also takes account of difficulties involved in exercising these skills.
Factor levels
Communication and relationship skills
Level 1
Providing and receiving routine information orally to assist in undertaking own job.
Providing and receiving routine information orally, in writing or electronically to inform work
Level 2
colleagues, patients, clients, carers, the public or other external contacts.
(a) Providing and receiving routine information which requires tact or persuasive skills
or where there are barriers to understanding.
Or
Level 3
(b) Providing and receiving complex or sensitive information.
Or
(c) Providing advice, instruction or training to groups, where the subject matter is
straightforward.
(a) Providing and receiving complex, sensitive or contentious information, where persuasive,
motivational, negotiating, training, empathic or re-assurance skills are required. This may be
Level 4
because agreement or cooperation is required or because there are barriers to understanding.
Or
(b) Providing and receiving highly complex information
(a) Providing and receiving highly complex, highly sensitive or highly contentious information,
where developed persuasive, motivational, negotiating, training, empathic or re-assurance
skills are required. This may be because agreement or co-operation is required or because
there are barriers to understanding.
Or
(b) Presenting complex, sensitive or contentious information to a large group of staff or
Level 5
members of the public.
Or
(c) Providing and receiving complex, sensitive or contentious information, where there
are significant barriers to acceptance which need to be overcome using developed
interpersonal and communication skills such as would be required when
communicating in a hostile, antagonistic or highly emotive atmosphere.
Providing and receiving highly complex, highly sensitive or highly contentious
information where there are significant barriers to acceptance which need to be overcome
Level 6
using the highest level of interpersonal and communication skills, such as would be
required when communicating in a hostile, antagonistic or highly emotive atmosphere.
212
Rating and ranking jobs
Factor comparison
Factor comparison represents one of the simplest, arguably the simplest, approach to
job evaluation. As the points or point-factor approach it is essentially based on jobs
comparison; differently from this, however, comparison is not based on an objective,
predetermined scoring system, but rather on the perceived importance associated by
evaluators with the identified factors. Albeit consideration is thus essentially still shown
for factors, jobs are compared the one with the other without any reference to a
structured grading or scoring system, but exclusively relying on assessors’ judgment.
As suggested by Suff and Reilly (2006), this approach can actually be carried out having
recourse to two different methods: graduated factor comparison and analytical factor
comparison. According to the former approach, the factors of the different roles are
related one another, on the basis of a grading scale, in order to determine if the factors
of a job can be deemed equal, smaller or bigger compared to the same factors of a
different job. Analytical factor comparison is instead carried out assessing each job
against a pre-arranged scale where each factor is described in a growing level of
complexity.
Even though this approach cannot be deemed as particularly effective in order to
determine internal relativities, especially when a large number of jobs exists within a
firm, it reveals to be much more effective and useful for independent consultants when
engaged by a Court to express their advice on equal pay claims. In these cases in fact
the consultants task is that of comparing one job with a very few others and not to
determine the consistency of an organization overall job hierarchy (Armstrong, 2010).
Job matching
Albeit analytical job matching is based on valuing roles on a factor-assessment basis, in
order to determine internal relativities this approach does not rely on a comparative
method, but rather on a matching process. Roles can be matched either to grade or the
one with the others.
Role to grade
This activity is performed by delivering two different processes, on the one hand roles
are analysed on the basis of their main factors, whereas on the other hand grades or
levels included on the grading system are defined on the basis of the same factors used
to carry out roles evaluation. Roles are finally matched with the different grades in order
to attain the most appropriate fit between the requirements of each job and those
outlined for each level contained in the grading system.
Role to role
Differently from the role to grade approach, the role to role method tends to match each
job factors with a benchmark job profile which has already been graded and as such
considered representative or as a point of reference for correctly grading other roles and
213
Rating and ranking jobs
identify jobs of equal value. There will clearly be as many benchmark roles as the
number of grades included in the grading system. In all the cases in which evaluators
will identify a consistent and objective fit between the benchmark grade role and the role
which needs to be graded, this will be included in the so identified grade.
This method can effectively enable evaluators to more swiftly asses those types of jobs
which have many, promptly identifiable factors and characteristics in common, such as
supervisory and administrative roles. The two approaches can also be used in
conjunction with each other (Armstrong, 2010), somewhat of a double check, to ensure
that the identified grade for each job is actually consistent with the overall scheme and
that job hierarchy and internal relativities have been consistently and appropriately
identified.
Non analytical schemes
Non-analytical job evaluation differs from analytical job evaluation by reason of the
circumstance that the former, differently from the latter, does not entail jobs to be
broken down into their main components in order to be evaluated and graded. According
to this approach each job in actually assessed in its totality or, as it is commonly said, as
a “whole-job.” For the rest, also non-analytical approaches aim at pursuing the same
objectives as analytical schemes and it can be added, having resort to the same type of
methodology. Jobs are in fact compared and matched the one with the other in order to
determine internal hierarchy and relativities. Also in this case, jobs can be compared on
a job-to-job basis or on a job-to-grade basis (Armstrong, 2010).
