Job evaluation is a systematic process to determine the relative worth of jobs in an organization. It begins with analyzing each job and ends with ascribing a value to determine fair wages. There are several methods used - ranking, classification, and factor comparison - each with their own benefits and limitations. The overall goal is to link pay to job requirements and establish an equitable wage structure.

1. Job evaluation

2. Definition
• Job evaluation is a systematic way of determining
the value/worth of a job in relation to other jobs
in an organisation.
• The purpose of job evaluation is to find the
relative worth of a job and determine what a fair
wage for such a job should be. Job evaluation, it
should be noted, begins with job analysis (a
systematic way of gathering information about a
job) and ends at that point where the worth of a
job is ascertained for achieving pay equity
between jobs

3. Features of job evaluation
– It tries to assess jobs
– The standards of job evaluation are relative, not
absolute
– It gets the basic information through job analysis
– It is generally carried out by groups, not
individuals
– Some amount of subjectivity is always present in
job evaluation
– It does not fix pay scales but offers a sound basis
for determining a rational wage structure

4. The Process Of Job Evaluation
– Gaining acceptance from employees and trade
unions
– Creating a job evaluation committee
– Finding the jobs to be evaluated
– Analyzing and preparing job descriptions
– Selecting the method of job evaluation
– Classifying jobs
– Installing the programme
– Reviewing the process periodically

5. Benefits
It tries to link pay with the requirements of the job.
It offers a systematic procedure for determining the relative worth
of jobs.
An equitable wage structure is a natural outcome of job evaluation.
Job evaluation, when conducted properly and with care, helps in
the evaluation of new jobs.
It points out possibilities of more appropriate use of the plant’s
labour force by indicating jobs.

6. Methods of Job Evaluation
• Ranking method: The job ranking method
arranges jobs in numerical order on the basis
of the importance of the job, duties and
responsibilities to the organization. This
method, though easy to understand, is highly
subjective in nature.

7. Classification method
Classification method: The job classification
method slots jobs into pre established grades.
Higher-rated grades demand more
responsibilities, tougher working conditions and
varied job duties. This method is easy to
understand and takes care of all relevant factors
affecting the performance of a job. However, it is
not easy to write all inclusive descriptions of a
grade. Further, the method oversimplifies sharp
differences between different jobs and different
grades

8. Factor comparison method
• Factor comparison method: In this method,
jobs are ranked according to a series of factors
such as mental effort, physical effort, skill
needed, responsibility, supervisory
responsibility, working conditions, etc. pay will
be assigned in this method by comparing the
weights of the factors required for each job.

9. Limitations of Job Evaluation
Job evaluation is not exactly scientific.
‘The modus operandi’ of most of the techniques is difficult to
understand, even for the supervisors.
The factors taken by the programme are not exhaustive.
There may be wide fluctuations in compensable factors in view of
changes in technology, values and aspirations of employers, etc.
Employees, trade union leaders, management and the programme
operators may assign different weightage to different factors, thus
creating grounds for dispute.

10. Limitations of Job Evaluation
Job evaluation is not exactly scientific.
‘The modus operandi’ of most of the techniques is difficult to
understand, even for the supervisors.
The factors taken by the programme are not exhaustive.
There may be wide fluctuations in compensable factors in view of
changes in technology, values and aspirations of employers, etc.
Employees, trade union leaders, management and the programme
operators may assign different weightage to different factors, thus
creating grounds for dispute.