nature of job, Location, designation etc., so it is a must
From India, Madras
From India, Madras
GOOD ARTICLE,, Though JD is useless, points are given in article for better working and understanding of job. So article is + ve reps :P :P
From India, Pune
From India, Pune
Dear Ravi,
Nice Article..
But I must tell you that JD is very important to know the line of Job..I am a consultant and I come across many person who want to know their role in the company..As the JD forms the base of knowing the role and identify your adaptibilty with it.
And I believe you must agree with me, as the daily routine of work is not to comply with the JD, as everyday is a new day and everytime you will be learning a new thing..As I have learnt about JD being useless now..Ha ha..
But truly speaking JD is very much essential for knowing the JOB well..
Regards,
Diwesh
From India, Mumbai
Nice Article..
But I must tell you that JD is very important to know the line of Job..I am a consultant and I come across many person who want to know their role in the company..As the JD forms the base of knowing the role and identify your adaptibilty with it.
And I believe you must agree with me, as the daily routine of work is not to comply with the JD, as everyday is a new day and everytime you will be learning a new thing..As I have learnt about JD being useless now..Ha ha..
But truly speaking JD is very much essential for knowing the JOB well..
Regards,
Diwesh
From India, Mumbai
I am sorry... It was posted by Hari...My mistake in thinking of Ravi.. Sorry Again.. njoy.. Regards, Diwesh
From India, Mumbai
From India, Mumbai
Dear Frnds,
I do agree with all of you dat JD's are imp. bt as pointed out in article that even widout Jd's companies r doing well and when there is a change in the profile of a person dat same JD become obselete.
Frnds, we agree abt d importance of JD's as we r HR people and JD describes a lot 2 us in terms of searching for a candidate, placing d same in various departments, for performance appraisals and all.
Bt don't my frnds agree wid this dat JD is imp. 2 a person only when he/she is entering an organisation after dat when he/she get involved in his/her rountine works all dat big words of his/her JD falls apart and dat person focuses on achievement of his/her goal even by doing additional tasks(which r not mentioned in JD) or sometimes by modifying it acc. to the situation.
Even JD sometimes implies boundary to some persons and when we ask dem abt d inter-departmental coordination by which dey hav 2 do additional tasks den we often heard people saying dat this is not our profile.........our JD doesnot entitle us to do dis.........& even dat work is for d betterment of organisation for which each & everybody is working.
so frnds wat abt dis side of coin.......
From India, Chandigarh
I do agree with all of you dat JD's are imp. bt as pointed out in article that even widout Jd's companies r doing well and when there is a change in the profile of a person dat same JD become obselete.
Frnds, we agree abt d importance of JD's as we r HR people and JD describes a lot 2 us in terms of searching for a candidate, placing d same in various departments, for performance appraisals and all.
Bt don't my frnds agree wid this dat JD is imp. 2 a person only when he/she is entering an organisation after dat when he/she get involved in his/her rountine works all dat big words of his/her JD falls apart and dat person focuses on achievement of his/her goal even by doing additional tasks(which r not mentioned in JD) or sometimes by modifying it acc. to the situation.
Even JD sometimes implies boundary to some persons and when we ask dem abt d inter-departmental coordination by which dey hav 2 do additional tasks den we often heard people saying dat this is not our profile.........our JD doesnot entitle us to do dis.........& even dat work is for d betterment of organisation for which each & everybody is working.
so frnds wat abt dis side of coin.......
From India, Chandigarh
Dear Hari
I would differ from your description. Its' the person who is the job holder can make JD useful or as said "useless". So the fault is of the owner of the JD and not system as a whole.
In fact JD is the base for any kind of recruitment, training, promotion, job rotation etc.
Rajeev
From India, Mumbai
I would differ from your description. Its' the person who is the job holder can make JD useful or as said "useless". So the fault is of the owner of the JD and not system as a whole.
In fact JD is the base for any kind of recruitment, training, promotion, job rotation etc.
Rajeev
From India, Mumbai
Community Support and Knowledge-base on business, career and organisational prospects and issues - Register and Log In to CiteHR and post your query, download formats and be part of a fostered community of professionals.
Job Description - HR & Admin.doc
SKILLS YOU REQUIRE TO BAG THE JOB YOUWANT.pptx