Job Descriptions are Extinct

"It's what you do with what you have, not what you have that counts."  

Ah yes --- the ever-loved, ever-hated job description.  

A traditional job description (JD) describes the years of experience, preferred industry, education and skills required for the job.   It also lists 5-8 major duties and responsibilities that are usually vague, general and passive (i.e. Responsible for order entry).  Regardless of its effectiveness, the JD has been the only formalized information about a job a company has had .

JDs are chronically out-of-date.  Even if up-to-date people rarely use them.  Managers don’t use them. Recruiters absolutely hate them as they provide nothing about what the candidate has to be able to do.   A candidate can have all of the education and skills required but not be able to do the job. Ever heard the expression, “He’s had 1 year’s experience 10 times”?   Other than Compensation, no one seems to use them.  

There has been a push for a new type of job description ---Performance Profiles (PP) to replace the traditional JD.  Companies like Microsoft and Intel are now using PPs.  Lou Adler – well-known thought leader in talent acquisition and author is now on a “tear” about how useless traditional JDs are.

Here’s an example of the difference in recruiting based on what a candidate must have (the traditional JD) versus what a candidate must be able to do  (a PP).

A recruiter asks the COO what he is looking for in a VP, Marketing.   Here’s the traditional JD answer based on must have:

“I need a BSEE from a top university. In fact, the person should have an MSEE, too. In addition, the person should have at least 5-10 years in the industry plus an MBA from a top school like Stanford or Harvard.”

The recruiter asks him to describe what the VP, Marketing must be able to do.   Here’s the PP answer:

“The person in this role needs to put together a dynamic three-year product road map addressing all product opportunities we have in significant detail. As part of this the person must understand our industry trends, especially what Competitor ABC is doing, and put us in a position to stop playing catch-up.”

Adler has some good points about PPs but he focuses only on recruiting.  As a solution, I propose a multi-sectioned online document that would satisfy the different needs of Compensation, Recruiting, managers, employees and candidates.  It would have 4 sections: 

1) Job Responsibilities:  These are the ones in traditional JDs that Compensation  would use for survey participation.  They’re not likely to change often.

2) Job Requirements: What candidates must be able to do in the job if hired.  Instead of seeing “Responsible for product marketing” they see the actual requirement “Develop a product marketing plan for the new high-speed controller.” Recruiting would use them. 

3) Goals:  For current employees, these would be their annual goals for the year.    If hired during the year, candidates would have their goals prorated.

4 ) Performance/Success Measures: Clear description of what “success” looks like for each requirement/goal. 

Job requirements, goals and success measures would change every year as part of overall company goal setting.  Job responsibilities would change as necessary.

This document could be used for survey participation, recruiting, goal setting and performance reviews.  Four for the price of one!

OK you say --- but are PPs legal?   Law firm Littler Mendelsohn says “yes”. 

“An employer that follows the recommendations in The Essential Guide  (Lou Adler's book) will have in place a rational, fair, consistent, and well documented hiring process. It is likely to make better hiring decisions, to enjoy the benefits of a more diverse workforce, and to be more welcoming to veterans and the disabled. Such an employer is less likely to be sued and more likely, if sued, to have a good outcome. Jurors will typically be able to understand Performance-based Hiring, respect the fairness of the process, and therefore be more likely to find for the employer in a case involving hiring discrimination or otherwise involving a dispute over job qualifications.”

The Littler article is chock full of legal information regarding PPs, and I encourage you to read it.  (Go to:  http://louadlergroup.com/contact-us/#.   You have to complete the form and then check “Send me a copy of white paper by David Goldstein.)

Let’s face it folks.   It’s time we had something that’s useful for everyone.  PPs could be it.

What do you think?

Jacque Vilet, President of Vilet International, has over 20 years’ experience in Global Human Resources with major multinationals such as Intel, National Semiconductor and Seagate Technology. She has managed both local/ in-country national and expatriate programs and has been an expat twice during her career.   Her true love is working with local national issues.  Jacque has the following certifications:  CCP, GPHR, HCS and SWP as well as a B.S. and M.S in
Psychology and an MBA.    She belongs to SHRM, Human Capital Institute and World at Work.   Jacque been a speaker in the U.S., Asia and Europe, and is a regular contributor to various HR and talent management publications. 

Comments

[Jules]

The topic nearest and dearest to what I am doing now.

I think the problem with JD is that they are made to sound as generic as possible. Additionally, who does the JD document belong to? Some say, the manager, some say HR. And the JD is only dusted and updated for another recruitment or promotion every few years. Plus, it's better if the person updating/creating the JD to sit down with the recruting manager to hear what he envision for the position. More often then not, they just email the old JD, change a few words and it's good to go.

Plus, recruiters I worked with don't know what the position is suppose to be. When I am doing comp, I would like to have the JD, org chart with and indication of where the position would be at, reporting to whom, what is the the summary work plan of the incumbent. A business partner should know. But more often then not recruiter has no idea. They are supporting a wider group of people. A business parter supports the business role of the department he supports. He is the right hand man for the department manager when it comes to that department. How to structure the department for optimal performance, who is lagging in the team, coach managers on communicating pay and performance.

I like the idea of PP. But in order to make it successful, the necessary competencies need to be in place.

End Monday morning rant.

[Jacque Vilet]

Thanks for your comments Jules I really appreciate them. I understand all the problems about ownership, large organizations where comp or recruiting really don't know the jobs,et. I've been on both ends.

I would say currently Comp owns them as they seem to be the only ones using JDs.

Unfortunately recruiters today now just program in the "buzzwords" from the requisition description to their ATS and let the ATS spit out candidates.

In the future either HR Biz Partners need to be given a swift kick or Comp and Recruiting need to work together with the manager as openings arise. Really good recruiters want to understand what's needed in order to talk to candidates intelligently. They at least need to know the real "buzzwords" to program into the ATS.

I know what you mean about needing to have an org chart to do Comp. I tell people that I cannot "do" Comp unless I have up-to-date org charts. I have to see the big picture. Fortunately those can be had easily by just asking the admin for the group. At least she cooperates! :-)

Maybe the term "job description" is so emotionally charged it needs to have a new name, be a new concept to get attention.
You know --- old wine in new bottles?
Remember when "employee engagement" used to be "employee satisfaction"? Same thing.

Ah Jules --- competencies. Another subject entirely.