evaluating work: job evaluation. job-based structures: job evaluation job evaluation – process of...
TRANSCRIPT
Evaluating Work:
Job Evaluation
Job-Based Structures: Job Evaluation Job evaluation – process of systematically determining the relative worth of jobs to create a job structure for the organization
The evaluation is based on a combination of: Job content Skills required Value to the organization Organizational culture External market
Assumptions Underlying Different Views of Job Evaluation
Defining Job Evaluation: Content, Value, and External Market Links (cont.)
“How-To”: Major decisions Establish the purpose
Supports organization strategySupports work flowIs fair to employeesMotivates behavior toward organization objectives
Determining an Internally-Aligned Job Structure
Defining Job Evaluation: Content, Value, and External Market Links (cont.)
“How-To”: Major decisions (cont.) Single versus multiple plans
Characteristics of a benchmark job:Contents are well-known and relatively stable
over time Job not unique to one employeeA reasonable number of employees are
involved in the jobDepth and breadth of job
Benchmark Jobs
Comparison of Job Evaluation Methods
Ranking
Orders job descriptions from highest to lowest based on a global definition of relative value or contribution to the organization’s successSimple, fast, and easy to understand and explain
Initially, the least expensive methodCan be misleading
– Two approaches Alternation ranking Paired comparison method
Paired Comparison Ranking
Classification
Uses class descriptions that serve as the standard for comparing job descriptions
Classes include benchmark jobs
Outcome: Series of classes with a number of jobs in each
Classifications for Engineering Work Used by Clark Consulting
Point Method
Three common characteristics of point methods:Compensable factorsFactor degrees numerically scaledWeights reflect relativeimportance of each factor
Most commonly used approach to establish pay structures in U.S.
Differ from other methods by making explicit the criteria for evaluating jobs – compensable factors
Designing a Point Plan: Six Steps
Conduct job analysis Determine compensable factors Scale the factors Weight the factors according to
importance Communicate the plan, train users;
prepare manual Apply to non-benchmark jobs
Job Evaluation:The Point Method Example: Software Engineer
Job Description The Software Engineer designs, develops, tests
and maintains one or more of our products or internal applications. The software engineer works as a member of an engineering team developing, designing, and maintaining one or more of our products or internal applications. This position reports to the appropriate Project Manager.
Job Specification Bachelor's or undergraduate degree in Computer
Science, Information Systems, Electrical Engineering or equivalent experience. Masters or graduate degree is desirable. Understand Intranet and Internet technologies: http, firewall.
Step 1: Conduct Job Analysis
Point plans begin with job analysis
A representative sample of jobs (benchmark jobs) is drawn for analysis
Content of these jobs is basis for:
Defining compensable factors
Scaling compensable factors
Weighting compensable factors
Step 2: Determine Compensable Factors
Compensable factors – characteristics in the work that the organization values, that help it pursue its strategy and achieve its objectives
Compensable factors play a pivotal role Reflect how work adds value to organization Decision making is three-dimensional:
Risk and complexity Impact of decision Time that must pass before evidence of impact
Step 2: Determine Compensable Factors (cont.)
To be effective, compensable factors should be: Based on strategy and values of organization Based on work performed
Documentation is important Acceptable to the stakeholders Adapting factors from existing plans
Skills, and effort required; responsibility, and working conditions
Compensable Factor Definition: Multinational Responsibilities
Factors in Hay Plan
Hay Guide Chart-Profile Method
The Hay Guide chart-profile method uses three universal factors, eight subfactors, and forty-three degrees and levels to evaluate jobs. They are as follows:
Know-How Practical procedures,
specialized knowledge, And scientific discipline.
(8 levels) Managerial (4 levels) Human relations (3 levels) Plus 3 degree choices per
grid.
