Standardization of Job Descriptions in the People and Sustainability Directorate

Fábio Ishikawa Junior; Ana Paula Dário Zocca

DOI: 10.22167/2675-6528-202602886

Article derived from a Final Course Work (TCC), with content based on the student’s original work and adapted to the editorial format of the E&S Magazine with the support of the ResumeAI tool, an artificial intelligence solution developed by Instituto Pecege for textual synthesis and organization.

Abstract

The standardization of job descriptions is fundamental for people management, but its absence can generate inconsistencies and application difficulties. The existing job descriptions in the People and Sustainability Directorate of a retail company were evaluated, with the objective of identifying inconsistencies, lack of standardization, and divergences between formal activities and those perceived by employees, proposing the restructuring of the descriptions and the development of a standardized model. A documentary analysis of 26 job descriptions was carried out, and a structured questionnaire was applied to employees in the area. The data were examined by content analysis, considering criteria such as structure, language standardization, clarity of responsibilities, and consistency. The results showed that, despite a structural basis in the descriptions, there were variations in standardization, level of detail, and consistency of information, as well as gaps in elements such as dimensions and organizational structure. As a contribution, a standardized job description model was proposed, with guidelines that promote greater clarity, uniformity, and alignment with organizational practice, strengthening its use as a tool to support people management.

Keywords: Job structure; Organizational structure; People management; Organizational responsibilities.

1. Introduction

Job descriptions are an essential tool for people management, as they allow for the definition of responsibilities, activities, and requirements of organizational roles. Its importance is highlighted by Pontes (2019), who considers it a fundamental instrument for organizing information related to the functions performed, ensuring greater clarity regarding the scope of action and serving as a documentary basis for various Human Resources processes.

However, the absence of standardization in these documents can generate inconsistencies, lack of clarity, and difficulties in their application. Marras (2016) emphasizes that job descriptions should be developed based on technical criteria that ensure objectivity, clarity, and uniformity of language. The lack of standardization compromises the understanding of responsibilities and favors subjective interpretations, hindering the use of these documents as a reference for people management.

Pontes (2019) further states that job descriptions that do not follow a structured model often present divergences between positions with similar attributions, especially in the way activities are presented and in the required qualifications. These inconsistencies can compromise the reliability of the information and limit the comparability between positions, hindering the standardization and updating of the descriptions over time.

The clarity of job descriptions is directly related to the definition of organizational roles, as pointed out by Bohlander and Snell (2015). Unclear or inconsistent descriptions can generate doubts about the responsibilities of each function, negatively impacting the organization of work and the internal processes of the Human Resources area. The standardization of descriptions, therefore, contributes to greater alignment between formal information and organizational practice.

Wood Jr. (2010) argues that organizational documents, such as job descriptions, should reflect the actual logic of the organization’s operation, avoiding discrepancies between what is formalized and what is effectively practiced. When descriptions do not keep pace with the evolution of activities or are elaborated without uniform criteria, they lose their function as a management support tool, becoming merely formal and little applicable. The clarity of organizational roles is relevant for the employee’s understanding of their function and responsibilities (Dutra, 2017).

In the contemporary organizational context, characterized by complex structures and frequent changes in performed activities, the absence of a standardized job description model can hinder the updating and expansion of this instrument (Marras, 2016). In the retail sector, these challenges become even more evident due to the diversity of positions and the constant adaptation of functions to business demands. The lack of standardized descriptions limits the organization’s ability to organize and keep its functional records updated, hindering the consolidation of reliable information for the Human Resources area.

Given this scenario, it becomes relevant to analyze the existing job descriptions, identifying differences in structure, language, and level of detail, in order to promote their organization and standardization. The adoption of a structured model for job description and specification, as proposed by Pontes (2019) and aligned with the perspective of Morgeson and Dierdorff (2011), allows for greater clarity, uniformity, and consistency of documents, in addition to facilitating their application to other positions and areas of the organization. The lack of standardization is reflected in the limited knowledge about the different functions in the People and Sustainability area and in the perception of misalignment between the assigned activities and their respective positions, which can lead to ambiguity of organizational roles (Rizzo, House, and Lirtzman, 1970).

The standardization of job descriptions is crucial for strengthening people management, providing greater clarity in defining responsibilities, consistency in organizational structure, and better support for decision-making processes. Thus, the present study aims to evaluate the existing job descriptions in the People and Sustainability Directorate of a retail company, identifying inconsistencies, lack of standardization, and possible divergences between the formally described activities and those perceived by employees, with the intention of proposing the restructuring of the descriptions and developing a standardized model applicable to the analyzed area.

