The increasing pace of technological advancement, particularly the rapid integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI), is fundamentally reshaping the nature of work across all industries. This evolution, however, often outstrips the formal definition of roles within organizations, leading to a disconnect between job descriptions and the actual responsibilities employees are expected to fulfill. This gap can manifest as perceived underperformance, prompting organizations to consider replacing individuals when the true issue may lie in outdated role design and a lack of proactive job description auditing. As highlighted by Lisa Heay, Vice President of Business Operations at Heinz Marketing, the prevailing instinct to address perceived employee shortcomings by seeking new talent is frequently misguided, overlooking a more systemic and impactful solution: the regular re-evaluation and modernization of job descriptions.
The Subtle Erosion of Role Clarity: How Responsibilities Accumulate
The phenomenon of a job role drifting from its original intent is rarely a sudden event. Instead, it’s a gradual accumulation of new tasks and responsibilities, often initiated by seemingly minor requests or the adoption of new technologies. A common scenario involves colleagues asking for assistance with ad-hoc tasks, a phrase like "can you also just handle this?" becoming a recurring theme. The introduction of a new software tool or platform necessitates an owner, and without formal reallocation, these duties often fall to existing team members. Similarly, when an employee departs, their responsibilities are frequently absorbed by remaining staff, a piecemeal redistribution that goes unformalized.
This organic growth of duties means that the actual day-to-day work of an individual can diverge significantly from the initial job description they were hired under. These additions are rarely accompanied by a corresponding subtraction of outdated tasks. The result is a role that becomes increasingly complex and often misaligned with its stated purpose.
Operations departments, in particular, often gain visibility into this drift. As responsible for capacity planning and resource allocation, these teams regularly analyze how employees are spending their time. When a position becomes vacant, the process of drafting a new job description frequently reveals the stark discrepancy between the formalized role and the evolved reality. "When a role opens up," Lisa Heay observes, "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 disconnect can also be signaled when teams request additional headcount or contractors to manage tasks that are not being completed, a clear indication that the existing structure is no longer adequate.
The Unacknowledged Subtraction: When Old Tasks Linger
The problem is compounded by the fact that tasks, once integrated into a role, rarely disappear even when they become obsolete. This is particularly evident with the advent of automation and AI. A process that once required manual execution might now be handled efficiently by technology. However, without a deliberate organizational decision to remove that task from the role’s purview, it often continues to be listed or implicitly expected.
This lack of subtraction, coupled with the continuous addition of new responsibilities, leads to a disjointed and potentially overwhelming workload. Employees may find themselves tasked with an ever-expanding list of duties, some of which are no longer essential or have been superseded by more efficient methods. This can leave them feeling stretched thin and unable to perform optimally, not due to a lack of capability, but due to an inefficiently designed role.
AI: An Accelerator of Role Evolution and Potential Misalignment
The rapid integration of Artificial Intelligence is significantly accelerating this trend of role evolution, presenting both opportunities and challenges. For instance, content creation roles that historically focused primarily on writing are now encompassing a broader spectrum of responsibilities. These can include crafting effective prompts for AI to generate initial drafts, meticulously editing AI-produced content, fact-checking the output for accuracy, and discerning when AI-generated material requires substantial human revision or complete re-writing. The emphasis might also shift towards infusing content with a unique human perspective, ensuring it transcends generic AI output. These are entirely new skill sets and responsibilities that are often added to existing roles without a corresponding update to their official descriptions.
Similarly, demand generation roles that previously involved end-to-end campaign creation might now see AI agents handling significant portions of the process. This could mean an employee’s primary function becomes reviewing and approving AI-generated campaigns rather than building them from scratch. While this shift should ideally lead to the subtraction of manual campaign-building tasks, this often doesn’t happen explicitly. The absence of a clear directive stating, "you no longer need to do this manually," means the old tasks can persist, creating inefficiencies.
A 2023 study by McKinsey & Company estimated that AI could automate tasks currently performed by up to 30% of the global workforce by 2030, underscoring the magnitude of the transformation underway. This necessitates a proactive approach to role adaptation to harness the benefits of AI without creating significant internal friction.
