If you’re a frequent reader, you’ll know I’m often espousing the wisdom of formulating position descriptions based on the role, and not the incumbent. Today I’m going to ignore my own advice and tell you why that’s a bad idea.
There is often a need to adjust the responsibilities, duties and authority of positions within any organisation. Ideally, we would do this based on how the incumbent should look, with a lot less consideration to how they are now. By that I mean we pay attention to the position and it’s role within the organisation, with less thought given to the existing person.
Now, this works well when the position is vacant, either through attrition, restructure or otherwise. It’s a blank slate, and we can mold and shape the position as required. When the position is filled, it’s a different story.
When the role is occupied, it becomes more more involved. The effect on the employee’s motivation needs to be considered. Generally, it would be a bad idea to reduce the scope of an existing employees position, as it can lead to poor performance. Similarly, you can find negative results due to increasing the scope of a role. It’s a double edged sword.
The real lesson here is that redefining any part of your organisational structure, regardless of the scope, really requires some in-depth research. Don’t do it alone, get some expert advice.