2. Material and Methods

The present research was applied in nature, with a qualitative approach, and was characterized as an action-research, according to Michel Thiollent (2011). This type of empirical-based social investigation involves cooperation between researchers and participants to solve problems. The study was developed in the People and Sustainability Directorate of a large organization in the national retail sector, headquartered in São Paulo/SP.

The methodological path was structured in sequential stages, based on the guidelines for job description and specification proposed by Pontes (2019) and Marras (2016). This approach aimed to improve job management, aligning with the objectives of evaluation, identification of inconsistencies, and restructuring of the descriptions.

Initially, a documentary diagnosis was carried out, through the collection and analysis of formally registered job descriptions. Of the 35 positions in the People and Sustainability Directorate, 26 had formalized and available descriptions, and these were selected to form the sample. The analyzed positions covered different hierarchical levels, such as managers, coordinators, specialists, analysts, and assistants.

The documentary analysis aimed to identify inconsistencies and lack of standardization in the existing descriptions. For this purpose, criteria based on Pontes’ (2019) guidelines were used, which included: structure of the description, standardization of language, clarity of responsibilities, coherence between descriptions and hierarchical level, and consistency between documents.

Consistency was defined as the uniformity between job descriptions of the same nature or hierarchical level, verified in structure, language, and level of detail. Inconsistencies were identified by divergences in the analytical classification scale: present and adequate (2), partially present (1), or absent (0).

As a complementary step, a field survey was conducted with collaborators from the People and Sustainability Directorate. A structured questionnaire was prepared via Microsoft Forms and sent to 25 collaborators from the areas of Compensation, Internal Communication, Business Partners, HR Services, Organizational Human Development, Occupational Health and Safety, and Sustainability.

The participants were selected for their direct involvement in the development, management, or use of job descriptions for the board of directors, of whom 13 responded. The field research data collection occurred between December 2025 and January 2026. It was not necessary to submit the project for approval by the Research Ethics Committee.

The data from the documentary analysis and the questionnaire were examined by qualitative content analysis. The information from the institutional documents and the responses were organized and compared with the theoretical criteria for job description and specification by Pontes (2019).

Based on the information obtained, the job descriptions were restructured and standardized, using Pontes’ (2019) structural model. The elaboration of the descriptions followed criteria of clarity, objectivity, impersonality, and standardization of language, with infinitive verbs to describe activities and responsibilities.

The information for the 26 positions analyzed was reorganized into a structured format, consisting of sections for job identification, role mission, main responsibilities, and minimum requirements. For managerial and coordination positions, the concept of mission was adopted, emphasizing their strategic contribution to the board’s objectives.

In this way, the information was structured according to Pontes’s (2019) model. This resulted in the standardization of the descriptions of the analyzed positions and the consolidation of a model applicable to the other positions in the People and Sustainability Directorate, ensuring uniformity and consistency.

3. Results and Discussion

The analysis of job descriptions in the People and Sustainability Directorate revealed a complex scenario, characterized by the coexistence of well-defined structural elements and significant gaps in standardization and detail. The study covered 26 positions that had formal documentation available, distributed across various areas of the directorate, such as Compensation, Internal Communication, and Sustainability, and at different hierarchical levels, from assistants to managers. This diversity allowed for a comprehensive evaluation of job description practices within the organization, providing a solid basis for identifying inconsistencies and proposing improvements.

Evaluation of the structure of the descriptives

The evaluation of the structure of job descriptions was conducted based on criteria such as job identification, job mission, responsibilities, and requirements, according to the guidelines of Pontes (2019). It was observed that job identification and job mission showed a high level of adherence, with 100% of the descriptions classified as adequate in both criteria. This indicates that the organization has a consolidated formal basis for the essential elements of each role, clearly establishing the purpose and objective of each position within the directorate’s structure.

However, the analysis of the responsibilities and requirements criteria revealed a satisfactory level of presence, with 85% and 81% of the descriptions considered adequate, respectively. Despite this, variability was identified in the quality and level of detail of the information. In some cases, the descriptions of responsibilities and requirements were generic or less specific, which may compromise the clarity of the assignments and the effectiveness of these documents as management tools, as pointed out by Marras (2016) regarding the need for objectivity and clarity.

The criteria for dimensions and organizational chart showed the greatest weaknesses in the structure of the descriptions. Only 59% of the descriptions were considered adequate regarding job dimensions, with 33% partially present and 7% absent. As for the organizational chart, only 26% were classified as adequate, with 70% partially present and 4% absent. These results highlight significant gaps in understanding the organizational context of the position, including its hierarchical position and its impact on the company structure, elements crucial for a complete view of the role.

