Position Descriptions in the Architecture of Work

Using Management Horizons, Domains of Competence, Triad of Direction, DOES, and Organizational Stages

Knowledge Base > Organizational Design and Development

By Jose J. Ruiz

Excerpt

This concept paper reframes position descriptions as core design artifacts in the architecture of work. It anchors every role in Management Horizons, Domains of Competence, the Triad of Direction, DOES leadership, and Organizational Stages. It shows how to specify context, horizon, and decision rights, clarify borders of delegation and escalation, and define the transformation path from current state to desired future so roles become engines of coherent strategy execution and renewal across teams and context.

1. Purpose of This Concept Paper

This paper defines what a position description must contain when it is treated as a design artifact in the Architecture of Work, not just a transactional job posting. It anchors position descriptions in:

Domains of Competence: capability, ability, and capacity
Management Horizons, Levels of Work, and Contribution Bands™
Organizational Stages
Triad of Direction: management, leadership, stewardship
DOES leadership model: Design, Organize, Execute, Sustain
Borders of delegation and escalation within a clear space of autonomy

The intent is to provide a reusable guide so that every position description explicitly expresses three things:

The current situation and challenge in context
The desired future contribution of the role
The transformation path the role must help design, organize, execute, and sustain

2. Position Descriptions Inside the Architecture of Work

In the Architecture of Work, borders of delegation, escalation, and autonomy are designed so complexity, control, and judgment are distributed coherently across the organization. It clarifies who holds which decisions, with what authorization, so work remains safe, stretching, and coherent across levels and horizons.

Within that architecture, a position description is not only a list of tasks. It is:

A mandate: the value-creating promise of the role in the value chain
A horizon specification: the time span and complexity of decisions the role must hold
A directional contract: how the role will practice management, leadership, and stewardship
A decision charter: which decisions are owned, delegated, or escalated and on what thresholds
A transformation brief: how the role contributes to moving from current state to desired future

Done well, position descriptions become a primary way to align individual capability, organizational capability, and institutional capability with real context.

3. Domains of Competence in a Position Description

The Domains of Competence distinguish three different ideas that are often conflated:

Ability – practical skill and know-how to perform tasks effectively now; applied knowledge, skills, and experience
Capability – the power to handle complexity through judgment and sense-making across time horizons
Capacity – the volume, scale, and scope with which ability and capability can be applied across teams, systems, and timeframes

A complete position description makes each visible:

Required abilities
- Concrete skills and know-how needed now (e.g., “design and run value-stream pilots”, “negotiate multi-year customer contracts”)
- Evidence types: portfolio, certifications, performance history
Required capability (complexity and time span)
- The Level of Work (e.g., Quality, Service, Practice) and associated time span and problem structure
- The Contribution Band / Management Horizon at which the role must reliably contribute (Present, Future, Enduring)
Required capacity and scale
- Scale of budget, customers, and ecosystems the role must carry
- Breadth of interfaces (number of teams, geographies, partners)

In practice, this means the position description must distinguish between:

“Can code in Python” (ability)
“Can frame and decide multi-year platform choices under uncertainty” (capability)
“Can carry a portfolio of four platforms across three regions” (capacity / scale)

4. Management Horizon, Levels of Work, Contribution Bands™, and Organizational Stages

4.1 Management Horizon and Contribution Bands™

Management Horizons distinguish three overlapping temporal lenses:

Present Horizon
Future Horizon
Enduring Horizon

The Contribution Bands™ framework locates a person’s flow of contribution across these horizons (illustrative mapping):

Bands One–Two: execution and mastery in the Present (≈0–12 months)
Band Three: bridge between Present and Future, converting proof into scalable practice (≈6–24 months)
Band Four: architecture of the Future, designing platforms and operating models (≈1–3 years)
Band Five: bridge between Future and Enduring, shaping portfolios, arenas, and advantage logic (≈2–5 years)
Band Six: Enduring stewardship of identity, license, and cross-generational commitments (≈5–10+ years)

A position description should therefore make explicit:

Primary Management Horizon: Present, Future, or Enduring
Contribution Band and Level of Work: where the core contribution sits and the associated time span
Whether the role is a bridge role (Band Three or Five) and which horizon it faces most

This connects directly to four archetypal roles:

Works within the strategy – Present-horizon roles (Bands One–Two, sometimes Three-Present-facing)
Deploys the strategy – Bridge and architecture roles (Band Three-Future-facing, Band Four)
Defines the strategy – Compass roles (Band Five-Future-facing, sometimes Band Four at enterprise scale)
Defines the governance mandate – Continuum roles in the Enduring horizon (Band Six and Band Five-Enduring-facing)

4.2 Organizational Stages

Organizational Stages describe how capability and complexity evolve from early formation through institutionalization. In early stages, complexity is held in a founder’s head; in later stages, it is held in structures, governance, and culture.

