Diploma in Business Management

BACKGROUND

Job analysis as a management technique was developed around 1900. It became one of the tools with which managers understood and directed organizations. Frederick W. Taylor, through his interest in improving the efficiency of work, made studying the job one of his principles of scientific management. Early organization theorists were interested in how jobs fit into organizations: they focused on the purpose of the job. But this early interest in job analysis disappeared as the human relations movement focused on other issues. It was not until the 1960s that psychologists and other behavioral scientists rediscovered jobs as a focus of study in organizations.

The organization with the greatest long-term interest in job analysis has been the United States Department of Labor (DOL). The United States Employment Service (USES) of the DOL's Training and Employment Administration has developed job analysis procedures and instruments over many years. These procedures probably represent the strongest single influence on job analysis practice in the United States. The DOL's Guide for Analyzing Jobs and Handbook for Analyzing Jobs show the development of job analysis procedures over almost 50 years. They are responsible for publishing The Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT), and they have a policy of helping private employers install job analysis programs. The DOL has led in the development of what is often called the conventional approach to job analysis.

More recently the interest in job analysis has been based on the passage of civil rights legislation. Job analysis is required in the field of staffing since any predictor used to select a person must be job-relevant. Determining job relevance requires having a knowledge of what is happening in the job, usually through job analysis. Likewise, in compensation, the requirements of the Equal Pay Act requires jobs that are substantially similar to be paid the same. The determination that two jobs are substantially similar is done through job analysis.

APPROACHES TO ANALYZING JOBS

There is no one way to study jobs. Several models of job analysis now exist, but as we will see shortly, each leaves something to be desired. The job analysis formula outlined by the DOL in 1946 is a simplified but complete model of obtaining information on work activities. The formula consists of (1) what the worker does, (2) how he or she does it, (3) why he or she does it, and (4) the skill involved in doing it. In fact, providing the what, how, and why of each task and the total job should constitute a functional description of work activities for compensation purposes.

By 1972, however, this formula had been expanded by the DOL to encompass five models as described in Figure 14-1. Note that work activities in the 1946 formula become worker behaviors identified through the use of functional job analysis. Models 2 and 3 are elaborations of the how question in the original format. The fourth model is an elaboration of the why (purpose) question in the original formula. Finally, worker traits or characteristics represent an additional type of job information.

Thus the 1972 approach implies that the job information needed has changed from work activities (tasks) to worker behaviors. It also suggests that the how and why of work activities (but not the work activities themselves) are more important. Finally, worker characteristics are added to the job information required. No explanation is provided for the change in needed information. In fact, it is assumed that worker behaviors (functions), work fields, tools, and products and services represent work performed. The 1972 approach seems to represent neither a consistent model of job information, nor a method of obtaining such information.

This classification suggests that job analysis can yield six kinds of useful job information. These descriptors presumably flow from McCormick's model of the operational functions basic to all jobs, sensing (information receiving), information storage, information processing, and decision and action (physical control or communication). These functions vary in emphasis from job to job. It is not clear how the five descriptors flow from this model, however.

Richer suggests that the following job information is needed by organizations: (1) job content factors; (2) job context factors; (3) worker characteristics; (4) work characteristics; and (5) interpersonal relations (internal and external). Although this is an interesting approach, the rationale for obtaining these types of information is not clear.

None of these models has provided a rationale for all the descriptors they mention. In fact, the grounds for collecting some of the types of information do not appear to be clear. For example, are worker behaviors synonymous with work activities? It seems that managers are more likely to use the term work activities and organizational psychologists the term worker behaviors. We believe they are separate concepts. The former refers to formal work-devoted acts; the latter would include informal activities not all of which are pertinent to work goals.

Pay Systems Exchange Model

Since the job is the connection between the organization and the employee, it may be useful to develop a model based upon this common connection. We can say that both the organization and the employee contribute to the job and expect to receive something from it. In order for these results to come about, something has to happen inside the job. This dual systems-exchange model is illustrated in Figure 14-2.
The vertical dimension of the model is the person-job relationship. The person brings his or her abilities and effort to the job (cell 1). These are used in activities, which are divided into physical, mental, and interactional types (cell 3). The results, for the person, are the rewards and satisfaction received from working on the job (cell 5). These rewards can be both intrinsic and extrinsic. The latter are the basic subject of this book.