The absence of standardization in the preparation of the descriptions was a recurring finding, with 81% of the documents classified as partially standardized. This lack of uniformity compromises the comparability between positions and hinders the use of descriptions as a consistent managerial tool. The consolidated analysis of the criteria revealed that, although there is a structural basis, there are important gaps related to standardization and the level of detail of the information, reinforcing the need for restructuring according to the methodological guidelines of Pontes (2019).

The measurement of the adherence level of the descriptions, considering a maximum score of 14 points per position, allowed the documents to be classified into different categories. It was found that 17 out of 26 positions presented an adherence level classified as “Adequate”, with an average percentage around 86%. This suggests a partially consistent structural basis, but with room for improvement. The positions of HR Executive Manager, Business Partner Manager, and Internal Communication Coordinator, for example, achieved 93% adherence, while the Social Responsibility, Sustainability Manager reached 100%.

On the other hand, 6 positions were classified as “Regular”, with adherence percentages between 64% and 71%, indicating a greater need for review. These positions, such as Administrative Assistant – Benefits and Occupational Nursing Assistant, concentrate the main gaps identified, especially in the criteria related to organizational dimensions and structure. The results indicate that, despite a structured foundation, the application of guidelines does not occur uniformly across the analyzed positions, generating inconsistencies that affect people management.

Evaluation of language standardization

The evaluation of language standardization in job descriptions considered the use of infinitive verbs, uniformity of writing, and clarity and objectivity of sentences, according to Pontes (2019) recommendations for clear and impersonal language. It was observed that 81% of the descriptions showed adequate use of infinitive verbs, with an average of 1.8 on the analytical scale. This finding indicates good practice in describing responsibilities, although there is still room for improvement in some documents.

However, the uniformity of the writing and the clarity and objectivity of the descriptions showed less favorable results. Only 26% of the descriptions were considered adequate in terms of writing uniformity, with 74% classified as partially adequate. Similarly, only 33% were considered adequate in clarity and objectivity, with 67% partially adequate. This data reveals significant variations in the way information is presented, in the level of detail of the activities, and in sentence construction, which can generate ambiguities and subjective interpretations, as warned by Marras (2016).

The lack of uniformity in writing and the reduced clarity of descriptions compromise the understanding of attributions and the comparability between positions. This inconsistency in language makes it difficult to use the descriptives as a standardized tool for people management, impacting processes such as recruitment, selection, and performance appraisal. The standardization of language is, therefore, a critical point to ensure the effectiveness and reliability of these documents in the organizational context.

Evaluation of the clarity of responsibilities

The clarity of responsibilities was evaluated based on the specificity, objectivity, and understanding of the duties described in the documents. The results indicated that 62% of the descriptions were considered adequate in this criterion, while 38% were classified as partially adequate, with an average of 1.6. Although the majority present a satisfactory level of clarity, the presence of descriptions with less detail or specificity in some positions reduces the overall effectiveness as a management tool.

This variability in the clarity of responsibilities can lead to doubts about the scope of each role, generating insecurity and hindering the use of these records as a reference for internal processes, as Dutra (2017) emphasizes the importance of clarity in organizational roles. The lack of specificity compromises employees’ ability to fully understand their duties, which can impact work organization and activity execution.

Identification of inconsistencies and gaps

The consolidated data analysis revealed a set of inconsistencies and gaps in the job descriptions, mainly related to the standardization, clarity, and completeness of the information. In the standardization of descriptions, 81% were classified as partially standardized, indicating low uniformity in the structure and elaboration of the documents. This results in difficulty in comparability between positions, a fundamental aspect for people management.

Regarding language, 76% of the descriptions showed variation in wording and low textual uniformity, which impacts the consistency and standardization of information. The clarity of responsibilities also showed weaknesses, with 38% of the descriptions presenting a low level of detail, limiting clear understanding of assignments. The presence of less specific descriptions in 15% of the positions makes practical application of the descriptions difficult and can lead to misalignment in profile definition.

The requirements also showed variations in detail in 19% of the positions, which can hinder the precise definition of professional profiles. The job dimensions, which deal with scope and breadth, were absent or incomplete in 7% and partially present in 33% of the descriptions, respectively. This gap reduces the view of the impact and complexity of the role, compromising the strategic analysis of the position.

