This document provides an overview of a two-day training program on job evaluation and grading processes and systems. Day 1 focused on defining key concepts, building the business case for job evaluation, and reviewing various job evaluation systems. Day 2 covered critical success factors, prominent systems like Hay Group, Peromnes, JE Manager, and Towers Watson, and comparing the different approaches. The training concluded on Day 3 with case studies applying the theoretical concepts, including developing a job analysis plan and using JE Manager for job evaluation at a non-profit organization.

1. JOB EVALUATION AND GRADING
– PROCESS AND SYSTEMS
CHARLES COTTER
FOCUS ROOMS, SUNNINGHILL
10-11 SEPTEMBER 2015

2. TRAINING PROGRAMME OVERVIEW –
DAY 2
• Defining the fundamental concepts
• Building a business case for Job Evaluation – the utility
and functional value thereof
• Review and application of Job Evaluation systems:
Hay Group
Peromnes
JE Manager
T.A.S.K.
Paterson
EQUATE
Towers Watson GGS

3. DEFINITION, PURPOSE AND
OBJECTIVES OF JOB EVALUATION
• Job Evaluation is the process of determining as systematically and
objectively as possible, the worth of one job relative to another
without regard for personalities or existing structures.
• It tries to make a systematic comparison between jobs to assess
their relative worth for the purpose of establishing a rational pay
structure.
• The purpose is to achieve and maintain an equitable distribution
of basic wages and/or salaries according to level of position.
• The main objectives of such an exercise can be stated as “the
establishment of internal equity with a graded hierarchy of jobs
within the organization and of external equity with the external
market rate for equivalent jobs”.

6. CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS AND BEST
PRACTICE PRINCIPLES OF JOB EVALUATION
• Selection of a system of job evaluation
• Selling the concept and the system to management and employees
• Designing the job description forms in accordance with company
requirements
• Deciding on how job descriptions are to be written
• Training those people who will write job descriptions and the
Grading Committee
• Monitoring the quality of job descriptions

9. JOB EVALUATION PROCESS
• Stage 1 is the inflexible part of the process. Although there
is a degree of flexibility in any job evaluation method, one
must observe the grading rules if the system is to retain its
credibility. This stage consists of:
Writing the job descriptions in an agreed format
Grading of the job description by a trained representative
committee using the job evaluation rules
• Stage 2 is where flexibility must be built into the
remuneration system. This stage consists of:
Development of wage and salary structuring, benefits and
incentives within the framework of the market rates, company
policy and ability to pay.

10. JOB EVALUATION PROCESS -
ILLUSTRATED

11. CRITERIA INFORMING THE SELECTION OF
THE JOB EVALUATION SYSTEM
• Management and staff must understand it; be
committed to it and accept it - EMPOWERED
• Implementation can be quick - EXPEDIENCY
• Updating and maintaining the system will be
quick and easy - EFFICIENCY

13. PROMINENT JOB EVALUATION
SYSTEMS
• Hay Group
• Peromnes
• JE Manager/Decision Tree
• T.A.S.K.
• Paterson
• EQUATE
• Towers Watson GGS

14. HAY JOB EVALUATION METHOD
• Hay Group pioneered the “factor comparison” job evaluation method and
modified it in its Guide Charts in the early 1950’s.
• Organizations use the Hay methodology to evaluate jobs against a set of
common factors that measure:
 Inputs (required knowledge, skills, and capabilities),
 Throughputs (processing of inputs to achieve results)
 Outputs (end result expectations from applying inputs constructively)
• During the evaluation process, each job’s content is analyzed relative to
each factor and represented by a numerical value. These factor values are
then totaled to determine the overall job “size.”
• The input-throughput-output model is reflected in the Hay Method as
Know-How, Problem Solving and Accountability. Each grouping can be
further broken down into eight elements for the work value assessment.

15. HAY JOB EVALUATION FACTORS
• Accountability (has three dimensions):
 Freedom to Act
 Scope
 Impact
• Know-How (has three dimensions):
 Technical/Specialized Skills
 Managerial Skills
 Human Relations Skills
• Problem Solving (has two dimensions):
 Thinking Environment
 Thinking Challenge

16. HAY JOB EVALUATION FACTORS -
ILLUSTRATED

17. HAY JOB EVALUATION GUIDE CHARTS
• The Guide Charts enable consistent work evaluations. Each of the factors—Know-
How, Problem Solving, and Accountability— has its own Guide Chart that reflects
the identified sub elements.
• Each Guide Chart scale is expandable to account for the complexity and size of the
organization to which it is applied, and the scale descriptions can be modified
when appropriate.
• An important distinction is that the Hay Methodology can be calibrated to the
value systems of other organizations within Hay’s compensation databases. This
enables a wide range of benchmarking activities, potentially improving the
accuracy of market pricing and increasing confidence in job evaluation results.
• Guide Charts expedite the job evaluation process, but considerable expertise is
required to understand the work’s nature to determine the degree to which
elements exist for each factor.
• The power is not only in the tool, but also in the evaluator’s knowledge and skill
and the consistency in the tool’s application across the organization.

