Job Evaluation & Design

Job Analysis – Brief Basics

Job Analysis is of the first step in creating a defensible remuneration structure that will ensure effective management of Remuneration and other Human Resource procedures and processes. It is also the most neglected.
Job Analysis forms the basis for and interlinks to almost all of the processes, procedures and structure within a Remuneration and Human Resources framework of an organisation. Simply put, Job Analysis is the direction indicator to moving your Remuneration management forward. The schematic below illustrates this point.

Most remuneration specialists advocate that the proper structure needs to be in place when managing and administering remuneration effectively. It is essential to have this foundation in place before implementing any further human resource or remuneration strategy interventions. For example, you may decide to develop and implement human resources policies and procedures manual or a performance incentive bonus scheme for your organization, however, without a proper foundation in place formal human resources policies and procedures will raise a number of concerns, most of which will apply to the organisation’s internal equity. Below we look at some pointers and need-to-know information around job analysis.
Job Analysis, simply put, is determining what a job in an organisation should be doing and what is needed to effectively perform the responsibilities.

The Things to Consider are:

The purpose of the job. It is important to accurately define what a job does in the organisation. Any job whether it be a Cleaner or a Managing Director will work in some form of limitation or parameter. It is important to define what these limitations are to avoid blurred lines of responsibility up or down the hierarchy of the organisation. The second important aspect of defining the purpose of the job is to indicate what the objective of the job is. See the section Job Profiling for more information.

Reporting lines of the job. This is important to avoid any reporting lines that do not make sense or that may be impractical, such as dual reporting lines that may conflict with the purpose of the job. It is generally only at executive level where dual reporting may be required and this normally happens in a global organisation where a job should report to a regional or global head of department.

Competencies required for the job. This would be very much aligned to the industrial psychology discipline and does form part of our services. This is where the key and critical competencies of an individual are required to adequately perform a job.

Measurement of job responsibility. This is important as it will determine how to motivate an individual performing in a job. It also forms the basis of performance management processes and procedures.

Areas of responsibility. Job Analysis is closely linked to Job Profiling. Knowing what the job does in terms of the job’s areas of responsibility is crucial to avoid overlapping of areas of responsibilities between jobs as well as ensuring that an organisation is using its resources at optimal capacity.

Skills and Education. This would normally refer to the minimum requirements to be able to perform in the job. We use the minimum requirements as it will not be plausible to employ an individual who is over qualified to fill a job and comes at an overinflated salary in relation to the job requirements.

Job Size Parameters. The job size parameters start having a significant impact on the accountability of a job where an organisation operates on a multinational platform. This is specifically important to promote internal equity and fairness. A job that has a large financial accountability within a wider operational area will have a greater impact than the same job that operates in a small operational area with a very small financial turnover.

Job Profiling – It’s more than just writing it down.

As with job analysis, job profiling forms a crucial part of organisational structuring as well as managing remuneration and human resources processes and procedure. Drafting job profiles (also known as Job Descriptions) is a lengthy and sometimes frustrating exercise, especially for those professionals who are not fully aware of the complexities that accompany the profiling exercise.

There is more to job profiling that meets the eye and it is important to be aware of any pitfalls that may present itself at a later stage during the profiling exercise.

The golden rule here is – “As long as it is defensible and transparent”. Most professionals approach the profiling exercise from a mechanical point of view. They just want to get it done. However, there is more to profiling than writing down what a job does.

Job Profiling is Sensitive

Employees are very sensitive when they find out that the organisation is revisiting the job profiles or drafting profiles if there were none to begin with. It is important for any remuneration professional to be aware of this sensitivity. It is short sighted to think that employees do not know that job profiles form the basis of job grading which is directly linked to their remuneration. Everybody wants to feel that their job is important within the hierarchy of an organisation. Many companies use external service providers to maintain objectivity when job profiles are drafted or revisited or at least to create the impression of objectivity.

An important consideration when drafting a job profile is the “Accepted Role”. The below illustration provides an explanation of the “Accepted Role”.

The above illustrates that what an employee perceives their job/role to entail can differ somewhat from what the expected job/role is from a line manager or supervisor point of view. It is important to understand and mediate the job profiling of all jobs to ensure that both the job holder and supervisor agree on the job profile and its contents. This is called the Accepted Role.

Get It Signed-Off

Internal control is an important facet to the job profiling exercise as well as maintaining the “accepted role” principle in order to clarify that the content in the Job Profile is agreed on. The below outlines general good practice on the job profiling procedure:

• All Job Profiles must be completed on a standard template. This is important to maintain consistency throughout all jobs that undergo a job profiling exercise.

