The article appears to draw conclusion from a serious of interviews with business professional. Those interviewed may have revealed, through tests, their true deeply embedded life interests who may have said that they could have been more satisfied if their career path was leading to their interests. However it is not sure if the organizations where these interviewees have worked in have practiced job sculpting as described in the article and what quantitative improvements at the bottom line are found.
In practice there are many obstacles to put this theory to work. Firstly the organization has to be fairly established, systematic, well organized and large enough for talented people to move around. For a large organization one would assume that there are many talented people and before job sculpting is practiced and became a culture in HRM a good percentage of the talented people may be placed wrongly. Theoretically when job sculpting starts the game of music chair begins and people move around to a position where they belong. Even if the company is well organized there is bound to be teething problems due to people movement, lost of productivity and even higher operating costs due to changes to remunerations, relocation costs etc. Furthermore if a talented staff is already performing superbly for the company a steady state has been established with respect to people chemistry, team spirit, client/vendor/partner relationships etc. Although it may be sensible to move this smart employee to a more suitable position for long term gain of the company it will be extremely difficult for his/her Manager to justify this short term pain.
Would the Manager sacrifices his own performance for a better future of his smart subordinate?
Will the superior of the Manager understands and supports the move?
What will be reaction of others that do not appreciate the justification to this job sculpting act and see this as nepotism?
If many more are asking for the same treatment then who get listened to and who do not?