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
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
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
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Friend,
I am sorry to disagree with you that job descriptions are useless. They serve as the basis for the job profile of each employee or department. Although employees may be asked to perform tasks beyond what is described, this usually occurs based on specific situations.
Thanks,
P. Ramachandran
From India, Madras
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I am sorry to disagree with you that job descriptions are useless. They serve as the basis for the job profile of each employee or department. Although employees may be asked to perform tasks beyond what is described, this usually occurs based on specific situations.
Thanks,
P. Ramachandran
From India, Madras
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Hari,
The article is very informative, and the topic is definitely thought-provoking. I heard that in many good management schools abroad, they are no longer studying about job descriptions (JD), probably because of the reasons mentioned in the article. It is just a matter of time before organizations also phase out JDs, that is if the points mentioned are indeed factual.
Regards,
RGS.
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
The article is very informative, and the topic is definitely thought-provoking. I heard that in many good management schools abroad, they are no longer studying about job descriptions (JD), probably because of the reasons mentioned in the article. It is just a matter of time before organizations also phase out JDs, that is if the points mentioned are indeed factual.
Regards,
RGS.
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
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
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Madras
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
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
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Madras
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Ravi,
Nice article.
But I must tell you that a job description (JD) is very important to understand the line of the job. I am a consultant, and I come across many people who want to know their role in the company. The JD forms the base for understanding the role and identifying your adaptability to it.
I believe you must agree with me that the daily routine of work does not solely revolve around the JD, as every day is a new day, and each time you will be learning something new. I have realized that JDs can be somewhat useless now. Ha ha. But truthfully, JDs are crucial for understanding the job well.
Regards,
Diwesh
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Nice article.
But I must tell you that a job description (JD) is very important to understand the line of the job. I am a consultant, and I come across many people who want to know their role in the company. The JD forms the base for understanding the role and identifying your adaptability to it.
I believe you must agree with me that the daily routine of work does not solely revolve around the JD, as every day is a new day, and each time you will be learning something new. I have realized that JDs can be somewhat useless now. Ha ha. But truthfully, JDs are crucial for understanding the job well.
Regards,
Diwesh
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I am sorry... It was posted by Hari...My mistake in thinking of Ravi.. Sorry Again.. njoy.. Regards, Diwesh
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Friends,
I do agree with all of you that JD's are important. But, as pointed out in the article, even without JD's, companies are doing well. When there is a change in the profile of a person, that same JD becomes obsolete.
Friends, we agree about the importance of JD's as we are HR people, and JD describes a lot to us in terms of searching for a candidate, placing the same in various departments, for performance appraisals, and all.
But don't my friends agree with this, that JD is important to a person only when he/she is entering an organization? After that, when he/she gets involved in his/her routine works, all those big words of his/her JD fall apart, and that person focuses on achieving his/her goals even by doing additional tasks (which are not mentioned in JD) or sometimes by modifying it according to the situation.
Even JD sometimes implies boundaries to some persons. When we ask them about the inter-departmental coordination by which they have to do additional tasks, then we often hear people saying that this is not our profile... our JD does not entitle us to do this... and even that work is for the betterment of the organization for which each and everybody is working.
So friends, what about this side of the coin...
I hope this helps! Let me know if you need any further assistance.
From India, Chandigarh
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I do agree with all of you that JD's are important. But, as pointed out in the article, even without JD's, companies are doing well. When there is a change in the profile of a person, that same JD becomes obsolete.
Friends, we agree about the importance of JD's as we are HR people, and JD describes a lot to us in terms of searching for a candidate, placing the same in various departments, for performance appraisals, and all.
But don't my friends agree with this, that JD is important to a person only when he/she is entering an organization? After that, when he/she gets involved in his/her routine works, all those big words of his/her JD fall apart, and that person focuses on achieving his/her goals even by doing additional tasks (which are not mentioned in JD) or sometimes by modifying it according to the situation.
Even JD sometimes implies boundaries to some persons. When we ask them about the inter-departmental coordination by which they have to do additional tasks, then we often hear people saying that this is not our profile... our JD does not entitle us to do this... and even that work is for the betterment of the organization for which each and everybody is working.
