{"id":355,"date":"2006-04-14T01:00:10","date_gmt":"2006-04-14T09:00:10","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/systematichr.com\/?p=355"},"modified":"2006-04-09T21:13:30","modified_gmt":"2006-04-10T05:13:30","slug":"responsibility-part-3","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/systematichr.com\/?p=355","title":{"rendered":"Responsibility – Part 3"},"content":{"rendered":"

Im realizing that I never actually defined why I called this series “responsibility.” Mostly, it was because we in HR have a responsibility to ensure that certain practices maintain the HR and employer brand. So far, we’ve talked about values and what happens when leadership hypocrasy sets in<\/a>, and in part 2, about the shared responsibility with operational leaders<\/a> to develop the next deneration of leadership. Today, we discuss a core responsibility of ensure job design actually meets reality and maximizes effectiveness.<\/p>\n

A couple months ago I wrote a strangely titled article called “why I love compensation<\/a>.” I was truly serious when I wrote it, as the process of job design touches and initiates so many other processes in HR, and especially talent management.<\/p>\n

To understand what determines whether a job is designed for high performance, you must put yourself in the shoes of your organization’s managers. To carry out his or her job, each employee has to know the answer to four basic questions:<\/font> <\/font><\/p>\n