Refreshing an old and boring topic - Job descriptions and Roles vs Process Documentation

cferrer

Involved In Discussions
Hello Everyone,

I would like to hear about innovations on leveraging the use of job descriptions. Are your JDs some boring document that only gets looked at once every five years? Are your JDs dynamically linked to processes? Are they integrated into the roles and responsibilities inside process descriptions? Are your JDs a kind of work instruction or part of one? Any other creative ways to make good use of JDs and have them more tightly integrated into the documentation management system?
 

pziemlewicz

Involved In Discussions
Oddly enough, I'm reviewing/rewriting some as we speak.

When job descriptions are competency-based, they link nicely to Authority and Responsibility as well as Performance Review processes. If employees are on an annual review cycle, it makes sense to review the JD in tandem.
 

Sidney Vianna

Post Responsibly
Leader
Admin
@pziemlewicz: I don't disagree with your post; actually, I liked it. But, in my experience, 98.73% of employees are totally oblivious to what their job descriptions state.

And 82.3% of percentages referenced in the internet are just made-up numbers. :p
 

cferrer

Involved In Discussions
Hi Sidney, thanks for a good laugh. I will have to remember that one. ;)

I thought really hard about starting this thread because I know how stale this topic can be. However, I just can't believe that there isn't a more innovative way put our organizational design information to good use. Any thing out there? We can't possibly have peaked at the org chart and boring JDs, right?

Come on, let's reflect on this. Should we consider job descriptions, in their traditional format, a tactical or an operational tool/document?

Otherwise, if they are only a use-once-and-forget document, let's challenge their existence. How about Job specifications? Does anyone out there implement a system to link job descriptions and job specifications?
 

pziemlewicz

Involved In Discussions
@pziemlewicz: I don't disagree with your post; actually, I liked it. But, in my experience, 98.73% of employees are totally oblivious to what their job descriptions state.

I think it varies. I've primarily managed inspectors, technicians, engineers, supervisors. When you speak in terms of career progression, and increase in responsibility, the ones interested in moving up the ranks care what is in their JD and what the requirements are for the next level. Even so, there's always the person who wants more money with no more responsibility, or hasn't done part of their JD but expects the full merit increase. In my case, I'd say 27.4% are oblivious to their job descriptions. ;)
 

Jim Wynne

Leader
Admin
I thought really hard about starting this thread because I know how stale this topic can be. However, I just can't believe that there isn't a more innovative way put our organizational design information to good use. Any thing out there? We can't possibly have peaked at the org chart and boring JDs, right?

Come on, let's reflect on this. Should we consider job descriptions, in their traditional format, a tactical or an operational tool/document?

Otherwise, if they are only a use-once-and-forget document, let's challenge their existence. How about Job specifications? Does anyone out there implement a system to link job descriptions and job specifications?
There has to be something that describes the expected competencies of incumbents and candidates. I start to twitch a little when someone wants to complicate something that doesn't need to be "improved." I have no idea what you mean by "...tactical or an operational tool/document." If the required competencies are properly described, there's really nowhere left to go, nor is there any need to force the thing uphill.
 

Sidney Vianna

Post Responsibly
Leader
Admin
The business world dynamic of change is getting faster and faster. Most job description documents are 2 or 3 reengineering efforts behind. Very few organizations have a well thought out Management of Change process. And, to this date, I have not seen a MoC process address job descriptions.
 

Tagin

Trusted Information Resource
Ideally, I'd like the QMS docs to be database entries, and all the keywords such as job titles would be database references. Then it would be easy to know when a job role changes or is removed, what QMS docs are affected. Also, it should be easy then to pull up a job title, and in a lefthand pane, list the job description, and in a righthand pane, list all the Authorities & Responsibilities that exist in the docs for that job title or any group containing that job title, in order to compare them.
 

Kronos147

Trusted Information Resource
I look at a job description as a controlled document used to populate the help wanted ad.

The candidate is assessed against the job description.

One hired, the job description for a production manager may also say something like, 'manage the production process." On the job, the new production manager is shown the process documents or the "how we do things" documents.
 
Top Bottom