Hay Manual (2)

4th Edition Hay Operating Manual 2011 1

Table of Contents

HayGroup® .......................................................................................... 2 Hay Guide Chart – Profile Method™ ................................................. 4 CHAPTER 1: Know-How ................................................................... 12 The Three Elements Comprising Know How .................................... 14 Job-Specific Knowledge ................................................................... 14 Integrating Know-How ...................................................................... 21 Human Relations Skills .................................................................... 24

CHAPTER 2: Problem Solving ......................................................... 27 The Two Elements of Problem Solving ............................................. 28 Context ............................................................................................. 28 Thinking Challenge ........................................................................... 31

CHAPTER 3: Accountability ............................................................ 34 The Three Elements of Accountability .............................................. 35 Freedom To Act/Empowerment ........................................................ 35 Magnitude ......................................................................................... 38 Job Impact ......................................................................................... 40

CHAPTER 4: Special Conditions ..................................................... 42 CHAPTER 5: FINE TUNING .............................................................. 43 Job Profiles ....................................................................................... 43 Sore-Thumbing ................................................................................. 48 Hay Rating At-A-Glance .................................................................... 49

CHAPTER 6: Preparing the Presentation ....................................... 50 HAY PRESENTATION OUTLINE ........................................................... 50 HAY Presentation Outline Worksheet ............................................... 51 HAY Presenter Check List ................................................................ 53 HAY EVALUATION WORKSHEET FOR RATERS .................................... 54

CHAPTER 7: Quality Assurance ..................................................... 55 Indicators of a Good Hay Rater ........................................................ 59 Hay Rater Training and Development Standards ............................. 61

CHAPTER 8: Hay Ratings and Compensation ............................... 62 CHAPTER 9: Trend Lines and Conversion Charts ........................ 64

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The Hay Advisory Team offers special thanks to Cindy Lukas for her dedication and her thoughtful work that has been the foundation for this manual. The Hay Advisory Team also offers special thanks to Wayne Veum (Chief Classification Analyst-retired); John Kuderka (Hay rater and Hay historian emeritus); Sue Wickham (Admin); and others who have reviewed past editions of this manual to ensure its accuracy and usability. 2010 Hay Advisory Team: Darlene Hueser (MMB) co-chair Faith Zwemke (MMB) co-chair Gwen Aubineau (MnSCU) Wanda Barrett (MnSCU) Brent Boyd (Merit System) Janice Cano (DEED) Cathy Fah (DOC) Russ Havir (Agriculture) Loretta Mattson (Lottery) Richard Morey (MnDOT) Laura Sengil (DHS) Diane Rademacher (DEED)


HayGroup®

“Hay” is not an acronym. HayGroup® is an international organizational and human resources consulting firm with more than 2,000 employees that was founded in 1943 by Edward N. “Ned” Hay. Hay is considered to be a pioneer in the human resources community, particularly with regard to the compensation issue of measuring jobs. He started E.N. Hay and Associates while he was the head of personnel for the First Pennsylvania Bank of Philadelphia – while in his early fifties and at the height of World War II. During the war, Ned Hay also served as Deputy Administrator of the Office of Price Administration. At that time, the War Labor Board imposed pay controls that could be lifted only if a company could show – through a sound job evaluation method – that a particular job’s content put it into a higher control range. This, combined with a major contract with General Foods in 1945 to study 450 management jobs planted the seed for what would become the Hay Guide Chart – Profile Method™ of job evaluation.

Ned Hay died unexpectedly in 1958 at the age of 67, but his company continued to evolve both geographically and with respect to its offerings. HayGroup® now emphasizes three broad areas: • Organizational Clarity

Employee surveys, strategy alignment, accountability assessment, organization analysis and design, role clarity

• Employee Capability Assessment and selection, executive coaching, leadership development, team development, talent management

• People Commitment Compensation information, employee benefits, executive pay, job evaluation, performance management, reward programs, total remuneration

Still headquartered in its birthplace – Philadelphia, Pennsylvania – HayGroup® has offices in 43 countries around the world: Argentina Finland Malaysia South Africa Australia France Mexico South Korea

Austria Germany New Zealand Spain

Belgium Greece Netherlands Sweden Brazil Hungary Norway Switzerland Canada India Peru Thailand Chile Indonesia Poland Turkey

China Ireland Portugal United Arab Emirates

Columbia Israel Russia United Kingdom

Costa Rica Italy Singapore United States Czech Republic Japan

Slovak Republic Venezuela


The State of Minnesota has had a long-term relationship with HayGroup® related to job evaluation. Consistent with the belief that jobs with comparable levels of work should be compensated similarly, the State needed an organized, standardized system for comparing the complexity levels of very different types of jobs. HayGroup® provided such a system. Their website at www.haygroup.com states: “It might be a merger or acquisition, new organization design, changing roles, or simply an outdated job measurement plan. Regardless of the reason, organizations need a sound and straightforward method to measure and value work on an ongoing basis, one that effectively reflects their specific organizational culture and values. HayGroup® is the world’s leading authority on job evaluation and work measurement and has helped thousands of organizations around the world. In addition to in-depth consulting expertise, Hay offers an array of work measurement and analysis tools to help meet a broad range of organization needs. These include our: • Hay Guide Chart-Profile Method™ – the most widely-

used and recognized method of job evaluation in the world

• Comparison/Questionnaire Methods – streamlined alternatives to our more in-depth Guide Chart approach

• Integrated Models – customized approaches to suit a client’s unique human resources management needs.”

WHY HAY? Organized, systematic job ranking systemAssigns point values to job componentsWidely used - both public and private sectorUseful for large classification studies.Helps determine appropriate level of a position

within a class series.Used when necessary to create new classes.

http://www.haygroup.com/�


Hay Guide Chart – Profile Method™ What is the Hay Guide Chart – Profile Method™ and where did it come from?

The Hay Guide Chart – Profile Method™ of job evaluation was developed in the early 1950s by HayGroup® and is used by more than 7,000 profit and nonprofit organizations in many different countries. It is the most widely used job evaluation method in the United States, in companies such as Honeywell, Pillsbury and General Mills and in state governments such as Arizona, Connecticut, New Jersey, Oregon and New Mexico. The State of Minnesota has used the Hay system of job evaluation since the 1970s, when HayGroup® consultants evaluated managerial positions for the State of Minnesota. In the mid – 1970s, $400,000 was allocated to the Department of Finance for a Public Employment Study. Part of the study involved evaluating the State’s classification (and secondarily, compensation) system. At that point, classification and compensation decisions primarily relied on the job audit and salary survey processes we use today – by comparing positions to each other and to class specifications, with consideration given to how similar jobs were paid outside of state government. The Department of Personnel’s Classification and Compensation Division provided leadership for the resulting broad class clarification project, which involved reviewing position descriptions and class specifications, interviewing about 1000 State employees across the state, and establishing class clarification files. John Kuderka was the Classification and Compensation Division’s lead for this project.

After much of the initial class clarification work was completed, the Departments of Finance and Personnel agreed to use some of the funding to contract with HayGroup® to train State employees to become Hay raters. State agencies nominated employees to attend Hay training and to serve on three seven member committees to evaluate many of the State’s multiple-person classes under the guidance of HayGroup® consultants. Some of the initial Hay raters were Human Resources professionals, but many were not. Bettie Lee and Al Bunnett were facilitators for two of the committees. Each committee emphasized a specialty area and used the class clarification information to understand the jobs in order to evaluate them. Presenters weren’t part of the process as they are today. This was a very time-consuming, labor-intensive effort.

When this large group of Hay ratings was completed, the three committees disbanded and the pool of trained State Hay raters began to expand. Later, when pay equity was raised as an issue in the 1980s during the Perpich administration, the State of Minnesota was already using the Hay Guide Chart – Profile Method™ to compare very different types of jobs. The State’s customized Hay Guide – Profile Charts were revised in 1995, to ensure that they remained up-to-date as the State’s needs changed. One aspect, “Magnitude,” is reviewed annually and revised according to the Accountability Magnitude Index (AMI) provided by HayGroup®. The Consumer Price Index, as interpreted by HayGroup®, is the primary source for calculating adjustments to the Accountability Magnitude Index. For example, the current 7.0 AMI (as of Oct 2009) is a multiplier applied to the baseline of 1967 dollars; therefore, $100 1967 dollars are now equal to $700 2009 dollars. 1967 dollars were used as the baseline because HayGroup® did a major update of the 1950s’ Hay Guide Charts that year.


The Hay job evaluation system has been used by the State of Minnesota to evaluate most state job classes, including the Governor’s and positions in the Supreme Court. Although the Guide Charts have been updated over the years, there haven’t been major changes; it’s been more a matter of fine-tuning than full-scale revisions.

The Hay Method of Job Evaluation Adds Value by:

1. Low Administrative Costs. The most expensive investment, the initial installation, training and quality assurance, have been paid. The Hay Advisory Team and other experienced raters now provide training and quality assurance.

2. A Strong Future Orientation. The Hay Method is used to measure new jobs or redesigned jobs within new organizational structures and serves as a useful consulting tool to guide state managers as they continue to strive to do more with less. During Fiscal Years 2000 thru 2010 a total of 677 jobs were evaluated by 335 rating committees resulting in 212 new classes, and the conformation of ratings and levels for exiting classes.

3. A Large Data Base of Evaluations to Guide Current and Future Class and Compensation Decisions. Since Fiscal Year 2001, State of Minnesota Hay ratings have been listed on MMB’s web site. Current rosters of evaluations, with complete ratings, are available on the MMB extranet. As of the end of Fiscal Year 2010 the roster contains Hay ratings for 92% of the active classes.

4. A Solid Track Record of Successful Application of the Hay Method of Evaluation Statewide. The State of Minnesota’s application of the Hay Method has received statewide recognition and use. At the local level, Minnesota State job evaluations have provided representative job evaluations for benchmark job classes to guide local units of government and school districts as they conduct their review of jobs for pay equity. State of Minnesota Hay ratings are the foundation/basis for the State Job Match System available on the internet to over 1500 local units of government.


How does Hay Guide Chart – Profile Method work

People: Manager, supervisor and employee and/or personnel representative. Hay Facilitator

Hay Raters

Process: Manager, supervisor and employee and/or personnel representative verbally explain the position description and other written documentation to the Hay Committee. The Hay Raters use their understanding of the position and their knowledge of the Hay guide chart to assign a Hay rating to the position.

Product: The Hay Facilitator interprets the Hay rating by assigning the position to a current class or by recommending a new classification, including salary range, to the State's Compensation Manager, Labor Relations Representative and Chief Classification Analyst.

A committee rating process is used to help ensure a broad perspective and statewide consistency. Committees are made up of three or five professionals from State of Minnesota agencies and Minnesota Management and Budget (MMB). All Hay raters meet training standards established by MMB consistent with HayGroup® expectations and participate in advanced training seminars. Written materials about each position being rated are provided to Hay committee members so they can prepare before a scheduled Hay rating session. Documentation typically includes a memo outlining the need for the Hay rating, an organizational chart, a position description, and anything else that might help the raters understand each position. Subject matter experts provide an overview of each position’s role and responsibilities to the Hay raters at a scheduled Hay rating session, along with information about the position’s requirements related to Know-How, Problem Solving and Accountability. Examples are usually helpful. After the presenters leave the Hay committee begins the rating process. [See Chapter 6 for information on preparing a presentation.]

When are positions Hay-rated? Positions are Hay-rated when one or more situations occur: • A new position is established for which there is no readily discernable existing class comparison. • The appropriate level of a position within a class series cannot be determined or there is significant dispute about

the level of a position. • The class hasn’t been reviewed for many years and the concept of the class has changed significantly over time.

• A position has been identified as a benchmark position to which others are compared for use in a class study or

class clarification project.


Good Hay Rating Requires... Skilled (trained and experienced) raters and an accurate understanding of the position, through… • current, complete position description • background memo • organizational chart • presentation

Hay raters look at three major aspects when evaluating a job: Know-How, Problem Solving and Accountability. They consider a position’s role and responsibilities, and the KSAs (knowledge, skills and abilities), problem solving and accountability required to satisfactorily perform the work involved. Hay ratings are typically based on when the position is considered to be “fully functioning,” rather than what employees know at hire. The raters look at each of these three basic factors separately, and assign points from the Hay Guide Charts that represent their weight in the job. Every job that is evaluated receives the same treatment. This makes it possible to compare jobs that are very different and place them where they appropriately fit within the State’s classification and compensation systems.

