From “What do you do?” to “What are you working on now?”
Published January 21, 2012 | 
When we meet new people, one of the first questions we typically ask is “What do you do?” This seems to be mostly an American thing (I don’t recall ever getting that question in Europe or Asia). Is it because we as Americans are so involved with what we do. In fact, we are what we do. I am an engineer. I am a manager. I am an entrepreneur, a store owner, a writer, an artist.
I have spent much of my career trying to get people to think differently about work and organizations, to move past the hierarchy and the notion of static jobs with rigidly defined roles that bear little resemblance to what people actually do on a day-to-day basis. I haven’t been all that successful and I’m thinking maybe it’s because our identity is so intertwined with our work that it’s like asking someone to give up who they are.
Or is it? What if we start by simply changing the question? Instead of what do you do? how about “what are you working on now?” Not only does the answer to that question make for a more interesting conversation, it also helps move us forward toward a project or work orientation, rather than a job or role orientation.
Why is this important? Because that’s the way things work today. Smart organizations know how to pull the right group of people together to complete a project, disassemble the team and reassemble another one to do the next project.
It’s much like the motion picture industry puts together a crew to make a film. It’s cost effective for the company, is more likely to lead to high performance work and offers a bigger payoff for those involved. You become part of a team, able to benefit from being a part of something bigger than you could accomplish on your own. You are able to see how and where you and what you do fits in and contributes to the end result. What’s more you have a tangible end result you can point to, learn from, put on your resume and talk about a cocktail party.
What do you say? Are you ready to redefine yourself and expand the definition of what you do into something a little more meaningful?
Roll credits!
A New Look at Job Descriptions
Published August 13, 2011 | The ancient artifacts we call job descriptions haven’t changed much over the last half century. But the world of work has. Rather than having a single job, most of us perform a variety of roles and activities. What we do changes frequently, and typically bears little resemblance to formal job descriptions.
Isn’t it time for a new approach to defining work? One that’s more in tune with the times and focused on effectiveness rather than efficiency? One that actually provides real guidance and enables “right person right job.” Isn’t it time we put job descriptions to work? We should start this process by revisiting what we want job descriptions to do. For example, job descriptions should:
- Provide guidance to people as to what to do and how to do it.
- Provide information that could be used in staffing the job — not only technical skill requirements, but also information about the “nature” of the person best suited for the work.
- Provide a basis for “Who’s Who” and Expertise directories that enable people in the organization to know who does what and who knows what.
What do we need to change in order to accomplish these objectives?
I suggest three things:
First, expand job descriptions to include multiple roles and areas of expertise.
Second – identify underlying attributes of the work that can be used to better match people to activities. For example, is most of the work hands-on, “in the trenches” or is it more conceptual, planning, and analyzing? Does the work deal mostly with people, data, or things? What’s the level of responsibility, in other words, what are the repercussions of mistake making?
We must stop looking at jobs and people as two separate entities and focus instead on the relationship between the two. We also need to develop a common language for describing work and people, a language that goes beyond technical skills, degrees, and years of experience.
Finally, job descriptions should be written by or with the person in the job. I mean, if you look at the benefits of good job descriptions, a common theme emerges. Who is in the best position to supply job information?
Who knows better what the job is actually all about and what kinds of skills and competencies are most important? The incumbent! I’m an advocate for enabling employees to complete their own work profiles and job descriptions. Some people may need help articulating details about their job, but that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be the primary supplier of information. Consider using an interview process for gathering key information.
I’m also in favor of “self-assigned” job titles. Encourage employees to choose their own job title, one that actually means something to them, one that motivates them and makes them feel good about what they do. Chief Visionary. Client Caregiver, Director of Talent.
Job descriptions and job titles provide identity and purpose. Perhaps by redefining work, we can help make employees feel better about who they are and what they do.
Pam in Washington Post
GOP's Primary Problem: Would you want to have a beer with any of these guys?
