JOB EVALUATION AND GRADING PROCESS AND SYSTEMS DEFINITION

JOB EVALUATION AND GRADING – PROCESS AND SYSTEMS

DEFINITION, PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES OF JOB EVALUATION • Job Evaluation is the process of determining as systematically and objectively as possible, the worth of one job relative to another without regard for personalities or existing structures. • It tries to make a systematic comparison between jobs to assess their relative worth for the purpose of establishing a rational pay structure. • The purpose is to achieve and maintain an equitable distribution of basic wages and/or salaries according to level of position. • The main objectives of such an exercise can be stated as “the establishment of internal equity with a graded hierarchy of jobs within the organization and of external equity with the external market rate for equivalent jobs”.

CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS AND BEST PRACTICE PRINCIPLES OF JOB EVALUATION • Selection of a system of job evaluation • Selling the concept and the system to management and employees • Designing the job description forms in accordance with company requirements • Deciding on how job descriptions are to be written • Training those people who will write job descriptions and the Grading Committee • Monitoring the quality of job descriptions

JOB EVALUATION PROCESS • Stage 1 is the inflexible part of the process. Although there is a degree of flexibility in any job evaluation method, one must observe the grading rules if the system is to retain its credibility. This stage consists of: Writing the job descriptions in an agreed format Grading of the job description by a trained representative committee using the job evaluation rules • Stage 2 is where flexibility must be built into the remuneration system. This stage consists of: Development of wage and salary structuring, benefits and incentives within the framework of the market rates, company policy and ability to pay.

JOB EVALUATION PROCESS ILLUSTRATED

CRITERIA INFORMING THE SELECTION OF THE JOB EVALUATION SYSTEM • Management and staff must understand it; be committed to it and accept it - EMPOWERED • Implementation can be quick - EXPEDIENCY • Updating and maintaining the system will be quick and easy - EFFICIENCY

PROMINENT JOB EVALUATION SYSTEMS • Hay Group • Peromnes • JE Manager/Decision Tree • T. A. S. K. • Paterson • EQUATE • Towers Watson GGS

HAY JOB EVALUATION METHOD • Hay Group pioneered the “factor comparison” job evaluation method and modified it in its Guide Charts in the early 1950’s. • Organizations use the Hay methodology to evaluate jobs against a set of common factors that measure: Inputs (required knowledge, skills, and capabilities), Throughputs (processing of inputs to achieve results) Outputs (end result expectations from applying inputs constructively) • During the evaluation process, each job’s content is analyzed relative to each factor and represented by a numerical value. These factor values are then totaled to determine the overall job “size. ” • The input-throughput-output model is reflected in the Hay Method as Know-How, Problem Solving and Accountability. Each grouping can be further broken down into eight elements for the work value assessment.

HAY JOB EVALUATION FACTORS • Accountability (has three dimensions): Freedom to Act Scope Impact • Know-How (has three dimensions): Technical/Specialized Skills Managerial Skills Human Relations Skills • Problem Solving (has two dimensions): Thinking Environment Thinking Challenge

HAY JOB EVALUATION FACTORS ILLUSTRATED

HAY JOB EVALUATION GUIDE CHARTS • The Guide Charts enable consistent work evaluations. Each of the factors—Know. How, Problem Solving, and Accountability— has its own Guide Chart that reflects the identified sub elements. • Each Guide Chart scale is expandable to account for the complexity and size of the organization to which it is applied, and the scale descriptions can be modified when appropriate. • An important distinction is that the Hay Methodology can be calibrated to the value systems of other organizations within Hay’s compensation databases. This enables a wide range of benchmarking activities, potentially improving the accuracy of market pricing and increasing confidence in job evaluation results. • Guide Charts expedite the job evaluation process, but considerable expertise is required to understand the work’s nature to determine the degree to which elements exist for each factor. • The power is not only in the tool, but also in the evaluator’s knowledge and skill and the consistency in the tool’s application across the organization.