The Hay system is designed to rank positions within the context of all statewide positions, from the Governor and the Supreme Court on down, not just within the context of one State agency. A single number is assigned to each factor consistent with the position’s role and responsibilities. Available options are listed on the charts. The numbers increase at a rounded 15% rate, which is based on the scientific concept of “just noticeable difference.” [see Guide Chart Tip] After the Hay committee members use their Hay Guide Charts to independently evaluate a position, they must reach a group consensus. Hay committee members are asked to share their individual ratings with the group, which are put on a white board or flip chart. The raters discuss their ratings, including any differences among them, and arrive at a group Hay rating with which everyone can agree. Sometimes additional information is needed before committee members can agree; the group discussion may be the first indication that raters are making different assumptions about the position that need to be clarified. The points are totaled for each factor. The committee facilitator documents the final Hay rating and submits it to MMB


What are the possible outcomes of Hay rating?

Typical reasons for rating a job

• Level determination within existing classes (e.g. affirmation ratings, reallocations)

• New class • Salary range review/re-assignment (often occurs jointly

with Level) • Other (e.g. previously unrated class, new benchmark for

a current class.) Even though the intent was to rate the position because of one of four reasons listed in the chart above the rating may not support the action that prompted the rating. For example. The supervisor believed that the job in question had changed over time and should be at a higher level of Hay points and compensation. After a rating session the raters determined that the current class rating was appropriate. In this case the outcome was: “No Change” (see Decision Codes below).

HAY Quality Assurance Summary Decision Codes NC = No Change REC = Reallocation to an existing class ENC = Establish new class – list proposed class title RCR = Revised class rating for salary range reassignment TC = Title Change – TBD = Final outcome to be determined

However there may be other factors, e.g. turnover, ability to hire qualified candidates, internal equity, that may impact an agency’s decision to pursue a salary range reassignment based on the recent Hay rating. If this is a single incumbent class the rating could also represent the class rating and a revised class rating date. [see CHAPTER 8: Hay Ratings and Compensation] The following chart provides samples of possible rating outcomes.


Rea

son

Sample outcomes:

New

ratin

g

No

chan

ge in

ratin

g

Assi

gn to

ex

istin

g cl

ass*

Cre

ate

new

cl

ass

Sala

ry ra

nge

Re-

assi

gnm

ent

Hay

Qua

lity

Assu

ranc

e Su

mm

ary

Cla

ss ra

ting?

If

yes

…

Leve

l

Is level of position(s) unclear or in dispute? If yes, confer with MMB before proceeding.

X X * Movement to a new class generally requires a one step or more change in Know How points. X Chg

X X Chg date

Is this a class that the agency has determined to use Hay evaluation for reallocation? If yes, proceed with rating.

X X * Movement to a new class generally requires a one step or more change in Know How points. X NA

X X NA

New

No existing class was identified as a fit . Confer with MMB before proceeding.

X X Request a new class and recommend comp level X new

X X Use an existing class lieu of creating a new class. X No Chg

Sala

ry Salary range review/re-assignment

(often occurs jointly with Level) Confer with MMB before proceeding.

X X Recommend and request a new comp level. X Chg

X X X No Chg

Oth

er Previously unrated class, X Usually no change in comp level X new

New benchmark for a current class.) X X X May or may not request a new comp X Chg


How does the Hay rating relate to classification and compensation decisions?

The Hay method evaluates all positions against the same factors. This makes it possible to compare jobs that are very different and place them where they appropriately fit within the State’s classification and compensation systems. A position’s Know-How points and overall Hay rating are used as guides in determining where the job fits in the State’s classification structure and provide a framework for determining the appropriate compensation range. This relationship is discussed further in the “Hay Ratings and Compensation” and “Trend Lines and Conversion Charts” sections at the end of the manual. Can anyone have a copy of the Hay Guide – Profile Charts?

Copies of the Hay Guide – Profile Charts are typically only given to trained Hay raters or Hay raters in training. The customized charts used by the State of Minnesota are the copyrighted property of HayGroup®. The State of Minnesota’s Hay Guide – Profile Charts cannot be sold or in any other way distributed to other private or public organizations because this violates copyright laws and other contractual agreements between the State of Minnesota and HayGroup®.

GUIDE CHART TIP Step Differences

“The Hay Guide Charts use the concept of Just Noticeable Differences to reflect that people perceive relative, not absolute, differences. This is incorporated into the unique Hay numbering patterns used in the three Hay Guide Charts. This concept provides a systematic guideline to assess the relationships among jobs — the relative distances between jobs, span of control, size of accountability, career progression opportunity and chains of command, etc… Source: 2005 HayGroup® Working Paper, Hay Job Evaluation Foundations and Applications

.

On the Hay Scale, 15% changes are “steps” to identify just-noticeable differences

. This conforms to a general principle of psychometric scaling derived from Weber’s Law: “In comparing objects, we perceive not the absolute difference between them, but the ratio of this difference to the magnitude of the two objects compared.” The extent of difference required in order to be noticeable tends to be a specific constant percentage. A job evaluation committee, when comparing two similar jobs on any single factor, has to perceive at least a 15% difference in order to come to a group agreement that Job A is larger than Job B.


Know-How is the body of knowledge, skills and abilities an employee needs to be successful in a particular job. The most important factor in Hay evaluation is Know how. It defines the boundaries within which the action will take place. It is made up of three parts: • Depth and Breadth of Job-

Specific Knowledge (aka Technical and Specialized Know-How and Job-Specific Knowledge).

• Integrating Know-How (aka Managerial Breadth or Know-How).

• Human Relations Skills (aka Human Relations Know-How).

Hay raters assign a number to the total Know-How for a job, which involves separate choices for each of these three elements and an overall assessment. As an example, Know-How is expressed in a report as EI2 200 (depth and breath level E, integrating know-how level I, human relations skills level 2 at 200 Know-How points).

I. Activity.

E. Basic

Specialized.

200

Human Relations 2

I. Activity.

E. Basic

Specialized.

200

Human Relations 2

CH

APT

ER 1

: Kno

w-H

ow


According to the Know-How Guide Chart, “Know-How is the total of every kind of skill and knowledge, however acquired, needed to conduct, and to be prepared for, functions that are reasonably expected within the role.” Know-How considers both the scope and depth of a position. A job may require some knowledge about a lot of things, or a lot of knowledge of fewer things. The overall Know-How rating reflects a combination of scope and depth. This allows for the comparison and weighing of the total Know-How content of different jobs in terms of “How much knowledge about how many things?” Know-How is the most heavily weighted portion of the overall job evaluation. [SEE FIGURE 1] In fact, the levels in a classification structure are primarily determined by the progression of Know-How levels. In the continuum established by the Hay system, jobs that are more easily learned are ranked near the lower end of the scale. As jobs require more involved and diverse practices and principles, abstract knowledge, mastery of scientific techniques, greater human relations skills and/or significant managerial skills, they are given progressively higher scores.

F igure 1 : Job Factors (Hay System)

Approx imate % o f Tota l Po ints

20%

20%

10%

50%

ProblemSolvingAccountabilty

Spec Cond

Know How

Know-How: 50% - 60% Depth and breadth of skill and knowledge required to do the job

Problem Solving: 20%

Original thinking required. Analyzing, reasoning, creating

Accountability: 20% Supervisory and monetary responsibilities, consequences of

actions

Special Conditions: 0% - 10% Unpleasant circumstances, physical effort, environment,

hazards, sensory stimulation


The Three Elements Comprising Know How:

Job-Specific Knowledge Job-Specific Knowledge includes the depth and breadth of knowledge required to be successful in a job. It includes the position’s requirements for knowledge and skills related to practices, procedures, specialized techniques, and professional or scientific disciplines. It also includes basic and job-specific supervisory and managerial KSAs, when appropriate. This aspect of Know-How does NOT make distinctions among differently-sized managerial jobs or include human relations skills. However, because all three parts of a KH rating combine to reflect a job’s total KH requirement, the number of total points vary a lot within each technical/specialized KH level (that is, L and A – H). It is important to remember that this element measures the requirements of the position, not the qualifications of an incumbent. .

The levels of Job Specific Knowledge on the Hay Charts are:

Practical Procedures Group

# of Job Classes as of Jan 2011

L Limited Job-Specific Knowledge 1 A Primary 6 B Elementary Vocational 42

Specialized Techniques Group # of Job Classes as of Jan 2011

C Vocational 160 D Advanced Vocational 351 E Basic Specialized 545

Learned Disciplines Group # of Job Classes as of Jan 2011

F Seasoned Professional 496 G Specialized Mastery 40 H Professional Mastery 2


Practical Procedures Group NOTE: Examples in blue italics differentiate among levels’ expected roles re: knowing what to do

Complexity levels

Indicators

Characteristics of work Examples Fine-tuning

L.

Limited

(added in 1995)

Education likely needed

1st to 6th grade • “Does the simple tasks s/he is

told to do with ongoing work direction”

• Basic instructions/very simple routines

• Work is very simple, short cycle in nature, and typically involves manual effort

Supported Employment Worker is the only job class in this category.

Employees in this job class are expected to have an ongoing job coach employed by a rehabilitation organization as a condition of employment.

TOTAL time to learn

Hours to days

Skill level Unskilled

A.

Primary


Literacy; simple arithmetic; 6th to 9th

grade

• “Does simple tasks s/he is told to do without an ongoing job coach”

• Ability to understand simple oral and written instructions and perform simple tasks is required

• May apply basic skills in arithmetic, reading and writing

• Typically same daily routine

“Leaning back”

AI1 50 AI2 57

TOTAL time to learn

Several days to 1 month NR Nursery Field Worker “Solid in the

box” AI1 57 AI2 66

Skill level Unskilled

Student Worker Clerical Student Wkr -Custodial/ Maintenance

“Leaning forward”

AI1 66 AI2 66

B.

Elementary Vocational


9th to 12th grade • “Does more involved, but still

standardized, work s/he is instructed to do after basic on-the-job training”

• Learns on the job • Slightly more complex

standardized routines • Production and service jobs at

this level require skills in operating uncomplicated machinery and may include apprentice levels of craft positions.

Food Service Worker “Leaning back”

BI1 66 BI2 76

TOTAL time to learn

2 to 6 months

General Maint Worker Office Specialist Security Guard Human Services Tech

“Solid in the box”

BI1 76 BI2 87

Skill level

Unskilled to semi- skilled; apprentice

Building Services Lead Work Therapy Technician


BI1 87 BI2 100

.


Specialized Techniques Group Complexity

levels

Indicators


C. Vocational

The median and mode Know-How

points at this level are

115.

Education

likely needed

9th to 12th grade

“Knows there are practical, job-related instructions about what to do and applies them”

Brings knowledge from some other

training or experience Guided by somewhat diversified

procedures and precedents Although tasks are proceduralized

or involve following precedents, employee decides on appropriate procedure or precedent to follow based on the situation

Typically require knowledge of multiple procedures.

Office & Admin Spec “Leaning back”

CI1 87

Customer Svcs Spec Int CI2 100

Building Services Supv CI3 115

TOTAL time to learn

6 months to 2 years - technical positions may require one – two years of post high school education in areas such as nursing, civil engineering, or office and business procedures.

General Repair Worker


CI1 100

Office & Admin Spec Sr Personnel Aide CI2 115

EDP Oper Technical Supv Office Servs Supv 1 Security Supervisor

CI3 132

Skill level

Semi-skilled to journey-level

Account Clerk Senior Transportation Generalist


CI1 115

LPN 2 CI2 132

Building Svcs Manager CI3 152


Complexity levels

Indicators


D.

Advanced Vocational

The median and mode Know-How points at

this level are 152.

Education likely

needed

9th to 12th grade PLUS additional

specialized training, on or off the job “Reads, understands and

applies significantly diversified practices from books recom-mended by others about what to do”

Employee is likely to have

specialized training (which may include a bachelor’s degree) but experience can usually substitute

Upper level college coursework that emphasizes theory is usually not needed to do the work

Work focuses on using substantially diversified procedures and specialized standards, rather than theory

Benefit Recovery Tech

“Leaning back”

DI1 115

Buyer 1 Personnel Aide Senior Transportation Gen Sr

DI2 132

Office Services Supv 2 DI3 152

TOTAL time to learn

2 to 4 years

Accounting Technician Carpenter


DI1 132

Accounting Supv Buyer 2 Information Tech Spec 1 Personnel Officer State Programs Admin

DI2 152

Skill level

Skilled technical to highly skilled trades; paraprofessionals; 1st level professionals; some 2nd level professionals; Administrative support supervisors; skilled trade supervisors; supervisory positions equal to 1st and 2nd level professionals; and technical supervisors.

