The fact that jobs are dynamic is one of the reasons job descriptions are so difficult to maintain. Teams rearrange, technology advances, and “temporary” responsibilities subtly become permanent. Hiring becomes a guessing game when candidates apply for a role that doesn’t match the day-to-day reality, managers disagree on what constitutes “good performance,” and employees feel that expectations are unfair or unclear when the written description lags behind the actual job.
Given that many companies view job descriptions as a static HR document rather than a dynamic tool presents another difficulty. However, job descriptions relate to actual risk and compliance. For instance, an individual’s eligibility for overtime exemptions is determined by their actual actions and compliance with legal requirements, not by what a document states. Accuracy isn’t only “nice to have,” as job descriptions are crucial for elucidating critical work duties (particularly where accommodations are required).
What is helpful? Start by doing a job analysis, which involves gathering information on tasks and responsibilities from both the employees performing the work and the supervisors who depend on it. In order to avoid creating descriptions from start every time, tools such as ONET can be used to benchmark jobs and talents. Second, establish a basic maintenance system that involves reviewing descriptions on a regular basis (every six to twelve months, for example), requiring revisions following significant process changes, and storing versions so teams can keep track of what changed and why. Lastly, write descriptions that are both flexible and clear. Describe key tasks and results, but steer clear of extremely strict language that will become out of date as soon as the process changes.
Reference
www.onetonline.org