So friends, what about this side of the coin...
I hope this helps! Let me know if you need any further assistance.
From India, Chandigarh
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Hari,
I would differ from your description. It's the person who is the job holder that can make the job description (JD) useful or, as you said, "useless." So, the fault lies with the owner of the JD and not the system as a whole.
In fact, the JD is the foundation for any kind of recruitment, training, promotion, job rotation, etc.
Rajeev
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I would differ from your description. It's the person who is the job holder that can make the job description (JD) useful or, as you said, "useless." So, the fault lies with the owner of the JD and not the system as a whole.
In fact, the JD is the foundation for any kind of recruitment, training, promotion, job rotation, etc.
Rajeev
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I beg to differ. A JD is given as a base or foundation to start upon. all other responsibilities you accept are like necessary additional baggage. A JD need not be elaborate to encompass all that.
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hi,
Thought-provoking. I think what Mr. Hari is communicating is that jobs are becoming so dynamic today, it is difficult to keep job descriptions updated once every quarter of the year. Instead, the focus is getting shifted to competency. Jobs keep changing, but some of the competencies required for doing these jobs will remain the same; hence, the shift is from job description to competency mapping.
Siva
From India, Chennai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Thought-provoking. I think what Mr. Hari is communicating is that jobs are becoming so dynamic today, it is difficult to keep job descriptions updated once every quarter of the year. Instead, the focus is getting shifted to competency. Jobs keep changing, but some of the competencies required for doing these jobs will remain the same; hence, the shift is from job description to competency mapping.
Siva
From India, Chennai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I agree with Siva.
The original posting by Hari does not really suggest doing away with job descriptions; it indicates that job descriptions as we understand them today are becoming obsolete and do not effectively reflect our competencies.
Following Hari's advice means redefining 'job descriptions' into competencies, specifically competencies that have been embraced by individuals who excel in them. Remember, if you enjoy what you do, you have already achieved a significant victory. Choosing your own competencies is a radical yet entirely logical concept. Reviewing these competencies every six months, for example, will lead to further refinement.
I would take it a step further. In cases where certain roles are deemed unpopular, it is crucial to comprehend why these roles are necessary and explore ways to simplify or redesign them to enhance their appeal, perhaps by sharing responsibilities among multiple capable individuals or outsourcing them to other departments that can execute them more efficiently and effectively.
This is indeed food for thought, and I believe we, as CiteHR enthusiasts, should seriously consider embracing this approach!
What do you think?
Jeroo
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
The original posting by Hari does not really suggest doing away with job descriptions; it indicates that job descriptions as we understand them today are becoming obsolete and do not effectively reflect our competencies.
Following Hari's advice means redefining 'job descriptions' into competencies, specifically competencies that have been embraced by individuals who excel in them. Remember, if you enjoy what you do, you have already achieved a significant victory. Choosing your own competencies is a radical yet entirely logical concept. Reviewing these competencies every six months, for example, will lead to further refinement.
I would take it a step further. In cases where certain roles are deemed unpopular, it is crucial to comprehend why these roles are necessary and explore ways to simplify or redesign them to enhance their appeal, perhaps by sharing responsibilities among multiple capable individuals or outsourcing them to other departments that can execute them more efficiently and effectively.
This is indeed food for thought, and I believe we, as CiteHR enthusiasts, should seriously consider embracing this approach!
What do you think?
Jeroo
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Such a thing happens only where people assume that they know what they need to do. But yes, job descriptions do provide an outline for a person to chart down his responsibilities and make further plans.
From India, Bhopal
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Bhopal
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Friends,
This is so much true. I must say that the article deals with some harsh basic factors which we, under the guise of HR professionals, choose to ignore because we do not want to diverge from the traditional HR basic principles and best practices. As one of our friends has posted, job descriptions (JDs) are slowly becoming obsolete as far as the day-to-day functions are concerned.
