evaluare joburi

http://cbr.sagepub.com

Review Compensation & Benefits

DOI: 10.1177/088636879102300408 1991; 23; 53 Compensation Benefits Review

Laurent Dufetel Job Evaluation: Still at the Frontier

http://cbr.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/23/4/53 The online version of this article can be found at:

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:Compensation & Benefits Review Additional services and information for

http://cbr.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:

http://cbr.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

© 1991 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution. by Raluca Paraschiv on November 15, 2007 http://cbr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://cbr.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://cbr.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav


53

Job Evaluation: Still at the Frontier

LAURENT DUFETEL

Managing Director,Hay Group’s Worldwide Compensation Practice

Without an indepth appreciation of the advantages job evaluationprovides, critics do not recognize that this process can still help companiesmove to "new frontiers" in their development.

Many people believe that job evaluation had its roots in the &dquo;scientific

organization of work,&dquo; a strategy that standardized &dquo;commodity&dquo; jobs into

simplified responsibilities and tasks so that unskilled, uneducated workers-thebulk of the labor market at the time-could execute them. Instead, job evaluation

actually stems not from business’s need to standardize, but its need to specializewhen, in the 1920s, leading industrial organizations in the United States were

developing sophisticated service and production technologies-technologies that

required people with new, cutting-edge capabilities and skills. With few-or

no-parallels in business or industry, these unique specialty jobs were diffi-

cult-if not impossible-to price. Never intended as the only way to structure areward system, job evaluation emerged as the most accurate and comprehensivemeans companies had to overcome the limitations and negative effects of pricingthese,specialty jobs on the basis of two other compensation systems in use then (asnow): pay for knowledge or pay on the basis of the labor market.

Because it has been used for so long by so many organizations, job evaluationhas inevitably been misinterpreted and misused. Seeing only its constraints,rather than the broad opportunities it offers, job evaluation’s disappointed usersand academics have begun to revisit old pay-for-knowledge and pricing ideas.Without an indepth appreciation of the advantages job evaluation provides, theydo not recognize that this process, with its breadth and adaptability, can still helpcompanies move to &dquo;new frontiers&dquo; in their development. But the key to using



54

job evaluation in the current era will be getting back to the basics and innovatingfrom there.

Relearning the basics of job evaluation means taking a fresh look at its keyconcepts: .

~ Job evaluation involves management judgments and decisions.~ Job evaluation stresses that the value of a job is the &dquo;value added&dquo; that it

creates for the organization.. Job evaluation sees that every job, no matter what level or size, must be

examined with an unbiased eye for the contribution it can make to the

organization.Innovation includes these elements:o Seeking to use technology, especially the computer, as a tool, but not a

substitute for decisions.~ Introducing new evaluation concepts that reflect new organizational realities.~ Building bridges between quantitative job analysis (the job’s worth) and

qualitative analysis (the job’s critical competencies).

Why Analyze Jobs?Is &dquo;job&dquo; still a valid concept? The fundamental argument most often leveled at jobanalysis is that organizing according to &dquo;jobs&dquo; is misleading. Fearing that jobdescriptions inhibit employee initiative and restrict organization flexibility, manybusiness leaders declare that jobs cannot or should not be defined. Recent

corporate efforts aimed at freeing up obsolete job hierarchies through delayering,job enrichment, employee involvement, or total quality assurance programs havereinforced this belief for some.

But to use the job evaluation approach, jobs do not need to have fixed, rigiddefinitions; they simply need to have enough content and scope to be analyzed.After all, we must have some sort of framework to help us understand what needsto be accomplished in an organization; if not, how can we hire, train, develop, andmotivate the right people to do the work? And, at the same time, withoutunderstanding each job’s responsibilities and scope, how can we identify thosethat are poorly designed-and change and monitor them to serve the organizationbetter?