PEROMNES • Peromnes grades show the rank order of jobs within an organization and allow jobs to be compared by grade with other jobs both inside and outside the organization. • Peromnes evaluates and scores jobs in terms of eight factors. These factors are intrinsic to jobs, do not measure aspects outside the job and are applicable to all jobs in terms of function and level in organization. • The first six evaluate tasks, skills, responsibilities and relationships (job content) and the last two evaluate education and further training and experience (job requirements).

PEROMNES JOB EVALUATION FACTORS • Factor 1: Problem Solving • Factor 2: Consequence of Judgments • Factor 3: Pressure of Work • Factor 4: Knowledge • Factor 5: Job Impact • Factor 6: Comprehension • Factor 7: Educational Qualifications • Factor 8: Further Training/Experience:

JE MANAGER/DT • JE Manager is a computerized system designed to eliminate human bias and has various checks and controls to ensure consistency of results. • It is transparent as it involves the job holder; the incumbent (where the post is occupied) to personally answers questions required by the system. • The system is also non-discriminatory in that the same set of factors, questions, and parameters are used to measure each job regardless of the incumbent. • The JE Manager process empowers employees in that they are directly involved in their own evaluations together with their line managers. • The system also takes into account the individual and the individual’s role in adding value to the organization more than other job evaluation system. • The system recognizes applied competencies acquired formally or informally without placing an undue emphasis on either.

JE MANAGER/DT • It also avoids placing an undue emphasis on hierarchical positions or theoretical number of people supervised and the system specifically recognizes the specialist roles. • The system is designed for maximum flexibility allowing full customization to fit the culture, value system and organization structure. • JE Manager supports flexible pay structures and can be linked to competencies and performance management systems. • The system substantially reduces evaluation time. It reduces the time span between a request for an evaluation and the evaluation itself. • No job evaluation committee is required and the time spent on each evaluation is considerably less than traditional methods.

JE MANAGER/DT FACTORS • Hay Group’s Decision Tree is a powerful, reliable and user-friendly web-based tool that simplifies the overall JE process. • The Decision Tree system helps organizations to build a database of job profiles, evaluate and validate jobs (online checks and balances), maintain, share, export and archive information and produce a wide-range of value-add reports. • The JE Manager measures six factors each on a bi-dimensional basis (X & Y): Factor 1: Judgment Factor 2: Planning and leadership Factor 3: Communication Factor 4: Job impact Factor 5: Acquisition and application of knowledge Factor 6: Skills acquisition and practice

JE MANAGER/DT PROCESS • Evaluation is done by a trained evaluator on a question and answer basis prompted by the program. In attendance at the evaluation are the following role-players: The incumbent ; The incumbents line manager ; The evaluator ; and The incumbents representative (e. g. from a union), if so requested by the incumbent. • After the evaluation, the results are sent, without alteration, to be audited by an audit committee. The purpose of the audit is to validate the evaluation result and to ensure internal equity of jobs within the organization. • The audit committee is empowered to increase or decrease the evaluation scores, based on sound reason, in terms of the aforementioned objectives of validity and equity. • The audit committee is composed of the following four members: A Chairman, from the Human Resources Department; A Human Resources evaluation officer; A representative from the department whose post is being audited; and A representative from one other department (but not from the Human Resources Department).

JE MANAGER/DT PROCESS • Should the incumbent consider that the post has been inappropriately graded, he/she may appeal against the evaluation. • An appeal committee will be constituted to consider the appeal. • The appeal committee may not be composed of members who audited the post originally. • The appeal committee, after hearing the appeal, may recommend the following: No change to the grade(status quo) ; Re-evaluate the job ; and Revise the grade.

T. A. S. K. JOB EVALUATION • Tuned Assessment of Skills and Knowledge (T. A. S. K. ) • A Patterson plan derivative, the T. A. S. K. system that uses a point system with a number of factors for sub grading (skill level, knowledge, complexity, influence, pressure to address the problem of sub grading.