The horizontal dimension of the model is the organization-job relationship. The organization brings to the job resources needed to perform the job and ways to do the job that coordinate with organizational needs; the latter are perceived as constraints (cell 2). These resources and constraints determine the way the job activities (cell 3) are carried out. The organizational results are some product created or service performed by the employee; these outcomes are in the form of a change in data, people, and/or objects (cell 4). These results can be defined in terms of quantity, quality, and time. This model suggests that information (descriptors of jobs) can be collected on the purpose of the job (cell 4), the activities of the job (cell 3), the worker requirements of the job (cell 1), the organizational context of the job (cell 2), and the rewards of the job to the worker (cell 5).

Levels of Analysis

By titling the concept we are discussing job analysis we imply that the unit of analysis is the job. Actually, the level or unit of analysis represents a decision that is worthy of discussion.

The lowest level is employee attributes, the knowledge, skills, and abilities required by the job. Some of the models discussed in the previous section suggested this level of descriptor.

One level up is the element. An element is often considered the smallest division of work activity apart from separate motions, although it may be used to describe singular motions. As such, it is used primarily by industrial engineers.

The next level is the task, a discrete unit of work performed by an individual. A task is a more independent unit of analysis. It consists of a sequence of activities that completes a work assignment. As such it has all the aspects of the model in figure 14-1.

When sufficient tasks accumulate to justify the employment of a worker, a position exists. There are as many positions as employees in an organization.

A job is a group of positions that are identical in their major or significant tasks. The positions that are sufficiently alike, in other words, to justify being covered by a single analysis and description. One or many persons may be employed on the same job.

Jobs found in more than one organization are termed occupations.

Finally, occupations grouped by function are usually referred to as job families.

Obviously, the level or unit of analysis chosen may influence the decision of whether the work is similar or dissimilar. By law (the Equal Pay Act of 1963) if jobs are similar, both sexes must be paid equally; if jobs are different, pay differences may exist.

As suggested in the previous section, the unit of analysis used differs among organizations. Although the procedure is called job analysis, organizations using it may collect data at several levels of analysis. Research has shown that jobs can be similar or dissimilar at different levels of analysis. The more detailed the analysis, the more likely that differences will be found.

METHODS OF OBTAINING JOB INFORMATION

After deciding on descriptors and the level of analysis, the organization must determine which method is to be used to collect job information. Although there are a number of methods of obtaining job information (observation, interviews with job incumbents or experienced personnel and supervisors, structured and non-structured questionnaires, diaries kept by workers, data on critical incidents, and work sampling), they are perhaps best understood if we classify them as (1) conventional procedures, (2) standardized instruments, (3) task inventories, and (4) structured methods.

This classification is only marginally satisfactory. It will be seen that these job analysis methods differ in descriptors, levels of analysis, and methods of collecting, analyzing, and presenting data. We will evaluate these approaches in terms of purpose, descriptor applicability, cost, reliability, and validity. Conventional Procedures

Conventional job analysis programs typically involve collecting job information by observing and/or interviewing job incumbents. Then job descriptions are prepared in essay form. Much of the conventional approach comes from the long experience of the United States Employment Service in analyzing jobs. As mentioned in our discussion of models, the original job analysis formula of the DOL provided for obtaining work activities. The DOL's 1972 revision of this schedule requires the job title, job summary, and description of tasks (these were referred to as work performed in the 1946 formula), as well as other data.

Conventional job analysis treats work activities as the primary job descriptor. As a consequence, the use of the conventional approach by private organizations focuses largely on work activities rather than on the five types of descriptors used in the DOL job analysis schedule (Figure 14-1).

Because job evaluation purports to distinguish jobs on the importance of work activities to the employing organization, this descriptor seems primary. As we noted, in fact, using the DOL's original job analysis formula (what the worker does, how the worker does it, and why the worker does it) may provide reasonable assurance that all the work activities are covered. One of the functions of this model is to require the analyst to seek out the purpose of the work.

In some private use of the conventional approach, worker attributes required by the job are also sought. Ratings of education, training, and experience required may be obtained, as well as information on contacts required, report writing, decisions, and supervision. In part, these categories represent worker attributes, and in part they represent a search for specific work activities.