18. PEROMNES
• Peromnes grades show the rank order of jobs within
an organization and allow jobs to be compared by
grade with other jobs both inside and outside the
organization.
• Peromnes evaluates and scores jobs in terms of eight
factors. These factors are intrinsic to jobs, do not
measure aspects outside the job and are applicable to
all jobs in terms of function and level in organization.
• The first six evaluate tasks, skills, responsibilities and
relationships (job content) and the last two evaluate
education and further training and experience (job
requirements).

19. PEROMNES JOB EVALUATION
FACTORS
• Factor 1: Problem Solving
• Factor 2: Consequence of Judgments
• Factor 3: Pressure of Work
• Factor 4: Knowledge
• Factor 5: Job Impact
• Factor 6: Comprehension
• Factor 7: Educational Qualifications
• Factor 8: Further Training/Experience:

20. JE MANAGER/DT
• JE Manager is a computerized system designed to eliminate human bias and has
various checks and controls to ensure consistency of results.
• It is transparent as it involves the job holder; the incumbent (where the post is
occupied) to personally answers questions required by the system.
• The system is also non-discriminatory in that the same set of factors, questions,
and parameters are used to measure each job regardless of the incumbent.
• The JE Manager process empowers employees in that they are directly involved in
their own evaluations together with their line managers.
• The system also takes into account the individual and the individual’s role in
adding value to the organization more than other job evaluation system.
• The system recognizes applied competencies acquired formally or informally
without placing an undue emphasis on either.

21. JE MANAGER/DT
• It also avoids placing an undue emphasis on hierarchical positions or
theoretical number of people supervised and the system specifically
recognizes the specialist roles.
• The system is designed for maximum flexibility allowing full
customization to fit the culture, value system and organization structure.
• JE Manager supports flexible pay structures and can be linked to
competencies and performance management systems.
• The system substantially reduces evaluation time. It reduces the time
span between a request for an evaluation and the evaluation itself.
• No job evaluation committee is required and the time spent on each
evaluation is considerably less than traditional methods.

22. JE MANAGER/DT FACTORS
• Hay Group’s Decision Tree is a powerful, reliable and user-friendly web-based tool
that simplifies the overall JE process.
• The Decision Tree system helps organizations to build a database of job profiles,
evaluate and validate jobs (online checks and balances), maintain, share, export
and archive information and produce a wide-range of value-add reports.
• The JE Manager measures six factors each on a bi-dimensional basis (X & Y):
 Factor 1: Judgment
 Factor 2: Planning and leadership
 Factor 3: Communication
 Factor 4: Job impact
 Factor 5: Acquisition and application of knowledge
 Factor 6: Skills acquisition and practice

23. JE MANAGER/DT PROCESS
• Evaluation is done by a trained evaluator on a question and answer basis prompted by the
program. In attendance at the evaluation are the following role-players:
 The incumbent ;
 The incumbents line manager ;
 The evaluator ; and
 The incumbents representative (e.g. from a union), if so requested by the incumbent.
• After the evaluation, the results are sent, without alteration, to be audited by an audit committee.
The purpose of the audit is to validate the evaluation result and to ensure internal equity of jobs
within the organization.
• The audit committee is empowered to increase or decrease the evaluation scores, based on sound
reason, in terms of the aforementioned objectives of validity and equity.
• The audit committee is composed of the following four members:
 A Chairman, from the Human Resources Department;
 A Human Resources evaluation officer;
 A representative from the department whose post is being audited; and
 A representative from one other department (but not from the Human Resources Department).

24. JE MANAGER/DT PROCESS
• Should the incumbent consider that the post has been
inappropriately graded, he/she may appeal against the evaluation.
• An appeal committee will be constituted to consider the appeal.
• The appeal committee may not be composed of members who
audited the post originally.
• The appeal committee, after hearing the appeal, may recommend
the following:
 No change to the grade(status quo) ;
 Re-evaluate the job ; and
 Revise the grade.

25. T.A.S.K. JOB EVALUATION
• Tuned Assessment of Skills and Knowledge
(T.A.S.K.)
• A Patterson plan derivative, the T.A.S.K.
system that uses a point system with a
number of factors for sub grading (skill level,
knowledge, complexity, influence, pressure
to address the problem of sub grading.