The Costly Fallacy of Replacing the Person
When the perceived underperformance becomes apparent, the immediate organizational instinct is often to look for a replacement. This approach, however, frequently proves to be the less effective and more costly long-term strategy. Hiring new talent involves significant expenses, including recruitment fees, onboarding processes, and the time it takes for a new employee to reach full productivity and gain institutional knowledge. This ramp-up period can be substantial, especially in complex business environments where understanding internal dynamics, client relationships, and historical context is crucial.
Furthermore, the individual currently in the role possesses invaluable knowledge about the company’s buyers, its internal political landscape, and the history of past initiatives. Replacing them means losing this accumulated wisdom. In the current market, finding individuals who not only possess the traditional skills for a role but are also adept at leveraging new technologies like AI can be a significant challenge. The search for such a "unicorn" candidate can be lengthy and may not always yield the desired outcome.
The Cascading Effect: How One Drifting Seat Impacts Others
A drifting job role rarely operates in isolation. When one position accumulates new responsibilities or continues to perform tasks that could be automated, it inevitably impacts the roles of colleagues surrounding it. Hand-off points between departments or individuals can shift, and assumptions about who is responsible for specific tasks can become outdated without explicit clarification.
This interconnectedness explains why attempting to fix one "underperforming" seat at a time can feel like a Sisyphean task. The drift in one role often creates a ripple effect, subtly altering the expectations and workloads of adjacent positions. Without a holistic approach to role review, addressing one issue can inadvertently create or exacerbate another elsewhere in the organization.
Rebuilding the Seat: A Strategic Approach to Role Modernization
The more strategic and sustainable approach is to proactively "rebuild the seat" around the evolving needs of the organization. This begins with an honest and comprehensive assessment of what the role truly requires in the current business environment, rather than relying on its historical definition. This involves a candid conversation about tasks that have been added and, critically, those that should be retired.
Rewriting the job description is a crucial step. This should explicitly acknowledge the integration of AI and other automation tools, clearly delineating which responsibilities are now handled by technology and which require human intervention. Beyond a mere title change, this process should also involve a re-evaluation of compensation levels and performance expectations. It is vital that the remuneration and the perceived value of a role align with its actual demands and responsibilities, especially as those evolve over time. Failure to do so can lead to employee dissatisfaction and a sense of being undervalued.
While this proactive approach is generally beneficial, it’s important to acknowledge that in some rare instances, a role may indeed become entirely obsolete. In such situations, the honest organizational response might be to phase out the position entirely. However, this is a distinct scenario from the more common situation where a role’s design has simply failed to keep pace with technological and operational advancements. The prevalent issue is organizations mistaking a "design problem" for a "performance problem," leading to the misplacement of blame and resources.
The Imperative of Regular Audits
Job descriptions should not be static documents, filed away and forgotten after an initial hiring process. They require regular and systematic auditing to ensure they remain accurate reflections of current responsibilities and expectations. This practice is essential for maintaining organizational efficiency, employee engagement, and strategic alignment.
Conclusion: Addressing the Design Gap for a More Effective Workforce
When a role on a team appears to be underperforming, the critical first step before considering personnel changes is to ask a fundamental question: "When was this job description last rewritten to accurately reflect how the work is actually being done now?" For many roles, particularly those impacted by the rapid advancements in AI and evolving workflows over the past few years, the honest answer is likely that it hasn’t been updated.
This disconnect is not a reflection of a talent deficit but rather a "design gap" within the organizational structure. This gap is far more readily and efficiently addressed than the complex and often costly process of replacing an individual and hoping the next person is a perfect fit for a role that has not been adapted to current organizational needs.
To gain clarity on this issue, engaging an external perspective can be invaluable. An objective observer, free from the day-to-day immersion in the role’s operations, can offer fresh insights. It is often challenging for those deeply involved in the original job design or directly managing the individual to objectively assess the role’s current state.
Organizations like Heinz Marketing are recognizing this need and developing specialized audits, such as their AI Readiness Audit for B2B Go-To-Market teams. These initiatives aim to help businesses navigate the complexities of AI integration and identify potential roadblocks to successful adoption. For companies planning AI investments in the near future, proactively addressing their internal role structures and job descriptions is a crucial step towards realizing the full potential of these transformative technologies and fostering a more adaptable, efficient, and ultimately, more successful workforce.