• All drafted profiles must be reviewed by the necessary stakeholders. This is crucial to get consensus to the content of the Job Profile. The draft job profile must be reviewed by the line manager, job holder and HR department.

• All Job Profiles must be signed off. This is the key to ensure that job profiles are correct. Once the profiles are signed-off no disputes can arise with regards to the content. By signing off a job profile, you create transparency and defensibility around the job profiling exercise. Reasonably speaking, job profiles may change due to organisational restructuring or a job changing in responsibility or complexity. Only then should job profiles be revisited and the same procedure followed as above.

Many Ways to Profile a Job

There are various ways to collect information for the job profiles. This is normally done during the job analysis phase. The use of a combination of methods tends to be more effective. Among these are the following:

• Read any available documentation related to the job, e. previous job profiles, work procedures, etc.

• Job Profiling interviews are an effective way of getting the information required to complete the job profile.

• On the job observation. This method is particularly effective for machine or equipment operator type positions.

• “Do-it-yourself” (DIY) Method. There are times where there is no budget to use external providers or no internal resource that has the skills to conduct a job profiling exercise. In these cases some organisations get job holders to complete a job profile and then send it for review to a line manager or supervisor.

Job Inflation

Job Inflation, also known as “Window Dressing”, often occurs during the job profiling exercise. This is where employees try and inflate the perceived role in the hope that the Job Profile may seem to have more impact and importance within the hierarchical structure of an organisation. There are many ways to inflate a job, however, care must be taken to identify when job inflation occurs. Job titles or areas of responsibility may be stated in such a way that the job does more than it actually does or has more authority than it actually does. Titles that overstate the importance of the job can contribute to difficulty in matching jobs to salary surveys and create pressure to change titles in other disciplines or job families.

The table below reflects some examples of inflated titles:

JOB TITLE	ACTUAL FUNCTION
Refuse Disposal Technician	Empties waste paper baskets
Beverage Supply Manager	Makes tea for the office
Electronic Communications Coordinator	Telephonist

Use the Right Words

It is important to remember to use the correct wording when drafting job profiles. Use verbs that accurately describe what their position does and is responsible for.

Describing the purpose of a position is probably the most difficult part of drafting a job profile. A good “purpose” paragraph must explain why the position exists, are there limitations that exist in the job and are what objectives to be achieved. The following list may help you in this exercise:

Below we also highlight some thinking and action verbs that you may find useful:

Job Grading – A Brief Overview

Job grading is the process of using formalized systems for determining the relative value of jobs within an organization. It typically involves the ranking of jobs through the use of some or other points-factor system where the key characteristics are:

• Objectivity
• Defensibility
• Validity
• Reliability
• Consistency

Main Purpose of Job Grading

• To determine the difference in complexity between positions/roles, using the same systematic approach across the organisation.
• To establish a logical basis for salary benchmarking (internal and external parity).
• To establish a logical basis for pay structuring.
• Provides a common language and defined point of reference for negotiation and collective bargaining.

Secondary Purpose of Job Evaluation

• Assists in developing career paths through the hierarchy of jobs
• Assists in developing or revising organizational structures
• Assists with skills development within the workplace
• Allows a detailed analysis of wage and skills gaps

 Job Grading Systems

There are numerous job grading systems. Many of them are proprietary systems that belong to consulting firms. Below we list some of the grading systems that companies use:

Paterson

Paterson is the only non-points-based job grading system available and is widely used in the African Continent.   Jobs are compared by evaluating the level of decision-making.  The overall hierarchy of jobs however, is the same as if a points based job evaluation system is used

Task

Task is a fine tuning of the Paterson System of Job Grading. Jobs are first placed in a band, or skill level. Task, however, only uses 5 levels, as opposed to Paterson’s 6. The skill levels used in Task are ‘Basic’, ‘Discretionary’, ‘Specialised’, ‘Tactical’ and ‘Strategic’. Thereafter, placing the jobs into the relevant sub levels or grades is based on factors; complexity, knowledge, influence and pressure.

Peromnes

Peromnes scores jobs on a number of factors; problem solving, pressure of work, job impact, consequence of judgement, educational qualifications, training and experience. The overall score is applied to a sliding scale to determine a job grade. This system is mostly used by educational institutions, due to its emphasis on formal qualifications.

Hay

The Hay method of job grading was developed in America. It is also a points based system. However, it only measures jobs using three factors; know-how, problem solving and accountability. In an attempt to enable Hay to be applied to blue collar occupations, a forth factor, namely working conditions, has subsequently been included. This system is mostly used by large American corporates such as Coca-Cola, Colgate Palmolive, Microsoft, Google, Johnson and Johnson, etc.

