Responsibilities pile up while outdated tasks never get formally subtracted, and one seat’s drift cascades into the roles around it. As a result, job descriptions rarely keep pace with how a role actually evolves, especially as AI reshapes what the work requires. However, replacing an "underperforming" employee is usually the wrong response. Auditing job descriptions regularly, rather than treating hiring as the fix, is the more effective long-term move.
By Lisa Heay, Vice President of Business Operations at Heinz Marketing
In today’s rapidly evolving professional landscape, a common yet often overlooked challenge is the disconnect between an employee’s actual responsibilities and their formal job description. This gap, exacerbated by the swift integration of artificial intelligence and shifting operational demands, can lead to a perception of underperformance where the true culprit lies in the static nature of role definitions. The instinct to replace an employee when their output doesn’t align with expectations is frequently misguided. Instead, organizations must prioritize regular audits of job descriptions to ensure they accurately reflect the dynamic nature of modern work.
The subtle creep of additional duties, often initiated with innocuous requests like "can you also just handle this?" or the adoption of new technologies requiring ownership, gradually transforms a role. When individuals leave or new processes are implemented, their former tasks are rarely formally removed from existing roles. This results in an accumulation of responsibilities, a phenomenon that Lisa Heay, Vice President of Business Operations at Heinz Marketing, observes firsthand. "We’re the ones pulling capacity reports and building next quarter’s resourcing plan, so we’re looking directly at what people spend their time on, not what their title says they do," Heay explains. "When a role opens up, we sit down to write the job description, and that’s often the first time anyone has held the old job description next to the real workload. The gap between them then becomes obvious fast." This misalignment creates a situation where the "seat" – the role itself – is not functioning as intended, rather than the individual occupying it.
The Silent Accumulation: How Roles Evolve Without Formal Recognition
The evolution of a job role is rarely a sudden, dramatic event. Instead, it’s a gradual process characterized by the piecemeal addition of new tasks and responsibilities. These additions, often small and seemingly insignificant at the time, accumulate over months and years. A colleague might ask for assistance with a new project, a new software tool might be introduced that requires an internal champion, or upon a team member’s departure, their scattered duties are absorbed by those remaining. Crucially, these expansions of scope are seldom formalized. No one explicitly states that the role has officially changed, nor are corresponding tasks formally subtracted. The result is a role that has organically drifted from its original definition, with the individual often tasked with a workload that bears little resemblance to the job they were hired to do.
This operational drift is particularly evident from the perspective of business operations teams. These departments are responsible for resource allocation, capacity planning, and often, the creation of new job descriptions when a position becomes available. It is during this process of drafting or revising a job description that the stark reality of a role’s transformation often comes to light. The existing job description, potentially years out of date, is juxtaposed with the current demands and day-to-day activities of the individual filling the role. The disparity can be significant and immediate. Furthermore, when teams request additional headcount or external support to manage workload, it serves as a potent indicator that existing roles have become overstretched or are no longer aligned with the actual operational needs, signaling that the "seat" itself requires attention.
The Missing Subtraction: When Automation Outpaces Role Re-evaluation
The inverse of responsibilities piling up is the failure to remove tasks that are no longer necessary. This issue is becoming increasingly prevalent with the advent of automation and artificial intelligence. When a tool or an AI agent proves capable of handling a specific task, that responsibility is rarely formally excised from the human role it was previously associated with. Instead, the human employee often finds themselves performing the automated task alongside their original duties, or worse, performing the automated task and the original, now redundant, manual task. This dual burden leads to further disengagement and a widening chasm between the intended function of the role and its actual execution. The seat becomes increasingly disjointed, burdened by the weight of both new additions and unremoved redundancies, ultimately contributing to the perception of underperformance.
AI as an Accelerator: Reshaping Workflows and Exacerbating the Gap
Artificial intelligence is not merely a new tool; it is a fundamental disruptor that is rapidly accelerating the evolution of work across numerous sectors. For roles historically centered around content creation, the landscape has dramatically shifted. A content specialist’s responsibilities now often extend beyond mere writing to encompass prompt engineering, AI output editing, rigorous fact-checking, and nuanced judgment on when to trust an AI-generated draft versus when to undertake a complete rewrite. This involves defining a distinct human perspective that elevates content beyond generic AI output. These are entirely new skill sets and responsibilities being layered onto existing roles, typically without any corresponding update to their official job descriptions.
Similarly, in demand generation, roles that once involved the end-to-end construction of campaigns may now primarily consist of reviewing and refining AI-generated campaign frameworks. While this signifies a reduction in manual effort, the original, more labor-intensive tasks are seldom officially removed from the job description. The absence of explicit communication, such as "you no longer need to perform this task manually," means the old responsibilities linger, creating an imbalance. This acceleration by AI amplifies both the addition of new expectations and the failure to subtract outdated ones, making the gap between the job description and the reality of the work even more pronounced.