At the same time, I do want to reiterate that JDs become handy at the time of 'recruitment,' and I repeat 'recruitment' only because at that stage, we need to know what the department wants in a person whom we are going to recruit. Therefore, as much as we do seem to realize the un-usefulness of a JD in day-to-day functions, when a department sends a Manpower Requisition Form to HR, they should look at the JD which probably has been prepared some time or years back and send an updated MRF to HR. This way, the re-evaluation of jobs will be a continuous process, and the functions and responsibilities of a department will be strengthened on a regular basis.
This is my view.
Thanks.
Vinod Somal
From United Arab Emirates, Dubai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
This is so much true. I must say that the article deals with some harsh basic factors which we, under the guise of HR professionals, choose to ignore because we do not want to diverge from the traditional HR basic principles and best practices. As one of our friends has posted, job descriptions (JDs) are slowly becoming obsolete as far as the day-to-day functions are concerned.
At the same time, I do want to reiterate that JDs become handy at the time of 'recruitment,' and I repeat 'recruitment' only because at that stage, we need to know what the department wants in a person whom we are going to recruit. Therefore, as much as we do seem to realize the un-usefulness of a JD in day-to-day functions, when a department sends a Manpower Requisition Form to HR, they should look at the JD which probably has been prepared some time or years back and send an updated MRF to HR. This way, the re-evaluation of jobs will be a continuous process, and the functions and responsibilities of a department will be strengthened on a regular basis.
This is my view.
Thanks.
Vinod Somal
From United Arab Emirates, Dubai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Job descriptions are actually very useful. They are just not being followed most of the time, but if they are observed, they will ensure better and smoother maximization of the organization's human resources.
From Philippines
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From Philippines
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I agree with this. When we describe a job, employees are often confined to a specific area. This can lead to a lack of team-building spirit and knowledge-sharing. As a result, individuals tend to focus solely on their own tasks without assisting others. Consequently, they may struggle to perform tasks when a colleague is absent or leaves the job. A well-defined job description is important to some extent.
From India, Bhopal
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Bhopal
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Mr. Hari Nair,
Many views have been expressed by other members of this forum. I can only say that for today's ills in our country, can we blame our constitution? Former President Mr. K.R. Narayan had urged us to introspect - who has failed what - has the constitution failed us or have we failed the constitution?
Today, we might consider discarding job descriptions, and perhaps there could be another article on how management science is futile, with a recommendation for its abandonment to follow.
Management is a science. Its execution is an art. Just because a few artists have failed, should we abandon the science itself? If so, are we not discarding the proverbial baby along with the bathwater?
Thanks,
Dinesh V. Divekar
Soft Skills & Behavioral Trainer
Bangalore
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Many views have been expressed by other members of this forum. I can only say that for today's ills in our country, can we blame our constitution? Former President Mr. K.R. Narayan had urged us to introspect - who has failed what - has the constitution failed us or have we failed the constitution?
Today, we might consider discarding job descriptions, and perhaps there could be another article on how management science is futile, with a recommendation for its abandonment to follow.
Management is a science. Its execution is an art. Just because a few artists have failed, should we abandon the science itself? If so, are we not discarding the proverbial baby along with the bathwater?
Thanks,
Dinesh V. Divekar
Soft Skills & Behavioral Trainer
Bangalore
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Mr. Hari Nair,
Many views have been expressed by other members of this forum. I can only say that for today's ills of our country, can we blame our constitution? Former President Mr. K.R. Narayan had asked us to introspect - who has failed what - has the constitution failed us or have we failed the constitution?
Today, we may consider questioning the Job Description and there could possibly be another article discussing how management science is considered useless, with recommendations for its reconsideration.
Management is a science. Its execution is an art. Just because a few artists have failed, should we abandon the science itself? If we do so, are we not throwing away the proverbial baby along with the bathwater?
Thanks,
Dinesh V. Divekar
Soft Skills & Behavioral Trainer
Bangalore
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Many views have been expressed by other members of this forum. I can only say that for today's ills of our country, can we blame our constitution? Former President Mr. K.R. Narayan had asked us to introspect - who has failed what - has the constitution failed us or have we failed the constitution?