Offices Services Supv 3 DI3 175

Accntg Officer Planner


DI1 152

Management Analyst 2 DI2 175

Building Maint Supv EDP Oper Ctl/Shift Supv DI3 200


Complexity levels

Indicators


E.

Basic Specialized


this level are 200.

Education likely

needed

Minimum of bachelor’s or master’s degree plus

professional experience; or

equivalent exp is required at hire

“Understands the underlying

theory well enough to research and recommend books that are most likely to help meet the organization’s more complex needs”

Job requires and uses

Work typically involves a specialized field of knowledge, such as accounting, biology, chemistry, engineering, epidemiology, information technology, management, nursing (RN), organization development, psychology, etc.

higher-level college coursework or equivalent theoretical or scientific preparation

Jobs need to know more about “why”, i.e., the underlying principles involved

Advanced professionals are mid-E to F

Local Govt Audit

“Leaning back”

EI1 152 Information Tech Spec 2 Planner Intermediate State Prog Admin Inter

EI2 175

Accounting Supv Senior Business Manager 1 EI3 200

Chemist 2 Research Analyst Inter


EI1 1 75

TOTAL time to learn

Accounting Officer Sr Mgt Analyst 3 Pers Officer Principal Planner Sr State

EI2 200

Personnel Director 1 Registered Nurse Admin-Supv

EI3 230

Skill level

Some 2nd level and many advanced professionals, supervisors &

managers

Pharmacist


EI1 200

Accounting Officer Principal Engineer Senior Information Tech Spec 4 Personnel Representative

EI2 230

Personnel Director 2 EI3 264

As of Jan 2010 the median and mode Know-How value for all 1640 rated state classifications is 200 points and there were 234 classes at 200 Know-How points. Ratings with 200 Know-How points occur in the Know-How levels of D – Advanced Vocational and E – Basic Specialized.


LEARNED DISCIPLINES GROUPComplexity

levels

Indicators

Characteristics of work

Examples Fine-tuning

F. Seasoned

Professional


this level are 350 (median)

and 304 (mode.)

Education likely

needed

“Evaluates, critiques, edits and improves books about what to do based on advanced professional expertise” Professional positions with an “F” rating are recognized experts within their specialized field. Many supervisory and managerial positions are also within “F”. Responsible authority in a learned discipline

I in

managerial breadth

Financial Reporting Analy Supv Research Scientist 2

“Leaning back”

FI2 230

FI3 264 Architect 2 Personnel Services Supv 1 State Prog Admin Coordinator


FI2 264 TOTAL time to learn

Requires wide exposure, experience and proficiency in specialized fields

Accounting Manager Personnel Services Supv 2

FI3 304

Skill level

Licensed positions within professions such as law or medicine are found here and many multi-functional managers

Construction Project Coord Princ Medical Specialist 1 “Leaning

forward”

FI2 304

State Prog Admin Manager Sr FI3 350

II in

managerial breadth

“Leaning back”

FII2 304 Personnel Services Manager FII3 350


FII2 350 State Prog Admin Manager Prin FII3 400

Dir Governmental Relations Unc “Leaning

forward”

FII2 400

Finance Services Director FII3 460


Complexity

levels

Indicators



G


this level are 700 (median)

and 608 (mode.)

Education likely

needed Senior specialists in scientific or learned disciplines who are authoritative in their field and senior managers with substantial knowledge about the organization, its mission and objectives Mastery of an abstract discipline, for example, at a university

“Respected author of scientific or theory-based books about what to do in difficult situations, based on deep and broad knowledge of the field”

II in

managerial breadth

“Leaning back”

GII2 400

Exec Dir PERA GII3 460


GII2 460

TOTAL time to learn

Functional experts (aka “gurus”), whose substantial experience and depth of knowledge enable them to “write the book,” and determine functional policy and practice

Commissioner-Mediation Service GII3 528

Skill level


GII2 528

GII3 608

III in

managerial breadth

“Leaning back”

GIII2 528 Commissioners of large agencies are found here: Commr-Admin GIV3 920 Commr- Educ GIV3 1056 Commr-MMB GV3 1216 Commr-Transp GV3 1400

Asst Commr Revenue Deputy Commr Labor & Industry GIII3 608 “Solid in

the box” GIII2 608

Commr-Commerce GIII3 700


GIII2 700 Commr-Agriculture Commr-DEED GIII3 800

Complexity levels



H

“Authoritative books are written about him or her” National leadership role and authoritative knowledge that is

recognized beyond the state of Minnesota Likely to be selected for national panels and/or be quoted because

of their acknowledged leadership in complex scientific and/or professional activities

VI in

managerial breadth

Governor HVI3 1840

“Solid in the box” HVI3 2112

“Leaning forward” HVI3 2432


Integrating Know-How (aka Managerial Breadth)

Integrating Know-How is one of the easiest parts of the total Know-How rating and the 2nd element of a job’s Know-How rating. It considers the need to integrate and manage progressively more diverse functions and is used to rank managerial breadth and scope, from similar to very different functions. When required, basic and job-specific supervisory and managerial KSAs are included in the Job-Specific part of a Know-How rating. This Know-How may be exercised

consultatively as well as executively, and involves the areas of organizing, planning, executing, controlling, and evaluating. The overall size of an organization (that is, the State of Minnesota) directly influences the number of managerial breadth categories, because organizational size often reflects requirements for increased managerial complexity and diversity. Columns II – VI are used to reflect additional scale, complexity, diversity, and size.

T. Task

I. Activity

II. Related

III. Diverse IV. Compre-

hensive V. Very large agency mgmt

VI. Total mgmt of state

# of job classes 1 (<1%) 1631 (91%) 275 (15%) 43 (2%) 5 (<1%) 7 (<1%) 2 (<1%)

B.U./Plans

(added in 1995)

AFSCME CMR

MAPE MGEC MLEA MMA MNA MGR

SRSEA MnSCU

all all all all all 99% all 25% all all

MMA

MGR

<1% 71 %

MGR

3%

MGR

<1%

MGR

<1%

Governor

Chancellor of

MnSCU

Indicators (see more detail

below)

Almost all individual contributors and

supervisors are here; 25% of the State’s managers

are, too

Emphasize doing the work…lighter on planning

and evaluation

Focus is on next 30 days

Typically managers of supervisors;

more homogen-eous functions than at III level

“Do,” but more emphasis on

planning

3 – 12 month focus

Integrates fields with fundamentally

different objectives

Example

: Reconcile the

conflicting interests of

several hundred employees

1 – 3 year focus

Commissioners of large agencies are found here: Commr-Admin GIV3 920 Commr- Educ GIV3 1056 Commr-MMB GV3 1216 Commr-Transp GV3 1400


T • Jobs usually focus on completing very simple, routine,

repetitive tasks rather than integrating those tasks into the unit’s workflow.

Task

• There’s little need for the employee to coordinate work efforts with others.

• Work is structured in such a way that the tasks to be completed are presented to the employee in the order in which they are to be done.

I • The vast majority of positions throughout State

service are placed here.

Activity

• Most individual contributors and most supervisors are here; some managers are, too.

• Professional, supervisory and managerial positions are responsible for a singular function, e.g. Transit planning, budget and accounting.

II

• This rating is typically used for managerial positions; it’s very rare for supervisors to have this rating.

Related

• Positions typically manage functional activities and tasks through subordinate supervisors.

• Incumbents are expected to integrate or coordinate fairly homogeneous activities and functions with similar purposes, but which have competing needs and interests.

• The number and diversity of functions are increasingly important; however, functions are still fairly similar in nature.

• The emphasis is on organizational planning and diverse programs integration, rather than doing.

III • Positions are responsible for integrating several

unrelated functions

Diverse

• Managers characteristically face diverse objectives and goals and competing needs for resources.

• There are few supervisory classes with this rating (see next chart)

• Broad-scale organizational planning and control assume greater importance.

• Examples o Assistant Commissioners in medium to large-sized

agencies o Deputy Commissioners in medium to large-sized

agencies o Commissioners of small to medium-sized agencies

IV

• Positions typically have overall management for a large state agency or a broad array of functions in a very large agency.

Comprehensive

• Examples: o Deputy Commissioners of large agencies o Commissioners of medium-sized agencies

with broad impact

V Positions typically have overall leadership of one of

the largest and most complex state agencies.

Very Large Agency Management

• Examples: Commissioners of large agencies and medium-sized agencies with broad impact (e.g., Corrections, Finance, Health, Human Services, Natural Resources, Public Safety, Transportation)

VI

Total Management of the State

Examples: Governor, Chancellor of MnSCU


Integrating Know-How T. Task

I. Activity

II. Related

III. Diverse

Depth and Breath of Job Specific Knowledge 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 L. Limited A. Primary B/ Elementary Vocational

C. Vocational D. Advanced Vocational

E. Basic Specialized

F. Seasoned Professional

TIP: Why are there shaded areas on the Hay Guide Charts? Shaded areas serve as a boundary or guide for raters. For example, a position with a “C Vocational” Job Specific Knowledge rating would not have a “II Related” Integrating rating.

Distribution of State Classes by Know-How Points [technical, integrating and human relations]


Human Relations Skills This is the 3rd element of a job’s Know-How rating: the active, practicing interpersonal skills typically required for productive working relationships and to work with, or through, others inside and/or outside of the organization to get work accomplished. It assumes that EVERY State job requires a foundation of (1) Basic Human Relations Skills and some jobs require additional skills on a regular basis. To be effective, an employee must typically be proficient at the highest level of Human Relations Skill regularly required for the job.

1. Basic 2. Important 3. Critical # classes 193 (12%) 715 (43%) 745 (45%) Description

“General effectiveness that is ordinary for everyday life is a basic work consideration. Tact and courtesy are required, including conduct of relationships in which information is requested and provided.”

“Alternative or combined skills in understanding, teaming with, collaborating with, and/or influencing other people are important and specific considerations to cause action or understanding by others.”

“Alternative and combined skills in developing, collaborating with, persuading, motivating and leading other people are essential and overriding considerations.”

Indicators

Tactful, with common courtesy Factual exchange of information Failure to exercise this level of skill will “make waves,” cause problems, and eventually interfere with effective job performance Job-Specific Know-How is relatively MORE important than Human Relations Know-How

Regularly interact with others and interactions often require understanding of and sensitivity to others’ points of view and assertiveness to influence outcomes May involve collaboration Employees who assign, monitor and review others’ work usually need at least this level of human relations skill Job-Specific Know-How is relatively EQUAL in importance to Human Relations Know-How

Able to persuade, motivate, lead and accomplish work goals through others Negotiate, sell, supervise, and manage outcomes Strong interpersonal skills are the key to success in these jobs – usually supervisory or managerial Characterized by constant, daily interaction with others Job-Specific Know-How is relatively LESS important than Human Relations Know-How

Examples

Automotive Mechanic Baker Carpenter Customer Services Specialist Delivery Van Driver Food Service Worker General Maintenance Worker Office and Admin Spec and Int Parks Worker Zoo Life Support Operator

Most professional level positions Community Liaison Rep Food Inspector 1 Labor Investigator Employee Development Spec Personnel Officer Recreation Therapist

Most supervisors and managers Labor Relations Rep Sr and Principal Lottery Sales Manager Management Analyst Supv 3 Mediator State Program Admin Mgr


Human Relations Know-How Q&A Lessons learned from Hay Group consultant, Al Bunnett, as part of the 2008 Quality Assurance review. The 2008 QA review included several established non-supervisory classes with a “3” in Human Relations Know-How. Q Is the following an accurate description of the standards the State should be using to determine a "3" in Human Relations? ‘A "3" in Human Relations is appropriate for supervisory classes using the Public Employees Labor Relations Act (PELRA) as a guide for decision making?’

A Mostly yes if the job exists for the purpose of supervising its staff. (see next question)

Q What are typical supervisory situations that would argue for a "2" rather than a "3" in Human Relations?