A position description should specify:

The dominant Organizational Stage of the unit (e.g., Stage One “Early Framework” in a start-up product line; Stage Three or Four in a mature core business)
How the role must adapt its practice of management, leadership, and stewardship to that stage (for example, more improvisation and design in Stage One; more governance and stewardship in Stage Four)

This anchors the context and challenge the role is walking into rather than describing work as if it lived in a vacuum.

5. Triad of Direction, Space of Autonomy, and Borders of Delegation and Escalation

5.1 Triad of Direction in a Role

The Triad of Direction distinguishes three directional disciplines present in every role:

Management – organizing work, coordinating resources, and ensuring reliable execution in known systems
Leadership – creating direction, fostering alignment, and sustaining commitment amid complexity
Stewardship – guiding, protecting, and advancing something of value beyond self and across time (identity, ethics, license to operate)

Every position description should articulate how the role is expected to express all three, scaled to its horizon:

In Present-horizon roles, management will dominate but leadership (improvement, small bets) and stewardship (safety, ethics, reputation) still matter
In Future-horizon roles, leadership is heavier: framing bets, sequencing programs, mobilizing adoption; stewardship appears as principled constraints on change
In Enduring-horizon roles, stewardship is primary; management and leadership are instruments for protecting and renewing institutional identity and legitimacy

5.2 Space of Autonomy

Each role operates within a space of autonomy: a bounded area of responsibility in the value chain where the person is expected to act without seeking permission, provided they remain within agreed constraints.

The position description should make that space explicit by:

Describing the scope of responsibility (products, services, domains, geographies, or processes)
Using a SIPOC-style boundary where helpful (Suppliers, Inputs, Process, Outputs, Customers) to clarify what the role promises and to whom
Stating the dominant Management Horizon and Level of Work for that scope

Within this space of autonomy, the person’s freedom to act is conditioned by:

Alignment with strategy and governance mandates
Adherence to standards and risk limits
The borders of delegation and escalation described next

5.3 Borders of Delegation and Escalation

Two key borders shape decision flow:

Border of Delegation – outer limit of what can be passed downward while the role holder remains accountable
Border of Escalation – point at which work must be handed upward because authority, risk, or horizon exceed the remit

For each position, the description should translate this into practice:

Decisions the role must own (inside its border of escalation)
Decisions the role must delegate and to whom (inside its border of delegation)
Thresholds for escalation – typically expressed in terms of time horizon, risk, capital, or reputation exposure
The expected escalation posture – when to consult, when to inform, when to seek formal approval

This makes the space of autonomy inspectable and auditable rather than tacit.

6. DOES Leadership Model and Transformation Requirements

The DOES Leadership Model connects vision to structure, structure to action, and action to renewal through four activities:

Design – shaping intent, frames, and architectures
Organize – aligning people, interfaces, processes, and resources
Execute – delivering outcomes, decisions, and learning in real work
Sustain – tending to renewal: capability, culture, and guardrails over time

A transformation-aware position description makes explicit:

Design accountabilities – how the role shapes intent, reframes problems, and contributes to strategy and operating-model design
Organize accountabilities – how the role aligns people, interfaces, processes, and resources to make intent operable
Execute accountabilities – how the role is accountable for delivery, learning, and decision quality within its space of autonomy
Sustain accountabilities – how the role tends to renewal: capability building, succession, retrospectives, and adjustment of guardrails

DOES must be calibrated to the horizon and Organizational Stage:

In a Stage One unit, a “within strategy” role may still carry heavy Design and Organize work because the basic framework is being built
In a Stage Four unit, a “deploy strategy” role may be more weighted to Execute and Sustain, working within well-established architectures

To meet the requirement that the position address current situation, desired future, and transformation path, the description should include:

Current context – stage, horizon, and dominant problems
Desired future state of the domain – clearer flow, different portfolio, renewed license
Transformation work expected of the role along DOES – what must be designed, organized, executed differently, and sustained

7. Core Elements of a Position Description in the Anker Bioss Framework

Bringing the pieces together, a complete position description should include at least the following elements:

Role Purpose and Value-Creating Promise
- One concise statement of what the role exists to make possible in the value chain
Context and Organizational Stage
- Description of the unit’s dominant Organizational Stage and current pressures (e.g., scaling from Stage One to Stage Two; renewing a Stage Four core)
Management Horizon, Contribution Band™, and Level of Work
- Primary horizon (Present / Future / Enduring)
- Expected time span of discretion
- Target Contribution Band / Level of Work
Domains of Competence
- Required abilities (skills and know-how)
- Required capability (complexity and time-span judgment)
- Required capacity (scale and scope)
Scope of Responsibility and SIPOC Boundary
- The product, service, process, or geographic domains where the role operates
- External promises (suppliers, inputs, outputs, customers)
- Dominant Management Horizon and Level of Work for that scope
Triad of Direction Expectations
- How this role is expected to practice management, leadership, and stewardship at its horizon
Decision Rights and Borders of Delegation / Escalation
- Decision map (or reference to a separate charter) that names:
  - Owned decisions
  - Delegable decisions (and to whom)
  - Escalation triggers and thresholds
DOES and Transformation Responsibilities
- Specific Design, Organize, Execute, and Sustain outputs linked to the current-to-future transformation path
Key Interfaces and Relationships
- Internal and external counterparts, especially across horizons (e.g., Band Three working with Band Two below and Band Four above)
Signals and Measures
- Present, Future, and Enduring indicators where relevant
- Leading and lagging measures tied to the role’s value-creating promise
Stretch, Risk, and Development
- Whether the role is a stretch relative to the current Flow Band
- Scaffolds, review cadence, and risk boundaries if the role is used developmentally