Today, we may consider questioning the Job Description and there could possibly be another article discussing how management science is considered useless, with recommendations for its reconsideration.
Management is a science. Its execution is an art. Just because a few artists have failed, should we abandon the science itself? If we do so, are we not throwing away the proverbial baby along with the bathwater?
Thanks,
Dinesh V. Divekar
Soft Skills & Behavioral Trainer
Bangalore
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Atleast some people think alike .Now days definitions of JD has changed .People mix HR/PERSONNEL/ADMIN and get confuse to make JD
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Mr. Hari,
The posting was very informative and case-sensitive. To my understanding, JD's are important and necessary for the organization to build on, but from an employee perspective, it may not. Job descriptions may not give a sense of responsibility, but the tasks may not be an issue. One thing is certain: if we want to have a 'big picture' of the organization's results, JD's have nothing to do with it other than assessing individual performances.
Warm Regards,
Rajan
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
The posting was very informative and case-sensitive. To my understanding, JD's are important and necessary for the organization to build on, but from an employee perspective, it may not. Job descriptions may not give a sense of responsibility, but the tasks may not be an issue. One thing is certain: if we want to have a 'big picture' of the organization's results, JD's have nothing to do with it other than assessing individual performances.
Warm Regards,
Rajan
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Hari Sir,
I totally disagree with you. Because job descriptions mention in detail what is expected from an individual, and further, these JDs prepare a base to complete his performance assessment in order to rate what he was expected and what he has really achieved. JDs prove to be a mirror to analyze what an individual is doing exactly, and further, that also helps us to understand the responsibilities and quantum of work the individual is doing.
Sorry to say, but I disagree with it.
Regards,
Manjali
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I totally disagree with you. Because job descriptions mention in detail what is expected from an individual, and further, these JDs prepare a base to complete his performance assessment in order to rate what he was expected and what he has really achieved. JDs prove to be a mirror to analyze what an individual is doing exactly, and further, that also helps us to understand the responsibilities and quantum of work the individual is doing.
Sorry to say, but I disagree with it.
Regards,
Manjali
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Talent is more important than the tool, and it is how job descriptions are used by different HRD managers that is the most important. Just as few individuals have the talent to spot the individual beyond his degree or qualification, few people have the talent to match job descriptions with the individual competencies of people or whatever other purposes that job description may serve. Even in the overall business, implementation is more important than ideas, and few people have exceptional execution skills.
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I do not agree. A job description is crucial for interviews, induction, and serves as the basis for job evaluation, which determines bands and grades, consequently impacting the company's compensation policy. A job description should be a living document, reflecting the current reality to be meaningful; it cannot be a static museum piece.
V.C. Nagaraj 😉
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
V.C. Nagaraj 😉
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Job descriptions are not useless. They are very important as far as individual roles and responsibilities are concerned. It fixes the accountability of the individuals towards a particular type of job.
Moreover, if an employee resigns from an organization, it helps in identifying the right type of replacement by looking at the individual job description.
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Moreover, if an employee resigns from an organization, it helps in identifying the right type of replacement by looking at the individual job description.
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Let's Do An Introspection:
Do We Have Job Descriptions? If We Have, Do We Follow Them? Are They Symbolic or Just Show Pieces? Do We Regularly Enhance and Update Them?
The answer can be YES or NO, but honestly, after introspection, one might still say, "Job Descriptions Are Indeed Useless."
Please comment and provide a critical evaluation for enhancement and finding an interface.
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Do We Have Job Descriptions? If We Have, Do We Follow Them? Are They Symbolic or Just Show Pieces? Do We Regularly Enhance and Update Them?
The answer can be YES or NO, but honestly, after introspection, one might still say, "Job Descriptions Are Indeed Useless."
Please comment and provide a critical evaluation for enhancement and finding an interface.
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear friend,
I don't agree with you that job descriptions are useless. During the measurement of an employee's performance, it plays the most important role. If there is a well-defined job description, then only an employee's performance can be judged as acceptable or not.
Regards,
Aastha
From India, Ahmadabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I don't agree with you that job descriptions are useless. During the measurement of an employee's performance, it plays the most important role. If there is a well-defined job description, then only an employee's performance can be judged as acceptable or not.