The organizational structure, which details the hierarchical positioning, presented incomplete information in 70% of cases and absent in 4%, resulting in low clarity regarding hierarchical relationships. Finally, the consistency between positions of the same nature or hierarchical level showed differences in the level of detail, evidencing internal misalignment and inconsistency in position management. These collective findings indicate that the descriptions were elaborated without a standardized institutional model, which compromises uniformity and comparability, reinforcing the need for restructuring.

Field survey results

The field research, which involved the participation of 13 collaborators from the Human Resources area, complemented the documentary analysis by capturing professionals’ perceptions of the job structure and people management practices. The predominance of professionals from the technical area (84.60%) among the respondents, in contrast to the participation of managers (15.40%), suggests that the perceptions gathered reflect the view of those who use the descriptions daily, contributing to the identification of practical gaps.

Regarding the clarity of responsibilities, the majority of respondents (61.50%) considered the job responsibilities to be partially clear. A smaller portion perceived them as fully clear (23.10%), while 7.70% considered them unclear and another 7.70% stated they were not clear. This result indicates that, despite a formal structure, the application of job descriptions does not guarantee full understanding of duties, highlighting limitations in the effectiveness of these documents within the organizational context. This finding can be associated with the ambiguity of organizational roles, as discussed by Rizzo, House, and Lirtzman (1970), who emphasize how the absence of clear definitions can generate uncertainties and conflicts.

The perception of the existence of positions with similar responsibilities, but with distinct denominations, was widely confirmed by the respondents, with 92.30% affirming this occurrence. This data highlights a functional overlap and a weakness in the definition and differentiation of positions, reinforcing the structural inconsistencies identified in the documentary analysis. Role overlap, as pointed out by Rizzo, House, and Lirtzman (1970), can lead to conflicts and inefficiencies in the execution of activities, compromising the organization of work.

Regarding the perception of whether the current structure reflects the real complexity of the positions, 61.50% of respondents considered that it only partially reflects it, and 23.10% stated that it does not reflect it. Only 15.40% believe that the structure adequately reflects the complexity. This result indicates a misalignment between the formal descriptions and the organizational practice, corroborating the argument of Wood Jr. (2010) that organizational documents should reflect the real logic of the organization’s functioning. This misalignment compromises the use of the descriptions as a reliable tool to support people management.

Proposal for restructuring job descriptions

Given the inconsistencies and gaps identified in the documentary analysis and the perceptions raised in the field research, a proposal for a standardized job description model was developed. The central objective of this proposal is to ensure uniformity, clarity, and consistency in the preparation of descriptions, as well as to ensure alignment between the formal description of jobs and organizational practice. The model’s construction was based on the guidelines for job description and specification proposed by Pontes (2019), which emphasize clarity, objectivity, and standardization of language.

The proposed model incorporates the main improvement points identified throughout the study, especially regarding language standardization, the level of detail in responsibilities, and the inclusion of relevant structural information. It is composed of six main sections, each with a specific purpose to ensure the completeness and organization of information. The first section, “Job Identification”, includes basic information such as Job Title, Area of Operation, Hierarchical Reporting, and Update Date, formalizing the job record.

The second section, “Job Mission”, presents the purpose of the role synthetically, highlighting its contribution to the area and organizational objectives. The third, “Key responsibilities”, describes the job’s activities in a bulleted format, using infinitive verbs and objective language, focusing on specific and measurable responsibilities, aligned with the activities actually performed. The fourth section, “Job Requirements”, includes the minimum requirements necessary for the performance of the role, such as academic background, professional experience, technical knowledge, and behavioral competencies.

The fifth section, “Job Dimensions”, presents information related to the scope and impact of the position, such as scope of action, complexity of activities, and main deliverables or indicators. This section is crucial for providing a more complete view of the position and its strategic positioning. Finally, the sixth section, “Organizational Structure”, highlights the position’s placement within the organization’s structure, including the hierarchical level and main internal interfaces, contributing to the clarity of functional and hierarchical relationships.

To ensure the consistent application of the proposed model, clear guidelines were established for the preparation of job descriptions. These guidelines include the use of infinitive verbs in the description of responsibilities, the adoption of clear, objective, and impersonal language, and the avoidance of generic terms without specification. Furthermore, the guidelines aim to ensure consistency in the level of detail between positions of the same nature and hierarchical level, ensuring that they present a similar number of responsibilities and an equivalent degree of specificity.

Other important guidelines aim to ensure alignment between the formal description and the activities actually performed, based on validation with job incumbents and their managers. The standardization of the structure and organization of information in all descriptions is fundamental, maintaining the same sequence of sections and criteria. Finally, the systematic inclusion of information on organizational dimensions and structure, such as scope of action, main deliverables or indicators, hierarchical level, and main internal interfaces, is essential for the completeness and usefulness of the documents.