8. Differentiating Four Archetypal Positions

The same structure can describe the four archetypal positions highlighted earlier. For each, the position description emphasizes different horizons and parts of the Triad of Direction and DOES:

8.1 Works Within the Strategy (Operational Roles)

Horizon: Present; Bands One–Two (sometimes Three-Present-facing)
Triad emphasis:
- Management in daily delivery and stability
- Leadership in continuous improvement and problem-solving
- Stewardship in safety, ethics, and local reputation
DOES emphasis:
- Execute and Sustain
- Some Organize as methods mature
Borders:
- Tight escalation on capital and risk
- Broad autonomy on local methods within standards

8.2 Deploys the Strategy (Scaling / Architecture Roles)

Horizon: bridge Present↔Future and Future; Bands Three and Four
Triad emphasis:
- Leadership in experiment selection, adoption, and sequencing
- Stewardship in maintaining coherence across value streams and geographies
DOES emphasis:
- Design and Organize (platforms, programs, operating models)
- Execute for pilots and early runs
- Sustain through hand-off to stable operations
Borders:
- Owns known/controlled and unknown/controlled quadrants for their platforms
- Escalates unknown/uncontrolled bets or shifts with major license implications

8.3 Defines the Strategy (Compass Roles)

Horizon: Future; Band Five-Future-facing (sometimes Band Four at lower scale)
Triad emphasis:
- Leadership in pattern recognition, choice of arenas, and framing of big bets
- Stewardship in aligning direction with identity, obligations, and license
DOES emphasis:
- Design of strategy, portfolios, and strategic architectures
- Organize in the form of program architecture, decision cadences, and resource envelopes
- Execute mainly through governing decisions, not day-to-day operations
- Sustain through periodic strategic renewal and reframing

8.4 Defines the Governance Mandate (Stewardship Roles)

Horizon: Enduring; Band Six and Band Five-Enduring-facing
Triad emphasis:
- Stewardship as primary
- Leadership and management in service of license, ethics, and cross-generational coherence
DOES emphasis:
- Sustain institutions, covenants, and resilience platforms
- Design guardrails, constitutional principles, and enduring commitments
- Organize governance forums and oversight mechanisms
- Execute only at the level of critical constitutional or “never-fail” decisions

Position descriptions should make these differences explicit, not leave them to title or personality.

9. Risks and Watchouts

Predictable failure modes appear when position descriptions are not grounded in this architecture:

Conflating ability with capability – promoting strong operators into longer-horizon roles without evidence of judgment under higher complexity
Ignoring Organizational Stage – writing a Stage Four governance description for a Stage One start-up unit, or vice versa
Triad / Tripod confusion – treating management, leadership, and stewardship as levels rather than disciplines present in every role; or confusing the Triad with the Tripod of Work that governs daily practice within an area of responsibility
Invisible borders of delegation and escalation – leaving decision rights implicit, which undermines autonomy and overloads higher levels
No transformation path – describing only “business as usual” when the context clearly demands Design and Sustain work across horizons

Each of these can be mitigated when the position description is treated as part of the Architecture of Work rather than as HR paperwork.

10. Practical Next Steps

For an organization adopting this approach, the following pattern helps:

Place the Work
- For each critical role, declare the Management Horizon, Contribution Band™, Level of Work, and Organizational Stage context
Place the Person
- Use assessment, evaluation, and appreciation disciplines to understand current ability, emerging capability, and Flow Band, without collapsing them into a single score
Author Position Descriptions as Decision Charters
- Add Triad of Direction expectations, explicit space of autonomy, and decision rights (borders of delegation and escalation) to the traditional content
Link to DOES and Transformation Programs
- For roles central to transformation, specify Design, Organize, Execute, and Sustain accountabilities explicitly and connect them to named programs or change agendas
Review and Renew
- At defined horizons (e.g., annually for Present-horizon roles, every 2–3 years for Future-horizon roles), revisit position descriptions as living instruments, not static documents

When position descriptions are built this way, they become one of the primary tools for aligning individual work with Management Horizons, distributing judgment safely through clear borders, and turning transformation from rhetoric into designed roles and accountabilities.