Is a &dquo;job description&dquo; a &dquo;job restriction&dquo;? Some managers naively believe thatemployees automatically limit their behavior to what is written on a piece ofpaper. But we all know people who do the right work-and more-even beforethey are asked for it. And we all know people who have a special talent foravoiding work that is clearly their responsibility. The point is this: Jobs do notexist as entities on their own; at any given time, they are the reflection of aparticular job holder-the result of an intricate, often subtle compromise between



55

what the organization needs, what management thinks is needed, what people are

available to staff the position, and what the selected incumbent is capable of or is

entitled to do. A job description does not interpret the work or encourage specific

job-related behaviors; it is the individual incumbent’s flexible or rigid way of

carrying out that job-=-and the internal culture in which he or she works-that

broadens or restricts its scope.How do you deal with jobs that change constantly? Some people will argue that

their jobs are continuously changing on the basis of company priorities and the

workload at the time. They feel they have no permanent or specific accountabil-

ities ; instead, they contribute as called for to projects that may vary in scope, size,

duration, and value to the organization.But many industries, such as engineering, have always worked almost exclu-

sively on a project management basis. Some functions, such as research and

development, work the same way. For such situations, job evaluation can

categorize a series of typical project management jobs, measuring not what a

person actually does at a given time, but the type of work the person is most often

responsible for. (In this case, it becomes even more obvious that to assess the job,

you also need to assess the person. The latter is clearly the more difficult task,

underscoring the need for instruments that bridge the gap between job analysisand assessment of peoples’ talents and competencies.)What is sound job analysis? Job analysis is most useful when it successfully

discerns a job’s key responsibilities or accountabilities, defining the end results

required but retaining enough flexibility to let the incumbent figure out how to

get the work done. It is crucial to accurately distinguish what an employee is

really responsible for and actually accomplishing from what company manage-ment-or even the evaluator-are predisposed to think this should be. The job

analyst must feel free to discover that the important jobs are not, or are no longer,the expected ones. Good job analysis is a delicate, sometimes painful exercise.

Done well, it lends support-not restraint-to organization change, by making

people more aware of the critical jobs of the future.But job analysis often runs the risk of being a complacent exercise, sometimes

rightfully assailed for lack of insight (failing to capture the real essence of a job);sometimes criticized for inadvertently or deliberately reinforcing the status quo.

(For example, because the job title is &dquo;controller,&dquo; we want the job analysis to fit

what we think a controller should do, normally does, or used to do in the past.)Pressure to see things &dquo;as they have always been&dquo; can sometimes be quite strong,with negative effects reflected in reinforcing an existing bureaucracy or &dquo;glorify-ing&dquo; dull jobs to save face for their declining incumbents. But we run exactly the

same-if not greater-risks when we simply rely on assessing peoples’ skills ormarket pricing a job.



56

Why Evaluate Jobs?The History of Job Evaluation

Job evaluation research started around the turn of the century, with the NationalElectric Manufacturing Association/Midwest Industrial Management Association(NEMA/MIMA) program-still used in many countries under a variety ofnames-which was the first widely applied system. Up through the 1950s,Edward Hay, Samuel Burk, and Eugene Benge introduced a number of innova-tions, which, along with additional improvements, ultimately resulted in the HayGuide Chart-Profile Method, a point-factor process applicable to a full spectrumof jobs. Following this lead, some companies developed their own job evaluationsystems. Over the years, job evaluation has become the method of choice to helpleading companies in business and industry value jobs.

Why is there such interest in job evaluation? Before job evaluation, there were onlytwo ways of rewarding employees: paying for education and skills and pricing jobson the basis of their value on the labor market. Companies that were leaders intheir fields faced a problem: Because they were on the &dquo;cutting edge,&dquo; they werecreating their own specialty jobs and teaching their employees unique techniquesor processes that did not exist elsewhere. These new types of jobs simply couldnot be surveyed on the labor market. The strength of the job evaluation approach,embodied in the Hay Guide Charts, is that it does not ignore the value of pricingor the value of paying for talent; it provides the means to integate both.

Paying for Responsibility and Talent

Pay still needs to relate both to jobs and people-thus the development of theconcept of salary ranges. How individual salaries should vary within ranges hasbeen adapted in many ways: performance, merit, level of professional proficiency,and seniority-all criteria related to individuals-have all been taken into

account. The approach preferred by Hay incorporates the idea of pay based onemployee skills. Beginners or apprentices are paid at the bottom of the salaryrange, and experts-those with the most comprehensive capabilities for the

job-are paid at the top of the range.But like all concepts, this system is not always properly implemented. For

example, some organizations believe they do not need to (or cannot) differentiateindividual pay within the same job. This imposes an inappropriate rigidity that isactually not inherent in the job evaluation process.

