For this post, I'd like to note a few underlying psychological reasons to go with your reasons. I will comment on most of your points, or after any particularly important points.
First of all, Theresa, I am glad I made you laugh. We need to laugh at least once if not preferably a dozen times a day. I really appreciate your reasons for job descriptions, as well as the Department of Labor's outline of what needs to be in a correct job description. For this post, I'd like to note a few underlying psychological reasons to go with your reasons and then in another post hopefully with your help, I'd like to create a Department of Labor job description for what you did when you were on the mission field. Should be fun! My comments after most of your point, or after any particularly important points are italicized.
- We want to make sure people have the training and qualifications to do that job. Making sure people have the training and qualifications for a particular job is really important for their sense of accomplishment and self-esteem. When this is mismatched, lots of issues become apparent, like absence, illness, and injury.
- We want to know what requirements of physical or mental health are actually job-related, so we understand what standards are fair to impose and what accommodations can (or cannot) be made. In my opinion this is a big glaring hole in mission job descriptions, because there are no particular specifications made about a position in terms of what country are they going to be serving in. What may be very easy and straightforward in one country, may be extremely difficult if not impossible and dangerous in another country.
- Someone should be able to tell if she is doing a good job. Thank you obvious woman! Being able to see if your effort results in results can be a powerful motivator for many people. However, even while saying this, I must note that John Paton labored for many years in a horrible situation, and did not see any results. So we need to be a little careful with this one.
- A supervisor’s evaluation should be based on objective criteria.
- People should know what to expect of others and how their job functions mesh together. Group cohesion, connection, and intimacy are directly related to the degree in which people understand what each one is contributing, and are committed to each other.
- For religious organizations, we want to know if the employee is a minister and falls into the ministerial exception (which means that in the U.S., many of the employment laws will not apply).
- We want missionaries to know what steps to take to accomplish a very confusing and challenging job.
It is amazing to me how easy it is for organizations to get very individually focused, and the benefits of team and connectivity are missed. I'm looking forward to our efforts in the next post on Theresa overseas!
Disclaimer: not official legal or psychological advice or opinion
- Guest Post: Why Churches Need an Executive Pastor, Part 2
- How Can I Get My Business Up to Speed on an Employee Handbook? Part 3 of a Series on Employee Handbooks
- What Policies Should Be Part of a Standard Employee Handbook? Part 2 of a Series on Employee Handbooks
- Can You Be Liable for Not Doing a Background Check? Part 3 of a Series on Background Checks
- When The Pre-Employment Interview Process Enters “Forbidden Territory," Part 4