Some conventional job analysis programs ask job incumbents to complete a preliminary questionnaire describing their jobs. The purpose is to provide the analyst with a first draft of the job information needed. It is also meant to be a first step in obtaining incumbent and supervisor approval of the final job description. Of course, not all employees enjoy filling out questionnaires. Also, employees vary in verbal skills and may overstate or understate their work activities. Usually, the job analyst follows up the questionnaire by interviewing the employee and observing his or her job.

Responsibilities and Duties

We should not leave this section on conventional job analysis techniques without a word about two commonly used terms, responsibilities and duties. While job descriptions are often organized around these concepts, we feel that they are not useful terms in identifying job content. Both terms move the analyst away from thinking about what is done and how. When done well, descriptions of duties and responsibilities describe why work is done adequately. But few of these descriptions do even this well. This leaves the job incumbent with some vague statement about why he or she is doing something, but little knowledge of what it is or how to do it. Determining performance levels is made difficult. And the job evaluator has a collection of words that provide little help in determining the relative worth of jobs in the organization. Adjectives become the main determinant of job level. It is this kind of job description that has lead many personnel directors to decry the futility of job analysis and job descriptions.

Reliability and Validity

Conventional job analysis is subjective. It depends upon the objectivity and analytical ability of the analyst as well as the information provided by job incumbents and other informants. Measuring reliability (consistency) and validity is difficult because the data are nonquantitative. Having two or more individuals analyze the job independently would provide some measure of reliability but would also add to the cost. Perhaps the strongest contributor to both reliability and validity is the common practice of securing acceptance from both job incumbents and supervisors before job descriptions are considered final. Cost is also an issue here.

Costs

Conventional job analysis takes the time of the analyst, job incumbents, and whoever is assigned to ensure consistent analysis and form. In the authors' experience, people with moderate analytical skills can be taught to analyze jobs on the basis of the job analysis formula (what, how, why) in a few hours.

An early survey found some dissatisfaction with conventional job analysis, especially with its costs and with the difficulty of keeping the information current. McCormick's review of job analysis, while concluding that the continued use of conventional methods testifies that they serve some purposes well, suggests more attention to a comprehensive model and more quantification.

As suggested earlier in the chapter, a good deal of research is presently being devoted to job analysis. The work to date suggests to us that work activities represent the primary descriptor in job analysis for job evaluation purposes. However, these data take considerable effort to obtain and are of questionable reliability. It would be desirable to develop a standardized quantitative approach that retains the advantages of conventional job analysis, while permitting a less costly and time-consuming approach.

Standardized Instruments

Quantitative job analysis instruments do exist. The best known is the Position Analysis Questionnaire (PAQ) developed by McCormick and associates at Purdue University. The PAQ is a structured job analysis questionnaire containing 194 items called job elements. These elements are worker-oriented; using the terminology of the DOL's 1972 job analysis formula, we would call them worker behaviors. The items are organized into six divisions: (1) information input, (2) mental processes, (3) work output (physical activities and tools), (4) relationships with others, (5) job context (the physical and social environment), and (6) other job characteristics (such as pace and structure). Each job element is rated on six scales: extent of use, importance, time, possibility of occurrence, applicability, and a special code for certain Jobs.

The PAQ is usually completed by job analysts or supervisors. In some instances managerial, professional, or other white-collar job incumbents fill out the instrument. The reason for such limitations is that the reading requirements of the method are at least at the college-graduate level.
Data from the PAQ can be analyzed in several ways. For a specific job, individual ratings can be averaged to yield the relative importance of and emphasis on various job elements, and the results can be summarized as a job description. The elements can also be clustered into a profile rating on a large number of job dimensions to permit comparison of this job with others. Estimates of employee aptitude requirements can be made. Job evaluation points can be estimated from the items related to pay. Finally, an occupational prestige score can be computed. Analysts can have PAQ data computer-analyzed by sending the completed questionnaire to PAQ Services.

The PAQ has been used for job evaluation, selection, performance appraisal, assessment-center development, determination of job similarity, development of job families, vocational counseling, determination of training needs, and job design.

The PAQ has been shown to have a respectable level of reliability. An analysis of 92 jobs by two independent groups yielded a reliability coefficient of 0.79.

If our earlier analysis of job descriptors is correct, then in spite of the successful use of the PAQ for job evaluation purposes, its use of worker behaviors instead of work activities as descriptors may limit its acceptability to employees. Also its lack of employee involvement, as well as its use of only 9 of the 194 job elements when used in job evaluation may limit its acceptability.

