International Journal of Latest Technology in Engineering, Management & Applied Science (IJLTEMAS)

Volume VI, Issue II, February 2017 | ISSN 2278-2540

“A Study on Job Description and its Effect on

Employee Performance: Case of Some Selected
Manufacturing Organizations in the City of Pune,
India”
Dr. K. Krishnam Raju1, Dr. Sweta Banerjee2
1
Head of the Department, College of Finance, Management and Development, Ethiopian Civil Services University, Ethiopia
2
Associate Professor, College of Finance, Management and Development, Ethiopian Civil Services University, Ethiopia

I. INTRODUCTION the organization activities. In addition, it can also be used as

channels of reporting system as to whom the employees will
Accordingly Brannick et al. (2007), job descriptions is an
be accountable with the existence of different departments. So
instrument used by the people who does not know accurately
far, it is also important for the accomplishment of objectives
how to perform the job. So, to make employees perform their
and enhances planning and controlling (Robbins and Coulter,
jobs well there has to be a clear and specific job description.
2002).
Therefore, many organizations are working hard to make sure
that job descriptions that they have are effective in term of According to classical theorists (Fayol, Taylor, Weber) as
productivity and in achieving the organization‟s objectives. structure is important to the organization to achieve stated
For these reasons, many researchers conducted many study to goals then managers are requested to writes job description
assess the effects of job description for the success of the and established the standard of performance, because
organizations. As, in the fast changing world there are many identification and classification of work enables managers to
changes in the nature of working environment and technology, concentrate on important activities, avoiding unnecessary
and so the job description should be adjusted to incorporate duplications, overlapping and wastage of effort (ibid). In
the changes. addition, with good design structure it create job description,
job specialization and performance standard that will motivate
Therefore, this study focuses on the assessment of the role of
the employees and lead to their performance.
job description in determining the employee performance
particularly in some selected manufacturing organizations in Therefore, these aspects of jobs are found in job analysis,
the city of Pune, India. So, far it will use different concepts because job analysis is a process of determining the task that
and practices in relation to job description and its effects on makes up the job and skills, abilities and responsibilities
employees‟ performance. required for the job holder. Wendell French stated that job
analysis „‟is the systematic investigation of job content, the
II. BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY
physical circumstance in which the job is carried out and the
The concern of a manager for years is about employee qualification needed to carry out job responsibilities‟‟. While
productivity then later they realize that the type of work done job description is a written statement of what the job holder
by the employee needs good job design with different does, for example it contained specific duties for the job
questions that could be answered through, how the job is to holder such as writes directives advising department managers
be performed, who is to perform it and where it is to be of company policy regarding equal employment opportunities,
performed. Moreover, job design has an effect on how an administers benefits programs etc. in addition, desirable
employee feel about the job he will perform, his authority qualification needed for staffing and related experience.
over the work, decision-making the employee has on the job Moreover, job description it‟s also describes the job to the
and how many task the employee has to perform for the new applicants, it guides new employees who enter to the
position handle by him (Rao and Krishna, 2002). Therefore, system about what they are expected to perform and for cross
for the organization in order to avoid repetition of the work checking whether the actual activities of the employees match
and overlapping of duties should design good structure that with their describe duties. So, accurate job descriptions
will achieve organization‟s objectives and goals. That provide a basis for job evaluation, wage and salary
structure will be used as the legal framework for carrying out compensation and an equitable wage and salary structure.

www.ijltemas.in Page 1
 International Journal of Latest Technology in Engineering, Management & Applied Science (IJLTEMAS)
Volume VI, Issue II, February 2017 | ISSN 2278-2540

