As an organisation, you have spent a not inconsiderable amount of time and money recruiting someone to do a job. Your process provides the evidence that this person will do a great a job and be a great fit for the company.
When they start do you . . .
A Give them their job description and tell them to get on with the tasks listed on it?
B Explain the goals for their business unit and how the team works to achieve them. You get out of the way and invite them to shape their role?
Option A does two things.
1 It starts a dependency relationship with the organisation – the individual is dependent on what they are told, how they are expected to do their work and what they are expected to do. The organisation is in control from the outset.
2 It absolves individuals of a lot of responsibility to do a good job. That person’s intrinsic motivations to do a great job will diminish over time as what good looks like will be dictated to them by the organisation. Wrapped up in this will be the organisation’s attempts at developing that person – performance issues might well become an issue if they find the job increasingly restrictive. They are likely to be on the receiving end of ‘push’ learning that the organisation wants them to consume.
So, what about option B? How good could that be for the individual and the organisation?