Balancing Corporate and Market ValueAt the outset, the Hay Guide Chart job-evaluation technology was designed withexquisite flexibility to accommodate business leaders’ needs for both knowledge/skills assessment and pricing. On the one hand, the charts were custom-tailored



57

to reflect the unique internal value system of each organization: On the other,

they featured a standard scale (Hay or Standard Points) to allow intercompany

compensation comparisons. This intent has never changed, although newer

techniques and processes may be used to accomplish these goals.

Understanding Jobs and Identifying Career Paths

Moreover, the flexibility of job analysis and job evaluation goes way beyond their

original intent. There are, in fact, many applications of the Guide Charts not

directly related to managing pay-such as mapping the organization, facilitatingcareer development, or gauging overall organization effectiveness. For example,one international company uses job evaluation to rank its top 1000 &dquo;strategic&dquo;

jobs in eight career ladders, with the potential of every executive positionedagainst this grid. From this grid, the company can also prepare nominations

for

new jobs, anticipate recruitment needs, and monitor incumbents’ growth from

division to division in the organization.

The Alternatives

Pay-for-SkiilslKnowledgeWith education and knowledge increasingly critical to business success, the

concept of paying for knowledge and skills is very appealing. But should we be

paying people for what they know or for what they do with what they know?

Let’s consider the case for skills-based pay on the shop or blue-collar level-its

original application. Some industries face the challenge of bringing compensationfor their lowest-level jobs and their incumbents’ skills up to a minimum

economically viable-and humanly acceptable-threshold. Skills-based pay canbe the compensation strategy most appropriate during this transition, because it

features an incentive that eases the painful process of retraining. This does not

contradict-but is in complete harmony with-job evaluation tenets that would

define pay increase rules below and at the lowest (acceptable) job grade.It is tempting to embrace the pay-for-skills/knowledge approach in the case of

knowledge workers who play an increasingly important role in many organiza-tions. One assumption is that pay for knowledge encourages people to developtheir capabilities; another is that by stressing individuals’ skills, rather than

specific jobs, people will broaden their view and be more willing to cooperate,work as teams, and step in for one another. But until now, skills-based pay has

had limited application outside the hourly worker group; consequently, it is

difficult to discuss the strengths or weaknesses of taking this approach with this

type of employee group. Furthermore, skills-based pay has not yet felt the effects

of time, business and management crises, or the inevitable attempts to overturn

the system.



58

Internal equity and external competitiveness create conflict. Skills-based pay doesnot provide a practical solution for salary comparisons across jobs and organiza-tions. And if you choose to go without a system to handle equity, the loudestvoices-the most influential and best-organized groups of workers-often will getthe &dquo;lion’s share&dquo; of the payroll. Moreover, a devastating battle may ensue eachtime you need to correct a deviation. The problem is similar-if not moredifficult-with competitiveness of pay. Here, for the same reasons, you need somemethod of comparing your company with other companies. In either case, yourposition is surely stronger when you have some way to gauge the relative worth ofkey skills within and across employee groups.

Pay-for-skillslknowledge can easily be misinterpreted or misused. The best way toillustrate this is to look at European banks, where systems that are very similar toskills-based pay have been widely used. Because most banking skills are uniqueto the profession and not taught in schools or universities, most banks have theirown in-house training programs. After high school, individuals begin theircareers with a bank and learn everything within the company. Their pay rises onthe basis of the type and number of in-service courses they complete.But this does not eliminate tensions and competition around performance and

pay. Employees quickly learn to fight for &dquo;equal learning opportunity&dquo;-regardless of their real ability and willingness to learn. Learning credits often aregranted automatically on the basis of seniority. None of these educational effortshave kept some employees’ skills from becoming obsolete. The highest-paidpeople are always the ones who have been with the company long enough toattend the most courses; yet they often are not the most capable because much oftheir knowledge may be outdated or their actual learning experience may not bereally relevant. All this does not help to reinforce an achievement-orientedculture. People are primarily concerned with what they have to learn to get moremoney, not what they could do to help the company move ahead.

Such examples are not isolated; they exist widely throughout business andindustry.

Market PricingOn the surface, pricing jobs on the basis of market rates is also very appealing. Itseems as if this pricing method does not require complex methodologies, does notcreate an administrative burden, and does not generate conflicts. Because data areassumed to be objective, pricing jobs this way seems fair and realistic, reflectingthe balance between supply and demand. Or does it?

