JOB EVALUATION

Job evaluation is the process of establishing the comparative worth of jobs within an organisation, of ranking jobs in order of size as determined by their work value. This provides a basis for relating differences in remuneration to differences in work value.

Most organisations would employ some form of job evaluation, the sophistication and complexity of the method employed increasing with the size of the organisation involved and the number of jobs which need to be ranked.

The key features of three of the most common forms of job evaluation are discussed below.

Job Ranking

This is a very simple form of job evaluation, where jobs are ranked in order of importance to the organisation in the view of an employee who has an intimate knowledge of those jobs. For example, jobs within a particular department might be ranked by the departmental manager.

This method compares whole jobs with whole jobs. Whilst it is easy and simple to use, its worth is limited to organisations with a small number of jobs.

Job Grading

Job grading methodology relies upon identifying a limited number of key common job factors which give value to a job, and then ranking the jobs in accordance with to what extent such factors are present in a job.

A good example of the job grading form of job evaluation is the responsibility level descriptors used in APESMA salary surveys. The responsibility levels for professional engineers can be found here.

The descriptors for each classification or level focus on a limited number of common job factors, specifically, the nature and complexity of the work undertaken, the level of supervision exercised and received, and autonomy in decision making. Each higher level represents a group of jobs of higher work value.

Using supervision received as an example:

Level 1 performs normal professional engineering work under supervision of higher level professional engineers as to method of approach and requirements.

Level 2 plans and conducts professional engineering work without detailed supervision, but with guidance on unusual features.

Level 3 work is carried out within broad guidelines. Informed professional engineering guidance may be available.

Level 4 duties are assigned only in terms of broad objectives and are reviewed for policy, soundness of approach, accomplishment and general effectiveness.

Level 5 receives administrative direction based on organisation policies and objectives. Work is reviewed to ensure conformity with policy and coordination with other functions.

In grading jobs, a “whole of job” approach is taken. The job, as defined by the position description, is compared with the criteria in the level descriptors, and a judgement made on which level is the most appropriate fit.

Points Job Factor

A further alternative approach to valuing jobs is to use a points factor methodology. Like classification descriptors, points factor methodology focuses on key factors of a job which give it value. Unlike classification descriptors, points factor methodology considers significantly more factors, and values each factor by assigning it a point score. The points for each factor are summated to give the total score or size of the job.

The two main point factor evaluation schemes in use in Australia are the Hay and Mercer (formerly Cullen, Egan, and Dell) schemes.

Whilst there are differences in the methodology that each scheme utilises, the similarities far outweigh the differences.

Each scheme identifies three principal job factors, which in turn are further divided into sub factors. For each scheme, they are as follows:

HAY MERCER/CED

Know Howo technicalo breadtho human relations

Problem Solvingo thinking

environmento thinking challenge

Accountabilityo impact (magnitude)o freedom to act

o impact (type)

Expertiseo knowledge and

experienceo breadtho interpersonal skills

Judgemento job environmento reasoning

Accountabilityo impacto independence and

influence

o involvement

Underlying both schemes is the notion that jobs involve inputs (know how/expertise) that are processed (problem solving/judgement) to produce outputs (accountability).

For each particular sub factor there are a number of levels, each with descriptive criteria. The evaluator, usually working from a position description, determines the appropriate level for each sub factor.

Points are allocated to each of the three principal factors (know how/expertise, problem solving/judgement, and accountability) by consulting a table of predetermined values which reflect the relative importance of each sub factor. The points for each of the three principal factors are then summated to give the total points score for the job.

Points to note regarding job evaluation schemes

there is nothing “scientific” about job evaluation. All forms of job evaluation involve some form of human judgement. Proponents of job evaluation schemes do argue, however, that they provide an objective and systematic way of assessing the relative importance of jobs

it is always the job that is being evaluated, not the person performing the job. How well the job is being performed by the incumbent is irrelevant to the job evaluation process

it is essential that the person evaluating a job has a comprehensive understanding of the job

both Hay and Mercer recommend that evaluations be done by a panel of evaluators rather than one individual, so that the evaluation is a consensus of views rather than an individual view.