Task Inventories

The task inventory emphasizes work activities. In this approach a list of tasks pertinent to a group of jobs is developed. Then the tasks involved in the job under study are rated on a number of scales by incumbents or supervisors. Finally the ratings are manipulated statistically, usually by computer, and a quantitative job analysis is developed. Actually any method of job analysis, even narrative job descriptions, could be termed a task inventory if an analysis of the data can provide quantitative information from appropriate scales. One example of this type of job analysis is the Comprehensive Occupational Data Analysis Program (CODAP). Undoubtedly the best-known task inventory is the one that has been developed over many years by Raymond E. Christal and his associates for the United States Air Force. The heart of the program is a list of tasks involved in a particular job. After the task list has been prepared by incumbents, supervisors, or experts, incumbents are asked to indicate whether they perform each of the tasks. They are then asked to indicate on a scale the relative amount of time spent in performing each particular task. Other ratings are also obtained, such as training time required and criticality of performance.

The ratings are then summed across all tasks and an estimated percentage of time on each task is derived. The total percentages account for the total job. The relative times are then used to develop a group job description.

Computer programs are used to analyze, organize, and report on data from the task inventory. The programs are designed to provide information for a variety of applications. For example, the CODAP can describe the types of jobs in an occupational area, describe the types of jobs performed by a specified group of workers, compare the work performed at various locations or the work performed by various levels of personnel, and produce job descriptions. The program can process data on 1,700 tasks for each of 20,000 workers.

The CODAP is most useful for large organizations and is relatively costly. The descriptor employed is work activities, and the output of the analysis is the work performed. Worker requirements must be inferred, as in conventional job analysis. Data developed by this method have been used in selection to identify training needs and design training programs, to validate training completion as a training criterion, to restructure jobs, and to classify jobs. The CODAP is used in all branches of the United States military, federal government, and some local governments.

Like most computer-driven systems, the technique is as good as the input. Computer analysis cannot correct for inaccurate or incomplete information. Using trained personnel to develop inventories of specific tasks is therefore a requirement of the method. Given a complete and accurate task inventory, statistical analysis of the distribution of the ratings provides some indications of reliability and validity.

Functional Job Analysis

Functional Job Analysis (FJA) is usually thought of in terms of the familiar "data, people, things" hierarchies used in the Dictionary of Occupational Titles. Developed by Sidney A. Fine and associates, this comprehensive approach has five components: (1) identification of purposes, goals, and objectives, (2) identification and description of tasks, (3) analysis of tasks on seven scales, including three worker-function scales (one each for data, people, and things), (4) development of performance standards, and (5) development of training content.

FJA data are developed by trained job analysts from background materials, interviews with workers and supervisors, and observation. The method provides data for job design, selection, training, and evaluation and could be used at least partially for most other personnel applications. It has been applied to jobs at every level.

The major descriptor in FJA is work activity. A number of task banks have been developed by Fine and his colleagues as a means of standardizing information on this descriptor. FJA is rigorous, but it does require a heavy investment of time and effort.

JOB ANALYSTS

Employees, supervisors, and job analysts perform the tasks of collecting and analyzing job information. Job incumbents have the most complete and accurate information, but getting this information and making the results consistent requires attention to data-collection methods. Also, employee acceptance of the results is a priority, and employee involvement in data collection and analysis tends to promote this.

Supervisors may or may not know the jobs of their subordinates well enough to be useful sources of job information. If they do know the jobs well enough, a great deal of time and money can be saved.

Job analysts have been trained to collect job information. They know what to look for and what questions to ask. They also know how to standardize the information and the language employed. People with various educational backgrounds have been trained as job analysts. Most organizations train their own job analysts by having them work with experienced analysts. Experience suggests that limited training suffices to provide these skills.

Some organizations place new personnel staff as job analysts as an early assignment. This approach permits new incumbents to learn something about the organization's work and provides a pool of trained analysts.

When supervisors and job incumbents are used in job analysis, some training is required. As repeatedly emphasized, involvement by employees and supervisors increases the usefulness and acceptance of the data and personnel process which use these data.

Ideally, the increased interest in job analysis mentioned previously will result in methods that will make job analysis easier for all involved. In the meantime, the more people who can analyze jobs consistently and accurately, the better the personnel decisions based on the information thus obtained will be.