T. A. S. K. JOB EVALUATION PROCESS • The T. A. S. K. job evaluation system evaluates jobs from grade 1 up to grade 26, where grade 1 will be the lowest job and grade 26 the highest job. • The T. A. S. K. system is based on the skill level requirements of jobs at all levels and in all functions in an organization. • All jobs, throughout an organization, can be classified into skill levels according to established standards. • To arrive at a job grade the following procedure must be follow: Determine the skill level of the job; Determine the points ranges for each of the four factors - Complexity, Knowledge, Influence and Pressure; and Determine actual points per range by answering sub factor questions.

T. A. S. K. JOB EVALUATION SKILL LEVELS • The T. A. S. K. job evaluation system categorizes jobs in 5 skill levels: Level 1: Basic Skills Level 2: Discretionary Skills Level 3: Specialized Skills Level 4: Tactical Skills Skill 5: Strategic skills

T. A. S. K. JOB EVALUATION FACTORS • After the skill level of a post has been determined, the post is then rated against four factors: Complexity Knowledge Influence Pressure

PATERSON GRADING SYSTEM • The basic premise of the method is that all jobs, regardless of level, industry or country, can be compared in terms of the number and weight of decisions that must be made by the job incumbent. • From this comparison a pay structure can be established. • Paterson maintains that an organization’s pay structure should reflect the organization and responsibility levels within the organization, and that responsibility should be measured and compared in terms of a single factor common to all jobs, namely, decision-making. • Paterson defines six kinds of Bands of decision, which are found in any company. Any job can be defined in terms of these Bands of decision and the authority relationships, which are involved.

PATERSON GRADING SYSTEM BANDS OF DECISIONS • BAND F: Policy Making Decisions (Top Management) • BAND E: Programming Decisions (Senior Management) • BAND D: Interpretive Decisions (Middle Management and High Level Specialists) • BAND C: Routine/Process/System Decisions (Specialist or Skilled Employees) • BAND B: Automatic/Operative/Sub-system employees) (Partially • BAND A: Defined Decisions (Basic Skilled Employees) skilled

PATERSON FACTORS • Factor 1: Decision-making/responsibility/judgment (Used for Banding) • Factor 2: Supervision/coordination of people/work (Used for sub. Banding) • Factor 3: Complexity of tasks (Used for sub-Banding) • Factor 4: Variety of tasks (Used for sub-Banding) • Factor 5: Degree of precision required (Used for sub-Banding) • Factor 6: Work pressure/physical effort (Used for sub-Banding)

BANDS KIND OF DECISION LEVEL DESCRIPTOR 11 SUB-GRADES F Policy Making Top Management 11 E Programming Senior Management KIND OF GRADE Co-ordinating or Supervisory Policy 10 Policy 9 Co-ordinating or Supervisory Programming 8 D Interpretive/ Probabilistic Middle Management 7 Supervisory Interpretive 6 Interpretive 5 Supervisory Skilled 4 Skilled 3 Supervisory Partially skilled 2 Partially skilled 1 Defined (Expert) (Specialist) (Professional) C Routine/Process/ System Skilled (Specialist) (Professional) B A Automatic/ Operative/ Sub-system Defined Partially Skilled Basic Skilled

6 BROAD BANDS 11 28 SUB-GRADES 11 Policy Co-ordinating F 5 F 4 10 Policy F 3 F 2 F 1 E 5 E 4 F 9 Programming Co-ordinating E 8 Programming 7. Interpretive Co-ordinating E 3 E 2 E 1 D 5 D 4 D 6 Interpretive 5. Skilled/Specialist Co-ordinating C 4 3. Skilled/Specialist Partially skilled Co-ordinating D 3 D 2 D 1 C 5 C 4 C 3 C 2 C 1 B 5 B 4 B Partially skilled B 3 B 2 B 1 Basic skilled No Co-ordinating Sub-division A 3 A 2 A 1 2 1. A

EQUATE FACTORS • Responsibility • Thinking Demands • Communication and Contacts • Knowledge • Environmental Demands

TOWERS WATSON GLOBAL GRADING SYSTEM (GGS) • Towers Watson’s systematic approach to job leveling helps organizations manage the opportunities and challenges of talent and reward program design including aligning jobs located in multiple regions or across different lines of business, or creating a career framework that integrates employees after a merger, acquisition or other structural change. • Job leveling is an analytical process that can determine the relative value of jobs in your organization, and it provides a foundation for reward and talent management programs • The Global Grade calculator allows you to grade jobs following the proprietary Towers Watson Global Grading methodology using three key steps: Scope of the business Band for the job Grade for the job • The Global Grades generated by the calculator correlate with those included in the Towers Watson compensation surveys providing a valuable reference when assessing the competitiveness of reward packages.