Hay Guide Chart-Profile Method
Problem-Solving
Thinking environment(8 levels)
Thinking challenge (5 levels)
Accountability
Freedom to act(7 levels)
Job impact on end results (4 levels)
Magnitude (4 levels)
Step 3: Scale the Factors
Construct scales reflecting different degrees within each factor
Most factor scales consist of four to eight degrees
Issue Whether to make each degree equidistant from
adjacent degrees (interval scaling)
Step 3: Scale the Factors (cont.) Criteria for scaling factors
Ensure number of degrees is necessary to distinguish among jobs
Use understandable terminology
Anchor degree definitions with benchmark-job titles and/or work behaviors
Make it apparent how degree applies to job
Factor Scaling – National Metal Trades Association
Step 4: Weigh the Factors According to Importance
– Different weights reflect differences in importance attached to each factor by the employer
– Determination of factor weights Advisory committee allocates 100 percent of the
value among factors
Step 4: Weigh the Factors According to Importance (cont.)
Select criterion pay structure Committee members recommend the criterion pay
structure Statistical approach is termed policy capturing to
differentiate it from the committee a priori judgment approach
Weights also influence pay structure
Job Evaluation Form
Overview of the Point System
Job Factor Weight
1
2
3
4
5
1. Education 50% 100 200 300 400 500
2. Respons-ibility
30% 75 150 225 300
3. Physical effort
12% 24 48 72 96 120
4. Working conditions
8% 25 51 80
Degree of Factor
AAIM National Position Evaluation Plan
1st Degree
Skill1. Knowledge2. Experience3. Initiative and IngenuityEffort4. Physical Demand5. Mental or Visual DemandResponsibility6. Equipment or Process7. Material or Product8. Safety of Others9. Work of OthersJob Conditions10. Working Conditions11. Hazards
142214
105
5555
105
Factor2nd
Degree
284428
2010
10101010
2010
3rd Degree
426642
3015
15151515
3015
4thDegree
568856
4020
20202020
4020
5thDegree
70110
70
5025
25252525
5025
Points Assigned to Factor Degrees
Job Evaluation ExampleJob Points Reference
WageA Clerk 45 $12/hourB Acct Clerk 55 $16C Accountant 75 $22D HR Mgr 85 $25E Ass’t Adm 80 $26F Office Mgr 85 $28
Step 5: Communicate the Plan and Train Users Involves development of manual containing
information to allow users to apply plan Describes job evaluation method Defines compensable factors Provides information to permit users to distinguish
varying degrees of each factor Involves training users on total pay system Includes appeals process for employees
Employee acceptance is imperative Communication
Step 6: Apply to Nonbenchmark Jobs
Final step involves applying plan to remaining jobs Could involve both designers and/or employees
trained in applying the plan Tool for managers and HR specialists once plan
is developed and accepted Trained evaluators will evaluate new jobs or
reevaluate jobs whose work content has changed May also be part of appeals process
Step 7: Develop Online Software Support
Online job evaluation is widely used in larger organizations
Becomes part of a Total Compensation Service Center for managers and HR generalists to use
Who Should be Involved? Managers and employees with a stake in the
results should be involved Can include representatives from key operating
functions, including nonmanagerial employees Organizations with unions find including union
representatives helps gain acceptance Extent of union participation varies
Who Should be Involved? (cont.) Design process matters
Attending to fairness of design process and approach chosen likely to achieve employee and management commitment, trust, and acceptance of results
Appeals/review procedures Inevitable that some jobs are incorrectly evaluated Requires review procedures for handling such
cases and helping to ensure procedural fairness
Who Should be Involved? (cont.) “I know I speak for all of us when I say I speak
for all of us” Procedures should be judged for their
susceptibility to political influences
The Final Result: Structure
The final result of the job analysis – job description – job evaluation process is a structure, a hierarchy of work
Managerial, technical, manufacturing, and administrative
Resulting Internal Structures – Job, Skill, and Competency Based
Balancing Chaos and Control Job evaluation changed the legacy of
decentralization and uncoordinated wage-setting practices left from the 1930s and ’40s
It must afford flexibility to adapt to changing conditions Avoids bureaucracy and increases freedom to
manage Reduces control and guidelines, making
enforcement of fairness difficult