The Misguided Instinct: Why Replacing Employees is Often the Wrong Solution
When the disconnect between a role’s definition and its actual execution becomes apparent, the immediate reaction for many organizations is to seek a replacement. The assumption is that the current employee is underperforming and that a new hire, presumably possessing the "right" skills, will rectify the situation. However, this approach is often the most costly and least effective long-term strategy. The process of hiring, onboarding, and the subsequent ramp-up period for a new employee can be significantly more expensive and time-consuming than anticipated. During this period, the new hire must not only learn the intricacies of the role but also gain the institutional knowledge – understanding key stakeholders, internal dynamics, and historical context – that the previous employee already possessed.
Moreover, the current market for talent, particularly for roles that have been reshaped by AI, presents its own set of challenges. While individuals proficient in traditional marketing skills are abundant, and those who are adept at utilizing AI tools are increasingly common, the intersection of both skill sets is still relatively rare. Identifying and securing a candidate who is a true hybrid – capable of both strategic oversight and AI-driven execution – can be a protracted and challenging endeavor, often leading to a prolonged vacancy or a suboptimal hire. This underscores the value of retaining and re-skilling existing employees by adapting their roles to current demands.
The Ripple Effect: How a Drifting Seat Impacts the Entire Team
The impact of a misaligned job description rarely remains confined to a single individual or role. When one position absorbs additional responsibilities or continues to perform tasks that could be automated, it inevitably influences the expectations and workloads of surrounding roles. Handoffs between departments or team members may shift, and assumptions about ownership of specific tasks can become outdated without explicit redefinition. This creates a cascade effect, where the dysfunction in one seat subtly disrupts the equilibrium of the entire team or department.
This interconnectedness is a primary reason why addressing individual performance issues in isolation can feel like a Sisyphean task. The adjacent roles may have absorbed some of the same responsibilities or suffered from similar drifts in their own definitions, yet these issues remain unaddressed. Consequently, attempts to "fix" one part of the system without a holistic view can lead to a continuous cycle of adjustments that never quite achieve lasting stability. A comprehensive approach that examines the interconnectedness of roles is essential for sustainable organizational efficiency.
Rebuilding the Seat: A Strategic Approach to Role Redefinition
In the majority of cases, the most effective and sustainable solution is not to replace the individual but to "rebuild the seat" – to redefine the role to align with the organization’s current needs. This process begins with an honest and thorough assessment of what the role truly requires today, rather than relying on historical definitions. This involves a candid discussion about both the new responsibilities that have been added and, crucially, those that can now be retired or reallocated.
Rewriting the job description is a critical step. This should explicitly acknowledge the integration of AI tools and agents, detailing which aspects of the previous role can now be automated or augmented. Furthermore, the redefinition process must extend beyond the title and list of duties. It necessitates a review of the corresponding compensation level and performance expectations to ensure they accurately reflect the evolved scope and value of the role. Failing to adjust pay and recognition for roles that have demonstrably increased in complexity and responsibility can lead to employee disengagement and a loss of talent.
While the primary focus should be on role adaptation, it is important to acknowledge that in some instances, a role may genuinely become obsolete. In such rare cases, the most honest and strategic decision might be to phase out the role entirely. However, this represents a distinct organizational restructuring challenge, separate from the more common scenario where a role’s design is the impediment, not the individual. The prevalent issue is organizations treating a structural design problem as a performance problem, leading to the premature departure of valuable employees.
Therefore, job descriptions should not be treated as static documents. They require regular audits and reviews to maintain their accuracy and relevance over time. This proactive approach ensures that roles remain aligned with operational realities and technological advancements.
Conclusion: Bridging the Design Gap for Future Success
When a role on a team appears to be underperforming, the most prudent initial step is to move beyond assumptions about individual capability and ask a fundamental question: "When was this job description last rewritten to reflect how the work actually happens now?" For a significant number of roles, particularly those impacted by the rapid integration of AI and evolving workflows in recent years, the honest answer is likely that it hasn’t been updated.
This pervasive disconnect represents a "design gap," not a talent deficiency, and it is a gap that can be rectified far more efficiently than the costly and uncertain process of replacing an employee. By adapting the seat to the organization’s current needs, businesses can retain valuable institutional knowledge and avoid the significant overhead associated with recruitment and onboarding.
To gain an objective perspective, engaging an external party or someone outside the immediate day-to-day operations can be invaluable. It is often challenging to see these structural issues clearly when one is deeply immersed in the daily execution or when the original job description was written by individuals who must then confront the person filling the role.
Organizations looking to proactively address these evolving role dynamics, especially in the context of AI integration, can benefit from structured assessments. For B2B Go-to-Market teams aiming to navigate AI investments strategically and effectively, understanding their current readiness and identifying potential roadblocks is paramount. This proactive approach ensures that roles are not only defined but are also optimized for the future of work, fostering a more efficient, engaged, and productive workforce.