26. T.A.S.K. JOB EVALUATION PROCESS
• The T.A.S.K. job evaluation system evaluates jobs from grade 1 up
to grade 26, where grade 1 will be the lowest job and grade 26 the
highest job.
• The T.A.S.K. system is based on the skill level requirements of jobs
at all levels and in all functions in an organization.
• All jobs, throughout an organization, can be classified into skill
levels according to established standards.
• To arrive at a job grade the following procedure must be follow:
 Determine the skill level of the job;
 Determine the points ranges for each of the four factors - Complexity,
Knowledge, Influence and Pressure; and
 Determine actual points per range by answering sub factor questions.

27. T.A.S.K. JOB EVALUATION SKILL
LEVELS
• The T.A.S.K. job evaluation system categorizes
jobs in 5 skill levels:
Level 1: Basic Skills
Level 2: Discretionary Skills
Level 3: Specialized Skills
Level 4: Tactical Skills
Skill 5: Strategic skills

28. T.A.S.K. JOB EVALUATION FACTORS
• After the skill level of a post has been
determined, the post is then rated against four
factors:
Complexity
Knowledge
Influence
Pressure

30. PATERSON GRADING SYSTEM
• The basic premise of the method is that all jobs, regardless of level,
industry or country, can be compared in terms of the number and
weight of decisions that must be made by the job incumbent.
• From this comparison a pay structure can be established.
• Paterson maintains that an organization’s pay structure should
reflect the organization and responsibility levels within the
organization, and that responsibility should be measured and
compared in terms of a single factor common to all jobs, namely,
decision-making.
• Paterson defines six kinds of Bands of decision, which are found in
any company. Any job can be defined in terms of these Bands of
decision and the authority relationships, which are involved.

31. PATERSON GRADING SYSTEM BANDS
OF DECISIONS
• BAND F: Policy Making Decisions (Top Management)
• BAND E: Programming Decisions (Senior Management)
• BAND D: Interpretive Decisions (Middle Management and High
Level Specialists)
• BAND C: Routine/Process/System Decisions (Specialist or Skilled
Employees)
• BAND B: Automatic/Operative/Sub-system (Partially skilled
employees)
• BAND A: Defined Decisions (Basic Skilled Employees)

32. PATERSON FACTORS
• Factor 1: Decision-making/responsibility/judgment (Used for
Banding)
• Factor 2: Supervision/coordination of people/work (Used for sub-
Banding)
• Factor 3: Complexity of tasks (Used for sub-Banding)
• Factor 4: Variety of tasks (Used for sub-Banding)
• Factor 5: Degree of precision required (Used for sub-Banding)
• Factor 6: Work pressure/physical effort (Used for sub-Banding)

33. BANDS KIND OF DECISION LEVEL DESCRIPTOR 11 SUB-GRADES KIND OF GRADE
F Policy Making Top Management 11
10
Co-ordinating or Supervisory Policy
Policy
E Programming Senior Management 9
8
Co-ordinating or Supervisory
Programming
Programming
D Interpretive/
Probabilistic
Middle
Management
(Expert)
(Specialist)
(Professional)
7
6
Supervisory
Interpretive
Interpretive
C Routine/Process/
System
Skilled
(Specialist)
(Professional)
5
4
Supervisory
Skilled
Skilled
B Automatic/
Operative/
Sub-system
Partially
Skilled
3
2
Supervisory
Partially skilled
Partially skilled
A Defined Basic Skilled 1 Defined

34. 6 BROAD
BANDS
11
SUB-GRADES
28
SUB-GRADES
F
11 Policy Co-ordinating F5
F4
10 Policy F3
F2
F1
E
9 Programming Co-ordinating E5
E4
8 Programming E3
E2
E1
D
7. Interpretive Co-ordinating D5
D4
6 Interpretive D3
D2
D1
C
5. Skilled/Specialist Co-ordinating C5
C4
4 Skilled/Specialist C3
C2
C1
B
3. Partially skilled Co-ordinating B5
B4
2 Partially skilled B3
B2
B1
A
1. Basic skilled No Co-ordinating
Sub-division
A3
A2
A1

35. EQUATE FACTORS
• Responsibility
• Thinking Demands
• Communication and Contacts
• Knowledge
• Environmental Demands

36. TOWERS WATSON GLOBAL GRADING
SYSTEM (GGS)
• Towers Watson’s systematic approach to job leveling helps organizations manage
the opportunities and challenges of talent and reward program design including
aligning jobs located in multiple regions or across different lines of business, or
creating a career framework that integrates employees after a merger, acquisition
or other structural change.
• Job leveling is an analytical process that can determine the relative value of jobs in
your organization, and it provides a foundation for reward and talent
management programs
• The Global Grade calculator allows you to grade jobs following the proprietary
Towers Watson Global Grading methodology using three key steps:
 Scope of the business
 Band for the job
 Grade for the job
• The Global Grades generated by the calculator correlate with those included in the
Towers Watson compensation surveys providing a valuable reference when
assessing the competitiveness of reward packages.