Regards,
Aastha
From India, Ahmadabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I’d like to post a clarification. In my earlier post, I did not say job descriptions were useless. I said that job descriptions based on competencies were better. Jeroo
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hi,
There is no point in saying that job descriptions (JDs) are useless when they are useless. That means they are not being framed properly, structured, or updated regularly. First of all, let us see what this so-called JD or job description is. It is nothing but a set of duties that are supposed to be performed or delivered. Are we saying this is useless? I doubt it. The problem, as I mentioned earlier, is that it might not be structured properly or updated.
Now, coming to the next issue - companies that were better off without any JD. It is simple to understand that they have JDs in mind but not on paper. The format might be different, but JDs are relevant. That is the moral of the story.
From India, Hyderabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
There is no point in saying that job descriptions (JDs) are useless when they are useless. That means they are not being framed properly, structured, or updated regularly. First of all, let us see what this so-called JD or job description is. It is nothing but a set of duties that are supposed to be performed or delivered. Are we saying this is useless? I doubt it. The problem, as I mentioned earlier, is that it might not be structured properly or updated.
Now, coming to the next issue - companies that were better off without any JD. It is simple to understand that they have JDs in mind but not on paper. The format might be different, but JDs are relevant. That is the moral of the story.
From India, Hyderabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear All,
It has become a known fact that JDs are not well-read by applicants - the reason could be either lack of time or lack of attentiveness by job seekers or just taking the recruiter's word of mouth. I still feel JDs are a core part of the recruitment process. Discussing senior-level positions without a proper JD would be utterly confusing for both the applicant and the other party. It would not be possible for the recruiter to set expectations right.
JDs give a clear picture to the applicant apart from the verbal communication done by the job provider. They would never lose their importance and would continue to be a core part of recruitments.
Thanks,
Amith
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
It has become a known fact that JDs are not well-read by applicants - the reason could be either lack of time or lack of attentiveness by job seekers or just taking the recruiter's word of mouth. I still feel JDs are a core part of the recruitment process. Discussing senior-level positions without a proper JD would be utterly confusing for both the applicant and the other party. It would not be possible for the recruiter to set expectations right.
JDs give a clear picture to the applicant apart from the verbal communication done by the job provider. They would never lose their importance and would continue to be a core part of recruitments.
Thanks,
Amith
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Hari,
I agree with you, but only to an extent as JD's are important for those who work as consultants. I have joined a new consultancy, and they don't have the JDs which has made my learning cycle a little longer. So, even if it is not important for the employee, it is useful for those who work in that profile (hiring).
Thanks,
Ridim
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I agree with you, but only to an extent as JD's are important for those who work as consultants. I have joined a new consultancy, and they don't have the JDs which has made my learning cycle a little longer. So, even if it is not important for the employee, it is useful for those who work in that profile (hiring).
Thanks,
Ridim
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hi Hari,
Nice post! Good discussion, my friends. I do feel that a job description (JD) is important. In the organization where I am working, we provide a clear JD upon joining; however, sometimes individuals are required to perform tasks that are not explicitly mentioned in the JD. I believe this is how organizations operate.
Regards,
Kalyan 😄
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Nice post! Good discussion, my friends. I do feel that a job description (JD) is important. In the organization where I am working, we provide a clear JD upon joining; however, sometimes individuals are required to perform tasks that are not explicitly mentioned in the JD. I believe this is how organizations operate.
Regards,
Kalyan 😄
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Sir,
I don't agree that job descriptions are useless as they provide a foundation to understand the job in a better way. Though they do not include all the information, they provide a framework of the job when one goes for recruitment and selection. Without understanding the nature of the job, the company could be carried away in the initial phase of recruiting employees.
Akriti
From India, Faridabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I don't agree that job descriptions are useless as they provide a foundation to understand the job in a better way. Though they do not include all the information, they provide a framework of the job when one goes for recruitment and selection. Without understanding the nature of the job, the company could be carried away in the initial phase of recruiting employees.
