1. What is job evaluation? Explain the types of Job evaluation; Due Date 18/07/2012
(i) Patterson(ii) Castilian (iii) Hay
Evolution in Human resource management has created many procedures to ensure an organized workforce such as job enlargement, job enrichment, performance appraisal and job evaluation is one of them. Managerial procedures such as organizational diagnosis, organizational learning, redesigning and designing will never be successful without an implementation of a rigorous job evaluation system. Job evaluation represents itself as the panacea for management to determine to relative worth of a job to the organization.
Job evaluation according to Kovac (2006)is a process of determining the relative worth of a job. It is a process which is helpful even for framing compensation plans by the personnel manager. The objective of job evaluation is to determine which jobs should get more pay than others.According to Kimball and Kimball (2004), “Job evaluation represents an effort to determine the relative value of every job in a plant and to determine what the fair basic wage for such a job should be”. Several methods such as job ranking, job grading, and factor comparison are also employed in job evaluation. Job evaluation as a process is advantageous to a company in many ways such as reduction in inequalities in salary structure, it is found that people and their motivation is dependent upon how well they are being paid. Therefore the main objective of job evaluation is to have external and internal consistency in salary structure so that inequalities in salaries are reduced.
Job evaluation in addition enhances specialization, because of division of labour and thereby specialization, a large number of enterprises has got hundred jobs and many employees to perform them. Therefore, an attempt should be made to define a job and thereby fix salaries for it. This is possible only through job evaluation. In addition Job evaluation helps in selection of employees, through job evaluation information can be helpful at the time of selection of candidates. The factors that are determined for job evaluation can be taken into account while selecting the employees.
Job evaluation accordingSteinburg (1992) ensures harmonious relationship between employees and manager. Through job evaluation, harmonious and congenial relations can be maintained between employees and management, so that all kinds of salaries controversies can be minimized. Standardizationis reason why organizations undertake job evaluation. The process of determining the salary differentials for different jobs become standardized through job evaluation. This helps in bringing uniformity into salary structure. Lastly job evaluation provides relevance of new jobs,through job evaluation; one can understand the relative value of new jobs in a concern.
Several methods of job evaluation have been used by different organization to establish relative worth of jobs across Hay System of Job Evaluationis one of them.The Hay method of job evaluation according to Steinburg (1992) is generally understood to be a point plan, although Hay itself does not define the guide chart-profile method as such. Hay’s Methodology is the “most widely used process in the world”. It was developed in the 1950s by E. N. Hay. The Hay Guide Chart is the most popular point-factor scheme in use in America.
Hay System of Job Evaluation has many advantages it measures jobs to reflect their relative weight in the organization, provides means to assess pay across different market/functions, evaluates jobs and not people and it’s not based on performance, title, writing skills or current salary. According to Cortis (1962)Hay’s Job Evaluation Methodology values all jobs against three factors know-how, problem solving andaccountability.
Know-how is the sum total which comprises the overall “fund of knowledge” has three dimensions. The requirements for practical procedures, specialized techniques, and learned disciplines, active, practicing skills in the area of human relationships. Lastly know-how of integrating and harmonizing the diversified functions involved in managerial situations (operating, supporting, and administrative). This know-how may be exercised consultatively as well as executively and involves in some combination the areas of organizing, planning, executing, controlling, and evaluating.
Problem solving is the original “self-starting” thinking required by the job for analyzing, evaluating, creating, reasoning, arriving at and making conclusions. To the extent that thinking is circumscribed by standards, covered by precedents, or referred to others, problem solving is diminished and the emphasis correspondingly is on know-how. Problem solving has two dimensions: The environment in which the thinking takes place (Thinking environment). The challenge presented by the thinking to be done (Thinking Challenge).
Accountability is the measured effect of the job on end results. It has three dimensions in the following order of importance:Freedom to act is the degree of personal or procedural control and guidance the jobholder has. Job impact on end results, ranges from direct to indirect impact on end results by auxiliary, contributory, shared, or primary effects. Magnitude is indicated by the general dynamic monetary size or accountability area(s) most clearly affected by the job.A critic leveled by Hay System is that the system consistently values male dominated management functions over non-management functions more likely performed by women.
The other Job evaluation method is the Paterson Grading system is used to evaluate aspects of jobs. According to Mills (et 1992) Paterson Job Evaluation method is an analytical method of job evaluation, used predominantly in South Africa. It analyses decisions-making in job task performance or job descriptions and sorts jobs into six groups that are graded into two to three subgrades, such as stress factors, individual tolerance, length of job and number of job responsibilities that correspond to organizational levels.
According to “Classification of Jobs into levels of Work: Four Reliability Studies” UZ the Paterson system places job decision- making into six groups or bands: Policy making, programming, interpretive routine automatic and defined. These groups corresponded to different levels of Top management, senior management, middle management, junior management, skilled positions, semi-skilled positions and un- skilled management.
It is comprised of grades A up to F, the upper grade (A) may involve jobs that require coordination or supervision, B- upper Coordinating, automatic decisions (semi- skilled workers), C-Lower routine decisions (supervisory personnel), D-Upper Coordinating, interpretive decisions (middle management) E- Upper Coordinating programming decisions (Senior management) and F – Upper coordinating policy decisions (consists of top management such as the board of directors)
Lastly the Castellion system which was developed by Cortis (Biesheuval 1977) for South Africa Breweries is a point- rating system according to six factors decision making, pressure of work, controls and checks, consequences of error, education and experience.The Castellion grading system has 16 grades, grade 16 is for simple decisions, 15 for pragmatic decisions, and 14 to 9 is for tactical decisions, 8 to 5 co-ordination interpretative decisions, and 4 to 1 for strategic decisions.
However each method used in the Job evaluation system has it on advantages and disadvantages the Paterson system is more reliable than the Castellion method, which is based on a reliability study at UZ, more students made errors in re-grading 18 jobs within the Castellion grading system which is comprised of 16 grades. Job evaluation system although it has many types, it provides a well-motivated workforce and important variables for a learning organization.
Bibliography:
Biesheuval, S. 1977 Job evaluation: An outline of the Castellion method” Business Management, VII, 21-4
J. Jordan, C. Mills, T. Moyo, C. Keshav and J Ndoziya(1992.Classification of jobs into levels of Work: Four Reliability Studies:
Cortis.L.E 1962 ‘Studies in Job evaluation” (Johannesburg, University of the Witwatersrnd.Ph.D thesis)
Jason C. Kovac, CCP, CBP, Practice Leader, Total Rewards, World at Work, jkovac@worldatwork.org. (2006)
Steinburg, R.J (1992) “Gendered Instructions_ Cultural Lag and Gender Bias in the Hay System of Job Evaluation” Work and Occupations 19 (4): 387-423
