The Hay Job Evaluation method is a common approach for grading and evaluating jobs based on three key dimensions: Know-How, Problem Solving, and Accountability. It evaluates the job, not the individual performing the job. The dimensions are broken down into factors that are measured on scales to determine an overall score for salary and benefits purposes. The method provides benefits like standardized job descriptions and improved succession planning.

1. HAY JOBS
EVALUATION

2. What is HAY?
• The Hay Job Grading Scheme was developed in the early
1950's by E. N. Hay and Associates. It is a scheme which is
based on the "points factor" approach. This is a common
approach to job grading.
• It is the most common job evaluation system in all areas of
activity – private, public, for-profit and non-profit.
• Evaluate JOB not people who are working on that specific job
• It is NOT based on performance, education, skills or current
salary

3. Why we need Hay?
• The general purpose for carrying out job evaluations
using this or similar methods is to enable
organizations to map all their roles in a manner that
delivers the following key benefits
– Recognizing equivalent levels for the purposes of salary
and benefit grading/banding
– Improved succession planning
– Creation of more useful and focused job descriptions

4. Measuring job
INPUT
PROCESS OUTPUT
KNOW-HOW)
• How deep and developed PROBLEM RESPONSIBILITIES
Has to be the technical SOLVING
Knowdleges • Freedom to act
•Analytical
•Management Knowdleges Environment • Impact on the
End results
•Analytical
•Human Relationship •Challenge •Magnitude
skills

5. Job Dimensions
1. KNOW - HOW  Technical Know-how
 Managerial Know-how
 Human Relationship skills
2. PROBLEM SOLVING  Thinking Environment
 Analytical Challenge
3. ACCOUNTABILITY  Freedom to Act
 Impact
 Magnitude

6. Know-How Dimension
• Definition
All the amount of knowledge, skills,
aptitudes, independent of how it was
obtained, needed for a standard
performance, acceptable for the job
•Know-How has three dimensions:
– Technical and specialized knowledge
– Managerial Know How
– Human Relationship Skills

10. How we evaluate
Know-How – Example:
Management
Area 0 I II III IV
Task ACTIVITIE HOMOGENOU DIVERSE INTERGATION
Technical Human
S COMPLET
Know-How Relationship S
Skills B I C B I C B I C B I C B I C
A. PRIMARY: 38 43 50 50 57 66 66 76 87 87 100 115 115 132 152
43 50 57 57 66 76 76 87 100 100 115 132 132 152 175
50 57 66 66 76 87 87 100 115 115 132 152 152 175 200
B. ELEMENTARY VOCATIONAL : 50 57 66 66 76 87 87 100 115 115 132 152 152 175 200
E 57 66 76 76 87 100 100 115 132 132 152 175 175 200 230
66 76 87 87 100 115 115 132 152 152 175 200 200 230 264
I+
C. VOCATIONAL: 66 76 87 87 100 115 115 132 152 152 175 200 200 230 264
3 76 87 100 100 115 132 132 152 175 175 200 230 230 264 304
264 87 100 115 115 132 152 152 175 200 200 230 264 264 304 350
87 100 115 115 132 152 152 175 200 200 230 264 264 304 350
D. ADVANCED VOCATIONAL : 100 115 132 132 152 175 175 200 230 230 264 304 304 350 400
115 132 152 152 175 200 200 230 264 264 304 350 350 400 460
115 132 152 152 175 200 200 230 264 264 304 350 350 400 460
132 152 175 175 200 230 230 264 304 304 350 400 400 460 528
E. BASIC SPECIALIZED: 152 175 200 200 230 264 264 304 350 350 400 460 460 528 608
152 175 200 200 230 264 264 304 350 350 400 460 460 528 608
175 200 230 230 264 304 304 350 400 400 460 528 528 608 700
F. SPECIALIZED SEASONED : 200 230 264 264 304 350 350 400 460 460 528 608 608 700 800
200 230 264 264 304 350 350 400 460 460 528 608 608 700 800
230 264 304 304 350 400 400 460 528 528 608 700 700 800 920
G. SPECIALIZED MASTERY: 264 304 350 350 400 460 460 528 608 608 700 800 800 920 1056
264 304 350 350 400 460 460 528 608 608 700 800 800 920 1056
304 350 400 400 460 528 528 608 700 700 800 920 920 1056 1216
H. UNIC AUTHORITY: 350 400 460 460 528 608 608 700 800 800 920 1056 1056 1216 1400

11. Problem Solving
•Definition
“Self intiated” thinking required for the
job to evaluate, analyze, develop, think,
identify and conclude.
• Problem Solving has two dimensions:
– Thinking Environment
– Analytical Challenge

14. Problem Solving evaluation
Example:
E Analytical 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
Analytical
I+ REPETITIVE PATTERNED INTERPO- ADAPTIVE UNCHARTED
Environment Challenge
3 LATIVE
264
10% 14% 19% 25% 33%
A. STRICT :ROUTINE
D+
12% 16% 22% 29% 38%
3 12% 16% 22% 29% 38%
(33) B. ROUTINE:
87 14% 19% 25% 33% 43%
: 14% 19% 25% 33% 43%
C. SEMI-ROUTINE
16% 22% 29% 38% 50%
16% 22% 29% 38% 50%
D. STANDARDIZED
19% 25% 33% 43% 57%
E. CLEARLY DEFINED 19% 25% 33% 43% 57%
22% 29% 38% 50% 66%
22% 29% 38% 50% 66%
F. BROADLY DEFINED
25% 33% 43% 57% 76%
25% 33% 43% 57% 76%
G. GENERALLY DEFINED:
29% 38% 50% 66% 87%
29% 38% 50% 66% 87%
H. ABSTRACT DEFINED:
33% 43% 57% 76%
100%

15. Accountability
•Definition
Accountability is the factor utilized to
quantify the jobs results
• Accountability has three dimensions:
– Freedom to Act
– Impact
– Magnitude

18. Impact
Primary: The impact’s direction and control.
Shared: Partnership and common responsibilities with
similar jobs and other functions from the
organization. There were not be shared the
“supervisor” or the “
subordinate”.
Contributive: Counseling Suport or services provided.
Away (???): This level is inferior to the “contributive”. It is
far from the selected area of magnitude.