The most negative distinctive feature of this type of schemes is that being these
essentially grounded in an entire-job assessment approach, as opposed to the analytical
measurement of a job main components, the final outcome these are likely to produce is,
or is prone to be, considered essentially subjective and lacking of scientific methodology
and appreciation. Yet, all too often non-analytical schemes tend to practically leave
unchanged the current state of play (Suff and Reilly, 2006). This point is further stressed
by Watson (2005), who highlights the circumstance that non-analytical schemes are not
essentially based on any objective evaluation scale or framework. This also accounts for
these approaches being particularly ineffective in order to assess those roles whose
classification might reveal to be particularly dubious, uncertain or disputed. These
schemes also pose considerable difficulties when a large number of jobs, especially if
complex, need to be evaluated. All in all, these are essentially the reasons accounting for
these approaches not being considered particularly helpful for employers to self-defend
against the pay discrimination claims eventually made by their employees.
The circumstance that according to this approach jobs do not need to be broken down
into their main factors, clearly accounts for these being easier and faster to develop and
implement. Additionally, as suggested by Armstrong (2010), such schemes can
effectively and successfully be used by evaluators in order to test the outcomes attained
by means of analytical approaches to job evaluation.
214
Rating and ranking jobs
Non-analytical job evaluation can be carried out by means of the paired comparison, job
ranking, job classification and benchmarking methodologies.
Job ranking
Job ranking represents one of the most straightforward and intuitive approach to job
evaluation. Jobs are indeed ordered in a hierarchical rank essentially on the basis of the
appreciation of the evaluation panel members for each job object of the exercise. The
rank order is thus identified by evaluators on the basis of jobs titles and descriptions and
the relative importance that evaluators associate with each of them.
In order to be assessed, roles are not actually broken down into factors and comparison
is carried out on a one-against-the-others basis. This simple approach, in theory, should
also contribute to make the scheme easier to explain and to more promptly be
understood by staff.
Simplicity, however, is not necessary invariably synonymous with acceptance. The final
jobs rank is exclusively based on the evaluation panel members’ judgment and on what
these consider to be a consistent and coherent hierarchy on the basis of their personal
appreciation. This does not necessarily entail that the final output of the exercise will be
perceived as equitable and fair, and hence accepted, by the individuals concerned.
Notwithstanding, as suggested by the ACAS (2005) this approach could reveal to be
particularly appropriate when the number of jobs object of evaluation is particularly
small.
Paired comparison
Paired comparison can be considered somewhat of a more structured form of the job
ranking scheme. The scheme is relatively simple, overall jobs are essentially compared
the one with the other, but 0, 1 or 2 points will be allotted to the job object of
comparison depending on whether this is considered less, equally or more important
than the other. According to this approach, each job is compared with all of the others
by turns so that the total score recorded by each role will be used to determine the final
job hierarchy.
Albeit this approach can be considered as an enhancement of the job ranking method, it
cannot clearly be deemed suitable for large organizations (Suff and Reilly, 2006) and, as
warned by the ACAS (2005), its application should be limited to organizations where no
more than 30 different jobs exist. This because, even though a jobs’ analysis is not
actually performed as part of the process, comparing each job with all of the others is a
very demanding exercise both in terms of time and resources. For instance, Watson
(2005) calculated that in order to assess 50 jobs, a staggering 1,225 comparisons need
to be performed.
215
Rating and ranking jobs
Job classification
With the only exception that job classification is carried out considering jobs in their
entirety rather than on the basis of the analytical measurement of the factors composing
them, the job classification approach can be considered rather similar to the role to
grade analytical matching scheme.
The first stage of the process consists in determining the right number of grades, which
will be consequently outlined. A benchmark job is hence identified and assessed for each
grade in order to test and validate each job definition. Finally, the remaining jobs are
compared and matched with benchmark jobs in order to be included in the relevant
grade of the pre-set and pre-identified grading system (Acas, 2005).
Internal benchmarking
Internal benchmarking definitely represents the most spontaneous as well as basic
approach to job evaluation. It is essentially based on comparing and matching each job
with pre-identified benchmark jobs, which are considered correctly and consistently
graded within the business, in order to identify the correct grade in which each job has
to be included.
So basic is this approach that, as suggested by Armstrong (2010), it can hardly be
considered as a formal approach to job evaluation. Additionally, the circumstance that it
exclusively relies on internal benchmark jobs and that no additional types of analysis are
carried out in conjunction with this, is very likely to produce the outcome of maintaining
unaltered inequalities eventually existing within the business.