JOB DESCRIPTIONS

Regardless of who collects job information and how they do it, the end-product of job analysis is a standardized job description. A job description describes the job as it is being performed. In a sense, a job description is a snapshot of the job as of the time it was analyzed. Ideally they are written so that any reader, whether familiar or not with the job, can "see" what the worker does, how, and why. What the worker does describes the physical, mental, and interact ional activities of the job. How deals with the methods, procedures, tools, and information sources used to carry out the tasks. Why refers to the objective of the work activities; this should be included in the job summary and in each task description.

An excellent set of prescriptions of writing style for job descriptions is offered by the Handbook for Analyzing Jobs. These include a terse, direct style; present tense; an active verb beginning each task description and the summary statement; an objective for each task, and no unnecessary or fuzzy words. The handbook also suggests how the basic task statement should be structured: (1) present-tense active verb, (2) immediate object of the verb, (3) infinitive phrase showing the objective. An example would be: (1) collects, (2) credit information, (3) to determine credit rating.

Unfortunately, many words have more than one meaning. Perhaps the easiest way to promote accurate job description writing is to select only active verbs that permit the reader to see someone actually doing something.

Sections

Conventional job descriptions typically include three broad categories of information: (1) identification, (2) work performed, and (3) performance requirements.

The identification section distinguishes the job under study from other jobs. Obviously industry and company size are needed to describe the organization, and a job title is actually used to identify the job. The number of incumbents is useful, as well as a job number if such a system is used.

The work-performed section usually beings with a job summary that describes the purpose and content of the job. The summary is followed by an orderly series of paragraphs that describe each of the tasks. Job analysts tend to write the summary statement after completing the work-performed section. They find that the flag statements for the various tasks provide much of the material for the summary statement.

The balance of the work-performed section presents from three to eight tasks in chronological order or in order of the time taken by the task. Each task is introduced by a flag statement that shows generally what is being done followed by a detailed account of what, how, and why it is done. Each task is followed by the percentage of total job time it requires.

The performance-requirements section sets out the worker attributes required by the job. This section is called the job specification. Job descriptions used for job evaluation may or may not include this section. An argument can be made that worker attributes must be inferred from work activities. This would require the job analyst to not only collect and analyze job information but also make judgments about job difficulty.

Managerial job descriptions

Managerial job descriptions differ from non-managerial job descriptions in what are called scope data. For example, financial and organizational data are used to locate managerial jobs in the hierarchy. The identification section of managerial job descriptions is usually more elaborate and may include the reporting level and the functions of jobs supervised directly and indirectly. The number of people directly and indirectly supervised may be included, as well as department budgets and payrolls. The work-performed section of managerial job descriptions, like that of non-managerial job descriptions, includes the major tasks, but gives special attention to organization objectives. Writers of managerial job descriptions need to remember that "is responsible for?.." does not tell the reader what the manager does.

Careful writing is a requirement of good job descriptions. The words used should have only one possible connotation and must accurately describe what is being done. Terms should not only be specific but should also employ language that is as simple as possible.

Obviously, when job descriptions are written by different analysts, coordination and consistency are essential. These are usually provided by having some central agency edit the job descriptions.

For two examples of job descriptions, see Figures 14-3 and 14-4.

Figure 14-3 Non-managerial Job Description
JOB TITLE: Sales Clerk JOB SUMMARY: Serves customers, receives and straightens stock, and inspects dressing rooms. TASKS
1.	Serves customers to make sales and to provide advice: Observes customers entering store, approaches them and asks to help, locates desired articles of clothing, and guides customers to dressing rooms. Decides when to approach customers and which articles of clothing to suggest. Sometimes gets suggestions from other sales clerks or supervisor. Rings up purchases on cash register and takes cash or check or processes credit card. Decides whether check or credit-card acceptance is within store policy. (80%)
2.	Receives and arranges stock to attractively exhibit merchandise: Unpacks boxes, counts items, and compares with purchase orders. Reports discrepancies to supervisor. Arranges and inspects new and old merchandise on racks and counters. Removes damaged goods and changes inventory figures. Decides where to place items in the store, within guidelines of supervisor. Twice a year helps with taking inventory by counting and recording merchandise. (15%)
3.	Inspects dressing rooms to keep them neat and discourage shoplifting: Walks through dressing area periodically, collecting clothing left or not desired. Remains alert to attempts to shoplift clothing from dressing area. Decides when security needs to be called in. Re-hangs merchandise on sales floor. (5%)