Result of applying the proposed model

The application of the standardized model to the analyzed descriptions demonstrated a significant improvement in document structure and a reduction in previously identified inconsistencies. Greater uniformity was observed in the organization of information and more effective standardization of the language used. Responsibilities began to be described more clearly and objectively, which contributed to reducing the occurrence of generic activities and broadened the understanding of job roles.

The inclusion of the new sections on dimensions and organizational structure in the proposed model provided a more complete view of the scope and positioning of positions within the organization. This addition is fundamental for the descriptions to more accurately reflect the complexity and impact of each role. Additionally, the standardization of the model allowed for greater comparability between positions, which favors consistency in defining responsibilities and in organizational structuring, aspects essential for effective people management.

Compared to the previous situation, the restructuring proposal transformed an inconsistent structure with variable language into a standardized and uniform model, with clear and objective language. Responsibilities, which previously presented different levels of detail, became specific and well-defined. Information on dimensions and organizational structure, which was partial or absent, was structured and clearly defined, improving the clarity of the position’s placement and its interfaces.

The consistency between positions, which previously showed significant differences, was improved for greater alignment and comparability. Consequently, the managerial application of the descriptions, which was limited as a management tool, was strengthened for use in Human Resources processes. This evolution demonstrates that the restructuring of job descriptions contributes to the strengthening of people management, providing greater clarity in the definition of responsibilities and better support for decision-making processes, as Pontes (2019) and Dutra (2016) emphasize the importance of clear job structuring.

In summary, the study identified that, despite a formal structural basis, job descriptions in the People and Sustainability Directorate presented significant inconsistencies in standardization, detailing of responsibilities, and absence of information on organizational dimensions and structure. Field research corroborated these gaps, highlighting the perception of partial clarity and overlap of functions. The proposal of a standardized model, with clear guidelines, proved to be an effective solution for restructuring these documents, promoting greater clarity, uniformity, and alignment with organizational practice, strengthening their utility as a strategic tool for people management.

4. Conclusion

The present study evaluated job descriptions in the Human Resources and Sustainability Directorate of a retail company, seeking to identify inconsistencies, lack of standardization, and discrepancies between formal activities and those perceived by employees, with the aim of proposing the restructuring of descriptions and developing a standardized model. It was found that, although the documents had a structural basis, there were significant gaps in language standardization, the level of detail in responsibilities, and the inclusion of crucial information about the dimensions and organizational positioning of the roles. Field research corroborated these findings, showing that responsibilities were perceived as partially clear, and that there was an overlap of functions and a misalignment between the formal structure and the actual complexity of activities.

Faced with this scenario, a standardized job description model was proposed, accompanied by clear guidelines for its development. This proposal proved to be a relevant practical contribution, promoting greater clarity in defining responsibilities, uniformity in organizational structure, and more effective alignment with daily practice, strengthening the use of job descriptions as a strategic tool for people management. However, as a limitation, it should be noted that the analysis was restricted to a single directorate, which may limit the generalization of the results. It is suggested that future studies expand the scope to other organizational units, in order to provide a more comprehensive view of the job and salary structure.

Bibliographic References

Bohlander, G.; Snell, S. 2015. Administração de recursos humanos. Cengage Learning, São Paulo, SP, Brasil.

Dutra, J. S. 2017. Gestão de pessoas: modelo, processos, tendências e perspectivas. 2. ed. Atlas, São Paulo, SP, Brasil.

Marras, J. P. 2016. Administração de recursos humanos: do operacional ao estratégico. 15. ed. Saraiva, São Paulo, SP, Brasil.

Michel Thiollent, 2011 [Referência completa não encontrada no documento original]

Morgeson, F. P.; Dierdorff, E. C. Work analysis: From technique to theory. Annual Review of Psychology, v. 62, p. 683–706, 2011.

Pontes, B. R. 2019. Administração de cargos e salários. 14. ed. LTr, São Paulo, SP, Brasil.

Rizzo, J. R.; House, R. J.; Lirtzman, S. I. Role conflict and ambiguity in complex organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, v. 15, n. 2, p. 150–163, 1970.

Wood Jr., T. 2010. Organizational Change. 5th ed. Atlas, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.

Article originating from the Final Course Work of the Specialization in Business Management of the MBA USP/Esalq

To learn more about the course, click here and access the MBX Academy platform