Re-Measure

Re-measure is an internet based job grading system that appoints a Paterson Band and then apportions a score to each job. The following factors are used to measure jobs; qualifications, knowledge and skills, experience and training, problem solving, communication, financial impact and influence.

JE Manager

JE Manager is a computerised job grading system and is owned, marketed and administered through the Hay Group. It assesses the scope and complexity of a job on the basis of three groups of factors; output, input and process factors. Each of these groups contains two factors. Each individual factor is weighted, and then measured on two dimensions. This is a highly recommended system. However, it is extremely costly, and in addition, still requires a high level of job evaluation knowledge of the administrator.

Below is an approximate correlation of grades between some of the popular grading systems.

Paterson Classic	Paterson Modern	Hay Units	JE Manager	Peromnes	Task	Decision Level
A1	A	50 – 67	0 – 7	18/19	1	Defined Decisions
A2		68 – 79	8 – 16	17	2
A3		80 – 92	17 – 24	16	3
B1	B Lower	93 – 109	25 – 34	15	4	Discretionary, Operative, Sub-System or Automatic Decisions
B2		110 – 128	35 – 44	14	5
B3		129 – 150	45 – 54	13	6
B4	B Upper	151 – 176	55 – 64	12	7
B5			65 – 74		7
C1	C Lower	177 – 197	75 – 84	11	8/9	Skilled, Technical and Academically Qualified Employees, Junior Management, Supervisors, Foremen, Superintendents, Routine or Process Decisions
C2		198 – 222	85 – 94	10	10
C3		223 – 250	95 – 104	9	11
C4	C Upper	251 – 320	105 – 114	8	12
C5		321 – 400	115 – 124	7	12
D1	D Lower	401 – 454	125 – 134		13/14	Professionally Qualified and Experienced Specialists, Middle Management, Interpretive Decisions
D2		455 – 515	135 – 144	6	15
D3		516 – 585	145 – 154	5	16
D4	D Upper	586 – 720	155 – 164		17
D5		721 – 850	165 – 174	4
E1	E Lower	851 – 992	175 – 184		18/21	Senior Management, Heads of Major Functions, Programming Decisions
E2		993 – 1157	185 – 194	3
E3		1158 – 1350	195 – 204
E4	E Upper	1351 – 1664	205 – 214	2	22/23
E5		1665 – 2050	215 – 224
F1	F Lower	2051 – 2200	225 – 234	1	24	Top Management, Board Level, Policy Making Decisions
F2		2201 – 2350	235 – 244		25
F3	F Upper	2351 – 2515	245 – 254	1+	26
F4		2516+	255 – 264
F5			265 – 275

 When Should a Job Be Graded?

• When there is an appropriate change in the job/role content and its complexity or responsibility levels – not if only volume increased (more of the same tasks were added)
• When the organization has gone through a restructuring exercise – only evaluate jobs/roles that were affected by the new structures
• When a historic job evaluation system has become outdated and a new or revised approach is introduced

When Should a Job NOT Be Graded?

• Do not evaluate merely to upgrade a job/role to pay an individual more – greater flexibility must be built into the salary structures and remuneration policy
• The changing nature of organizations and work requires different standards be applied to valuing jobs than in the past

Principles of Job Grading

• Focus on output from work rather than input to work
• Ability to handle complex and diverse nature of organizational structures – even within one company
• Identification of factors and factor language that transcends geographic and cultural boundaries
• Process for evaluating jobs must be capable of being consistently and effectively implemented in ever more decentralized environments by individuals without expertise in position evaluation

The Job Grading Committee

The role of the Job Grading Committee is to grade jobs in a fair and consistent manner using the agreed job grading system that the organisation decides to use. The Job Grading Committee of the organisation normally functions in a two-tier structure, constituted as follows:

• Job Evaluation Unit

This Unit is typically made up of trained job analysts. The head of HR normally decides which members is to be part of this unit and requires designating one of the members as Chairperson.

The Unit will then evaluate all positions and submit the outcome of such evaluations to the Validation Committee.

• Validation Committee

All job evaluation results as evaluated by the Job Evaluation Unit will be submitted to the Validation Committee for final review and validation prior to implementation of such results.

The Validation Committee shall be appointed for a period of 2 (two) years and shall for the first 2 year period consist of any five (5) Directors. The Validation Committee shall determine its Chairmanship.

The Validation Committee will not re-evaluate positions evaluated by the Job Evaluation Committee, but will identify aspects requiring further consideration, such as internal relativities, comparisons with similar graded positions etc. The Validation Committee will determine whether the results of a given job evaluation process are to be implemented as such, or whether further consideration must be given to certain aspects of the original evaluation by the Job Evaluation Unit.