Well crafted job description prevents unnecessary by Guion, (1976) and able to be believed as
misunderstanding by telling employees what they need to relationship between job duties and human attributes
know about their jobs. It to determine what accommodation is as it is cited by (Royer, 2009).
required for the applicant to be able to perform the essential
Importance of Job Description
functions of the position (UIC, 2009).
 Levine, Sistrunk, McNutt, & Gael, (1988) mentioned
III. OBJECTIVES that job description and job analysis are the core
stone for many function of human resources like
 To identify practices of job description in the
recruitment and hiring, performance evaluation and
organizations.
salary range, and that shows the important of job
 To assess factors of job description that affect description in assisting the organization to get people
employee performance. who will performed well in their position. Therefore,
 To mitigate the challenges of job description by well developed job description is needed to clear all
making a recommendations to the organization. the obstacle that the employee will faced while
Development of Job Description through a Job Analysis performing their tasks and duties as cited by (Royer,
2009).
Job analysis is defined a “process of determining the task that
make up the job and the skill, ability and responsibility that The Relationship between Job Description and Employee Job
are required of an employee to perform the job”. However, Performance
According to Wendell French is about a systematic  Rue (2006) defined performance as the amount to
investigation of job content, the physical circumstances in which an employee accomplished the tasks that made
which the job is carried out, the qualifications needed to carry his or her job as cited by Rehman (2009) According
out job responsibility (Department Handbook, 2015). to Visser et. al., (1997) Job performance can be
It is clear from Brannick et al. (2007) and Cascio (1998) that defines as how clear the job is being completed as
job description should be developed from job analysis and the per well known standard operating procedures, these
job description will be the basis for job analysis. In addition operating standard are to facilitate the employee
that a “functional job analysis can be used to generate the task performance as cited by Rehman (2009). In addition,
and duties statements”. Moreover, any job description resulted it stated clear in department handbook (2015) that
from job analysis will cover most important duties and tasks motivation is the first of those standards because it
that is needed by the organization for the achievement of its serves as effort for employee performance, secondly
goals. the performance evaluation of the employee and
lastly the control as corrective actions to adjust the
Development of Job Description without a Job Analysis performance deviations of the employee.
 The researchers and professionals agreed also that  For the employee to perform any job its required
job description should be exist by using job analysis, specific knowledge, skills and ability (KSA)
however, in practice that is not the issue because therefore, it must be included in the organization job
some jobs are new in nature and that make the descriptions so that the applicants knows the type of
managers and human resources professionals to job they are going to faced. So, unclear description of
create job description with what it will cover. Since job always leads to poor performance and
the job is new it is difficult for the analyst to get dissatisfaction (Royer, 2009).
more information about the job from different  Popovich, (1998) describe that job performance as a
sources such as staff, supervisors and etc (Brannick complex phenomenon as diverse variables
et al, 2007). In addition, Jones et. al. (1982) stated manipulate job performance and each and every one
that using job description to quantify aspects of a job of these variables would positively influence
can be effective and efficiency rather than using employee performance, those are age, recognition of
traditional methods of job analysis which is costly in achievement and job satisfaction as cited by Rehman
term of time and financial. (2009).
 Usually for the organization to conduct recruitment  Usually for the organization to conduct recruitment
and selection it has to identify the human attributes and selection it has to identify the human attributes
required for job performance and do assessment on required for job performance and do assessment on
applicants based on the attributes mentioned, for that applicants based on the attributes mentioned, for that
to happen need to be translated to job description and to happen need to be translated to job description and
later to examined the level of performance based on later to examined the level of performance based on
that as cited by Rehman (2009). Sometimes these that as cited by Rehman (2009). Sometimes these
process are based on feeling rather than fact as cited process are based on feeling rather than fact as cited

www.ijltemas.in Page 2
 International Journal of Latest Technology in Engineering, Management & Applied Science (IJLTEMAS)
Volume VI, Issue II, February 2017 | ISSN 2278-2540

by Guion, (1976) and able to be believed as General Profile of the Respondents

relationship between job duties and human attributes
as it is cited by (Royer, 2009). The demographic information of the respondents as appeared
in table 4.2 below comprises of sex, age, education status,
IV. DATA PRESENTATION AND INTERPRETATION position and work experience of the respondents.
This study is about the assessment of the role of job Table 4.2: General Profile of the Respondents
description in determining the performance of employees in
case of a few selected manufacturing organizations in and Top and middle Classified and
around Pune, Maharashtra. This part of the research paper is S management unclassified staff
Sex of
/ Frequen Percent Percent
concerned with presentation of data that was collected from N
respondents Frequency
cy (%) (%)
the respondents through questionnaire and interview. And it
composes of three parts in which part one is about 1 Female 1 14.3 18 41.9
demographic information of the respondents. The second part 2 Male 6 85.7 25 58.1
is on the assessment of the role of job description in
Total 7 100% 43 100%
determining the performance of the employees and third part
is about the challenges of job description in the study Age of respondents
organization.
1. 18-29 years - - 8 18.6
Response Rate of the Respondents
2. 30-39 years 1 14.3 20 46.5
In order to collect suitable information from the respondents
in relation to the assessment of the role of job description in 3. 40- 49 years 4 57.1 6 14.0
determining performance of the employees, questionnaire 4. 50-59 years 2 28.6 6 14.0
comprise of three parts was organized and distributed to 52
60 years and
respondents from different departments such as administration 5.
above
- - 3 7.0
and finance, human resource, investigation and legal service,
Total 7 100% 43 100%
monitoring and inspection, research, education and
documentation, executive director office, leadership offices Education status
(chairperson, deputy chairperson and commissioners) and Primary/
finally the evaluator from the ministry of labor, public service 1. Intermediate - - 7 16.3
and human resource development. And in order to support the level
data has been gathered from the classified and unclassified Secondary
2. - - 3 7.0
/senior level
staff, 7 respondents were selected from middle and top
management to fill the questionnaire mentioned below in table 3. Diploma 1 14.3 12 27.9
4.1. 4.
Bachelor
4 57.1 18 41.9
degree
Table 4.1: Response Rate of the Respondents 5. Master degree 2 28.6 3 7.0
6. PhD - - - -
S/ Distrib Retur Missi Perform
Target group
N uted ned ng ance Total 7 100% 43 100%
Top and middle Position of respondents
1 7 7 - 100 %
management
1. Director 2 28.6 3 7.0
Classified and unclassified
2 45 43 2 95.6 %
employees 2. Coordinator 1 14.3 1 2.3
Total 52 50 96.2% Head of
3. 4 57.1 4 9.3
department
Source: Field Survey March (2016) 4. Team leader - - 2 4.7
Other
From above table 4.1, the total number of questionnaire 5.
employees
- - 33 76.7
distributed was 52 in which 7 of them distributed to middle Total 7 100% 43 100%
and top management by (100%), while 45 questionnaires was
distributed to classified and unclassified staff from different Work experience
departments mentioned before by (95.6%) and it remain 2 1. 1-3 years - - 3 7.0
questionnaire missing by (4.4%) were failed to be returned by 2. 4-6 years - - 5 11.6
the respondents.
3. 7-9 years 4 57.1 23 53.5