Akriti
From India, Faridabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hi,
Sorry man...I can't agree with your stand
Job description is the base of any job...when you think in terms of some selected new age jobs/creative jobs or jobs of dynamic nature...to some extend the JD might be irrelevant (it will be difficult to set JD for a movie director). But when we consider manufacturing companies, process based companies or highly customer centric enterprises...we can't even think about jobs without JDs. How we can go for a hire with out a JD? How do you define a Job? Do you think the recruiter will get you a good candidate without proper JD and JS? Ok let's assume you as the HR Head of a company with 5000 people. How do you assess and manage performance of people without JD. Ok imagine you are working with a process based manufacturing company and having 3 recognised trade unions? How do you negotiate production targets without JD? Do you think the employees do any work as per the orders of manager? They will work according to JD/MOU only.
Ok let's take another example from an IT company. You have hired one Project Manager for QA. After couple of months if you ask the PM to do the presales job, you can expect [resignation: 99% career transition: 1%]. Or if that guy is not up to your expectation, how do you persuade him to improve? You can't say that you don't like his style…you need to pinpoint performance on the job (based on what? JD, right).
But if you feel that people are not considering JD as reference for their duties...it is the best example for poor management. You will get NC at the time of ISO audit, GMP etc. Also you can't ensure consistency in productivity, quality or customer service with out JD. In the absence of JD, the actions will become people specific and let's say 5 yrs down the line when you change the teams, who will take care of process. I am not thinking that you can hire best fit candidates - 100% self motivated for all your jobs. There will be average candiates, freshers and problem people too. The end result would be a highly unsystematic organisation which deliver inconsistent productivity, quality and customer service...obviously your profit would also come down.
The idea of department/team working on its responsibilities is almost similar to SMG (self managed groups) but here also they will not get the right to change core jobs. We can't equate No JD system to SMG. Ultimately SMG is not a generic system to be followed in any industry and having its own limitations. Imagine a Mechanical Engineer hired for Boiler operations is preparing product brochures or a highly paid S/W Embedded Engineer trained on Advanced Labs is doing project coordination…and the company would be wasting $$ per minute
So think before implementing this in your company...I am not finding any value addition if you hire/maintain employees without JD.
I believe that processes and systems can ensure consistency of performance, quality, service and profitability of any enterprise
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Sorry man...I can't agree with your stand
Job description is the base of any job...when you think in terms of some selected new age jobs/creative jobs or jobs of dynamic nature...to some extend the JD might be irrelevant (it will be difficult to set JD for a movie director). But when we consider manufacturing companies, process based companies or highly customer centric enterprises...we can't even think about jobs without JDs. How we can go for a hire with out a JD? How do you define a Job? Do you think the recruiter will get you a good candidate without proper JD and JS? Ok let's assume you as the HR Head of a company with 5000 people. How do you assess and manage performance of people without JD. Ok imagine you are working with a process based manufacturing company and having 3 recognised trade unions? How do you negotiate production targets without JD? Do you think the employees do any work as per the orders of manager? They will work according to JD/MOU only.
Ok let's take another example from an IT company. You have hired one Project Manager for QA. After couple of months if you ask the PM to do the presales job, you can expect [resignation: 99% career transition: 1%]. Or if that guy is not up to your expectation, how do you persuade him to improve? You can't say that you don't like his style…you need to pinpoint performance on the job (based on what? JD, right).
But if you feel that people are not considering JD as reference for their duties...it is the best example for poor management. You will get NC at the time of ISO audit, GMP etc. Also you can't ensure consistency in productivity, quality or customer service with out JD. In the absence of JD, the actions will become people specific and let's say 5 yrs down the line when you change the teams, who will take care of process. I am not thinking that you can hire best fit candidates - 100% self motivated for all your jobs. There will be average candiates, freshers and problem people too. The end result would be a highly unsystematic organisation which deliver inconsistent productivity, quality and customer service...obviously your profit would also come down.