A But when the staff size is small and well-educated (we often use bench scientific subordinates as an example), consider using "2”. In this example the supervision element of the job is usually subordinate to some personal technical/professional contribution. So as a supervisor the job might be kind of ordinary, but the incumbent might be judged a superior performer based on her super technical contribution. HR skills are "2" in such a case.

Q A "3" is also appropriate for positions/classifications in State government responsible for changing behavior, e.g. selling products, services or ideas. In this context, changing behavior has a very narrow definition and relies on understanding how an employer measures successful performance. Changing behavior is so essential to the classification/position that there's a direct correlation between performance and salary and/or continued employment. Typically, a percent of total salary is awarded as a sales

commission based on successful sales/changes in behavior. In some positions, program/salary dollars increase or decrease based directly on an incumbent's performance which ultimately effects employment or layoff.

A This describes sales-type situations well and the use of "3" would be typical in most situations for individual contributors.

Q What are the guidelines for using a "3" vs a "2" in Human Relations when subordinate staff are unclassified or non-state employees, e.g. Student Workers, inmates, contractors?

A For Inmates and student workers "2" should be sufficient for the supervisor. In this situation, the State does not expect to invest much in changing behavior. A German incentive plan is in place. (Do as instructed or you will be fired. You are easily replaced.) Supervising contractors might be more troublesome since they are sometimes more difficult to replace. But in general, I lean toward "2" since the contractor usually want to please the employer, their behavioral vector is to conform to the supervisor's wishes. Good references and perhaps a follow-on contract create incentives for the contractor not to stress the motivational skills of the supervisor.

In general, where the job must maintain longer term relationships (years, not weeks) with the subordinate, "3" is a better choice.


COMBINING THE THREE PARTS OF KNOW-HOW

NOTE: This table is laid out similarly to the Know-How chart used by Hay raters, for ease in use. (2) Integrating/managerial breadth

(1) Technical/ specialized

T. Task

I. Activity

II. Related

III.

Diverse

IV.

Compre-hensive

V. Very large

agency mgmt

VI. Total mgmt of the state

(3) Human relations 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3

Practical procedures

L. Limited

<1%

NO!

NO!

NO! NO!

NO!

A. Primary

<1%

B. Elementary Vocational

2% 1%

Specialized techniques

C. Vocational

4% 4% 2%

D. Advanced Vocational

MAYBE 4% 13% 4%

E. Basic Specialized

NO!

2% 21% 10% <1% 1% MAYBE

Learned disciplines

F. Seasoned Professional 4% 12% <1% 12% 2% MAYBE G. Specialized Mastery <1% <1% 1% 1% <1% <1% MAYBE <1% H. Professional Mastery <1%


Problem Solving is the original ‘self-starting’ thinking required by the job for analyzing, evaluating, creating, reasoning, arriving at and making conclusions. Problem Solving measures the intensity of the mental process that uses Know-How to: (1) identify, (2) define, and (3) resolve problems. It is a percentage of Know-How, reflecting the fact that “you think with what you know.” This is true of even the most creative work. Ideas are put together from something already there. The raw material of any thinking is knowledge of facts, principles and means. Problem Solving includes two dimensions:

• Context (aka Thinking Environment)

• Thinking Challenge In the example on the right, Problem Solving is expressed as E3 (33%) (Context level E, Thinking Challenge level 3 at 33% of the Know-How points).

ContextE. Clearly Defined

Thinking Challenge3. Interpretive

33%Context

E. Clearly Defined

Thinking Challenge3. Interpretive

33%

CH

APT

ER 2

: Pro

blem

Sol

ving


The Two Elements of Problem Solving: Context Context includes the influences or environment that limit or guide decision-making such as rules, instructions, procedures, standards, policies, principles from fields of science and academic disciplines. Positions are guided by organizational, departmental or functional goals, policies, objectives, practices or circumscribed by procedures and instructions. In general, policies describe the “what” of a subject matter, procedures detail the steps needed to follow through on a policy (i.e., how, where, when, by whom) and instructions outline the specific aspects of how to perform the tasks, such as the operation of a machine or how to select the appropriate letters to use in particular situations. HayGroup® cautions against the mechanical application of organization echelons to determine levels. However, each job is expected to resolve problems to meet its specific accountabilities within an organizational framework or context.

TIP: Since Problem Solving is always a percentage of the Know-How rating, the letter chosen for Context will generally be at the same level or one letter lower than the Job-Specific Know-How letter chosen for a position. For example, if the Hay raters choose E for Job-Specific Know-How, the Context for the position would typically be E or D; the Context rating would never be F or G.

A

Strict Routine

• As of 7/10, there were 7 active job classes with this rating.

• Positions are guided by simple rules and detailed instructions.

• Instructions or orders, usually given orally, usually specify in detail the sequence and timing of the tasks to be undertaken with little or no latitude for the employee to consider alternative procedures.

B

Routine

• As of 7/10, there were approx. 80 active job classes with this rating.

• Positions are guided by established routines and standing instructions.

• Instructions usually provide the latitude to consider variations in the sequence of procedures based on situations encountered within the work setting.

C

Semi-routine

• As of 7/10, there were approx. 270 active job classes with this rating. Examples include Aides, skilled administrative support positions, skilled trades, technicians and some first level supervisors.

• Positions are guided by somewhat diversified procedures and precedents.

• While assigned tasks follow procedures, latitude is permitted because of changing work circumstances. Incumbents determine the most appropriate procedure or precedent to follow.


D

Standardized

• As of 7/10, there were approx. 480 active job classes with this rating. The Problem Solving point mode at this level is 50 points, the median is 57 points. Examples include:

o Entry level professionals o Most secondary professionals o Some third level professionals o Some first level supervisors

Positions are guided by substantially diversified business or academic procedures and specialized standards. Changing priorities or differing situations encountered in

the work environment allow the employee latitude to consider which among many procedures should be followed in what sequence to achieve the required job results.

E

Clearly Defined

• As of 7/10, there were approx. 710 active job classes with this rating. Examples include:

o Some third level professionals o Advanced professionals o Professional supervisors o Some managers, directors and executive

directors • Positions are guided by policies and principles rather

than procedures. • Incumbents determine how best to accomplish goals or

resolve work challenges • Many higher level professional, supervisory and lower

and mid level managerial classes are rated at this level.

PROBLEM SOLVING EXAMPLES

D - Standardized Information Tech Spec 1 and 2

Forensic Scientist 1 Personnel Officer Pers Officer Sr and Princ Pollution Control Spec and Int Psychologist Registered Nurse/Sr/Princ Registered Nurse Supervisor State Patrol Trooper State Programs Admin and Int Warehouse Examiner Supv

E – Clearly Defined Dentist Engineer Admin and Princ Finance Specialist 1, 2 and 3 Forensic Scientist 2 and 3 Hydrologist 4 Hydrologist 5

Information Tech Spec 3, 4, 5 Personnel Director 1 and 2 Personnel Representative Planner Principal State Psychologist 2 and 3 RN Advanced Practitioner Safety Investigator 3 and 4

State Prog Admin Supv Sr and Princ Systems Analysis Unit Supv


F

Broadly Defined


• Positions are guided by broadly defined policies and specific objectives.

• Incumbents determine “what needs to be done” in applying broad policies, in establishing a plan of action, and in determining the priorities and processes needed to achieve the objective.

G

Generally Defined


• Positions are guided by general policies and goals based on broad public policies.

• These positions determine the organization’s (i.e., the State of Minnesota’s) functional direction; the goal is specified in only very general terms, such as “increase in international operations” or “enter new markets.”

H

Abstractly Defined

• Positions are guided by the general laws of nature and/or science, within a framework of business philosophy and cultural standards.

• The Governor is the only position in State government with this rating. The Governor determines the strategic direction of State government, consistent with its charter, and the requirements for the organization’s survival and continuity.

PROBLEM SOLVING EXAMPLES

F – Broadly Defined Assistant Commissioner – DOC Assistant State Negotiator Commissioner – Human Rights Demographer State Deputy Commissioner – Health Exec Dir – Animal Health Bd

Exec Dir – PERA Health Care Program Mgr Sr Personnel Director 3 and 4 State Patrol Chief

G – Generally Defined Commissioner – Administration Commissioner – Agriculture

Commissioner – DHS Exec Dir – Investment Board

H – Abstractly Defined Governor


Hay Guide Chart – Profile Method:

a 3-level Thinking Challenge process

Like the process that

turns loose vegetation into rolls

of hay, the Hay method of job

evaluation takes relevant pieces of

information about a job; subjects them to

an organized, standardized

process; and results in consistent ratings

that can be used for a variety of purposes.

Thinking Challenge

Thinking Challenge includes the nature of the problems encountered and the mental processes used to resolve the problems. The scale ranges from simple problems to very complex issues, with the premise that simple issues recur regularly in the same form and after awhile are resolved by rote or instinct, but very difficult issues require substantial thinking and deliberation. The types of situations encountered and the processes involved in identifying, defining or resolving related problems are considered. Thinking Challenge reflects the degree of difficulty in finding improvements and adapting to changes.

1

Repetitive


• This level has been compared to a true/false test situation, with very limited options from which to choose.

• Employees are expected to resolve identical situations by making simple choices among a limited number of learned things.

• KSAs are applied directly to the job, with little need to exercise independent judgment.

• Each situation is nearly the same as the prior one and employees make correct decisions through simple choices, e.g., sorting operations.

2

Patterned

• As of 7/10, there were approx. 200 active job classes with this rating, many of them AFSCME positions.

• This level has been compared to a multiple-choice test situation with a finite number of choices, but more varied than true/false.

• Employees resolve similar situations by discriminating between choices of learned things that generally follow a well-defined pattern.

• These jobs are confronted with multiple-choice situations, but have learned which choice is most appropriate for each situation through prior exposure or experience.


3

Interpretive

• As of 7/10, there were approx. 1040 active job classes (about 60%) with this rating. Examples include:

o More complex AFSCME positions o Most professionals and supervisors o Some managers o Some directors and executive directors

• This level has been compared to an essay test situation, where more independent thought and creativity is involved.

• Employees resolve differing situations requiring a search for solutions or new applications within the area of learned things.

• Experience is needed to know the options and make sound judgments.

• Employees need to be aware of and interpret choices; they’re expected to have dealt with similar, but not always identical, situations before.

• These jobs are confronted with problems that “fall in the cracks” and resolve them by “reading between the lines.”

• Solutions result from comparing problem elements to reference points within one’s own experience and then using one’s judgment to match the appropriate prior decision.

4

Adaptive


o Some advanced professionals o Higher level supervisors o Most managers o Some assistant directors o Most directors o Commissioners, Deputy Commissioners,

Assistant Commissioners • Positions are expected to resolve variable situations

requiring analytical, interpretive, evaluative and/or constructive thinking.

• Situations are often more hypothetical, with the need to develop alternatives.

• Positions deal with situations that are largely new. • Employees adapt trends or programs that are known in

the U.S. to specific circumstances • The situation to be resolved includes circumstances,

facts and issues that are different than those that have been encountered in the past.

• The employee has to consider various possible courses of action and ponder their consequences before taking or recommending further steps.


5

Uncharted

• As of 7/10, there was 1 active job class with this rating: Chancellor MnSCU.

• Positions are expected to resolve novel or nonrecurring path finding situations requiring the development of new concepts and imaginative approaches.

• These positions are confronted with the unknown, in situations with little or no precedents.

• The employee must originate new concepts or approaches without guidance from others.

• Deliberations are often necessarily time-consuming.

Job analysts choose between two percentages for each combination of Context and Thinking Challenge (low and high) to “fine-tune” the rating. For example, a D3 combination could be assigned D3 (29%) for 50 points or D3 (33%) for 57 points. Once the Know-How rating and the Problem Solving percentage for a position are agreed upon, Hay raters use the Point Conversion Table included with the Hay Guide Charts to determine the position’s total number of Problem Solving points. To use this table, choose the column that matches the position’s total number of Know-How points, look along the left side of the table for the % you’ve chosen, then find the number where these two intersect for the total Problem Solving points. For example, a 33% Problem Solving for 200 Know-How points results in 66 total Problem Solving points.