The labor market is unlike other markets. The labor market does not work by thesame criteria and rules as Wall Street or the Chicago Board of Trade. In an idealmarket, there is merchandise that can be easily identified and transferred, anabundance of supply and demand, and a group of other mechanisms that ensure



59

regulation. (Practically, efficient markets exist only for commodity goods that can

tolerate normalization.)In fact, the labor market meets hardly any of these prerequisites. First, the

&dquo;merchandise&dquo; is not easily defined. This means that conducting an accurate

pricing survey can be as complex and the results as controversial as those

produced by the job evaluation process. (As a matter of fact, the most reliable

surveys are those based on job evaluation.)Second, in the labor market, there rarely is an abundance of supply to meet

the

demand for many key jobs. Specialty jobs have very narrow markets. For

instance, try to price the job of your German manager who heads up your Geneva

computer center that services your English, French, and Italian subsidiaries,

especially when that center uses a mainframe brand X with operating system Y?

(This real request is not unlike many addressed daily to compensation and

benefits managers around the world.)Finally, labor market regulation mechanisms are very slow and limited.

As a

result, there is no &dquo;fair&dquo; price for many jobs, but only negotiated prices by both

parties on a case-by-case basis. Procurement specialists are all too familiar with

this problem. For commodity goods and services, they know that they can rely on

market prices; but for specialty goods and services, they usually develop scoringor cost/benefits analysis techniques that are identical to job evaluation processes,with the same purpose and similar methodologies.

Controlling the &dquo;black market&dquo; hiding behind the &dquo;free&dquo; market is a problem.

Organizations that only use surveys are not well equipped to deal with bargaining,

allowing a healthy &dquo;black market&dquo; to flourish just behind the &dquo;free&dquo; compensa-

tion market. Job evaluation serves to control that type of situation. The following

example illustrates this.Some years ago a job evaluation system was set up in a large corporation over

the strong objections of one group executive who feared it would introduce an

unwarranted level of bureaucracy into the company. A couple of years later, when

the work had to be updated, this same group executive not only welcomed the

consultants, but also praised the previous work. &dquo;You helped me sort out a real

nightmare,&dquo; he commented. &dquo;Before using evaluation, there were dozens of

salary surveys circulated in-house, but no two surveys said the same thing. Each

compensation review used to be a battle, leaving everyone unhappy. To make

things even worse, there was no way to prove the validity of one argument over

another. Job evaluation’s greater clarity and rationality has certainly decreased the

level of confrontation we were dealing with.&dquo;

Purchasing talent at market price may be purchasing &dquo;mercenaries.&dquo; Many

businesses cannot survive without the loyalty of their employees over the long

term. But commitment can exist only if it is reciprocal, characterized by

management indicating strong concern for equity, putting employment opportu-



60

nities into perspective, and, in some cases, disregarding fluctuations in themarket. In contrast, market pricing means following others, not planning yourown destiny with a clear view of what is unique about your company. By nottaking internal equity into account, the organization may end up paying whateverthe market dictates for one profession but not another. Similarly, with littleconcern for the past or the future, pay levels will fluctuate with the market. If youlet this go too far, employees start to think what is important is not what they dofor the company, but how much they cost-and the next time they are offeredmore money for a position elsewhere, they will leave.

This is especially important in light of the growing shortage of skilled workersboth in Europe and North America. Companies that too closely follow markettrends are likely to attract &dquo;mercenaries&dquo;-expensive workers who are loyal totheir profession and their own talents, but not to their employer.

Rethinking Job EvaluationThe ConceptsEven if neither pay-for-knowledge/skills nor market pricing provides a widelyacceptable solution to rewarding employees properly, this may not necessarilymean that job evaluation, just as it stands, is the only way to go. Certainly, all theshifting and changing in today’s work values and job content calls for humanresources (HR) professionals and management to look again at the fundamentalprinciples of job evaluation, putting them under careful scrutiny to make surethey meet the needs of the 1990s.

Value jobs according to their real outputs. The driving factor in weighing jobsaccording to the Hay Guide Charts is the idea of &dquo;accountability,&dquo; innovativeeven now as it was when Edward Hay introduced it. Accountability means that ajob must be meaningful, useful to the organization, and convey a sense ofpurpose. A good example is the description one employee wrote for a job thatincluded cleaning the officers, replenishing the vending machines, supplying coffeeand doughnuts during meetings, and serving in the cafeteria: &dquo;The purpose of myjob is to contribute to improving the working environment for company XYZ’semployees.&dquo; When you have such a clear idea of what you want the outcome tobe, there is a solid chance that you will focus on the right tasks to achieve thoseresults.

