Job descriptions can be minimalistic, with the majority of responsibilities defined by your supervisor's category. Descriptions can also be extremely detailed, with every nuance of the job in writing. What are the benefits, challenges, and legal implications of each strategy? Explain which approach you would use as an HR manager and why.
Job descriptions that are minimal have the benefit of offering flexibility to the department and to the worker. Without a lot of specifically defined work, the department can feel free to adjust duties as needed. The worker can add to responsibilities to gain recognition and promotions. Duties and the work of the department can be flexible if the duties are not as concrete and some people will feel less pressured to meet demands that are too detailed. The challenge is how to delegate some work when there is not designation for who should be doing it. The legal implications can also be felt because a job description did not include *A and so not doing that job or doing it inconsistently is limited in its use for a reason to let ...
The Solution identifies the challenges and benefits of the two main styles of creating job descriptions (minimal or detailed) as well as any potential legal implications in approximately 500 words.