www.ijltemas.in Page 3
 International Journal of Latest Technology in Engineering, Management & Applied Science (IJLTEMAS)
Volume VI, Issue II, February 2017 | ISSN 2278-2540

4. 10-12 years - - 3 7.0 respondents are head of departments, team leader was 2(4.7%)
13-15 years respondents and other employees were 33(76.7%) and they
5. 3 42.9 9 20.9
and above were the majority.
Total 7 100% 43 100%
The work experience of the respondents was assessed also,
Source: Field Survey March (2016)
therefore, the result for the middle and top management from
Based on the above table 4.2, the demographic information of the table shows that 4(57.1%) respondent having experience
the respondents of this study was divided into two groups of 7 – 9 years in workplace and 3(42.9%) respondents with
such as middle and top management; and classified and experience of 13-15 years and above in managing offices.
unclassified staff. And from view point of their Sex. The While the classified and unclassified staff having different
result from first group shows that the number of female working experience and as a result, 3(7.0%) respondents was
respondents was 1(14.3%), while male respondents were with 1-3 years experience, 5(11.6%) respondents was having
6(85.7%). Thus, for the second group of respondents the experience of 4- 6 years, 23(53.5 %) respondents with
female was 18 (41.9 %) respondents and 25(58.1%) experience of 7-9 years, 3(7.0%) respondents having 10-12
respondents of the study was from male and the majority of years of working experience and finally 9(20.9%) respondents
the respondents of this study were male. there experience from 13-15 years and above. Thus, the
majority of employees experience range from 7-9 years
The study also assess the age of respondents of two group working experience.
which was already mentioned before, and as for the top and
middle management of the study it shows that 1(14.3%) Assessment of the Role of Job Description
respondent age range from 30-39 years, 4(57.1%) respondents
As part of the first objectives of this study the researcher
was range from 40-49 years and 2(28.6%) respondents range
would like to examine the results of all questions that was
from 50-59 years. While the frequencies of classified and
already asked in questionnaire and answered by the
unclassified staff show that 8 (18.6 %) respondents was from
respondent of the study.
18-29 years, 20(46.5%) respondents range from age of 30-39
years, 6(14.0%) respondents was from age (40-49) and (50- Table 4.3: Employees Awareness about Their Job Description
59) years respectively and finally the respondents from 60
years and above years was 3 (7.0 %). Thus, 24 respondents
Respondents
age from two group ranges between 30-39 years and 40-49
years and they represent the majority of the staff in the Valid Cumulative
S/N Responses Frequency Percentage
commission. percentage percentage

Table 4.2 above also shows the results of education status of 1. Yes 34 79.1 79.1 79.1
the respondents from top and middle management as 2. No 9 20.9 20.9 100.0
1(14.3%) respondents with Diploma degree, 4(57.1%)
respondents having Bachelor degree while 2 (28.6 %) Total 43 100.0 100.0
respondents with master degree. But the frequencies of
Source: Field Survey March (2016)
respond from the classified and unclassified staff show the
level of education status was 7(16.3%) respondents with Table 4.3 shows the status of employees on whether they are
primary/intermediate certificates, 3(7.0%) respondents with aware about their job description or not, the majority
secondary/senior certificates, 12(27.9%) respondents with 34(79.1%) respondents from the total number of 45
Diploma degree, 18(41.9%) respondents with bachelor degree respondents responded that they are aware about their job
and finally 3(7.0%) respondents with master degree. So, we description and the remaining 9(20.9%) respondents
can conclude that the majority of respondents in the responded that they are not aware about their job description
commission were having bachelor degree. for the reason that they are not given any orientation by the
organization on their job description. And from the results of
From the questionnaires that distributed to the respondents , interview they said the type of job description they have is not
the position of respondent from middle and top management, clear because they rely on the term of reference that was
2(28.6%) respondents are directors, 1(14.3%) respondent was advertise for the vacancy which is ended by the application
a coordinator and 4(57.1%) respondents are head of and interview for the position. Therefore, the majority of the
departments. While the frequencies of classified and employees in are informed of their job description and that
unclassified staff shows that 3(7.0%) respondents were will be positive signs towards employees awareness of their
directors, 1(2.3%) respondent was coordinator, 4(9.3%) work.

