Making Structure Work: Why Job Architecture Is More Than Just an HR Tool

From Job Titles to Job Logic

At the heart of Job Architecture is a deceptively simple idea: defining work in a consistent, scalable, and transparent way. That might sound obvious, but in practice, many companies still operate with outdated or inconsistent job frameworks. The same role may have several titles across departments. Different locations may use different criteria for determining pay or progression. And when organizations grow – organically or through acquisitions – this internal fragmentation only increases.

In an interview at Rethink! HR Tech in Berlin, Jürgen Habereder, HR-IT Process Manager at Maschinenfabrik Reinhausen, noted that the move toward a structured job framework came naturally as part of introducing enterprise systems like SAP. As they grew and brought in new entities, the need to align roles became urgent. What emerged was a need to ensure that jobs with the same purpose had the same rights, the same expectations, and the same compensation. Harmonization was not just a technical fix – it was a fairness issue.

“With the Job Architecture, we had the opportunity to get the same task for a job group and ensure the same rights and the same pay,” said Habereder, reflecting on the process of aligning and simplifying internal structures.

Such alignment is key not only to fairness, but also to reducing internal friction. When job logic is unclear, HR and leadership spend excessive time resolving edge cases or justifying decisions. A well-designed architecture acts as a stabilizing force – ensuring that different departments and regions operate on a shared set of assumptions.

A Common Language for Development, Compensation, and Culture

While standardization may be the initial motivation for implementing Job Architecture, the real long-term value lies in what it enables: a shared language for growth and development. Without clear definitions of what roles entail, it becomes difficult to build systems for skills development, career progression, or even effective recruiting.

This was a core theme in our interview with Sibylle Würthner, Director People at TenneT, a European electricity grid operator currently rolling out a Job Architecture framework. For her, the value of the system lies in its pragmatism and long-term maintainability. The initial challenge? Over 600 job titles that needed to be reduced, grouped, and mapped into a coherent structure. The solution was to establish a small set of “master profiles” – such as leaders, technicians, or project managers – which were then layered by job family and used as reference points across the company.

But as she explained, structure alone is not enough. Implementation also demands thoughtful communication and cultural adaptation. In many organizations, job titles carry emotional weight or political importance. Changing or reclassifying them – even for logical reasons – can create anxiety or resistance. To address this, her team emphasized that Job Architecture is not about controlling job titles on LinkedIn, but about enabling meaningful internal comparisons.

There´s a lot of what we call urban myth – people believe the Job Architecture will define your job title. I say: I don’t care what you put on your business card. It’s about comparing jobs within the organization and enabling development.”

This shift – from symbolic titles to structural clarity – allow for more objective, fact-driven discussions around careers, performance, and pay. And that, in turn, fosters trust.

Legal Realities and International Complexity

Another important layer that surfaced in the interview with Würthner is how legal and cultural differences shape Job Architecture implementation. In her case, managing a Dutch-German organization meant adapting the structure to respect differing legal requirements, especially around how job levels connect to compensation.

In the Netherlands, the job grid could be used more directly as a legal reference. In Germany, on the other hand, close alignment with works councils was essential — particularly when linking Job Architecture to pay structures. The solution? Build a shared logic but separate technical frameworks, making sure that the structure remains flexible without creating double work.

This kind of dual structure is not uncommon in multinational environments, where the challenge is not only to design a good system but also to make it operational across different legal and organizational cultures. What’s essential, though, is a consistent intent: to bring transparency and logic into internal structures, even if the implementation must be adapted locally.

More Than Just Structure: Job Architecture as a Change Driver

What becomes clear through both interviews is that Job Architecture is not just a classification system – it´s a cultural shift. It changes the way people think about roles, fairness, development, and even identity at work.

Done well, it enables companies to:

• Align HR systems, like recruiting, compensation, and performance management
• Communicate clearly about career paths and growth opportunities
• Design learning programs that reflect actual job needs
• Make fairer, more consistent pay decisions
• Simplify HR processes and reduce administrative overhead

But perhaps most importantly, it allows organizations to speak the same language – not just across HR and leadership, but with employees themselves.

“If you don’t have a common language, it’s very hard to ensure that you talk about the same thing,” Würthner noted. And in a world where roles are increasingly fluid, that language is more important than ever.

Conclusion: Quiet Foundations, Lasting Impact

Job Architecture does not lead to overnight change. But in organizations where it’s taken seriously, it becomes a quiet force for stability, fairness, and growth.

It’s what allows a global company to compare roles in Munich and Rotterdam. It’s what helps a manager make a fair offer to a new hire. It’s what supports a learning team in designing relevant upskilling paths. And it's what enables employees to understand not just where they stand – but where they can go next.

As businesses continue to evolve in complexity, the case for Job Architecture becomes increasingly clear: Structure isn’t bureaucracy - it’s a condition for freedom. And those who build it carefully today will be better equipped to grow, adapt, and thrive tomorrow.

Check out the full interview below!

And if you’re interested in exploring how Job Architecture can bring clarity, consistency, and strategic value to your organization, you can talk to one of our experts today for a personalized consultation.

‍

‍