37. JOB EVALUATION SYSTEMS -
COMPARISON

38. APPLYING PATERSON JOB EVALUATION
AND GRADING PROCEDURE
• Writing the Job Description
• Job Grading – Band the Job Descriptions (Step 1)
• Grading of Supervisory Tasks (Step 2)
• Sub-grading of Jobs (Step 3):
variety and complexity of tasks
precision
pressure of work/physical effort

39. LEARNING ACTIVITY
• Group discussion
Evaluate the relative merits of each of the
prominent Job Evaluation systems. Which one do
you favour? Justify your decision.
Apply the selected/preferred Job Evaluation
system to an identified position.
• Provide feedback in the form of summary

40. FACTORS INFORMING AND
INFLUENCING COMPENSATION

41. CONCLUSION – DAY 2
• Key points
• Summary
• Questions

42. TRAINING PROGRAMME OVERVIEW –
DAY 3
• Application of theoretical concepts by means
of Case Study Analysis:
• Case Study 1: Developing a Complete Plan for
Job Analysis (Excitor)
• Case Study 2: Job Evaluation at World Vision
(by means of JE Manager)

43. CASE STUDY 1: DEVELOPING A COMPLETE PLAN
FOR JOB ANALYSIS (EXCITOR)
• SYNDICATE GROUP CASE ANALYSIS AND FEEDBACK:
• 1. Identify the purpose and objectives of the job analysis.
• 2. Identify some of the 2.1) elements and 2.2) practical considerations that
influence the choice/selection of the job analysis method/s.
• 3. Do you believe that the consultant’s proposed hybrid of job analysis
methods is appropriate (best fit)? Justify your response.
• 4. Identify a few sources of job analysis data utilized by the consultant.
• 5. Identify the primary data collection methods utilized by the consultant. Do
you believe that the consultant strike the right balance of quantitative
(analytical) and qualitative (non-analytical) methods? Justify your response.
• 6. Do you believe that the consultant’s sample size and composition (of
employees and managers) and related rationale is sensible, given the
requirements of viability, feasibility, practicality and the need to comply with the
scientific principles of reliability and representivity? Justify your response.

44. CASE STUDY 1: DEVELOPING A COMPLETE PLAN
FOR JOB ANALYSIS (EXCITOR)
• 7. Do you regard the consultant’s data collection, collation, analysis,
interpretation, validation and reporting 7.1) efficient and 7.2) effective?
Justify your response.
• 8. Do you believe that the consultant excelled with the crafting and
drafting of the 8.1) Job Description and 8.2) Job Specification
documents? Justify your response.
• 9. Do you believe that the consultant complied with and followed the
client’s brief and ultimately, met their needs and expectations? Justify
your response.
• 10. Do you believe that the consultant applied the 5-step Job Analysis
process effectively? Justify your response. Would you recommend any
improvements to their methodology and/or process?
• 11. As a job analyst and/or HR Manager what are the lessons that you
can extract from this case study.

45. CASE STUDY 2: JOB EVALUATION AT WORLD
VISION (BY MEANS OF JE MANAGER)
• SYNDICATE GROUP CASE ANALYSIS AND FEEDBACK:
• 1. Identify the purpose and objectives of conducting the job evaluation at
World Vision.
• 2. By reviewing the old/previous system, perform a gap analysis i.e. identify
the required areas of improvement at World Vision.
• 3. Evaluate the effectiveness of the Hay Group JE Manager system in
adequately addressing these gaps (identified in question 2).
• 4. Identify at least three (3) job factors of the Hay Group JE Manager system
which are used to evaluate and grade jobs at World Vision.
• 5. List at least five (5) benefits that accrued to World Vision from applying the
JE Manager job evaluation system. Which benefit would you regard as the most
significant (highest value)? Justify your view.
• 6. As a job evaluator and/or HR Manager what are the lessons that you can
extract from this case study.

46. CONCLUSION – DAY 3
• Key points
• Summary
• Questions

47. CONTACT DETAILS
• Charles Cotter
• (+27) 84 562 9446
• charlescot@polka.co.za
• LinkedIn
• Twitter: Charles_Cotter
• http://www.slideshare.net/CharlesCotter