Why is HR not allowing us to update our job descriptions?
Several years ago, HR standardized job descriptions for our company, resulting in generic descriptions that do not match specific roles in our department. This leads to confusion during job interviews and wastes the time of job seekers. Despite our requests, HR has not provided an explanation for why we can’t update the descriptions. Is there a specific industry trend dictating this approach? How can we effectively communicate our perspective to HR?
#HRpolicies #jobdescriptions #companystandards #industrytrends #HRcommunication
Job descriptions shouldn’t be tailored. They should be descriptive of the role and essential functions, but are not lists of tasks.
EDIT: Why? For flexibility in daily operations and structure.
You can try to state that the ADA stuff in the description doesn’t match actual needs of the job (essential functions), but that’s the only thing I can think of that would compel HR to adjust anything. If it’s all sitting at a desk pushing buttons, there’s nothing to compel HR to change the description from widgets to woozits, unfortunately. I feel your pain, though. One would hope the argument of wasting time (both yours and candidates) on poorly defined descriptions would be enough.
I don’t know ow how flexible your HR is to change, but it might be possible to add an additional field to your system, allowing everyone to get what we need.
We have two different categories in our system. One is a “position description”. This is generic and describes rather generically what kinds of roles a person in a particular classification may take on. This allows for a lot of flexibility and moving people around and provides a uniform set of criteria for which personnel are evaluated. HR tightly controls these.
Second is the “job description” or “task description”. This is controlled by the hiring manager and describes what specific activities the person will perform. HR ensures that the job falls within the position requirements to ensure people aren’t over or under paid and their is flexibility of movement.
When a position opens up, HR makes sure the candidates meet the overall generic requirements of the position (which are listed in the announcement), but the hiring manager uses the job description to select from the list of candidates that HR has vetted. The roles of the job description are advertised so candidates know the expectations.
Certainly not perfect. Good candidates get missed, and bad candidates get through. But, it allows for some flexibility while also ensuring standardization. Hiring manager gets to list what the person will be doing and HR ensures compliance with regulations and policy.
Job descriptions are also very easy to change. You just need to make sure the job and position are aligned.
>Job seekers are savvy these days
This has not been my personal experience.
The reality is that HR doesn’t know what you actually do. And often even your bosses don’t either.
This isn’t a new trend, it’s been standard practice in many firms for decades from my understanding having worked all these years in the role. This is a complaint I’ve heard constantly from people who are job seeking and also job recruiting.
I’ve seen it in my own job searches as well. It’s why all my jobs went from “Just bookkeeping…” and I’m like “Sir… this is accountant work. That’s why nobody else worked out for you!” (Lucky for me, bad for the ones before me who couldn’t do the job…)
HR is only given the authority they’re given, that can be a lot or a little. Yours is handcuffed by a policy that very much doesn’t allow changes. I bet those uniform descriptions were stamped by three or four layers of red tape.
Simply put…. No plan survives contact with the enemy.
The only job descriptions that MAYBE can be applied to multiple people in ANY industry are extremely standardized industries (ie factory line workers) or super entry level (ie cashiers at Walmart or something)
Which is why job descriptions should describe the generalization of the job, not necessarily be overly specific.
That said, job descriptions can and should be updated semi regularly. If they are refusing to do that, you need to convince someone higher than you to put pressure on them to do so.
Everything I just said applies to job titles as well.
Even then, it’s inevitable that those job descriptions become out of date.
Ya ofccp
In my experience at a past company that did this; You can typically change your job posting to have more specific details and the department can keep detailed job descriptions internally. If we let leaders write their own JDs, it leads to a lot of nonsense and they become super long. Currently working on one that gave me a list of 40 duties (many repetitive using slightly different words) and called it a description. I’m going to cut that down to 10 and have it make some sense.
A job description does NOT equal a job posting. The first is a list of qualifications and crap you do; the second is to advertise the job to an outside audience. They are completely different.
Unfortunately, a lot of HR teams think they’re one and the same and that’s how we get some really shitty job postings out there.
Heres the thing….they wanted to standardize these and they did and they made a policy about it. Of course it’s changeable but it sounds like that would mean a massive company wide overhaul.
If you could quantify how much time you are wasting on non qualified candidates OR candidates who drop out when they learn the “real” job, you could possibly go to leadership with a proposal as to why having more details in the job description might be better.
It’s pretty old school to do this “standardized” thing and you’re right…..it’s a giant waste of time. Having generic JDs is a huge red flag and is probably not getting you the candidates you want.
I’m in class and comp. I worked at a place with standardized JDs and now I don’t. I much prefer when it comes time to reclassifications and equity and grading. A thousand different JDs leaves considerably more room for error and inconsistencies.