Figure 14-4 Managerial Job Description
JOB TITLE: Branch Bank Manager JOB SUMMARY: Promotes bank in community and supervises branch operations and lending activities. TASKS
1.	Promotes bank services in the community to increase total assets of the bank: Engages in and keeps track of community activities, both commercial and social. Identifies potential customers in community. Analyzes potential customer needs and prospects, plans sales presentation, and meets with potential customers to persuade them to use bank services. (40%)
2.	Supervises branch operation to minimize cost of operation while providing maximum service: Plans work activity of the branch. Communicates instructions to subordinate supervisors. Observes branch activity. Discusses problems with employees and decides or helps employees decide course of action. Coordinates branch activities with main office. Performs personnel activities of hiring, evaluating, rewarding, training, and disciplining employees and financial activities of budgeting and reviewing financial reports. (35%)
3.	Evaluates and processes loan requests to increase revenues of the bank: Reviews and analyzes loan requests for risk. Seeks further information as appropriate. Approves (or denies) requests that fall within branch lending limits. Prepares reports to accompany other loan requests to bank loan committee. Keeps up with changes in bank lending policy, financial conditions, and community needs. (25%)

JOB EVALUATION

While job analysis describes the job, job evaluation develops a plan for comparing jobs in terms of those things the organization considers important determinants of job worth.

Determinants of Job Status

The next step in job evaluation is to determine what the organization is "paying for" � what aspects of jobs place one job higher in the job hierarchy than another job. These yardsticks are called compensable factors.

In the previous chapter we suggested that the job information needed for job evaluation consists of work activities and worker requirements. But what aspect or aspects of work activities and/or which worker requirements are to be used? The choice of yardstick will strongly influence where a job is placed in the hierarchy.

We also noted in the first part of this chapter that some methods of job analysis require analysts to describe jobs in terms of pre-selected factors. This practice seems to assign to job analysts not only the analysis but the evaluation of jobs. A legitimate question is whether this combination of information gathering and evaluation may introduce bias to job evaluation.

Whole-Job Methods

Some job evaluation methods (to be described later) are classified as whole-job methods, implying that compensable factors are not used because "whole jobs" are being compared. If this means that one broad-based factor rather than several narrower factors is employed, no problem occurs. But if whole-job means that jobs can be compared without specifying the basis of comparison, the result may be a different basis of comparison for each evaluator. If this reasoning is correct, then useful job evaluation must always utilize one or more compensable factors.

Compensable Factors

To be useful in comparing jobs, compensable factors should possess certain characteristics. First, they must be present in all jobs. Second, the factor must vary in degree. A factor found in equal amounts in all jobs would be worthless as a basis of comparison. Third, if two or more factors are chosen, they should not overlap in meaning. If they do overlap, double weight may be given to one factor. Fourth, employer, employee, and union viewpoints should be reflected in the factors chosen; consideration of all viewpoints is critical for acceptance. Fifth, compensable factors must be demonstrably derived from the work performed.

The factors must be observable in the jobs. For this reason responsibility is a hard factor to use. Compensable factors can be thought of as the job-related contributions of employees. Documentation of the work-relatedness of factors comes from job descriptions. Such documentation provides evidence against allegations of illegal pay discrimination. It also provides answers to employees, managers, and union leaders who raise questions about differences among jobs.

Finally, compensable factors need to fit the organization. Organizations design jobs to meet their goals and to fit their technology, culture, and values.

Job evaluation plans vary in the number of factors they employ. Nine to eleven factors are not unusual, but single-factor plans also exist. Jaques' Time Span of Discretion (the time before sub marginal performance becomes evident) may be considered a single-factor plan, although Jacques insists that it represents measurement. Charles's single-factor plan is based on problem solving. Patterson's decision-band method is another single-factor plan.