JOB COMPONENT PATTERNS

Know-How points to Problem Solving percentages KH Problem Solving Percentages PTS 66% 57% 50% 43% 38% 33% 29% 25% 22% 920 x 800 x x 700 x x 608 x x 528 x x 460 s x x 400 x x 350 x x x 304 x x 264 x x x 230 s x x 200 x x 175 x x s 152 s x x s 132 s x x 115 s x

X= Typical/Probable S = Selectively

In any decision situation, the amount of relevant information available is inversely proportional to the importance of the decision. (Cooke's Law)--Paul Dickson, comp. (The Official Rules)


Accountability does not mean being responsible for getting one’s own work done. Rather, it reflects responsibility for actions and their consequences and the measured effect of the job on end results for the organization. It includes three factors:

• Freedom to Act/Empowerment (i.e., freedom to act on decisions);

• Magnitude (i.e., size of budget and magnitude of influence); and

• Job Impact (i.e., the way in which actions affect end results in the agency).

You will see Accountability expressed as D2C 76 (D level Freedom to Act, 2 level magnitude, and C level Job Impact for a total of 76 Accountability points). These three factors measure the actual effects of Know-How and Problem Solving, and are considered together in the way that makes the most sense overall for each position.

D. Generally Regulated

2 Small Magnitud

Contributory

76

D. Generally Regulated

2 Small Magnitud

Contributory

76

CH

APT

ER 3

: Acc

ount

abili

ty


The Three Elements of Accountability:

Freedom to Act/Empowerment

This aspect is officially titled Empowerment, but it is more commonly known by its previous title, “Freedom to Act.” It involves the degree of personal or procedural control or guidance exercised over the position. For example, what constraints are put on an employee in this job? Are there set procedures to follow or does the employee have broad authority to carry out management’s or the Governor’s direction? How closely supervised is the position? What kinds of decisions are made higher up in the organization?

L

Limited

• As of 7/10, there were 2 active job classes with this rating: Service Worker and Supported Employment Worker.

• These jobs are subject to explicit instructions covering simple tasks.

• The nature of the tasks are totally confining; instructions are exact and supervision is continuous.

A

Prescribed


• These jobs are subject to prescribed instructions covering assigned tasks and/or immediate supervision.

• These jobs are given explicit instructions, orally or in writing, that state the step-by-step sequence of tasks to be completed to achieve a specific end result. No deviation is permitted without first seeking permission.

TIP: A position’s Freedom to Act rating is typically the same letter or one lower than the Context choice for Problem Solving (i.e., a D in Context would result in a D or C for Freedom to Act). However, in some of the largest jobs, Accountability is one letter higher (i.e., a G in Thinking Context with an H in Freedom to Act).

B

Controlled


• These positions are subject to instructions and established work routines and/or close supervision.

• Employees have minor latitude to rearrange the sequence of completing various tasks or duties based on changed work situations, workflow, etc.

C Standardized


• These jobs are subject, wholly or in part, to standardized practices and procedures, general work instructions and/or supervision of progress and results.

• These employees usually perform a greater variety of tasks and duties and clearly understand, on a daily basis, what results are expected by the supervisor.

• Employees are not permitted to deviate from standard practices and procedures, but may be permitted to set their own priorities, subject to the supervisor’s approval.


D

Generally Regulated


o Some entry level professionals o Most second level professionals o Some third level professionals o Some first level supervisors

• These jobs are subject, wholly or in part, to practices and procedures covered by precedents or well-defined policy and/or supervisory review.

• These employees are permitted to determine their own priorities and may deviate from established procedures and practices as long as the end results meet standards of acceptability (e.g., quality, volume, timeliness, etc.).

• Supervision over work activities is usually indirect and review of work results usually occurs after the fact.

E

Directed


o High level professionals o Many supervisors o Managers and directors

• This option was previously called “Reviewed.” • These positions, by their nature or size, are subject to

broad practice and procedures covered by functional precedents and policies and/or achievement of a circumscribed operational activity and/or managerial direction.

• These positions, most often managers of functional areas or very senior individual contributors, generally have the independence needed to achieve operational goals, provided that activities are consistent with

approved operating plans and objectives and functional policies and precedents.

• The management direction given these employees establishes expected results.

• These positions determine how and when the results will be achieved.

F

Oriented Direction

• As of 7/10, there were 58 active job classes with this rating (e.g. Assistant Commissioners, Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner, Executive Directors).

• These positions, by their nature or size, are broadly subject to functional policies and goals and/or general managerial direction.

• Employees usually report to the managers of major operating areas in the agency or are the organization’s top management and are permitted wide discretion, provided that activities are consistent with operating policies and precedents within that function.

• Actions that will impact other functional or operating areas usually require approval before they may be implemented.

• Commissioners are subject only to guidance from the Governor’s Office.

G

Guided


• These positions are subject only to broad policy and general management guidance.

• Employees establish functional policy as the Commissioners and some Deputy Commissioners of State agencies.


• This is a major decision-making level in a State agency, which determines the results to be achieved within that agency.

• Commissioners are subject only to guidance from the Governor’s office.

H

Strategic Guidance

• As of 7/10, there were 3 active job classes with this rating: Commissioner of DHS, Commissioner of DOT and Chancellor MnSCU.

• These positions are characterized by a comprehensive and controlling effect on the largest State of Minnesota agencies and on the people of the state.

• Positions are subject only to guidance from the Governor’s office.

I

Governor/Chief Justice


Magnitude This is the portion of the total organization encompassed by the position’s primary purpose. It’s most typically indicated by the general dollar size of the area(s) most directly affected by the job, i.e., the resources over which the position has control or influence. Hay raters consider a variety of issues. For example, what sort of budget does the employee in this position control? Does this figure include mostly salaries? How are others involved in deciding how the money is spent? If there isn’t any budget, what kind of influence does the employee have over what goes on in the agency?

TIP: The operational budget numbers change as the Accountability Magnitude Index (AMI) changes. The current AMI is 7.0 (Oct 2009). This means that each of the dollar amounts on the Magnitude portion of the Accountability Guide Chart is adjusted in accordance with the current AMI by multiplying each number by 7.0

1. Very small or indeterminate (under $700,000) 2. Small ($700,000 - $14 million) 3. Medium ($14 million - $140 million) 4. Large ($140 million - $1.4 billion) 5. Very Large ($1.4 billion - $14 billion) 6. (Over $14 billion)

1

Very Small or Indeterminate

• As of 7/10, there were approx. 990 (about 56%) active job classes with this rating.

• The magnitude is a very small or indeterminate portion of the Agency mission.

• Operational budget influenced is under $700,000. • Most State jobs are 1 – limited or indeterminate –

because either the $ amount controlled is under $700,000 OR others have a significant effect on the decisions made.

2

Small


• The magnitude is a small portion of the State or Agency mission.

• Operational budget influenced is $700,000 to $14,000,000 ($14 million).

• Most State jobs that aren’t placed in 1 above are found here, either because the $ amount clearly controlled falls in this area OR a position’s role is very broad and contributes to a much larger amount, although others also have a significant effect on the decisions made.

3

Medium


• The magnitude is a medium portion of the State or Agency mission.

• Operational budget influenced is $14,000,000 ($14 million) to $140,000,000 ($140 million).


4

Large


• The magnitude is a large portion of the State or major Agency mission.

• Operational budget influenced is $140,000,000 ($140 million) to $1,400,000,000 ($1.4 billion).

5

Very Large


• The magnitude is a very large portion of the State’s mission.

• Operational budget influenced is $1,400,000,000 ($1.4 billion) to $14,000,000,000 ($14 billion).

6

Whole State

• As of 7/10, there were 3 active job classes with this rating: Commissioner of Education, Commissioner of Minnesota Management and Budget, and Executive Director Investment Board.

• Operational budget influenced is more than $14,000,000,000 ($14 billion).


Job Impact A position’s Job Impact is considered to be indirect (indirect or contributory) or direct and measurable (shared or primary). It involves the way in which the position’s actions affect end results in the agency. For example, how does the employee influence the business of the agency – directly or indirectly? Does the employee provide advisory or interpretive services for others to use in making decisions? Is the job an information-recording one? Does it provide a necessary service with a relatively small effect on the business of the agency? “Contributory” and “primary” are, by far, the most frequently used options. The Hay raters often must determine whether the position is primary over a smaller or indeterminate amount or contributory over a larger amount. To make this decision, they consider the position’s primary function in the organization and reflect that organizational role through the rating.

I

Indirect


• This option was previously called “Remote.” • Positions provide informational, recording or incidental

services for use by others related to some important end result.

• Job activity may be complex, but the effect on the overall organization is relatively minor.

• Employees typically collect or process information or data for other positions with more direct impact on the organization.

• Employees perform tasks with little recognition of the use to which the end results will be put or what they influence.

• This Job Impact option is the least direct of the four available options.

C

Contributory

• As of 7/10, there were approx. 1025 active job classes (About 58%) with this rating.

• Positions provide interpretive, advisory or facilitating services for use by others in taking action.

• This type of Job Impact is appropriate where jobs are accountable for providing significant “advice and counsel” in addition to information and/or analysis, and when decisions are likely to be made by virtue of that counsel.

• Such impacts are commonly found in staff or support functions that significantly influence decisions.

• For example, a “product manager” may provide recommendations that, when acted upon, materially influence sales revenues; a labor relations specialist makes recommendations that “contribute” to union settlements of a given magnitude.

• Positions are generally supportive in nature. • Position’s role is to provide advice, counsel or

recommendations to assist decision-makers and/or action takers.

• This Job Impact option is more direct than the “Indirect” option.


S

Shared

• As of 7/10, there were 10 active job classes with this rating, including the Governor’s position.

• Positions participate with peers within or outside the organizational unit to make decisions and take actions jointly; a basic rule is that “sharing” cannot exist vertically in an organization – it can only exist among peers.

• Shared impacts can exist between peer jobs and/or functions, and suggest a degree of “partnership” in or “joint accountability” for the results.

• This option is rarely used; it’s for equal partnership situations such as the Governor’s shared decision-making with the Legislature or in self-directed work teams.

• Responsibility and accountability are shared equally with others.

• For example, there may be shared accountability between engineering and manufacturing functions for a successful product.

• A committee where each member has an equal vote is an example of shared accountability.

• This Job Impact option is more direct than “Contributory” because these positions share direct accountability fairly equally. However, since it is shared, these positions have lower Job Impact than a position that is considered to be “Primary.”

P

Primary


• Positions are directly accountable for making decisions and taking actions, directly or through subordinate positions, which determine and control the results.

• Line management positions are generally considered to be controlling their own operating areas.

• These positions control the Job Impact on end results, where any shared accountability with others is secondary.

• Such impacts are commonly found in operations and managerial positions that have “line accountability” for key end result areas, whether they’re large or small.

• For example, a supervisor may be “primarily accountable” for the production or output (value added) of a unit within the context of available resources (e.g., human resources and controllable expenses); whereas the Minncor Vice-President of Operations may have a primary impact upon the total value added in the manufacture of products or upon costs of goods manufactured.

• The key is that the job exists to have the controlling influence on certain end results of a given magnitude, and that accountability is not shared with others, i.e., “the buck stops here.”

• This is the most direct Job Impact option. There are also “fine-tuning” decisions to be made in Accountability, with several options available for each rating combination. For example, C1P can be assigned 57 points, 66 points or 76 points.


A fourth factor, special conditions, is used when appropriate for certain jobs where physical effort, noxious physical conditions, physical hazards and/or sensory attention demands are significant elements. Prior to 1995, when the sensory attention demands aspect was added, this section was called “Working Conditions.” These points are typically not applied to professional level positions for two reasons: • Professional positions are less

likely to spend as much of their time in conditions that emphasize physical effort, noxious physical conditions, physical hazards, or sustained sensory attention demands.

• Even if the professional positions

do experience some of these conditions, the effect of Special Conditions points on the overall Hay rating becomes increasingly negligible as the Know-How, Problem Solving and Accountability point values become higher.

Special Conditions points have much more of an effect on AFSCME-type positions, where the overall number of points are typically lower than those of professionals, supervisors and managers. To read existing Hay ratings that include Special Conditions points, it helps to know the following codes. Each of the four elements is assigned 0 – 10 points for relevant situations.

P = Physical Effort E = Environment H = Hazards S = Sensory Attention (added in 1995)

CH

APT

ER 4

: Spe

cial

Con

ditio

ns


JOB PROFILES The job’s size and profile serve as starting points for many job evaluation applications. Job size is determined by the total of the factor point values for Know-How, Problem Solving and Accountability, and reflects the job’s relative value to the organization. The relative proportions of Know-How, Problem Solving and Accountability that make up the job determine its profile (see Figure 2). The job profile concept provides a better understanding of how jobs fit into organizations. The balance between Accountability and Problem Solving reflects the extent to which the job is primarily concerned with achieving results or is focused on research and analysis. The balance among Accountability, Know-How, and Problem Solving reflects the level and type of work in an organization. For example, entry-level positions typically focus on Know-How. Accountability focus grows through career development into jobs that impact the organization more broadly through application of acquired experience and problem-solving capability.