19. Impact: Not quantified
Definitions for “non-dimensional” jobs; it is no financial
relevant value associated.
Nominal: Incidental Support
Moderate: Informational / Evidence in one
department
Major: Facilitation / Interpretative, possible
inter-departmental
Critical: Counseling / Diagnostic

20. Magnitude and Impact
(N) (1) Very small (2) Small (3) Medium (4) Medium-Big (5) Big
Magnitude Not quantified
Equivalent AMI USD 50 – 500 K USD 550 K – 5 M USD 5 - 50 M USD 50 – 500 M USD 500 M – 5 B
Impact A B C D A C S P R C S P A C S P A C S P A C S P
K =thousants M = milllion B = billion
IMPACT: EXPLANATION:
A.????? : Informative Services, evidences and occasional, in A. Indirect Support services, that don’t have a clear
order to be utilized by the others to achieve an important result. quantified effect to the activities or people
C. CONTRIBUTIVE: Interpretative Services, counseling or served.
facilitation that are used by other staff actions. C. Indirect Services or tasks that are utilized or
S. SHARED: Participate together with others (except supervisor finalized by other roles.
and subordinate), inside or outside the organization, to do an S. Non-standard Services or tasks that clearly have
action. an effect to the end results.
P. PRIMARY: Impact’s Control for end results, there where the P. Management role for services provided and
shared responsibilities for other roles are secondary. tasks.

21. Accountability
Example Impact
Freedom to Act (0) (1) (2) (3) (4)
E Aria
NOT QUANTIFIED VERY SMALL SMALL MEDIUM MEDIUM-BIG
I+ Impact l IMPACT
l
3 Nature
A B C D R C S P R C S P R C S P R C S
264 A. PRESCRIBED: 8 10 14 19 10 14 19 25 14 19 25 33 19 25 33 43 25 33 43
9 12 16 22 12 16 22 29 16 22 29 38 22 29 38 50 29 38 50
D+ 10 14 19 25 14 19 25 33 19 25 33 43 25 33 43 57 33 43 57
3 B. CONTROLED: 12 16 22 29 16 22 29 38 22 29 38 50 29 38 50 66 38 50 66
(33) 14 19 25 33 19 25 33 43 25 33 43 57 33 43 57 76 43 57 76
87 16 22 29 38 22 29 38 50 29 38 50 66 38 50 66 87 50 66 87
19 25 33 43 25 33 43 57 33 43 57 76 43 57 76 100 57 76 100
C. STANDARDIZED:
D 22 29 38 50 29 38 50 66 38 50 66 87 50 66 87 115 66 87 115
2- 25 33 43 57 33 43 57 76 43 57 76 100 57 76 100 132 76 100 132
P D. GENERAL REGLEMENTED: 29 38 50 66 38 50 66 87 50 66 87 115 66 87 115 152 87 115 152
115 33 43 57 76 43 57 76 100 57 76 100 132 76 100 132 175 100 132 175
38 50 66 87 50 66 87 115 66 87 115 152 87 115 152 200 115 152 200
466 E. DIRECTED: 43 57 76 100 57 76 100 132 76 100 132 175 100 132 175 230 132 175 230
50 66 87 115 66 87 115 152 87 115 152 200 115 152 200 264 152 200 264
57 76 100 132 76 100 132 175 100 132 175 230 132 175 230 304 175 230 304
F. GENERAL DIRECTED: 66 87 115 152 87 115 152 200 115 152 200 264 152 200 264 350 200 264 350
76 100 132 175 100 132 175 230 132 175 230 304 175 230 304 400 230 304 400
87 115 152 200 115 152 200 264 152 200 264 350 200 264 350 460 264 350 460
G. GUIDED: 100 132 175 230 132 175 230 304 175 230 304 400 230 304 400 528 304 400 528
115 152 200 264 152 200 264 350 200 264 350 460 264 350 460 608 350 460 608
132 175 230 304 175 230 304 400 230 304 400 528 304 400 528 700 400 528 700
H. STRATEGIC GUIDED 152 200 264 350 200 264 350 460 264 350 460 608 350 460 608 800 460 608 800
175 230 304 400 230 304 400 528 304 400 528 700 400 528 700 920 528 700 920
200 264 350 460 264 350 460 608 350 460 608 800 460 608 800 1056 608 800 1056

23. Salary Politics
Marked
n
atio
aniz any
Org mp
/ co
Individual
Salary

24. Hay Limits:
• Complicated Matrix to be scored
• Accent on Management’s Know How
• Reflect hierarchy and budget
• Not applied in educational field – team
approach
• Instant evaluation system – not looking to
responsibilities development

25. JEM DATABASE:

26. Steps in Process
• Plan for Hay Implementation –
• Review all JDs
• Organize Grading Committee
• Training for Grading Committee
• Grade all JDs
• Ask for SMT/RO review and approval
• Salary Survey and Salary Scale