PART FOUR

The practice of job evaluation

13

Maintaining job evaluation

The processes described in earlier chapters are necessary when consideration is being given to introducing job evaluation for the first time or substantially changing an existing arrangement. But job evaluation needs to be maintained on a continuing basis.

Organizations tend to heave a collective sigh of relief once the final job has been evaluated and graded and the last pay anomaly dealt with, assuming job evaluation can now be put to one side. It is not like that.

Some organizations fear that a job evaluation programme is like painting the Forth Bridge – as soon as you have got to the end you have to start again at the beginning. This inference of an inevitable, perpetual grind of evaluations is also wrong.

The Fort Bridge analogy is, however, relevant if looked at in the right way. The more thorough the preparation, the more care with which the materials are chosen and the more attention paid to their application, the longer it will take before any repainting is required. Regular inspections should identify those spots where things are getting flaky and prompt action should prevent the problem spreading. Some areas protected from the elements will last almost indefinitely while other areas will need continual touching up. The use of improved techniques will ensure better coverage and adapting the paint composition to meet changing conditions will mean that a total repaint will not be necessary for a long time. Maintaining job evaluation is very much like that.

Advice on maintaining job evaluation

The views of respondents to the 2017 e-reward survey on how to maintain job evaluation are set out below.

Do:

· allow appeals from employees if they think their job is under-graded;

· allow for some flexibility of process;

· audit/test regularly – review jobs annually;

· be as consistent as possible – any exceptions should be fully justified;

· be realistic about the resources required;

· ensure it is carried out by trained evaluators and carry out sore thumbing/moderation of JE scores over time to ensure consistency of application;

· refresh conventions;

· carry out periodic reviews and refresher communications and training;

· ensure you draw up notes for guidance as you do more role analysis, capturing the rationales for scoring;

· ensure good processes are in place;

· adhere to rules of the evaluation scheme and prevent ad hoc ‘fudges’ to the process for people fit rather than job size fit;

· ensure that gradings are robust and not unduly influenced, otherwise grade drift will happen and the scheme will lack credibility;

· make sure that once roles are evaluated, the evaluations are kept up to date with significant changes and new roles are evaluated prior to recruitment activity and offers being made;

· frequently review benchmark roles as still being fit for purpose as the business and roles employed develop;

· keep good accessible records of roles evaluated in each area and the reasons behind the scoring;

· ensure one person oversees the scheme and is a point of contact so all jobs evaluated are logged for future record keeping;

· ensure line managers and HR managers can ‘self-serve’ with more trained validation;

· ensure managers think about existing roles when evaluating and new and knock-on impacts;

· ensure people are trained properly for making judgements;

· make sure that there is a process for moderation;

· find benchmark jobs that can be tested externally.

Don’t:

· allow the scheme to be abused;

· allow managers to influence the integrity of the scheme;

· allow job grades to be changed without due process;

· allow the methods to stray from the original training – be consistent;

· assume that one lot of training is enough for the operators – keep going;

· assume the scheme will last forever;

· be afraid to adapt the system – the core principles shouldn’t change but the process can be simplified once staff are more comfortable with how it operates;

· be tempted to cut corners and slot jobs in – stick to the principles you’ve established;

· create a central black box where there is no understanding of how you got to the result;

· create pay ranges for each and every role based on market data, too onerous to refresh regularly to the market data – depending on how broad you want ranges to be you could have special ones for specific job families if necessary;

· let people with axes to grind have a say – be careful of role analysts who think they know what a job should be if it is at variance from what’s written in the record;

· forget that your panel may need refresher training sessions – make sure you have budget to one side for this;

· forget to review the scheme to keep it relevant to the organization (review one family per year after one to two years);

· get dragged into piecemeal changes, as evaluation is about relativities – it’s always important to look at roles in context and this is difficult with one-off reviews here and there;

· keep it as a Black Box secretive tool;

· let job evaluation, re-grading and committees become a cottage industry;

· have poor record keeping or lack of regular calibration consistency checking;

· over-complicate or duplicate work – one spreadsheet should be fine;

· let it sit there until you reach a real crisis with it;

· think that once you have something created it’s going to work forever – be agile in thinking and updating;

· lose control – or provide too much autonomy;

· allow too many re-evaluations of the same job;

· ignore changes to jobs;

· forget to review the scheme to ensure it remains fit for purpose;

· let managers try to manipulate the system by pre-judging what grade the role should be;

· make exceptions which undermine the process;

· sacrifice the integrity of the process for expediency.

Reference

e-reward (2017) Survey of Job Evaluation, Stockport, e-reward