JOB EVALUATION SYSTEMS COMPARISON

APPLYING PATERSON JOB EVALUATION AND GRADING PROCEDURE • Writing the Job Description • Job Grading – Band the Job Descriptions (Step 1) • Grading of Supervisory Tasks (Step 2) • Sub-grading of Jobs (Step 3): variety and complexity of tasks precision pressure of work/physical effort

LEARNING ACTIVITY • Group discussion Evaluate the relative merits of each of the prominent Job Evaluation systems. Which one do you favour? Justify your decision. Apply the selected/preferred Job Evaluation system to an identified position. • Provide feedback in the form of summary

FACTORS INFORMING AND INFLUENCING COMPENSATION

CONCLUSION – DAY 2 • Key points • Summary • Questions

TRAINING PROGRAMME OVERVIEW – DAY 3 • Application of theoretical concepts by means of Case Study Analysis: • Case Study 1: Developing a Complete Plan for Job Analysis (Excitor) • Case Study 2: Job Evaluation at World Vision (by means of JE Manager)

CASE STUDY 1: DEVELOPING A COMPLETE PLAN FOR JOB ANALYSIS (EXCITOR) • SYNDICATE GROUP CASE ANALYSIS AND FEEDBACK: • 1. • 2. Identify some of the 2. 1) elements and 2. 2) practical considerations that influence the choice/selection of the job analysis method/s. • 3. Do you believe that the consultant’s proposed hybrid of job analysis methods is appropriate (best fit)? Justify your response. • 4. • 5. Identify the primary data collection methods utilized by the consultant. Do you believe that the consultant strike the right balance of quantitative (analytical) and qualitative (non-analytical) methods? Justify your response. • 6. Do you believe that the consultant’s sample size and composition (of employees and managers) and related rationale is sensible, given the requirements of viability, feasibility, practicality and the need to comply with the scientific principles of reliability and representivity? Justify your response. Identify the purpose and objectives of the job analysis. Identify a few sources of job analysis data utilized by the consultant.

CASE STUDY 1: DEVELOPING A COMPLETE PLAN FOR JOB ANALYSIS (EXCITOR) • 7. Do you regard the consultant’s data collection, collation, analysis, interpretation, validation and reporting 7. 1) efficient and 7. 2) effective? Justify your response. • 8. Do you believe that the consultant excelled with the crafting and drafting of the 8. 1) Job Description and 8. 2) Job Specification documents? Justify your response. • 9. Do you believe that the consultant complied with and followed the client’s brief and ultimately, met their needs and expectations? Justify your response. • 10. Do you believe that the consultant applied the 5 -step Job Analysis process effectively? Justify your response. Would you recommend any improvements to their methodology and/or process? • 11. As a job analyst and/or HR Manager what are the lessons that you can extract from this case study.

CASE STUDY 2: JOB EVALUATION AT WORLD VISION (BY MEANS OF JE MANAGER) • SYNDICATE GROUP CASE ANALYSIS AND FEEDBACK: • 1. Identify the purpose and objectives of conducting the job evaluation at World Vision. • 2. By reviewing the old/previous system, perform a gap analysis i. e. identify the required areas of improvement at World Vision. • 3. Evaluate the effectiveness of the Hay Group JE Manager system in adequately addressing these gaps (identified in question 2). • 4. Identify at least three (3) job factors of the Hay Group JE Manager system which are used to evaluate and grade jobs at World Vision. • 5. List at least five (5) benefits that accrued to World Vision from applying the JE Manager job evaluation system. Which benefit would you regard as the most significant (highest value)? Justify your view. • 6. As a job evaluator and/or HR Manager what are the lessons that you can extract from this case study.