’

Consider the qualitative-as well as the quantitative. Job outputs are not allquantitative; some are qualitative and not easily measured. Because it is easier toassess quantities, job evaluation in the past sometimes overemphasized dollaroutputs at the expense of the more intangible contributions. For example, in the1960s and 1970s, many organizations were driven solely by the &dquo;bottom-line,&dquo;with the finance officer providing the main impetus. The Guide Chart complied



61

with this trend. This quantitative emphasis, however, is not a bias imbedded in

the Guide Charts, but a reflection of the values of those times. Since then, we have

rediscovered that job output is not a static concept but a dynamic one. The reallyvaluable quantities do not relate to what you own, but to what you create, just

as

the important jobs are not always the ones that appear impressive (close reporting

relationship to the chief executive officers or enviable job title), but rather they are

those that can make things happen or really change the organization’s future (seeExhibit 1).Some job evaluation concepts may need reinterpretation. In any job evaluation

system, accountability or responsibility, problem solving or complexity, and

know-how are fundamental and permanent components. What changes, however,

over the years and from company to company, is the way each is interpreted.

A good example is &dquo;management know-how.&dquo; One cannot imagine an organi-

zation existing without some form of management system, but the way companiesare managed has certainly changed over time. For example, in the 1960s,

planning and control ranked high among management priorities-with policies,

procedures, and action plans pointing toward the &dquo;predictable.&dquo; In contrast,

today’s future is not as much one that can be predicted as one that needs to be

invented. Now, good management calls for creative imagination, the ability to

implement change, and a &dquo;sixth sense&dquo; for opportunity. In addition, responsibilityfor management is more widely shared. There are fewer boundaries between

managerial and nonmanagerial jobs. People have more control over their own work

(in Hay’s terminology, more &dquo;freedom to act&dquo;). Management today consists less of

exercising authority and providing directives and more of leveraging others by givingthem valuable input that is relevant to their own jobs. Any employee with

information to disseminate, an experience to share, or the ability to coach or influence

others is an important contributor to the organization.What needs to be managed has changed as well. It is still important to plan, to

develop policies, and to make sure that the organization gets a good return on its

financial and physical assets. But it is just as important to get the proper return

on other assets, such as the company’s know-how or its customer base. Today’s

corporate leaders are just as concerned with managing internal and external

clients’ expectations, behaviors, knowledge bases, change, and the like, as they

are with managing more tangible assets.

The Processes

Sound job evaluation is, above all, sound job understanding. The Hay Guide

Charts provide that sound understanding in a framework that recognizes and

values management accountabilities, while giving management plenty of latitude

on what it wants to emphasize at a given time.

job evaluation is not an exact science, but a powerful managerial tool. Today, HR



62

Exhibit 1

Job Evaluation Concepts and Their Interpretations

professionals and academics appear to prefer the term &dquo;job measurement&dquo; overjob evaluation, the original term we are purposefully using here. But measure-ment does not adequately explain the need for consensus, or group judgments anddecisions, so crucial in evaluation. Let’s take our example from sports, such asdiving or gymnastics. Deciding on a winning performance usually involves a thirdparty, a group of assessors chosen for their credibility; they are knowledgeable



63

about the sport and often belong to a community that produces champions. Even

backed up with these credentials, opinions of the individual judges need to be

averaged, or some consensus reached. In other instances, additional rules-such

as throwing out the highest and lowest scores-can easily be introduced as

&dquo;levelers.&dquo;

Similarly, jobs cannot simply be measured; they have to be evaluated. This

explains the rationale for job evaluation committees; the need for group decisions

by experts is the same. The judges in this case usually belong to the various parts

of the organization and participate because of their knowledge or their responsi-bilities in the company.Of course, like any other group activity, job evaluation doesn’t always

work

smoothly. The process can create real controversy or political difficulties within

the organization because it identifies or reveals previously hidden conflicts. But in

its role as a powerful conflict resolution mechanism, the job evaluation processcan also generate mutual understanding and respect across functions. The

comparisons that result from the evaluation process can serve to coalesce

management around such crucial issues as the following:. Integrating the organization.. Emphasizing the importance of new jobs.. Attracting new or more talent in crucial areas of activity.. Establishing career roadmaps and supporting career planning.. Bolstering the credibility of reward systems.Management ownership-and affirmation-of the process is critical. Even if the

company delegates the evaluation process to HR professionals, line managers, or

to the employees themselves, final approval of job evaluation still needs to come

from the top managers in the organization. In organizations that have used job

evaluation for a number of years, however, the participants often forget or

misinterpret their respective roles. HR professionals sometimes come to believe

that they are responsible for evaluations when actually they should be responsiblefor facilitating the evaluation process. For job evaluation to be valid, management

must both support the process and become involved in it.