Figure 2: Proportions of Accountability, Know-How, and Problem Solving Commissioner: Profile: KH-PS-AC Large Agency 37-25-38

KH37%

PS 25%

AC38%

Commissioner: Profile: KH-PS-AC Small Agency 43-25-32

KH43%

PS 25%

AC32%

Office and Admin Spec Profile: KH-PS-AC 74-12-14

KH74%

PS 12%

AC14%

S In entry-level jobs, Know-How may account for 70% of job content, while at the CEO level Know-How may only be 30% of job content (even though, of course, it is significantly more important than Know-How for an entry-level position).

CH

APT

ER 5

: Fin

e Tu

ning


Short Profiles There are “Short Profiles” that describe the relationship of the point factor values for a single position or classification. In some positions, “Accountability” is higher than “Problem Solving”. These positions have an “Up” profile. This means that deadlines and end results are more important to successful job performance than analysis and research. As the gap between “Problem Solving” and “Accountability” increases (greater “Accountability”), deadlines and end results take on greater significance. Usually, jobs of this nature are supervisors and managers. Up profiles are written at the end of a Hay rating as +1, +2, +3, etc. (EI2 230 E3(38) 87 E2C 100 = 417 + 1) In some positions, “Problem Solving and “Accountability” are equal. In these positions, analysis and the search for answers to difficult work issues is as important as deadlines. These jobs are called “Level”. “Level” profiles include positions such as Research Analyst, Planner, and Auditor. Level profiles are written at the end of a Hay rating as “=”. (EI2 200 E3(33) 66 D1C 66 = 332 =) In some positions, “Problem Solving” is greater than Accountability. In these positions, analysis and the search for answers is greater than deadlines and end results. These positions are called “Down” jobs. Down profiles are often found among positions responsible for scientific research. The State’s Research Scientist classification illustrates this concept. Down profiles are written at the end of a Hay rating as -1, -2, -3, etc. (FI2 264 E4(43) 115 E2C 100 =479 -1)

Written Verbal Interpretation

+ 4 Up 4 Accountability is four steps higher than Problem Solving

+ 3 Up 3 Accountability is three steps higher than Problem Solving

+ 2 Up 2 Accountability is two steps higher than Problem Solving

+ 1 Up 1 Accountability is one step higher than Problem Solving

= Level Accountability and Problem Solving are equal

- 1 Down 1 Accountability is one step lower than Problem Solving

- 2 Down 2 Accountability is two steps lower than Problem Solving

- 3 Down 3 Accountability is three steps lower than Problem Solving

- 4 Down 4 Accountability is three steps lower than Problem Solving


Guide to Hay Evaluation Profiles Based on Problem Solving %, Know-How Points and total points.

PS Short Know-How Points % Profile 115 132 152 175 200 230 264 304 350 400 460 528 608 700 25 = 173 198 228 261 25 +1 177 203 233 268 29 -1 177 203 233 268 307 353 29 = 181 208 238 275 314 362 29 +1 186 213 245 282 323 372 33 -1 186 213 245 282 323 372 33 = 191 218 252 289 332 382 438 29 +2 191 220 252 291 333 383 440 33 +1 298 342 393 451 38 -1 298 342 393 451 519 597 38 = 307 352 404 464 534 614 33 +2 308 353 406 466 536 617 43 -2 353 406 466 536 617 707 812 38 +1 363 417 479 551 634 727 835 43 -1 417 479 551 634 727 835 43 = 430 494 568 654 750 860 38 +2 432 496 571 657 752 865 50 -2 432 496 571 657 752 865 992 1142 43 +1 511 588 677 775 890 1022 1176 50 -1 511 588 677 775 890 1022 1176 50 = 528 608 700 800 920 1056 1216 43 +2 531 611 702 805 924 162 1222 57 -2 611 702 805 924 1062 1222 50 +1 725 830 954 1096 1262 1450 57 -1 725 830 954 1096 1262 1450 57 = 750 860 988 1136 1308 1500 50 +2 755 864 994 1142 1312 1510 66 -2 864 994 1142 1312 1510 57 +1 894 1028 1182 1358 1560 57 +2 934 1074 1232 1418 1628 66 +2 1768

= total points of common evaluations


Long Profiles The Long Profile describes the relationship of the three Hay factors for a single position as well as the vertical relationships of positions within an organization. Long Profiles break down the three factors into percentages. Long Profiles can be determined from the Hay charts under the section titled: “Characteristic Hay Profiles.” The Hay rating FI2 264 E4(43) 115 E2C 100 = 479 has a long form profile of: 55-24-21. Translated, this means that 55% of this position is Know-How, 24% of this position is Problem Solving and 21% of this position is Accountability. Long Profiles also give raters valuable organizational information. Typically, when analyzing the vertical relationships of positions within an organization, positions at higher levels have greater Accountability. This permits raters to use the “Long Profile” to determine a rating’s accuracy. For example, a managerial position with the above profile supervising employees with a profile of (55-21-24 with 24% of the subordinates’ profile in Accountability) is probably incorrect. Raters then use this information for further analysis.

Long Profile Short Classification KH% PS% AC% Profile

Student Worker Clerical 79 8 13 +3 Food Service Worker 76 9 15 +3 Office Specialist 76 10 14 +2 Microfilmer 72 12 16 +2 Account Clerk 70 13 17 +2 Personnel Aide 68 15 17 +1 Office Services Supervisor 1 63 16 21 +2 Accounting Officer 64 18 18 level = Management Analyst 3 60 20 20 level = Planning Director State 53 20 27 +2 Financial Services Director 52 22 26 +1 Chief Information Officer 46 23 31 +2 Asst Commissioner – Economic Security 43 25 32 +2 Commissioner – Transportation 38 24 38 +3 Governor 32 27 41 +3


These long profiles illustrate that as positions become more complex, the emphases on problem solving and accountability become greater and the emphasis on Know-How is correspondingly decreased. For example, the Governor’s Problem Solving is high – 41%. This reflects the Governor’s significant responsibility for results and the organizational reality that the Governor must often rely on others’ Know-How and Problem Solving due to the scope of the job. The Personnel professional series class examples below all have “level” profiles, which mean that the positions’ roles in Problem Solving and Accountability are considered equal or balanced. Their short profiles would be identical. However, their long profiles reflect the increasing emphases on Problem Solving and Accountability as the job requirements become more complex:

Classification

Long profile Short profile KH% PS% AC%

Personnel Officer 64 18 18 = Personnel Officer Sr 60 20 20 = Personnel Officer Princ 60 20 20 = Personnel Rep 56 22 22 =

The “Characteristic Hay Profiles” table on the reverse side of the Accountability Guide Chart provides a straightforward way to identify a position’s long profile. Columns A4, A3, A2, A1 and LEVEL are used for most State of Minnesota Hay ratings. In these situations, Accountability is higher than Problem Solving (A1 – 4) or equal to Problem Solving (level). Because the State has very few “down” jobs, where Problem Solving is higher than Accountability, the P1, P2, P3 and P4 columns are rarely used.

Long profile information can also be found in the annual Hay Evaluation lists provided by MMB that contain the current Hay ratings State of Minnesota job classes. These numbers are sometimes slightly different than the percentages on the “Characteristic Hay Profile” table. The table provided in the Hay Guide Charts is the official document, but the additional columns on the Hay Evaluation lists are provided for Hay raters’ use in the “Sore-Thumbing” process described below.


“Sore-Thumbing” “Sore-Thumbing” is primarily used during a class study or quality assurance review, after multiple positions in an organization have been Hay-rated and before the ratings are finalized. In this process, the job evaluations are put in order from high to low and reviewed in relation to each other. This process is called “sore thumbing” because the raters check the ratings to see if any aspects of the ratings “stick out like a sore thumb.” If irregularities or discrepancies are discovered during this process, the raters discuss the rating(s) in question and decide whether any changes are needed before the ratings are considered final. This is an example. Does anything stand out?

Class Know-How (KH)

Problem Solving

(PS)

Account-ability (AC)

Total Points

& short profile

Personnel Dir 3 FII3 400 F4(50) 200 F3C 200 800 = Personnel Services Manager FII3 350 E4(43) 152 E4C 175 677+1 Personnel Program Manager FI3 304 E4(43) 132 E3C 152 588 +1 Personnel Dir 2 EI3 264 E3(38) 100 E2C 115 479 +1 Personnel Rep EI2 230 E3(38) 87 D2C 87 404 = Personnel Officer Princ EI2 200 D3(33) 66 D1C 66 332 = Personnel Officer Sr DI2 175 D3(33) 57 D1C 57 289 = Personnel Officer DI2 152 D3(29) 43 C1C 43 238 = Personnel Aide Sr DI2 132 C3(25) 33 C1C 33 198 = Personnel Aide CI2 115 C2(22) 25 C1I 29 169 +1


“Hay Ratings At-A-Glance”

Non-Managerial* Between 600-100 Total Hay Points

Job Specific Know-How and Integrating Know-How

“Alpha” notation;

Know-How points

Typical Problem Solving

Total Hay

Points (rounded)

Seasoned Professional FI 304 38% 570 264 230

38% 33%

480 390

Basic Specialized EI 200 175

33% 29%

330 280

Advanced Vocational DI 152 132

29% 25%

240 200

Vocational CI 115 22% 170

100 19% 140 Elementary Vocational BI 87 16% 120

76 14% 100 Primary AI

66 12% <99 Limited LI *At least 85% of all state employees are in job classes with total Hay

points between 600-100

Managerial Between 1400-480 Total Hay Points**

Job Specific Know-How and Integrating Know-How

“Alpha” notation;

Know-How points

Typical Problem Solving

Total Hay

Points (rounded)

Specialized Mastery GIII 608 57% 1400

Seasoned Professional FIII 528 50% 1150

460 50% 950

Seasoned Professional FII 400 43% 800

350 43% 680

Seasoned Professional FI 304 38% 570 264 38% 480

** Representative Managerial ratings from Executive Directors of Boards to Assistant Department Commissioners


Hay Committees look at three key elements when they rate a position: Know-How, Problem-Solving and Accountability. An effective Hay presentation communicates essential job information in each of these areas in a clear and concise manner (most sessions are scheduled for an hour, the suggest time for the presentation is 15 minutes). The facilitator should work with the presenters prior to the Hay session to assure that the presentation covers the most relevant material in the time provided. A rehearsal is recommended for the best results. [See Hay Presenter Checklist below] . It’s helpful to give the Hay Committee a copy of the presentation so they can refer back to the information as they conduct their evaluations. The following outlines are provided as guides. The raters may also find these outlines useful in when following along at the presentation to be sure all the area are covered.

PRESENTATION OUTLINE

• A brief explanation of the services or products the position provides.

Know-How

• A brief description of the functions the position manages. • List of employees manage and their job classifications (this

is supported by the org chart). • Critical technical and/or specialized knowledge required by

the position. • The position’s role in planning and prioritizing work and the

work performed by subordinates. • Unique factors affecting the position such as customers

served; geographic area the position affects, special characteristics of the programs or services the position provide to others, political/social influences.

• Specialized equipment routinely used. • If applicable, the position’s role in dealing with the media,

general public, other governmental jurisdictions, consultants, community groups, contractors, committees and related organizations.

Problem-Solving

The easiest way to communicate problem solving is to provide examples of complex problems routinely solved in this job and how the incumbent must go about solving these problems. Two or three examples are usually sufficient. Describe the problem, who was involved, the position’s role in its resolution.

• Provide separate annual totals for salaries, equipment, contracts and related activities. Explain the position’s role and discretion in developing and managing that budget.

Accountability

• If the position doesn’t have a budget, explain how this position’s services/products help the agency achieve its mission?

CH

APT

ER 6

: Pre

parin

g th

e Pr

esen

tatio

n


• Key decisions routinely made in the performance of the position’s job duties.

• Federal, state and local regulations and laws and special procedures that affect the way job duties are performed.

• Describe other constraints on the position such as administrative review, laws, regulations, procedures and technology.

HAY PRESENTATION OUTLINE WORKSHEET

I.BACKGROUND Briefly describe the nature of the work performed in your unit of the agency.