www.ijltemas.in Page 4
 International Journal of Latest Technology in Engineering, Management & Applied Science (IJLTEMAS)
Volume VI, Issue II, February 2017 | ISSN 2278-2540

Table 4.5: Response Related to Assessment of Job Description

S. Agree Agree Somehow Agree Disagree S. Disagree
S/N Variables Percent Freq Percen Freq Percent Fre Percent
Freq. Percent. Freq.
. . t. . . q. .
1. Employee current job description clears about the
23 53.5 9 20.9 4 9.3 5 11.6 2 4.7
chain of command in

2. As an employee, Unclear job description leads to

14 32.6 11 25.6 7 16.3 6 14.0 5 11.6
your poor performance.

3. Job descriptions used for evaluating employee

7 16.3 9 20.9 9 20.9 14 32.6 4 9.3
performance.
Employees are
4.
required to have particular knowledge, skills and 19 44.2 8 18..6 13 30.2 2 4.7 1 2.3
ability to perform his/her job.
5. Job descriptions are used for benefits payment
11 25.6 12 27.9 8 18.6 8 18.6 4 9.3
(rewards, recognition etc.)
6. Because of changes, your job description was
6 14.0 11 25.6 5 11.6 14 32.6 7 16.3
updated
7. Written job descriptions are provided to each
6 14.0 1 2.3 2 4.7 12 27.9 22 51.2
employee working in the commission.
Source: Field Survey March (2016)

Based on the above table 4.5, many variables such as Chain of and employee poor performance. Thus, the remaining
Command, the uses of job description for employee 7(16.3%) of the respondents somehow agree that there is
performance appraisal, recruitment, compensation and relationship between job description and employee
benefits payments (reward & recognition etc.), the possession performance. It is possible to conclude that unclear job
of knowledge, skills and ability, the update job description, description led to poor performance of an employee in the
Written job description for the employees, Authority in commission.
decision making are listed for respondents to rate their extent
The Use of Job Description for Employee Performance
on the issues related to job description in the concerned
Appraisal
institution.
In regard to the question that focus on whether their job
Chain of Command
descriptions were used for employee performance appraisal,
Based on the above 4.5.1 which is about whether employees its appeared in table 4.5.3 that, 14(32.6%) and 4(9.3%) of the
current job descriptions are clear about chain of command, respondents disagree and strongly disagree that job
2(53.5%) and 9(20.9%) of the respondents strongly agree and description in the commission was used for evaluating
agree that current chain of command in their respective job employee performance, 9(20.9%) and 7(16.3%) of the
description in the commission is clear about to whom they respondents strongly agree and agree that job description was
report within different departments, 5(11.6%) and 2(4.7%) of used in as one of the employee performance appraisal tool.
the respondents disagree and strongly disagree. And from the Thus, the remaining 7(16.3%) of the respondents somehow
total respondents, the remaining 4(9.3%) of respondents agree that job description in the commission was used for
somehow agree that their job description is clear about chain evaluating employees performance. In addition to this,
of command. From this, it is possible to infer that, current job interview results from middle and top management also
description considered the chain of command for better indicate that there was no evaluation had been done in the
reporting and accountability process of an employee. commission because of challenges of funds to materialize the
job description but the commission only rely on the outcomes
The Relationship between Job Description and Employee
of an assignment given to the employee and that indicate that
Performance
if an employee doesn‟t got any assignment for the whole of
The relationship between job description and employees the year it will be difficult to evaluate his/ her performance.
performance was clear from table 4.5.2, in which 14(32.6%) Therefore, we conclude that job description was not used for
and 11(25.6%) of the respondents strongly agree and agree employees‟ performance appraisal in the commission since its
that unclear job description led to poor performance of an establishment.
employee in the commission, and that implies that the
Use of Job Description for Benefits Payment
commission is facing challenges of organization performance
and employees dissatisfaction, while 5(11.6%) and 6(14.0%) The other point on the above table 4.5.4 focus on the use of
of the respondents disagree and strongly disagree with the job description for benefits payment (rewards, recognition,
existent of the relationship between unclear job description etc.) based on that, 11(25.6%) and 12(27.9%) of the

www.ijltemas.in Page 5
 International Journal of Latest Technology in Engineering, Management & Applied Science (IJLTEMAS)
Volume VI, Issue II, February 2017 | ISSN 2278-2540

