1) In the article, it says" In a fast moving economy, jobs are rigid solutions to an elastic". I think it means: Job is permanent; economy is always changed, so that it is necessary to have flexible solutions to solve problems in the jobs. I think that author of this article supports using "no job description" in the jobs. I think it says that because some following reasons:
a) Depending on theory in textbook: "job descriptions" is a statement of the tasks, duties, and responsibilities of a job. However, in the article in Fortune magazine argues that the entire concept of "job" is becoming obsolete. It means theory of "job descriptions" is also becoming obsolete and using "no job description" is necessary.
b) Nowadays, in the market economy often meet some problems. And if they only use common solutions, they can solve ordinary problems. However, sometimes, it is not the best solutions.
Besides, there are any problems which can not be solving by common solutions. Therefore, with "no job description" the employees and employers can suggest flexible solutions for requirements. E.g. Gore's associates are expected to be flexible and adaptable.
c) With the contingent problems that arise from job and not belong to have responsibilities to any employees or departments. If "jobs are rigid solutions", there is nobody to solve these problems. Therefore, using "no job description" is better.
d) I think "job descriptions" do not exist for all jobs. With these jobs, it requests the creative dynamism, especially in a fast moving economy.
2) The implications of "no job description" would be:
a) HRM practices in relation to job design: We can understand that "job design" is the process of combining responsibilities and duties into jobs that enhance organizational effectiveness and employee satisfaction. Besides, "job descriptions" are a basic...