Untagging Job Architecture
Job titles and descriptions are very much aimed at “one-size-fits-all” profiles, but people are unique. All of us have unique combinations of stable, singular resources (character strengths, multiple intelligences or abilities, physical characteristics) and variable resources (knowledge and experiences, physical states, emotional states, etc.,) that define who we are. How then, do we successfully fit everyone into the limiting job labels created by companies? Similar to how we adapt clothing and living spaces to our needs and tastes, we should be able to adapt our work to our uniqueness.
Definition-limit (word based): The definitions of tasks limit the space for individual capability. People are constantly developing. There is no such thing as the possibility of not learning. Our brains continue to make neuronal connections until the day we die. In other words, every person develops his biopsychological potential every minute, and he does it because with every little experience—good or bad—he incorporates knowledge and learning. It’s all new potential. If someone joins a business today, with a sufficient capacity to perform the tasks and responsibilities of his job, it is very likely that in a few months he will have outgrown that job. But in a tagged environment, he’ll probably end up stuck in that position for many years or even his entire career.
Definition-risk (word based): When describing a job, we set a framework for required action and set limits by describing what can and cannot be done within the framework, and we specify the corresponding organisational and legal consequences for overstepping the boundaries. By setting such limits, we can interpret literally anything an employee does that strictly exceeds the limits as a breach from both an organisational and legal point of view. Even if the employee takes an action or establishes a professional relationship that benefits the organisation or its consumers, she risks action against her if her decisions go beyond her job description. On the other hand, there’s the risk that another employee, who is perhaps actively disengaged, can use those limits as an excuse for not taking on a task or professional relationship that the job demands in a changing environment. In either case, this tagging undermines employees’ development as well as the company’s success.
Obsolescence (past based): When defining concrete tasks, means, methodologies and even processes, we set limits. Nowadays, processes and means change from one week to the next. The job must be able to adapt to these changes (I still remember a collective agreement in which we had a job description for a “bilingual shorthand typist of I don't know how many keystrokes”). This argument is in line with the risks I mentioned above: when we describe a position, we do so with the data we have right now. The moment we publish it, however, it becomes outdated because of its rigidity. The speed of socio-economic transformation is so fast that everything we do today is likely to change within weeks. The professional reality is complex and rich and would need constant updating to remain current.