respondents strongly agree and agree that job description was the remaining 5(11.6%) of the respondents somehow agree
used for benefits payment of the employees, 4(9.3%) and with the update of job description. Therefore, we can conclude
8(18.6%) of the respondents disagree and strongly disagree. that the majority of respondents disagree that there was no
And from the total respondents, the remaining 8(18.6%) changes in job description when change happened in their
respondents somehow agree. It is possible to conclude that position or structure. So, it‟s implied the importance to update
considered job description was use for benefits payment. the job description when there is any change in the position or
organization structures so that it implicate to the performance
The Possession of Knowledge, Skills and Ability to Perform of the employees.
the Job
Possession of Written Job Description
The performance of any job required knowledge, skill and
ability to perform it, in relation to that, the above table 4.5.5. From the above table 4.5.7 based on the question that whether
shows that 19(44.2%) and 8(18.6%) of the respondents employees were provided with written job description or not,
strongly agree and agree that as an employee he/she should 6(14.0%) and 1(2.3%) of the respondent strongly agree and
have knowledge, skill and ability in different fields to agree that they have written job description, 12(27.9%) and
performed different task in IN THESE ORGANIZATIONS 22(51.2%) of the respondents disagree and strongly disagree
that assigned to him, 2(4.7%) and 1(2.3%) of the respondents that written job description was provided to the employees.
disagree and strongly disagree. Thus, the remaining And finally from the total respondents, the remaining 2(4.7%)
13(30.2%) respondents somehow agree that knowledge, skill of the respondents somehow agree with the existence of
and ability are required for the employee performed any job. written job description. The open- ended questions also
This infers that the majority of respondents agreed with the indicated that employees were not provided with written job
requirement of knowledge, skill and ability in any job description in the commission. Then we can conclude that the
description. majority of respondents disagree by not having written job
description
The Update Job Description
The Challenges of Job Description as the Objective Two of
Concerning the update of job description, the above table
the Study
4.5.6 show that, 6(14.0%) and 11(25.6%) of the respondents
strongly agree and agree their job description was updated for Based on the information collected from the respondents of
the changes in the positions and structures, 14(32.6%) and this study and to answer the objective two, the researcher
7(16.3%) of the respondents disagree and strongly disagree come out with questions and through the analysis results
that their job descriptions was updated because of the changes shows different responses from them as it is mentioned
in the position or the structures, from the total respondents, bellow;

Table 4.6: Response of Job Description Challenges Related to Sufficient Training of the Employees, Lack Employees
Development, Poor Job Design/Redesign, Proper Job Specification and Lack of Employees Motivation
Very Low Level Low Level Moderate Level High Level

S/
N Variables Frequenc Freque Percentag Frequenc Percenta
Percentage Percentage Frequency
y ncy e y ge

Sufficient training of the

1. 3 7.0 12 27.9 24 55.8 4 9.3
employees

Lack of Employees
2. 8 18.6 24 55.8 10 23.3 1 2.3
Development

3. Poor Job Design/Redesign 3 7.0 5 11.6 8 18.6 27 62.8

4. Proper Job Specification 25 58.2 7 16.3 5 11.6 6 14.0

Lack of Employees
5. 7 16.3 5 11.6 9 20.9 22 51.2
Motivation

Source: Field Survey March (2016)

www.ijltemas.in Page 6
 International Journal of Latest Technology in Engineering, Management & Applied Science (IJLTEMAS)
Volume VI, Issue II, February 2017 | ISSN 2278-2540

From the above table 4.6, different variables such as sufficient 4.6, the majority of respondents 27(62.8%) responded that, the
training of the employees, lack of employees Development, extent of job design/redesign is at high level. From the total
poor Job Design/Redesign, proper Job Specification and lack respondents, the remaining 8(18.6%) of the respondents
of employees Motivation are asked to examine the extent or responded, the extent of job design/ redesign is at low and
the level of these variables as a challenge to employee moderate level respectively. From this it is possible to
performance . In relation to this, respondents were expected to conclude that job design/redesign in the commission is not
rate levels that related with challenges of job description in considered to alleviate the challenges of job description and
regards to employees performance. In this case 24(55.8%) of increase employees performance.
the respondents infer that, challenges of job description in
From the above table 5.6, in regards to proper job
regards to sufficient training of the employees is considered as
specification that is asked from the respondents to rate their
at moderate level. And 15(34.9%) of the respondents
extent as one of the challenges to job description and
responded that, challenges of sufficient training of the
employees performance, majority of the respondents
employees in the commission is at low level. And from the
32(74.5%) responded that, the extent of proper job
total respondents, the remaining 4(9.3%) of the respondents
specification is at low level in from the total respondents, the
responded that, sufficient training of the employees in at the
remaining 5(11.6%) and 6(14.0%) of the respondents were
high level. Based on the above results it is possible to
rated it at moderate and high level respectively. From this
conclude that, the extent of sufficient training of the
paragraph it is possible to understand that job specification is
employees in the organizations can be ranked at moderate
challenge to the employees‟ performance in the commission.
level.
Finally, based on the above table 4.6, the employees are asked
The other point on the above table focus on the extent of lack
also to rate the extent of lack of employees motivation in, in
employees development , based on that point majority of the
this case majority of 22(51.2%) of the respondents rated the
respondents 32(74.4%) responded that, the extent of lack of
extent of lack of employees motivation at the high level. From
employees development is at low level. And 10(23.3%) of the
the total respondents, the remaining 1(27.9%) and 9(20.9%) of
respondents responded that the extent of lack of employees
the respondents were rated their extent of lack of motivation
development is at moderate level. And from the total
at low and moderate level respectively. Therefore, based on
respondents, the remaining 1(2.3%) of the respondents rated
the above information, it is possible to conclude that the
the extent of lack of employees development is at high level.
extent of challenge of lack of employee motivation in relation
This implies that employee‟s development in it‟s considered
to their current job description in can be ranked at high level.
as a need to mitigate the challenges of job description that
employees are facing. Response to the Level of Job Description Dissatisfaction in
Relation to Poor Description, Ineffective Job Description,
In relation to the extent of poor job design/redesign of job
Awareness on Job Description and Job Description
description in these organizationst is appear in the above table
Orientation

