I'm in the process of reorganizing and streamlining job descriptions in our company, and now the HR manager wants me to define the differences between a junior software developer, a medior software developer and a senior software developer. Ehm... ok, that's a tough one. My first thought was that juniors need coaching, senior don't, and mediors end up somewhere in the middle. I would be perfectly happy with such a fuzzy-logic definition, but I'm afraid both our HR manager and our employees want more tangible function profiles.
Oh boy...
The Problem with Competences
The easy solution is to use competences. I could write job descriptions formalizing that seniors should be able to do A, B, and C, that mediors are able to do A and B, and that juniors are only expected to do A. But then I would be painting myself into a corner. I'm quite sure that, soon after formalizing such competence-oriented definitions, our software developers will need to acquire the new competences E, F and G. What then? I might be stuck with people not willing to adapt to the new situation, because the new competences haven't been formally documented. And continuously changing formal documents is the last thing I want. Not in the least because, in a country like The Netherlands, any change in a formal document needs the approval of at least three committees, two management layers and one counsel of wise old men.
Using Agile Requirements
Creating job descriptions is like setting up requirements, and I am gonna try and do this the agile way. I am unable to predict the future, therefore I am unable to define what competences people need to acquire three months from now. It's something we simply have to discover along the way.
Therefore, I think I might define our new job descriptions along the following lines:
Each of these requirements can be measurable (well, more or less), and they can be tuned to fit the different levels of juniors, mediors and seniors. For example: juniors must be able to learn processes, but seniors should be able to introduce and adapt them. But most important, they allow for any kind of changes in processes, technologies, quality criteria and stakeholder requirements. And with an ever-changing environment, that's exactly what I want.
Comments
Really good points that it's
May 24, 2008 by Joe Arnold (not verified), 32 weeks 3 days ago
Comment id: 1550
Really good points that it's impossible to write down on paper exactly what someone's job should be day-to-day.
I like to think in terms of influence & impact.
Senior folks will have influence within the company and outside the company. What they say caries weight. Senior members carry the torch of influence in setting the technical direction and teaching the rest of the team how to go forward.
Impact is the other sliding scale. I don't care if it's adapting processes to fit local conditions, leading performance improvements, or are just rock-solid contributors. Each person has different ways they impact the team.
Some folks are natural evangelists, while others are quiet executers. That's okay! What I want to achieve is for each person to contribute to the company in the best way he/she can. They should not feel like they need to conform for conformity's sake.
Any ideas on how to create measures around this?
Measurements
May 24, 2008 by JurgenAppelo, 32 weeks 3 days ago
Comment id: 1551
Joe, thanks for the feedback.
The measurements are the hardest part, I think.
One thing that can work well as a form of measurement is the 360 degrees approach: let colleagues and stakeholders tell you how they feel about a person's contribution. People have the ability to take many things into consideration that you (as a manager) cannot possibly anticipate. Like "Arnold has a terrific sense of humor, he is a real team builder with his crazy initiatives".
Take a look at Fog Creek Compensation
May 26, 2008 by Ilja Preuß (not verified), 32 weeks 20 hours ago
Comment id: 1553
Might give you some inspiration: http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000038.html
I will!
May 26, 2008 by JurgenAppelo, 32 weeks 14 hours ago
Comment id: 1554
Post new comment