II. KNOW HOW a. MANAGERIAL SKILLS (Integrating Know-How) Do you manage more than one functional area – e.g. accounting and food service? If so what areas?

b. TECHNICAL SKILLS (Depth and Breadth of Job-Specific Knowledge) Discuss any special technical knowledge and/or skills that you or your subordinates need to know for successfully completing their work assignments (e.g. required certifications or degrees, specialty areas of knowledge, rules and laws, unique processes/systems and/or products). How is this knowledge/skill obtained?

c. HUMAN RELATIONS SKILLS Elaborate on your supervisory responsibilities. Do you hire, fire, resolve grievances, and assign work among work crews or geographical areas, etc.? If you do not supervise what kind of relationships do you have with your customers?

III. PROBLEM SOLVING Provide two examples of difficult, but typical problems that you face on your job (problems should be recurring, not one time situations). What types of problems do you deal with? How are problems solved?


IV. ACCOUNTABILITY Provide the amount of your annual budget. Include your role in developing the budget, allocating money for salaries and materials.

a. FREEDOM TO ACT What constraints limit your actions – e.g. laws, policies, supervisory approvals, etc.? What kind of direction do you receive from your supervisor? What kinds of decisions are made higher up?

b. IMPACT ON END RESULTS What is the primary purpose of your job? Describe how your job impacts the goals of the agency. What is your role in the agency – e.g. advisory/interpretive, leading/guiding?

.


HAY Presenter Checklist

A Dozen Tips

Each Hay session is a “Moment of Truth” for the Hay job evaluation process. All at one time and place, customers (State Managers and Supervisors), partners (Agency personnel), and technical service providers (Hay Raters) come together to produce a quality Hay rating. This checklist will aid HR in guiding the presenter and toward a high quality, efficient process and result.

Determine how well the presenter is prepared: Yes 1. The presenter can clearly explain the job, its place in the

organization, how the job has changed (if rating already exists) and can provide documentation to support the changes.

No

____

____

2. The presentation incorporates the key elements of Hay: Know How, Problem Solving, Accountability and Special Conditions, especially related to changes.

____

____

3. The presenter has prepared a written outline and done a trial run with the appropriate supervisor and/or facilitator of the Hay session.

____

____

4. The presentation has been “culled” to weed out extraneous content.

____ ____

5. The presentation has been timed and is not longer than about 15 minutes.

____ ____

6. The presenter understands the context and framework of the position in relation to other classes that already have Hay ratings.

____

____

7. The presenter has been briefed on existing class possibilities. ____ ____ 8. An anticipated timeline has been explained to the presenter as to

when the results of the Hay session may be available.

____

____ 9. The presenter has been “schooled” as to how compensation may be

determined in terms of conversion tables, internal relationships/equity and market conditions.

____

____

10. Visual materials are in order such as: • Position description • Org. chart with Hay ratings • PowerPoint or Handouts • Work Samples if appropriate

____ ____ ____ ____

____ ____ ____ ____

11. The presenter is aware that the Hay committee will ask questions and possible questions have been anticipated.

____ ____

12. The presenter is aware that he/she will not be present when the Hay Committee actually discusses and comes to consensus about the rating.

____

____


HAY EVALUATION WORKSHEET FOR RATERS

Initial Ratings Know-how Problem –solving Accountability Special

Slot Points Slot (%) Points Slot Points Profile Conditions Total pts Before presentation ( ) ___-___-___

( ) ___-___-___

( ) ___-___-___

After presentation ( ) ___-___-___

( ) ___-___-___

( ) ___-___-___

After committee discussion ( ) ___-___-___

( ) ___-___-___

Your final rating ( ) ___-___-___

Committee final rating ( ) ___-___-___

JOB TITLE EVALUATION RATIONALE/COMMENTS

KNOW-HOW

Clarification, additional data not covered in job description, etc.

PROBLEM SOLVING

ACCOUNTABILITY Freedom/Empowerment Impact/Magnitude

SPECIAL CONDITIONS


The three or five person committee design, Job Profiling and Sore-Thumbing are three quality assurance elements that are built into the Hay committee rating process itself. After the Hay rating committee finalizes the rating(s), the facilitator documents the findings in a standardized format provided by MMB called the “Hay Quality Assurance Summary” or “385” for the old form number. The 385 form is MMB’s primary record that a Hay rating has taken place. It is used for many reasons including Quality Assurance and as of 2003 also used to document and track individual participation on rating teams for the annual Hay Certification. [R = required fields] An excerpt of the form is provided here. NOTE: All ratings must be recorded on the 385 form regardless of the outcome. See Chapter __ for more discussion on Outcomes.

Hay Quality Assurance Summary Date(s) of Rating(s)R: Location: R Facilitator name R: Title Agency R Delegated to Agency R: Yes No Quality Assurance Measure - Effectiveness: Number of Hay raters and agencies (statewide perspective). Certified/provisional – encourage raters to be active? Presenters (Subject matter experts). HR involvement in the process? Hay Committee

(There must be at least 3 raters. Five rater teams are recommended)

NameR Department R Rater 1R Rater 2R Rater 3R Rater 4 Rater 5

ObserversObserver 1:

(Please list name(s) & Department(s) of each observer)

Observer 2: Observer 3: PresentersPresenter 1:

(Please list name(s) & title(s) of each presenter)

Presenter 2: Presenter 3: Presenter 4:

Quality Assurance Measures – Efficiency, Effectiveness and Accuracy: Number of Hay ratings completed by committee. # of Hay rating completed in one session or rescheduled to another session. Results in use of an existing class (managing the classification system)? Do the rating numbers add up? Is the slotting based on the long and short profiles? Does the rating compare to other rating in the same class series? [NOTE: Position ratings may differ from

POSITION(S) RATED/RESULT(S)

CH

APT

ER 7

: Qua

lity

Ass

uran

ce


the class rating. Under Classification Decision please list the class title and class rating.] . Position 1 Department Current Class Class Code Incumbent (name), new or vacant

Position Hay Rating points and profile Rating (e.g. EI2 230, E3(33) 76. E1C 87)

Total points (e.g. 393+1) Profile (e.g. 59-19-22) Classification Decision – Class Title/Class Rating Decision code (see below) Class Title Class Hay Rating Class Code Bargaining Unit SEMA4 Update Update the Job Code record to reflect new

rating date: Y__ N__ Quality Assurance Measure - Documentation: (Please check the appropriate boxes for documentation available regarding this Hay Evaluation)Position description(s) R:

:

sending electronically sending through interoffice mail Organization Chart(s) R:

sending electronically sending through interoffice mail Memo explaining background/reason for determination(s) R:

sending electronically sending through interoffice mail Recommended Change in Classification Plan form (class establishment, title change, salary range reassignments, etc. ):

sending electronically sending through interoffice mail MMB Representative is preparing

If a new class, is there a draft class specification attached?

sending electronically sending through interoffice mail Not available

Comments (Use this section to provide additional information regarding any of the fields above): Submitted R by: _____________________________-- Date R: ____________ Phone number: _______________________ Agency_______________________________ Decision Code NC = No Change – list class and class rating REC = Reallocation to an existing class – list class rating ENC = Establish new class – list proposed class title RCR = Revised class rating for salary range reassignment – list class TC = Title Change – list new title and class rating if different from the position rating TBD = Final outcome to be determined –explain further in the comments section.


Shortly after the facilitator’s documentation arrives on her/ his desk, MMB’s Chief Classification Analyst (CCA) provides the first external quality assurance review of each rating. S/he reviews the documentation of the Hay committees’ work and compares the findings against his or her own knowledge of the Hay Guide Chart – Profile Method and the State’s classification structure to ensure that each rating makes sense. The Hay Advisory Team also reviews this documentation in an internal quality assurance review. In 2010 the Hay Advisory Team introduced the use of Quality Assurance Teams to provide more up-to-date feedback to raters. Ratings were reviewed to see if the raters met the guidelines set by the Hay Advisory Team. A “Hay Evaluation Internal Quality Review Checklist” was developed for this review process. The checklist covered the following:

A. Documentation (includes the 385 form, background information/explanation write-up, position description and organizational chart, draft class specification if required, and total points adding up correctly).

B. Effectiveness (includes subject matter experts as presenters and the use of 5 member rating committees)

C. Efficiency (includes the Hay/Comp Level Decision form and consultation with the MMB rep.)

D. Outcomes (includes a discussion of the outcome of rating in the write-up)

E. Sore-thumbing (evaluates the components of the rating, e.g. Know-How, Problem Solving, Accountability, Special Conditions, and the Profile.

The 2010 Hay Quality Assurance Review was conducted by teams of trained raters led by members of the Hay Advisory Team. Each team was assigned a one or more ratings that were conducted in FY 2008 and 2009. A total of 21 ratings were reviewed. The teams determined that 19 ratings were incomplete, e.g. some recommendations for improvement but

no rating changes. Only two ratings were identified as needing corrections to the total rating points. There’s also an ongoing quality assurance component external to the State of Minnesota. Al Bunnett was the Personnel Director of the Department of Public Safety in the 1970s, when HayGroup® began creating customized Hay Guide Charts for the State of Minnesota. He was heavily involved in facilitating the committee process for a team of seven State Hay raters after the new charts were finalized in 1978, then became a consultant for HayGroup® shortly afterward. He has been the State’s account representative ever since. A certain number of the State’s Hay ratings undergo external quality assurance inspections by trained consultants every two years. MMB’s Chief Classification Analyst compiles documentation for the Hay consultants’ review. The ratings have remained remarkably consistent over time. There was a more extensive quality assurance review process after minor modifications were made to the Hay Guide Charts in 1995. Al Bunnett and Dr. Ron Page, PhD, independent HR consultant, reviewed most of the State’s Hay ratings in 1994, 1995 and 1996, to ensure that previous and new ratings would remain consistent on a statewide basis with the updated Hay Guide Charts. The revisions to the Hay Guide Charts were not extensive; they reflected the State of Minnesota’s organizational growth and needs. For example, “sensory attention” considerations were added to the Special Conditions section in 1995, so this aspect needed to be applied to relevant positions. In 1998, the State of Minnesota considered whether it was practical to invest in a computer-assisted job evaluation process designed by HayGroup® or a competitor, or to continue using the paper Hay Guide Charts that had just been


updated in 1995. Dr. Ron Page was helpful during this process because he had worked for both companies and was familiar with their systems. The end result was that it was more cost-effective to continue with the manual process that the State of Minnesota still uses today. Another external quality assurance review process occurred in 1999, when the Legislative Auditor performed a comprehensive review of the State of Minnesota’s compensation practices. Since the Hay Guide Chart method is used to evaluate all State jobs so a standard frame of reference can be used when determining salaries, the Legislative Auditor’s Office thoroughly reviewed the State’s job evaluation process. They told Chief Classification Analyst, Wayne Veum at the end of the review that they had never seen more thorough documentation in any program they had ever evaluated and that they were impressed! A final quality assurance element involves the Hay rater certification process. After his 1999 Quality Assurance inspection, Dr. Ron Page recommended the establishment of an internal State of Minnesota Advisory Committee to review and revise the 1995 Training and Development Standards. In fiscal year 2000, MMB delegated Hay Rater Training and Development Standards to the resulting Hay Advisory Team, a multi-agency team of volunteer Certified Hay Raters, which continues to administer and update them. HayGroup® consultant and State of Minnesota account representative, Al Bunnett, endorsed the new State of Minnesota State Hay Rater Standards in fiscal year 2002.


Indicators of a Good Hay Rater A good Hay rater is a skilled job evaluator and an inquisitive, analytical and critical thinker with good communication and collaboration skills, who is objective, motivated, prepared, and proud to be a rater.