The idea of department/team working on its responsibilities is almost similar to SMG (self managed groups) but here also they will not get the right to change core jobs. We can't equate No JD system to SMG. Ultimately SMG is not a generic system to be followed in any industry and having its own limitations. Imagine a Mechanical Engineer hired for Boiler operations is preparing product brochures or a highly paid S/W Embedded Engineer trained on Advanced Labs is doing project coordination…and the company would be wasting $$ per minute
So think before implementing this in your company...I am not finding any value addition if you hire/maintain employees without JD.
I believe that processes and systems can ensure consistency of performance, quality, service and profitability of any enterprise
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Sreekumar's post is the best argument for a JD in today's world.
Agreed, a JD based on competencies would be a challenging and exciting concept, but this does apply to jobs where there is flexibility and innovation is possible.
For those jobs which need strict parameters of performance, a detailed job description as per the current system would be more appropriate, save that this should be constantly being revised - if not every year, but at least once in three years, depending upon seniority and responsibilities. That is, a routine job would need revision every three years or so, while a more senior job where a certain amount of flexibility would be worth reviewing at shorter periods.
In the real world, also, the union's participation in reviewing and revising job descriptions is very important, and a basis for bargaining.
So perhaps there should be a mix of constantly reviewed and revised job descriptions for those positions which need strict parameters, and a competency-based job description for those positions which are best suited for this kind of constantly reviewed and revised parameter.
What say you?
Jeroo
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Agreed, a JD based on competencies would be a challenging and exciting concept, but this does apply to jobs where there is flexibility and innovation is possible.
For those jobs which need strict parameters of performance, a detailed job description as per the current system would be more appropriate, save that this should be constantly being revised - if not every year, but at least once in three years, depending upon seniority and responsibilities. That is, a routine job would need revision every three years or so, while a more senior job where a certain amount of flexibility would be worth reviewing at shorter periods.
In the real world, also, the union's participation in reviewing and revising job descriptions is very important, and a basis for bargaining.
So perhaps there should be a mix of constantly reviewed and revised job descriptions for those positions which need strict parameters, and a competency-based job description for those positions which are best suited for this kind of constantly reviewed and revised parameter.
What say you?
Jeroo
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Very thought-provoking, but I do not agree with a lot of points.
To start, the job of HR is not to create just one absolute JD, but to continually review it with the HODs and the employee themselves.
Firstly, the structure of the JD should not only consist of a list of activities, but it should also include a section on authorities and responsibilities. It should clearly indicate whether an activity is a core function or a secondary one for the individual. Additionally, it should specify the necessary skills required to perform a particular job activity, along with clearly defined expected outcomes from a series of tasks carried out by the employee.
After every quarter or six months, review the JD and make necessary amendments. In fact, the review and revision of the JD should be a fundamental aspect during appraisals, promotions, etc.
I disagree with and am disheartened to read statements like "nobody reads it anyways." If we make our JDs clear and free of jargon, everyone will read them. By incorporating the aforementioned points, individuals will have a greater incentive to read the JD more regularly.
Please correct me where necessary.
Archana
P.S. - This may seem very realistic or idealistic, but it is achievable, and in our organization, we practice it... Why else are we in HR?
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
To start, the job of HR is not to create just one absolute JD, but to continually review it with the HODs and the employee themselves.
Firstly, the structure of the JD should not only consist of a list of activities, but it should also include a section on authorities and responsibilities. It should clearly indicate whether an activity is a core function or a secondary one for the individual. Additionally, it should specify the necessary skills required to perform a particular job activity, along with clearly defined expected outcomes from a series of tasks carried out by the employee.
After every quarter or six months, review the JD and make necessary amendments. In fact, the review and revision of the JD should be a fundamental aspect during appraisals, promotions, etc.
I disagree with and am disheartened to read statements like "nobody reads it anyways." If we make our JDs clear and free of jargon, everyone will read them. By incorporating the aforementioned points, individuals will have a greater incentive to read the JD more regularly.
Please correct me where necessary.
Archana
P.S. - This may seem very realistic or idealistic, but it is achievable, and in our organization, we practice it... Why else are we in HR?