Job analysis
The validity and consistency of a job hierarchy is very much depending on the approach
used to determine this. The most structured and analytical the process, the more
consistent and more legally sound the outcome it will very likely produce. In order an
evaluation committee being able to properly perform the tricky task of determining
internal relativities, however, it is crucially important, insofar as it can be considered as
a mandatory prerequisite, that a thorough and up-to-date analysis of the relevant jobs
has previously been carried out. Job analysis, representing a “systematic process to
collect and analysing jobs” (Patterson et al, 2010), can hence effectively help the
members of the evaluation panel to successful complete their difficult task.
In order to genuinely help evaluators to achieve defensible and consistent results, job
analysis, as the same wording suggests, needs first of all to be analytical (Patterson et al,
2010). This entails that essentially the job analysis process has to be carried out
according to the same approach adopted in the job evaluation exercise: jobs need to be
broken down into their main components or factors rather than being considered in their
216
Rating and ranking jobs
entirety. The final outcome of the investigation has to be represented by a factual,
“documented, structured and thorough report” clearly describing the most important
requirements of each role. Additionally, in order to avoid falling into the pitfalls usually
associated with equal pay legislation, information should be gathered amongst the whole
variety of groupings of individuals working within the organization, considering both
ethnic, religious, gender and cultural diversities. All of this will in turn enable the
members of the evaluation panel to devise more “accurate and representative” job
descriptions (Patterson et al, 2010).
Table 30 – Job evaluation approaches
217
Rating and ranking jobs
It is crucially important that the process is concerned with thoroughly analysing jobs and
not merely listing the tasks associated with them. Moreover, analysis has to be executed
based on the current state of play and not on judgment and assumptions about how the
role was carried out in the past or the way it should better be executed (Hay Group,
2007).
Albeit jobs descriptions already exist within an organization, for the purpose of the job
evaluation exercise, job analysis should be conducted anew in order to avoid the likely
risk of reaching the same conclusions which have led to the current state of play and
basically confirm the existing job hierarchy.
The success and validity of job analysis is clearly very much resting upon the quality of
the information gathered and on the extensiveness of the sources from which data are
obtained. There are indeed several ways to collect data relating to jobs but, as
suggested by Patterson et al (2010), it should not be adopted an exclusive approach, but
rather a multiple methodology to data collection.
The main approaches to which evaluators can have recourse to this end are: direct
observation, face-to-face interviews, written questionnaires, diaries kept by workers and
activity logs.
Direct observation
In this case information about a job are directly collected and noted by evaluators
shadowing individuals and directly observing them in the workplace. In general, this
approach is more easily applicable when simple, mainly manual duties are executed by
employees (Hamel, 2008). Where applicable, structured checklists can also be used by
evaluators (Patterson et al, 2010).
Face-to-face interviews
Interviews should be better based on carefully prearranged, structured questionnaires
and should be held with present incumbents of the role and their managers. Questions
should basically aim at identifying the essential tasks of the role and the skills and
capabilities required to properly perform it (Hemel, 2008).
Written questionnaires
Written questionnaires can be submitted to employees and their managers as an
alternative to interviews or as an additional means to gather information in a quicker
way. Questionnaires may include both open-ended and closed questions. Since there
might not be the presence of an evaluator assisting individuals when filling the form,
questions need to be formulated in a clear and simple way.
Diaries kept by employees or activity logs
According to this approach it will be up to the individuals concerned identifying the
different activities and tasks carried out during their working activity, also taking note of
the length of time devoted to each of these (Hemel, 2008).
218
Rating and ranking jobs
Job analysis should ultimately enable evaluators to gather information in order to answer
the what, how and why questions of each job. The what is concerned with the “physical,
mental and interactional” requirements of the job; the how is associated with the
procedures, tools or approaches required to properly perform a job duties; whereas the
why aims to identify and explain the reasons for the tasks being performed (HR-Exec,
2002). For instance:
What: prepare contracts of employment,
How: legally compliant with the current employment legislation,
Why: to recruit individuals whose contribution is considered important by the
employer for the attainment of the organizational objectives.
Job analysis, in terms of reward, can hence be considered as a means to an end. As a
structured and systematic approach to detailed job investigation in fact it enables
evaluation committee members to describe a job in measureable terms and
consequently compare this with the other jobs existing within a business. Jobs can thus
be rated and consistent and fair salary grades established (SHL, 2005).
Market pricing
As described earlier in this chapter, the job evaluation exercise is essentially concerned
with determining internal relativities and identifying job hierarchies within a business.
This approach, however, essentially aims at investigating the organizational environment
and hence the internal context. Indeed, the pressure exerted on organizations by the
external environment is undeniably remarkable and salary grade architecture is not
immune from this strain by any means. Designing and developing a consistent internal
rank system actually aims at enabling employers to ensure that the personnel budget is
fairly and coherently distributed amongst staff, but reward management can and has to
be used by employers also to attract and retain quality staff. In order to attain this
objective, reward professionals in-depth knowledge of the labour market rates is clearly
crucially important too. The technique most widely acknowledged and most extensively
used to investigate labour market rates is known as “market pr