Indicator Skilled job evaluator • Understands the job audit process and how the Hay process can

be a valuable tool for doing audits • Performs job analysis/classification on a regular basis • Understands the State’s classification system, including in-depth

knowledge of one or more class series or group of classes • Understands the types of jobs being evaluated • Experienced auditing a wide variety of jobs and classes • Realizes the importance of evaluating jobs within their

organizational context; understanding the agency helps Hay raters to avoid misperceptions and accurately slot positions in that agency

• Recognized for performing quality job audits in complex situations at the agency level

• Viewed as a knowledgeable, credible job evaluator by HR staff and managers

Inquisitive learner • Inquisitive and willing to ask relevant (and sometimes difficult)

questions • Continuous, curious and agile learner • Open to arguments on “why not” and welcomes feedback • Listens well and comprehends presentations that can be long

and/or complicated to understand Analytical • Practical, logical, analytical

• Enjoys determining how a job fits within the larger organizational context in relation to other jobs that have been Hay-rated; comparing jobs that may be very different in overall size, complexity and level; and ranking them within a class series and classification system

• Able to sort out the facts that relate to the different scales in the Hay process (i.e., the formula that is applied to a position description and verbal description of a position)

• Looks beyond first impression (or solution) to make sure it’s accurate (or the best solution)

• Can identify potentially hidden problems (i.e., understands the charts well and how to apply them)

Critical thinker • Comfortable with often ambiguous concepts and complexity

• Able to effectively and efficiently combine analysis, wisdom, experience and judgment in “gray” areas

• Understands how people and organizations actually function • Somewhat of a big picture thinker to make judgments about

specific positions within the context of the total organization • Able to understand and accurately apply Hay rating concepts

and practices to real-life situations • Looks beyond the obvious while quickly grasping the “forest” and

the “trees” of a particular organizational situation • Can see through the “fluff” and focus on the most important

information • Balances the need to avoid assumptions while accepting the

reality of some uncertainty Skilled communicator • Attentive and active listener

• Shows understanding, courtesy, tact, empathy, concern, and politeness during interactions

• Articulate; asks relevant questions and explains the basis of one’s own job evaluations/Hay ratings

• Comfortable meeting and communicating with senior managers about complex organizational roles and relationships

• Helps explain the “why” to less experienced job evaluators/Hay raters

• Willing to have good discussions with other Hay raters (sometimes leaning towards “debate”)

Collaborative • Able to interact effectively with other Hay rating team

members and work towards a consensus rating; in other words, demonstrate good human relations skills in a


committee setting • Interested in and able to work effectively as part of a team • Comfortable with a committee process that involves listening

to subject matter experts provide information about a job’s role, responsibilities, and requirements; developing individual ratings; and then working together to reach consensus on a final rating

• Able to represent one’s own perspective and

• Willing to stand up for own side of an issue (i.e., not back down right away without a good reason), but not so stubborn as to be unable to change one’s mind

be a collaborative team member

Objective • Separates people from their positions

• Able to evaluate jobs as they stand without regard to current job holders

• Not pre-disposed to any particular outcome, with legitimate reasons for one’s own individual Hay rating

• Willing to take and articulate unpopular stands, when appropriate, with grace

• Open-minded; able to set aside bias and look at all sides of the situation

• Has integrity Motivated • Exhibits the willingness to learn

• Has a genuine interest in the Hay process and what it represents for the State’s classification system

• Expressed interest in and has made efforts to become familiar with the Hay job evaluation process, including the willingness to attend training sessions

• Has the desire to learn a systematic process for identifying and analyzing information about work performed and to rank jobs using charts and graphs by assigning alpha and numeric values to job components based on specific factors

• Interested in how the classification system is applied beyond one’s own agency

• Willing to learn about classifications outside of one’s own agency

• Continues to attend training to improve one’s skills

• Has the desire and ability to participate in Hay rating sessions on a regular basis

• Pursues opportunities to perform Hay ratings (practice does

make raters better)

Prepared • Willing and able to make Hay rating a priority and arrive

prepared for rating sessions (for example, read materials ahead of time, set aside enough time to be at the entire session, come prepared with thoughtful questions)

• Willing and able to spend time reviewing written materials (sometimes a large volume) in advance of a Hay session to prepare for the rating process; willing to put own work aside to do so

• Reads all data ahead of time and does research on the internet

Proud to be a Hay rater • Understands that Hay rating jobs for the State of Minnesota is

a privilege, not a right • Respects the statewide implications of being a Hay rater and

the importance of being a role model during Hay sessions • Understands the role of Hay rater in relation to other HR

systems • Agrees to the responsibilities involved, including helping to

document the sessions and completing 385 evaluation forms in a timely basis


Hay Rater Training and Development Standards I. Certified (Fully) A Hay Rater who has completed all required Basic, Intermediate and Advanced Formal Hay Training and during the most recent calendar year: • Has attended at least one Hay Topics Seminar/Workshop

(when offered) and • Completed any combination of two of the following Hay

rating experiences: Hay Rater, Hay Committee Facilitator, or Quality Assurance Team.

II. Provisional (Partially Certified) A Hay Rater who has completed all required Basic, Intermediate and Advanced Formal Hay Training. However, during the most recent calendar year met some, but not all, of the training and experience requirements to be fully certified. III. Inactive A Hay Rater who has completed all required Basic, Intermediate and Advanced Formal Hay Training. However, during the most recent calendar year, did not meet any of the training and experience requirements to be either fully or partially certified. The Inactive Hay Rater’s name remains on the List of Certified Hay Raters for the current year to provide an opportunity for provisional or full certification. IV. Non-Certified (No-Longer Certified) A Hay Rater who has completed all required Basic, Intermediate and Advanced Formal Hay Training but remained Inactive during the most recent calendar year. A Non-certified Hay Rater’s name is removed from the List of Certified Hay Raters unless Reinstated.

V. Reinstated A Non-Certified Hay Rater who has previously completed all required Basic, Intermediate and Advanced Formal Hay Training. The Non-Certified Hay Rater must request reinstatement by the MN Hay Advisory Team understanding that the Hay Rater intends to become a Provisionally or Fully Certified Hay Rater.


Minnesota Statute 43A.18, Subd. 8 states that in preparing management negotiating positions for compensation and in establishing, recommending and approving total compensation for any position within the plans, the Commissioner (of MMB) should assure that:

(a) Compensation for positions in the classified and the unclassified service compare reasonably to one another;

(b) Compensation for state positions

bears reasonably relationship to compensation for similar positions outside state service;

(c) Compensation for management

positions bears reasonable relationship to compensation of represented employees managed;

(d) Compensation for positions within

the classified service bears reasonable relationships among related job classes and among various levels within the same occupation; and

(e) Compensations bear reasonable relationships to one

another within the meaning of this subdivision if compensation for positions which require comparable skill, effort, responsibility and working conditions is comparable and if compensation for positions which require differing skill, effort, responsibility and working conditions is proportional to the skill, effort, responsibility and working conditions required.

Internal consistency is extremely important to the State’s system because four of the five points above speak directly to the importance of internal equity. The State must now comply with pay equity or the notion of equal worth for equal pay. The State of Minnesota’s compensation system must maintain a reasonable level of consistency between and among its various classes. The State’s compensation system is based on the statutory requirement that the compensation of job classes must bear ‘reasonable relationship’ to one another, and the Hay point system is one of the ways the State attempts to comply with this requirement. New classes are not automatically placed on the trend line. There are five levels where a class may be placed, which is commonly known as the trend line conversion. Salary placement in one of these five levels is deemed appropriate compensation for a particular class given its Hay points.

CH

APT

ER 8

: Hay

Rat

ings

and

Com

pens

atio

n


The trend line shows the relationship between Hay points and compensation. Classes are assigned to a salary range within the corridor. The corridor is a range of two ranges above to two ranges below the trend line conversion. The goal is to assign a class to one of the five salary ranges within the corridor. This allows the employer to take into consideration other factors affecting its decision, such as: • The actual Hay point conversion; • ‘Past practice’ (e.g., 238 Hay points in MAPE are

generally assigned to range 5L); and • Where the class fits into the organization and within the

State, including classes above and below a rated class (e.g., compression, some classes are paid more than the Hay points are worth – for example, Electricians).

The employer may consider the following additional factors for determining the salary range assignment for a class: • Ability to recruit (e.g., how many vacancies, how long the

vacancies have remained unfilled, recruitment efforts, pool of candidates, difficulties versus other classes);

• Turnover rates (e.g., voluntary resignation rates for the class, whether turnover is due to inadequate salaries or other factors);

• Market data (e.g., what other employers pay for similar work in the industry, whether current employees have received job offers from other employers to perform similar work for higher pay, whether candidates have turned down job offers due to salary); and

• Salary ranges of related classes in State government.

On work to pay: "The law of work does seem utterly unfair--but there it is, and nothing can change it: the higher the pay in enjoyment the worker gets out of it, the higher shall be his pay in cash, also." - Mark Twain, A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court


This information was prepared within MMB in April 1990 and was updated in 2007 and 2010 for this manual.

What is a trend line? A trend line is a measure of central tendency like a mean, median or mode and is the result of performing regression analysis on sets of data pairs. It is also a graphic illustration of the relationship between two variables, in this case, salaries and Hay ratings. The trend line (or best fit line) demonstrates the ideal compensation assignment for a given number of Hay points when no other salary assignment determinants are considered. How is the trend line used in salary setting? A trend line for male-dominated classes is calculated during the preparation of the biennial Pay Equity report. It is used to identify female dominated-classes that are relatively underpaid for their Hay ratings. It is used to determine the trend line conversion for all existing rated classes. The trend conversion is used in considering requests for salary range reassignments in bargaining of contracts and preparation of compensation plans. It is also a consideration in assigning new classes to salary ranges.

A second trend line is calculated and is based on all classes with four or more incumbents. How are the salary conversion charts constructed? The salary range maximum predicted by the trend line formula rarely matches actual salary ranges. There’s additional work that must be done to determine the actual salary range that is the “best fit.” The calculations are performed to find “best fit” for existing classes. The power regression formula that is generated from using the salary ranges maxes and Hay ratings of all classes with four or more incumbents is used to find the actual range with the maximum closest to the predicted maximum. The conversion chart is simply a user friendly tool to determine the best fit for a class when Hay ratings are considered. Why doesn’t a given Hay rating result in the same salary range on different salary schedules? Because salary schedules reflect differences in bargaining over the years, no two schedules are the same. Since the goal is to find the actual range that is the “best fit” for a given rating, that best fit will be slightly different on each unique schedule. When and why do the conversion charts change? The trend line itself, described earlier, changes slightly at the end of each even-numbered year, when the Pay Equity report is produced for the Legislature. These changes are due to changes in the State’s classification and compensation plan. Classes may be created, abolished and assigned to different salary ranges over the course of two years. Changes in the trend line salary conversion charts have been minor.

CH

APT

ER 9

: Tre

nd L

ines

and

Con

vers

ion

Cha

rts


Does the conversion chart dictate which salary range will be used for a new class?

No. The trend line is one consideration and the natural starting point once a Hay rating is agreed to for the class. Current policy is that any class within two salary ranges of the compensation code identified by the trend line conversion chart is adequately compensated. This policy has been used to determine whether female-dominated classes are underpaid for purposes of the Pay Equity report. The same policy is used in determining the salary range of a new class. Therefore, it is possible to establish a new class as many as two ranges below and as many as two ranges above the trend line conversion’s compensation code. What are some other factors that are considered when assigning a new class to a salary range?

There may be labor market conditions that make it impractical to compete for qualified candidates at the compensation code represented by the trend line conversion chart. In order for labor market conditions to be considered, there must be some demonstrated inability to recruit similarly qualified employees, a connection to other classes that have been raised up due to labor market conditions, or some other demonstrated basis for the exception. Speculation that higher rates are needed is not sufficient.

Equity within state service is a consideration that may override assignment to the compensation code represented by the trend line conversion

. If existing classes with the same or similar Hay ratings are typically at a compensation code higher or lower than the trend line conversion compensation code would indicate, it is normally more appropriate to establish the new class at the same salary level as the preponderance of existing classes.

Determinants in Assigning Compensation Levels

The State has long-used the Hay job evaluation system in order to evaluate and rate a new or revised class. Although the Hay rating is often used as the primary factor, and sometimes only factor, in a compensation request, the fact is that a Hay rating and subsequent trend line conversion is just one factor in establishing the compensation level for a class. Just as importantly, and in some cases even more importantly, the following additional factors also need to be considered: • Organizational structure and the relationship to other

classes within a division or agency • Relationships to other classifications in all state agencies • Effect on salary compression to subordinate, like, or

superior classes and relationship to the salary of the agency head

• Market factors including recruitment, availability of applicants, wages paid by other employers; etc.

• Workforce planning factors including anticipated retirements, turnover, anticipated hiring, retention, critical nature of positions

• Assignment of class to the appropriate bargaining unit or plan

• Budget implications/Affordability • Timing

Hay Manual (2)

Documents

Transcript of Hay Manual (2)