You think you know what a role actually involves?

Every role gets described twice during the mapping. Once by the person doing it. Once by the person who manages them. They are rarely the same description.

Ask the person doing the work what it actually involves, and you get the real texture: the workarounds, the judgement calls, the parts that never made it into any job description because nobody thought to write them down.

Ask their manager the same question, separately, and you often get a cleaner, tidier version. Closer to what the role was designed to be than what it has quietly become.

Neither account is wrong. They are two different vantage points on the same job, and the gap between them is not noise to average out.

That gap is where the real discovery happens. Hidden complexity nobody escalated. Assumptions the manager is making that stopped being true a while ago. Steps the person doing the work considers too obvious to even mention.

It is also why writing a process down for the first time always turns up more steps than anyone expected walking in. A role only sounds simple when nobody has had to reconcile both descriptions of it.