Hiring can be the most problematic part of running your business - but when done well the rewards of a good team are critical to success. Most job descriptions describe a person's position in the org chart (who they report to etc.) and the skills you expect them to have. But that's not enough. It's better to create job descriptions around functions rather than positions. Here's the difference.
A function is an activity that produces an output. For example, a company needs to have financial transactions entered into its books. That's a function called bookkeeping. It also needs to call on delinquent accounts for payment. That function is called collections. It also needs someone to purchase office supplies (remember office supplies?) and someone to call a contractor when a printer is acting wonky, or the AC isn't working properly or the janitorial staff didn't do a good job. (That function is called facilities.) Depending on the size of the company and the volume of work involved all these functions might be handled by the same person who could report to different people for each of those functions. You give that person a title (bookkeeper perhaps, or office manager, or assistant to the ….) and that title becomes their position. But it's the functions that are critical.
Most people in most companies perform several functions. And as the company grows the functions grow in size but not in kind. That's why a job description is better used to define the various functions in your organization which can then be combined into a position, and recombined as the company grows.
A good job description has three parts which I'll describe below.
Outcomes
This section describes what you want that person to produce. It's what you'd see if they did their job in the middle of the night while you were sleeping. Depending on the nature of the work, it can include the quantity of output as well as the quality and frequency. For managers, it might describe the output of their team that is expected. For knowledge workers it could include the kinds of decisions you want them to make, or questions you want them to be able to answer - or even questions you expect them to ask.
The output section also includes the bit about who they report to (reporting is a output after all) but it's not limited to that.
Here's a chart you can use to list the outcomes you expect from various functions you want this person to perform. .
Column 1 – Output We’ll See This is what you’d notice in the morning if the person did their job in the middle of the night.
Column 2 – How Much This is the quantity of such output you expect (if that’s relevant).
Column 3 – How Well This is how you’ll measure the quality of such output (if that’s relevant).
Column 4 – How Often This describes the frequency you expect to see that output (if that’s relevant).
Output we’ll see | How Much | How Well | How Often |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The description of the outcomes should in fact be the basis for their performance review. If it doesn't have that level of detail or is too subjective to use for the review, buff it up before you post the job opening.
Character Traits
These are the hardest to modify after a person comes on board. It's a critical part of the job description but use it for internal use only. Do not publish these or people will game the interview. If you have a history of people who did the job well and/or poorly, you can use that to figure out what traits work (or don’t) for this position.
This is not a judgement of whether they are a good person or not. Or whether you like them. It’s a function of the position. The traits you want in a bookkeeper (attention to detail, enjoys routine) are not the ones you want in a marketer (creative, inventive, empathetic).
Skills
Skills are what you want someone to bring to the job. The list can include specific knowledge and even relationships you want them to bring. This is the least important aspect of many job descriptions. It's easier to teach someone a skill after they're on board than it is to change their character traits.
My advice here is to only list the skills that are absolutely required. Do they NEED to know Spanish or is it just nice to have? List the "nice to haves" in a separate section - or leave them out and discover them in the interview. The reason for this is a list of skills that aren't actually required lowers the number of applicants you'll get, and the diversity of the applicants. For example, studies have shown that women will not apply unless they feel they have close to 100% of a job's requirements. Men will apply if they feel they meet just 50 or 60%.