Job evaluation should not be reduced to a routine task. In the 1960s, when job

evaluation began to be used more widely, a good deal of time and effort was

devoted to analyzing and understanding jobs before involving top managers in

evaluation activities. Since then, in an attempt to reduce costs, the process has

been simplified and streamlined. Computer-assisted job description and evalua-

tion is now readily available. Unfortunately, many of these inexpensive, &dquo;quick-fix&dquo; job analysis processes are incomplete. Most certainly, they miss

the other

purposes the process can serve, such as hiring, training, or staffing and career

planning.



64

Innovations

Computer-Assisted Job Evaluation ICAIE)When computer-assisted job evaluation (CAJE) was first introduced, it washeralded as an important improvement on the process. It appeared to be able toproduce a job description, a job evaluation, and a quality assurance reportautomatically-all with a significant amount of time saved by the incumbent, thesupervisor, and the job analyst.CAJE’s first designers claimed the computer could cut out the decision-making

process once and for all, since on its own it could verify or question the accuracyof the job analysis. Moreover, unlike traditional job evaluation, which needed tobe customized, the new technology was flexible enough to capture any organiza-tion’s unique value system.

Because it has emphasized process more than concepts, however, CAJE’sapplication has yet to substantiate these claims. So although we acknowledge whatCAJE can or might do, we must also recognize what it cannot-or should not do.CA,JE does not replace-but leverages-traditional evaluation systems. In a

traditional job evaluation process, you first set your standards by carefullyevaluating a core of key jobs. Next, you apply this evaluation scheme to all otherjobs in the organization. And, finally, you maintain your system by using yourinstrument with any new jobs or with those that are modified or changed.With CAJE, you still need a traditional job evaluation system to provide the

initial solid analysis of benchmark jobs. CAJE simply streamlines and speeds thejob evaluation process for &dquo;nonbenchmark&dquo; jobs. In fact, the accuracy of yourCAJE system will greatly depend on-the quality of the technique you use to setyour standards during the benchmarking phase.Cave assists-but can’t replace-decision makers. Some years ago, the claim was

made that because incumbents are the single, most accurate source of informationon their own jobs, using their analysis with a CAJE system would result insimplification, improved fairness (as evaluation would now be based upon moreaccurate information), and reduced conflicts (since group processes could now bedispensed with).Only one of these points-that job holders have the best direct analytical

insight into their jobs-is correct. Further, any kind of job analysis also requiresmaking comparisons to gauge how one job’s challenges compare with others. Inother words, job analysis calls for an outsider’s as well as the insider’s perspective.Supporting this notion is extensive experience with CAJE, indicating that groupjudgment, which levels individual biases, provides more accurate informationthan that provided by individuals. And, in fact, while the checks and balancesbuilt into CAJE applications ensure consistency, they cannot assess accuracy.CAJE will always require human judgment and decision making.



65

CAJE can falter-and even fail-if it puts old ideas in its new &dquo;questionnaireboxes.&dquo; With CAJE, the separate parts of the traditional job analysis exercise-jobdocumentation (description) and assessment (evaluation)-are somewhat inte-

grated, through the questionnaire. Designing the questionnaire well is crucial,since this tool not only serves as a data collection instrument, but also embodiesthe series of criteria that represent the organization’s ingrained value system. Ifthe questions are not sound, the process will transmit messages about jobs that areinaccurate-and even destructive. Witness some real examples of questions thatdo more harm than good:

. How frequently do you have contact with important people (for example, the CEO,other top executives, board members, or division and department heads)? This questionimplies that to do an important job, one must impose on the time of people whosetime is at a premium.

