“Assigning Jobs to People” vs. “Assigning People to Jobs”
Department heads responsible for organizational management likely share a common, unspoken sentiment: they want to keep talented employees and avoid taking on those who are incapable.
Talented employees are constantly bombarded with work, leading them to become extremely busy. Eventually, they either burn out or lose sight of the purpose of their work. Consequently, they decide to change jobs, and no matter what retention measures are taken, they end up leaving.
This is a classic example of the failure of “assigning jobs to people.”
The long-standing custom of “assigning jobs to people”
Japanese companies are deeply ingrained with the custom of assigning jobs to people.
This is because, within the framework of lifetime employment with low mobility, there is a psychological desire not to have even a single employee idle. Since every employee is always doing something, the cry that there are not enough people arises. As a result, talented employees who can handle the workload end up being assigned more and more work.
Companies that assign jobs to people typically share the following situations.
There are multiple artisan-like employees who have been doing the same work for many years.
Company-wide projects are launched frequently, but the same employees are always assigned to them concurrently.
Loud-voiced executives and department heads hoard talented employees within their own departments.
Talented employees leave first, while passive and quiet employees remain.
When a company's sales are increasing every year and the organization is expanding, the above issues do not become a problem. Because the company has momentum and the workload is increasing, it is possible to assign jobs to people hired from the outside.
The problem occurs when the company's growth slows down. Employees feel anxious about the company's future, and conservative thinking increases. Because hiring is suppressed, both the organization and the people become rigid. As a result, employees hoard work, and skills and know-how become tied to individuals. If that employee changes jobs, the company's valuable assets—its important skills and know-how—are lost along with them.
What does it mean to “assign people to jobs”?
The major difference between “assigning jobs to people” and “assigning people to jobs” lies in the starting point.
The starting point of the former is the person, while the starting point of the latter is the job. Let's clarify the differences while comparing the two.
Companies with a custom of assigning jobs to people think organization-first. By rearranging the puzzle of the organization and its people, they announce the organization and issue personnel orders at fixed times. The flow is for department heads to create annual plans based on the personnel provided and then assign work to their subordinates.
Companies that assign people to jobs are business-strategy-first. To grow the business, they break down functions from the business structure to determine how resources should be allocated. Based on that, they design the organization necessary to execute the strategy and then assign people to it.
How do the differences between the two affect things?
Ultimately, from the outside, the arrangement of organizations and people looks the same for both. However, because the underlying philosophy is different, there is a significant difference in the characteristics of the organization. There are three differences.
The first is productivity. When you break down functions from strategy and assign people, surplus personnel do not occur in the first place. Even if there is a shortage of people, a rational reason is required to increase the number of people. On the other hand, when assigning jobs to people, no one can judge whether the organization's personnel are surplus. Because there is no clear standard, the decision to increase or decrease the number of people is swayed by the volume of the department head's voice.
The second is mobility. If the business environment changes, changes in strategy are naturally forced. Accordingly, it becomes necessary to reorganize the organization and personnel. To be able to flexibly change organizational structure and employee roles, whether it is mid-term or during a busy season, the custom of “assigning people to jobs” is essential. On the other hand, if the custom of “assigning jobs to people” is ingrained, you will end up waiting until the next regular personnel reshuffle period to reorganize the organization and people.
The third is the retention of intellectual assets. Generally, companies that “assign people to jobs” have high employee mobility. Therefore, they avoid tying skills and know-how to individuals as much as possible. Important skills and know-how are documented as company property, and the ownership of rights is clearly defined. On the other hand, in companies that “assign jobs to people,” know-how accumulates in employees who have been doing the same work for many years. In most cases, it is not even documented. They continue to carry the risk that if that employee leaves, no one will understand the work.
Job-based employment is “assigning people to jobs”
Job-based employment, which has become a buzzword recently, is exactly what “assigning people to jobs” is. The underlying philosophy is as stated above.
In other words, job-based employment is not just a personnel policy. It is a major shift in management policy and the management cycle. It becomes necessary to develop new methods for business strategy and planning, as well as processes for personnel placement and job assignment, and to provide training to department heads.
If you adopt job-based employment while leaving the culture of “assigning jobs to people” intact, it will likely cause tremendous confusion within the company. Great care must be taken not to claim job-based employment simply for the sake of hiring talented personnel.
FIN. November 13th, 2022
Other articles can be viewed on the author's website.
https://www.visioningpartners.com/