The conditions that created jobs 200 years ago are disappearing. Modern organizations have removed job descriptions and hired the right staff instead of "matching" candidates with traditional job descriptions.
In a previous article we discussed work situations where the employee was dissatisfied due to the inconsistency between his job profile and the description of the position he held. We also mention that these descriptions are part of the requirements to pass the ISO's and other certification programs. However, in several manufacturing plants this requirement only exists in writing, without being implemented on the floor or without the knowledge of the workers, remaining on file until the new revision. It is simply part of a requirement for certification.
Making a brief review of the job description and analysis processes currently practiced, among the most common models are those described in the human resources administration books taught in many universities in Latin America, particularly W. Sherman, Jr. and George W. Bohlander (Mexico: Grupo Editorial Iberoamérica, SA de CV, 1994) or that of Arthur Sherman, George Bohlander and Scott Snell (11th edition, Mexico: International Thomson Editores, 1999).
However, one of the texts that seems simpler and more practical is that of "Administration of Personnel and Human Resources", by William B. Werther, Jr. and Keith Davis (4th ed. Mexico: McGraw-Hill), especially the chapter 4: Analysis and Design of Positions, where the appropriate balance between the satisfaction of the worker in his position (behavioral elements) with efficiency is highlighted.
Basically the authors maintain that “when the specialist considers the behavioral elements that influence the design of positions, he is inclined to add more autonomy, variety, identification, meaning of the task and feedback. Efficiency, on the other hand, requires more specialization and less variety and a minimum of autonomy. Thus, maximizing the elements that lead to a high level of efficiency may detract from the level of satisfaction that certain positions seek and vice versa… ”
I consider that here are the primary concepts for the new job description and analysis, but it is still an incomplete answer. I start to think if a list of steps will be enough to elaborate this new process and the evidence in my work environment confronts me with a new and terrible reality.
Take the case of the maquiladora industry in Nuevo Laredo, Tamaulipas, Mexico, for example. By "maquiladoras" we mean manufacturing plants that are subsidiaries of US corporations, whose products are transformed or assembled into finished products and that are shipped back to the United States for worldwide sale and distribution. According to data collected from various sources, here in Nuevo Laredo there are 65 plants that employ 27,200 workers.
This year, this workforce has been reduced by approximately 40 percent, and the maquiladora industry continues to make gradual cuts in personnel. The number of people who have become unemployed is estimated to fluctuate around 10,800.
Here I will not analyze the causes of unemployment, but its impact on job analyzes and job descriptions. What happened? Simply that the traditional concept, as well as the application of analyzes and descriptions, have collapsed. Given this reality, the logical solution could be to carry out a new analysis and redesign the job descriptions, increasing the workloads, the responsibility and the working hours for those who still remain in the company receiving the same salary.
To continue operating, the industries have kept, sometimes intact, their Master Manuals of analysis and job descriptions as established by the certification standard, hoping that the economy will improve and that these vacancies will be filled again. In addition, the functions described by position have overlapped and amalgamated. Thus, job descriptions have become indecipherable “collages”.
On many occasions I have stated that while some administrative theories and principles are 50 years ahead, in practice the great majority of the administrative / managerial systems that operate today are 50 to 80 years behind.
According to Idalberto Chiavenato –in his Introduction to the General Theory of Administration (5th ed. Colombia: McGraw-Hill, 1999) particularly in Chapter 3: Classic Approach to Administration– the origins of the analysis and the job description go back to 1911 and, although this contribution helped to systematize work and increase efficiency, this procedure, like other important Taylorian concepts, has not been adapted to the changes that organizational design has undergone in recent decades, in which the concept of Work has evolved markedly due to environmental factors rather than the decision or need for change in the management class.
On this subject, there is an interesting and visionary article written by William Bridges entitled "The End of the Job" (which is an excerpt from his book Job Shift published by Addison-Wesley Publishing, Co. New York, 1994) that appeared published in Fortune Magazine on September 19, 1994. In it, Bridges argues that in 2000 "it is highly likely that half of us will be working 60-hour weeks while the rest of us are unemployed."
And it goes further by affirming that what is disappearing is not only a certain number of jobs in certain industrial sectors or in some parts of the country, but the very essence of work as it is currently known. Bridges notes that "the conditions that created jobs 200 years ago - mass production and large organizations - are disappearing," and that "in a fast economy, jobs are rigid solutions to an elastic problem," because their design Today, employees are rewarded for “doing their jobs” instead of doing them because they perform the activities necessary to achieve greater efficiency.
This is what characterizes organizations that still operate under the work paradigm as stipulated in traditional job descriptions and analyzes - in contrast to what Bridges calls “under-employed” organizations, so to speak (in English). He calls them “the post-job or de-jobbed organizations”).
According to their approach, these “unemployed” organizations have eliminated job descriptions per person and operate on the basis of projects carried out by temporary and multidisciplinary work teams, made up of personnel with multifunctional plant, temporary and / or external skills. These companies hire the right people instead of "matching" candidates with traditional job descriptions.
In addition to the project-based team-based organizational structure, Bridges argues that "unemployed" organizations (which do not use restrictive job descriptions for each employee) will have flexible hours, completely innovative compensation systems, ongoing training programs, strength multi-functional and semi-autonomous work, in addition to the elimination of middle managers.
These new organizations that have begun to employ workers without job descriptions seem to share four essential characteristics, according to Bridges: 1) they encourage employees at all levels to make decisions once reserved for managers; 2) provide information required by workers to make such decisions; 3) have training programs to understand financial and business issues that were originally provided only to senior executives; and 4) have implemented a remunerative and equitable profit sharing program.
Although Bridges' theories were written 6 years ago and we have already transcended the new century, the working reality is too evident. Job design is breaking down, traditional job descriptions have collapsed, and corporate dinosaurs are dying out.
The new organizations that survive will be structured in small, flexible and semi-autonomous small business units (SBUs), made up of multidisciplinary teams of specific projects, giving way to new concepts and practices to carry out the "new" job.
Day by day we are witnessing how the nature of work itself is transforming, not due to deliberate human choice, but due to factors in the external environment. Thanks to them, the very essence of the work is being strongly questioned, its structure redesigned and its concept redefined.
We hope that the impact of environmental factors such as recession, globalization, free market competition, overdependence on other markets, and operating costs on large and small organizations will lead to better changes in the work environment.
Whatever the origin of these changes, work, as we have known it up to now, will not be the same. Hopefully this change will give it meaning and meaning so that work is actually a source of satisfaction and self-realization in the new work culture.