. What is your organizational authority level (that is, what are the grades or status

currently associated with your job, your boss’s job, and the jobs reporting to you)? Thisis a &dquo;no hope&dquo; job evaluation system. It is intrinsically paradoxical that to evaluatea particular job grade, you set this grade from the outset. With this approach,whatever the job’s current status is in the organization, it will always remain so.. What is the impact of your errors, that is, the effect on the organization if your

position fails to perform adequately? This is a job evaluation factor abandoned fordecades. We cannot at the same time preach that each and every job is essentialto quality and customer satisfaction and then, on the other hand, claim thatunsatisfactory performance in some of them has only &dquo;minor&dquo; or &dquo;inconsequen-tial&dquo; effect.

In fact, even when factors such as the three above do predict a current job’ssize, they are static. They cannot tell you the right way to expand or enhance yourjob. (For example, weight is the single factor that best predicts the value of a car,but we don’t price cars by their weight. Similarly, you don’t increase your jobcontent by spending more time with the CEO or by lobbying for a bigger job title,but by producing more added value-either economic or intellectual-for the

organization.) .

In sum, computers do not create new knowledge. They allow us to capture anduse our knowledge about jobs in new ways. So a CAJE system is only as good asits designers and their understanding of jobs. The machine does not replace the

job analyst or evaluator; instead, it simplifies and streamlines the routine work,leaving time for the humans to attend to the more important value-added tasks.

Integrated Job Analysis Models: The Next Step ForwardEven with well-designed computer approaches, the job analysis process is likelyto seem too cumbersome or expensive if it is only used to determine a pay grade.But most companies want answers to such other key questions as these:



66

Exhibit 2

Integrated Job Analysis Model for Knowledge Workers

· What is the job worth?· How well does the job holder perform the job?· What critical competencies are required to qualify for the job (or to be an

outstanding performer in the job)?o What other jobs may the current incumbent be capable of holding in the

future?o What are our staffing needs for this position?Many companies want their job analysis models to be fast and cost-effective,

easy to understand and explain to nontechnical people, and reflective of valuesand behaviors that will encourage employees to create added value for theorganization. If they could achieve this through one instrument, exercise, andprocess, most organizations would be willing to invest more time, effort, andresources.

Integrated job analysis models-those that can respond to all these factors andcan apply to both jobs and people-appear to achieve these goals best. Oneseven-dimension model that Hay developed for a variety of professional areas ofknowledge workers-including those in the engineering, computer sciences,accounting, or legal fields-is a good example of this approach (see Exhibit 2above). This type of scale lends itself well to describing and evaluating a job,framing a professional career ladder to assess personal/job growth opportunity,and even analyzing staffing needs. Each dimension can also be broken down intoseveral levels of job accountability or individual skill.

Other advantages. This integrated model works with either jobs or people, orboth, and allows people and jobs to be matched with ease. It is simple tounderstand and use and can be quickly and economically customized to any



67

organization or business. Similar models can be applied to virtually any kind of

job family. Most important, this type of model sets up a &dquo;win-win&dquo; situation; it

clearly shows that if you want to grow as a professional-or expand your job-youhave to create added value for your organization. The focus is not on how

knowledgeable you are-a highly subjective judgment-but on the extent to

which you use your knowledge to help your organization.

ConclusionAs long as people perceive salary hierarchies-and individual pay-as messages of

recognition, status symbols, measures of personal power, or pictures of a certain

vision of the order of the world, the debate on the various ways of valuing and

rewarding work will probably never subside.But society is making fundamental changes in the way we organize work. New

jobs are being created. Some jobs are increasing-and some are actually declin-

ing-in importance. Making our assessment systems reflect these changes can be

painful, but critical, nonetheless.Job evaluation remains the most open and flexible option available to reward

people in a fair, equitable, and competitive manner, taking into account what

employees are responsible for and what talents they bring to their work.

Point-factor evaluation methods are crucial to its future. They lend themselves

easily to computerization, and we can continue to apply them, in their traditional

form, where computers or alternative models are not appropriate.

LAURENT DUFETEL is managing director of the Hay Group’s Worldwide CompensationPractice. He has consulted in the field of management for more than fifteen years in such

areas as organization design, sales administration, and quality assurance. Specializing in job

measurement, compensation design, and compensation surveys, Dufetel was a key contrib-utor to the development of Hay’s computer-assisted technology for job measurement,

HayXpert. He holds a degree in civil engineering from L’Ecole Nationale Des Mines De

Paris.



evaluare joburi

Documents

Transcript of evaluare joburi