Table 4.7: Variables Related to Job Description Dissatisfaction

Very Low Level Low Level Moderate Level High Level

S/N Frequen Percent Freque Frequen Percentag Freque

Variables Percentage Percentage
cy age ncy cy e ncy

1. Poor description of job description 3 7.0 8 18.6 5 11.6 27 62.8

2. Ineffective job description 4 9.3 8 18.6 13 30.2 18 41.9

Awareness about the job

3. 5 11.6 4 9.3 20 46.2 14 32.6
description content

4. Job description orientation 7 16.3 6 14.0 11 25.6 19 44.2

Source: Field Survey March (2016)

www.ijltemas.in Page 7
 International Journal of Latest Technology in Engineering, Management & Applied Science (IJLTEMAS)
Volume VI, Issue II, February 2017 | ISSN 2278-2540

To examine the extent of employees job description poor performance of an employee in the commission,
dissatisfaction in relation to poor job description, ineffective and that implies that the commission is facing
job description, awareness about the job description contents challenges of organization performance and
and job description orientation. The above table 4.7 shows employees dissatisfaction. It is possible to conclude
that the majority of 27(62.8%) of the respondents infer that, that unclear job description led to poor performance
the challenge of job description in relation to poor description of an employee in the commission.
of job description in is considered as at high level. And  In regard to the used of job description in employees
5(11.6%) of the respondents assumed that, challenge of poor performance appraisal, the majority of the
job description in is at moderate level. And from the total respondents disagree that job description in the
respondents, the remaining 11(25.6%) of the respondents commission was used for evaluating employee
rated the challenge of poor job description in the commission performance. but the commission only rely on the
is at low level. Therefore, we can conclude that the extent of outcomes of an assignment given to an employee,
challenge of poor description of the job description in can be that indicate if an employee didn‟t got any
ranked at high level. assignment for the whole of the year it will be
difficult to evaluate his/ her performance.. In addition
The other point of job description dissatisfaction was related
to this, interview results from middle and top
to ineffective job description, and from the above table 4.7,
management also indicate that there was no
18(41.9%) of the respondents rated the extent of job
evaluation done in the commission because of
description ineffectiveness at high level. And 13(30.2%) of
challenges of funds to materialize the job description.
the respondents infer that, challenge of job description
Therefore, we conclude that job description was not
ineffectiveness in is at moderate. And the remaining
used for employees‟ performance appraisal in the
12(27.9%) of the respondents responded that, challenge of job
commission since its establishment.
description ineffectiveness is at low level. And based on the
 Concerning the update of job description, the
above results, it is possible to conclude that; extent of
majority of respondents from disagree that, job
challenge of job description ineffectiveness in the commission
description were not updated even if there is changes
can be ranked at high level.
happened in the position or the structures. That
Based on the above table 4.7, in regards to challenge of means its importance to update job description when
awareness about the job description content, majority of there are any changes in the position or organization
20(46.5%) of the respondents rated the extent of awareness structures so that it implicate to the performance of
about their job description as at moderate level. And the employees.
14(32.6%) of the respondents assumed that the challenge of  Concerning the employees whether they were
awareness on their job description content in is at high level. provided with written job description or not, majority
From the total respondents, the remaining 9(20.9%) of the of the respondents disagree that, written job
respondents rated that, the extent of awareness on their job description was provided to the employees in
description content is at moderate level. And that implied that, commission. The open- ended questions also
employees in the commission were aware about their job indicated that employees were not provided with
descriptions content. written job description in the commission. Then we
can conclude that the majority of respondents
Finally, the respondents were asked also to rate the extent of
disagree by having written job description.
job description orientation as one of challenge, in this case
Therefore, there is need for the commission to
19(44.2%) of the respondents infer that, the challenge of job
provide job description for each employee so that
description in regards to job description orientation in is they follow what is expected from them to perform.
considered as at high level and 11(25.6%) of the respondents  In relation to the extent of poor job design/redesign
rated the challenge at moderate level. And from the total
of job description in, the majority of respondents
respondent, the remaining 7(16.3%) and 6(14.0%) of the
rated the extent of poor job design/redesign is at high
respondents rated that, the extent of job description orientation
level. From this it is possible to conclude that poor
is at very low and low level respectively. Based on that, it is job design/redesign in the commission is not
possible to conclude that, the extent of challenge of job considered to alleviate the challenges of job
description orientation in can be ranked at low.
description and increase employees‟ performance.
V. CONCLUSION  In regards to proper job specification that is asked
from the respondents to rate their extent as one of the
From the finding of this study the following are concluded challenges to job description and employees
performance, majority of the respondents rated the
 To check the relationship between job description extent of proper job specification in at low level.
and employees performance, the majority of the From this paragraph it is possible to understand that
respondents agree that unclear job description led to

