>
a weblog covering personnel selection, assessment, and employment testing in the news

« The many ways to calculate adverse impact | Main | Selection Alphabet Soup »

Why have job descriptions?

On December 6, 2005 by Jamie Madigan

I was skimming over this article on job descriptions from About.com's HR section and generally nodding my head to all the criticisms of typical job descriptions. I could probably count on one hand the number of really good job descriptions I've read and still have enough fingers left over to make an obscene gesture to the rest. Most of them are vapid and overly general. I once saw one that consisted mostly of "Performs job duties in accordance with company policies." The second bullet point was "Performs duties safely while the third and last was "Performs other duties as assigned."

The About.com author goes on to make some recommendations that seem pretty crazy to me --stuff like negotiating and updating tasks and responsibilities on a monthly basis and making sure that they're updated given the constant changes in technology or business goals. Which, you know, sounds an awful lot like what managers should be doing anyway without the benefit of company letterhead and a file drawer. And on top of that, job descriptions are often used as ammunition in court cases where discrimination (think reasonable accommodations for those with disabilities) and wrongful termination.

So why have job descriptions in the majority of cases? I can think of several reasons why not to:


  1. They tend to be outdated quickly

  2. The temptation to make them vague is too great because specifics are hard and scary

  3. They can be used as hard evidence in court cases

  4. They killed my dog

  5. They can serve as a substitute for good management

  6. They often contradict the "real" requirements of the job

  7. It's easy to put in requirements (e.g., education level) that aren't really backed up by research or job analysis and thus place you at legal risk

  8. They're not legally required

  9. They killed my other dog, too


There are probably others, but that's a pretty good start. Of course, there will be some situations where you want a job description. For use in a job posting, for example. There's nothing like a poorly written job posting to get you the wrong applicants or no applicants at all. And even then, it should be based on at least some cursory job analysis or input from subject matter experts. But outside of that specific use, I'm not sure why so many companies insist on them. Of course, any decision-making on a job in terms of selection, job design, compensation, or training requirements should be made with a thorough understanding of the job, but that's not the same as having Skippy the Intern jot down a job description based on a quick "Uh, so what do you do?" interview over the coffee pot.


  Existing comments:

Posted by Bryan at December 9, 2005 6:02 AM:

I happen to be in the "create good job descriptions" camp. For many reasons. First, they haven't yet killed my dog. Second, (good ones) establish clear expectations that can be used for performance management (this seems to have become more front and center in the era of competencies). Third, without job descriptions, and without good job analysis (I'm thinkin' if you don't have one, you more than likely don't have the other) the organization is left with virtually nothing to defend themselves against grievances or lawsuits--no way to show documentation that their personnel decisions were job related (barring any selection-specific documentation, that is). Fourth, as you mention, they're often required for classification and compensation reasons and SOMETHING must be documented so why not make it good? Fifth, clear expectations communicated to an incumbent through a job description help them figure out what they're supposed to do (I just can't see a job description being thorough enough to communicate this properly, nor should it). Lastly, if you've gone to the trouble of creating a good job advertisement, why not go a step further and write up a decent description? Second lastly, many organizations (particularly in the public sector) REQUIRE them--so we as I/O professionals have a duty to ensure they're done right. This is an area where HR professionals can show their value; it's what we're (supposed to be) good at.

Posted by Jamie at December 12, 2005 12:47 PM:

I agree with just about all of that, Bryan, but I guess my point is that most of what you describe doesn't usually fall into the category of what I think of as job descriptions. Those are components of other things, like job analysis, job evaluation for pay purposes, or just managing employees. If a good job description comes out of any of that, then great! I've just seen too many cases where it's putting the cart before the mule. Or something.


  Post your own comment:




Remember My Info?





all this copyright until the sun explodes, jamie madigan