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hi I dont agree . Becz JD’s gives the information of roles and responsibilities and also it gives the idea about the job. Hence in my point of view JD is very important
From India, Hyderabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Hyderabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hi Saan,
How could you say that job descriptions are no longer needed? Whatever you mentioned about working in groups can happen, but only in a group that has been working together for quite some time. A new person cannot perform their job effectively without a clear job description.
Moreover, how can you evaluate an employee's performance without a job description? How can you define the key performance areas of that employee? How can you provide performance appraisals without their job description and KPIs?
Regards,
Saan
From Pakistan, Karachi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
How could you say that job descriptions are no longer needed? Whatever you mentioned about working in groups can happen, but only in a group that has been working together for quite some time. A new person cannot perform their job effectively without a clear job description.
Moreover, how can you evaluate an employee's performance without a job description? How can you define the key performance areas of that employee? How can you provide performance appraisals without their job description and KPIs?
Regards,
Saan
From Pakistan, Karachi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Sir,
I don't agree that job descriptions are useless. I feel that they provide a framework regarding the job and are extremely useful when one goes for recruitment and selection. Unless and until one is not familiar with the nature of the job, the recruitment of the right kind of people to do the right kind of job becomes a failure.
Due to the dynamic nature of today's business, it is important that if job evaluation is required, there has to be a change in the job description. Thus, job descriptions form the strong foundation for understanding the job.
Akriti
From India, Faridabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I don't agree that job descriptions are useless. I feel that they provide a framework regarding the job and are extremely useful when one goes for recruitment and selection. Unless and until one is not familiar with the nature of the job, the recruitment of the right kind of people to do the right kind of job becomes a failure.
Due to the dynamic nature of today's business, it is important that if job evaluation is required, there has to be a change in the job description. Thus, job descriptions form the strong foundation for understanding the job.
Akriti
From India, Faridabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
How Many Of the HR Professionals have Job Descriptions and How many of you all follow it religiously, does it gel with your daily work management.
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I fully agree with the author.
All my capable HR professionals who have viewed this blog and have replied against the topic need to update their awareness about HR prevailing in the industry. There is an increasing emphasis laid on "de-jobbing" to make the work more flexible and to de-restrict the functioning beyond the boundaries of the so-called "job descriptions." The latest is the Stretch KRA, i.e., employees being expected to deliver beyond their daily work.
So, better think out of the box, or vanish... Inconvenience for arrogance, if any...
Regards, Abhishek Gavane Senior Executive (Strategic HR)
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
All my capable HR professionals who have viewed this blog and have replied against the topic need to update their awareness about HR prevailing in the industry. There is an increasing emphasis laid on "de-jobbing" to make the work more flexible and to de-restrict the functioning beyond the boundaries of the so-called "job descriptions." The latest is the Stretch KRA, i.e., employees being expected to deliver beyond their daily work.
So, better think out of the box, or vanish... Inconvenience for arrogance, if any...
Regards, Abhishek Gavane Senior Executive (Strategic HR)
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hey all,
I feel that it might be true that many employees don't even read their job descriptions, or they must have read them 4-5 years ago. This is an indication that the job description does not match the activities which the employee performs, and therefore, there is a need to revise the current job description. Additionally, if the job description does not evolve to encompass new activities over a couple of years, it implies that neither the individual nor the business is progressing.
Hence, I believe that apart from communicating the deliverables to the employee, it also serves as a reality check.
Thank you.
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I feel that it might be true that many employees don't even read their job descriptions, or they must have read them 4-5 years ago. This is an indication that the job description does not match the activities which the employee performs, and therefore, there is a need to revise the current job description. Additionally, if the job description does not evolve to encompass new activities over a couple of years, it implies that neither the individual nor the business is progressing.
Hence, I believe that apart from communicating the deliverables to the employee, it also serves as a reality check.
Thank you.
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)CiteHR is an AI-augmented HR knowledge and collaboration platform, enabling HR professionals to solve real-world challenges, validate decisions, and stay ahead through collective intelligence and machine-enhanced guidance. Join Our Platform.
Job Descriptions samples.doc
HR, Admn & Fin Job Descriptions.zi p