www.ijltemas.in Page 8
 International Journal of Latest Technology in Engineering, Management & Applied Science (IJLTEMAS)
Volume VI, Issue II, February 2017 | ISSN 2278-2540

job specification is challenge to the employees‟ policy/guidelines/instruments to be used for the

performance in the commission. evaluation in the that led to under evaluation of the
 Finally, the employees are asked also to rate the employees performance. Therefore, the researcher is
extent of lack of employees‟ motivation in, in this recommending the introduction of performance
case majority of the respondents rated the extent of appraisal policy so that it help in evaluating
lack of employees‟ motivation in at high level. employees performance and give them courage to
Therefore, based on the above information, it is work hard and get recognition for their good
possible to conclude that the extent of challenge of performance (promotion, rewards bonus etc.) in the
lack of employee motivation in relation to their future.
current job description in can be ranked at high level.  The update of job description was not considered in
 In regards to the extent of employees‟ job description these organizations because of the changes that
dissatisfaction in relation to poor job description, always occurred, and with changes employees
majority of the respondents infer that, the challenge sometimes are required to go for further training or
of job description in relation to poor description of development about new duties and responsibilities to
job description in is considered at high level. overcome the challenges of new changes in their job
Therefore, we can conclude that the extent of descriptions. Therefore, the researcher recommended
challenge of poor description of the job description for the update of job description when changes
in can be ranked at high level. happen in the commission for better employees
 In relation to job description dissatisfaction that performance and the organization in general.
related to ineffective job description, majority of the  Job description is known as a road map for any
respondents rated the extent of job description employee to follow, but that became a challenge to
ineffectiveness as a challenge to employees‟ the employees‟ performance in IN THESE
performance at high level. And based on the above ORGANIZATIONS because of lack of written job
results, it is possible to conclude that; extent of description provided to the employees. Therefore, for
challenge of job description ineffectiveness in the the employees to perform what is expected from
commission can be ranked at high level. them in the commission, the researcher is
 Finally, the respondents were asked also to rate the recommending for the commission to develop and
extent of job description orientation as one of provide written job description for every employee in
challenge. In this case, majority of the respondents the commission to follow it.
infer that, the challenge of job description in regards  Another issue that require recommendation is about
to job description orientation in is considered at high poor job design/ redesign in IN THESE
level. Based on that, it is possible to conclude that, ORGANIZATIONS, from the finding it clear that
the extent of challenge of job description orientation job design/ redesign was not considered as solution
in can be ranked at low. to employees poor performance. So, the commission
required to adopt the strategy of job design/ redesign
VI. RECOMMENDATIONS for enrichment and enlargement of employees job
To enhance the role of job description in and make it effective description for their better performance.
as well as to mitigate its major challenges, the researcher  It is clear that proper job specification is considered
recommended the following suggestions based on the finding as one of the challenge to job description and
of this study. employees performance in IN THESE
ORGANIZATIONS. So, there is a need for the
 Employee performance depends on the clear commission to developed proper job description for
developed job description that is usually provided by each employee with the specific qualification that is
the organization itself, but that was not considered in required for specific job and position to avoid
these organizations and to correct that situation the employees‟ poor performance.
researcher recommended the development of job  The development of any job description should
description that will come out with specific consider the motivation factors that will motivate the
responsibilities and duties for the employee within employee. But this is not considered in the current
different departments to overcome the challenges of job descriptions of the employees in these
employees‟ poor performance. organizaations, therefore, the researcher
 The other points that needs recommendation is the recommended for the review of all current job
issues of employees‟ evaluation. In most of the description and come with one that will motivate
organizations employees promotion, compensation, employees and their performance for the success of
reward, recognition and motivation was not practiced the organization.
because of the absent of the

www.ijltemas.in Page 9
 International Journal of Latest Technology in Engineering, Management & Applied Science (IJLTEMAS)
Volume VI, Issue II, February 2017 | ISSN 2278-2540

