Job evaluation form

Job Evaluation: an assessment of job tasks and responsibilities in order to create a top-
to-bottom hierarchy reflective of the relative value that the company places upon its jobs.

Throughout my lengthy Compensation career I have never enjoyed having to evaluate

jobs. Quite the opposite. As soon as I progressed high enough in my organization I
delegated responsibility to a subordinate and washed my hands of it. Job evaluation is a
thankless task, with the evaluator subject to criticism from all sides.

• If you agree with an evaluation request, you are only admitting to the obvious
• If you disagree and value the job different (lower), you clearly do not understand
the key duties and responsibilities
• The subjective nature of the process is viewed with suspicion by everyone
• Job evaluators do not receive Christmas cards

In spite of my disdain for the process the art of evaluating jobs has been around for
decades.

• Companies need a method to establish a hierarchy of job importance (A is bigger

than B, B is bigger than C, etc.)
• They need to explain the relationship of jobs, one to another (A is how much
bigger than B?)
• They want to set employee expectations and manage the Reward process (price
the jobs)

Job Evaluation does have other purposes as well. It sets career progression steps, assists
with organizational development (which jobs are necessary), and allows the company to
avoid criticism that the competitive labor market has dictated who should be paid more or
less than others.

Despite these worthy goals criticism of the process itself comes from many directions:

• Job descriptions are often poorly written, with content manipulated by managers
to gain advantage
• Pressure is often brought to bear on the Evaluator to increase (almost never the
opposite) a rating
• Evaluation language, forms and procedures are often complicated and confusing
to employees and managers alike
• Senior management support for the integrity of the process is often limited
• Employees are skeptical of an inherently subjective process where decisions are
made by someone from outside their functional area
For those who use a job evaluation process (whole job or quantitative), a further step is to
place a price tag on each position- and to do that you need to conduct a study of the
competitive marketplace. That is called Market Pricing.

Market pricing is the one process that gets you straight to the core of the matter - placing
a monetary value on your jobs. Some of its advantages are:

• More objective, especially if using multiple sources

• Easier for management to accept, vs. the judgment of "some analyst in HR"
• Easier to defend results to otherwise biased managers
• Evaluator subject to less criticism (a personal favorite)

Most companies follow both processes, job evaluation and then market pricing. Does that
two-phased time and effort add value? I have my doubts, especially if the prime goal is to
establish a salary structure.

Sometimes the competitive market conflicts with your hierarchy.

What if the marketplace indicates a job is worth @$50,000, but as a result of your
evaluation process the current midpoint is either much higher or much lower? Ignoring
the market could prove costly, in terms of either dollars or employee disengagement. But
if you follow competitive practice - then what is the point of your job evaluation process?

When faced with a choice most companies would make the change. So at the end of the
day the true indicator of the value placed on your hierarchy is through market pricing.

Another concern; while Job Evaluation can be a long and tedious process, it isn't a
sufficient end in itself. You still have to price the jobs to create an effective salary
structure. The external survey data needs to be "interpreted" by a skilled analyst in order
to ensure position matches are appropriate and the subsequent data properly
integrated. We call this "massaging the data."

Some examples of how market data can be massaged between the survey source(s) and
the salary structure:

• When you cluster diverse market data points into a graded salary structure
• When you are not able to afford competitive rates you may lower the value of
each position by creating a below market salary structure.
• When you move jobs into certain grades to reflect the organizational realities of
your company (the senior analyst must be either one or two grades higher than the
core analyst)
• There will also be "favored sons", positions that must be slotted a certain way in
your hierarchy, regardless of market data

If your goal is to price the internal and external value of your positions you do not need
an involved job evaluation process, but you do need market pricing. I would suggest a
market pricing effort first, to establish competitive pay levels, and then if desired for
other purposes follow up with some form of whole job evaluation process (keep it
simple). Finally, the evaluator(s) should recommend a degree of massaging to ensure that
the final results "make sense", from both an internal as well as external viewpoint.