 Poor job description and ineffective job description [12]. Hahn, D. C., & Dipboye, R. L. (1988). Effects of Training and
Information on the Accuracy and Reliability of Job Evaluation.
was considered as the critical challenges to
Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 146-153.
employees‟ dissatisfaction in the commission. To [13]. Heathfield, (2004). How to Develop a Job Description,
resolve these challenges, IN THESE http//hr.blr.com/j/JDM. Updated December 16, 2014
ORGANIZATIONS is required to come with new [14]. Jones, A. P., Main, D. S., Butler, M. C., & Johnson, L. A. (1982).
Narrative job Descriptions as Potential Sources of Job Analysis
job descriptions that fit the type of job that needed to
Ratings. Personnel Psychology, 35, 813-828.
be performed by an employee, introduce new [15]. Kotheri, C. R. (2004). Research Methodology & Method and
mechanism to activate job descriptions and job Techniques, 2nd Revised Edition, New Age International (P)
descriptions orientation for the new employees the Limited, New Delhi.
[16]. Kumar, A. (2002). Research Methods in Social Science [E-Book],
commission to familiarize an employee with his new
Sarup and Sons Publication. India, New Delhi.
task and the system in the organization. [17]. Leopold, (2002). Human Resource in Organizations, Pearson
Education Limited.
REFERENCES [18]. Leung, (2007). The Impact of Information Quality of Job
Descriptions on an Applicant‟s Decision to Pursue a Job. Master
[1]. Amos, T., Ristow, A. & Ristow, L. (2004). Human Resource Thesis, University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.
Management, 2nd edition. Lansdowne: Juta. [19]. MoFEP & LGB, (2015). State Accountant Job Description, South
[2]. Armstrong, M. (2006). Hand Book of Human Resource Sudan, Juba, October 12, 2015.
Management Practice, 10th edition. [20]. Ontario College, (2008). Position Paper on Scopes of Practice,
[3]. Brannick, M. T., Levine, E. L. & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). Job and Ontario College of Social Workers and Social Services Workers,
Work Analysis: Methods, Research and Applications for Human October 2008, p. 2, 6, 9-10.
Resource Management. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publication. [21]. Rao, Krishna, (2002). Management Text and Cases, Excel Books,
[4]. Bryman, A., and Bell, E. (2003). Business Research Methods, New Delhi.
Oxford University press, New York. [22]. Ref : AC/SSUD/SA http://www.acted.org, 2015.
[5]. Cascio, W. F. (1998). Applied Psychology in Human Resource [23]. Rehman, (2009). Impact of Analysis on Job Performance: a Study
Management, 5th Edition. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. of Public Sector Organizations of Pakistan. PhD Thesis, National
[6]. Chalachew, (2015). Assessment of Challenges and Opportunities University of Modern Languages, Islamabad.
of Public Sector Change Management Practices: The Case of [24]. Robbins, and Coulter, (2002). Management, 7th edition. Pearson
Ministry of Civil Service. Master Thesis, Ethiopian Civil Service Education Asia.
University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. [25]. Royer, (2009). Job Descriptions and Job Analyses in Practice:
[7]. Chandan, J. (2007). Management: Theory and Practice, 2nd How Research and Application Differ. PhD Thesis, DePaul
edition. University, Chicago.
[8]. Cole, (1996). Management: Theory and Practice, 5th edition. Dp [26]. Schermerhorn, (2002). Management, 7th edition.
Publication: Aldine Place, London. [27]. Singh, Sharma, and Bhuker, (2014). Job Analysis Behavior and
[9]. Cooper, D., and Schindler, P. (1998). Business research methods, Legal Issues, International Research Journal of Management and
6th edition. McGraw hill, Boston. Commerce, Vol. 1, Isse-6, September 2014, p. 26-27, 31.
[10]. Grant, P. C. (1988). Why Job Descriptions Don‟t Work. Personnel [28]. Stybel, Laurence J. (2010) 'Managing the Inner Contradictions of
Journal, January 1988, 52-59. Job Descriptions: A Technique for Use in Recruitment', the
[11]. Guion, R. M. (1976). Recruiting, Selection and Job Placement. In Psychologist-Manager Journal, 13: 2, 105- 110.
M. D. Dunnette (ed.). Handbook of Industrial and Organizational [29]. UIC, (2009). Writing effective Job Descriptions, University of
Psychology, Chicago: Rand-McNally. Illinois at Chicago, March, 2009, p.2-1, 2-2.

www.ijltemas.in Page 10