Methods of Determining Compensable Factors

Many organizations adopt standard job evaluation plans and thus the factors on which they are based are predetermined. Perhaps more organizations adjust existing plans to their own requirements. The factors in most existing plans tend to fall into four broad categories: skills required, required effort, responsibilities, and working conditions. These factors are used in numerous job evaluation plans. They are also the factors written into the Equal Pay Act of 1963 and used to define equal work.
Definitions and divisions of these factors vary greatly. Years of education required by the job is a common definition of skill, as is experience required. Skill is likewise often divided into mental and manual skills. In this way, a job evaluation plan may be tailored to the needs of the organization.

In most job evaluation plans the factors are chosen by a committee, as described in chapter 13. Broad representation on the committee helps to insure acceptance of the factors chosen.

One of the best-known job evaluation plans, the National Electrical Manufacturers (NEMA) plan, was designed by a group of 25 experienced people who knew much about the jobs to be evaluated. These people were asked to review the job descriptions of 50 key jobs and to list all the job characteristics, requirements, and conditions that in their opinion should be considered in evaluating the jobs. The group came up with 90 job attributes, which were finally reduced to 11 within the four broad categories just mentioned.

Perhaps the best-known union-management job evaluation plan (the Steel Plan) was developed by a committee of union and management representatives. Such joint determination of compensable factors is presently being used in the communication and utilities industries. Employee acceptance of factors tends to be enhanced by their involvement in determining them.

Some job evaluation plans determine compensable factors statistically from quantitative job analysis. For example, the factors in the Position Analysis Questionnaire (PAQ) used for job evaluation were obtained by finding those elements most closely related to pay. Statistical techniques may help ensure that the factors chosen are related to the work and are legally defensible. But factors derived statistically are not always accepted by employees as applicable to their jobs.

Use of the Managerial Position Description Questionnaire at Control Data Corporation resulted in eight factors derived by statistical analysis. The managers, however, did not believe that the factors reflected their jobs. Only after those factors were merged with factors developed by committee judgment were they accepted, even though both sets resulted in the same job structure. The major advantage of the statistical approach is that it can determine how reliably the factors measure the jobs; however, the funds and the expertise needed to conduct statistical analysis are not always available. The committee or the questionnaire approach may yield equally useful compensable factors if based on adequate job descriptions.

NUMBER OF PLANS

Whether to employ a single plan to evaluate all the organization's jobs or a separate plan for each of several job families must also be decided. There is a strong tendency for organizations, especially large ones, to use multiple plans. Using different compensable factors for different job families may be justified in several ways. The organization may be paying for different things in different job groups. Also, the wages of different job families do not always move together and in equal amounts.

Equally important, Livernash has shown that job-content comparisons are strongest within narrow job clusters and weakest among broad job clusters. Employees in the same job family are likely to make job comparisons. Job relationships are likely to be influenced by custom and tradition, as well as by promotion and transfer sequences.

For all these reasons, organizations commonly have separate job evaluation plans for different functional groups (for example: production jobs, clerical jobs, professional and technical jobs, and management jobs).

There is evidence that equal employment opportunity rules are causing organizations to reexamine their choice of single or multiple plans. Obviously, comparing all jobs within an organization for evidence of discrimination based on sex or race suggests employing a single plan. The National Academy of Sciences study for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission argued strongly in its interim report (but not the final report) for a single plan for the organization.

Although a number of organizations are opting for a single plan, defining compensable factors that are applicable to all jobs and acceptable to employees is difficult. As a consequence, there may be a growing tendency for organizations to use fewer plans keyed to job groups whose incumbents are balanced by gender and race. One alternative would be (1) a plan for service or production and maintenance jobs paid primarily for physical skills, (2) a plan for office and technical jobs paid primarily for mental skills, and (3) a plan for exempt jobs (managerial and professional) paid primarily for discretionary skills.

Another possible approach is a common set of compensable factors used along with a set of factors unique to particular functional areas. The latter tend to make the plan more acceptable to employees and managers. Where more than one job evaluation plan is used and questions of bias are raised, it is common to evaluate the job in question with other plans and compare results. Organizations that employ more than one job evaluation plan should identify a series of jobs that can be evaluated on two plans to ensure consistency of results across plans.

It is still usual for organizations to have more than one job evaluation plan. The plan may have quite different factors or merely different definitions for the same factors. In the former case, factors such as responsibility and decision making are used for executive jobs, physical demands and skills for manual jobs, and accuracy and amount of supervision for clerical and technical jobs. The rationale for different plans for different job families is that the organizations pay for different things in different job families.

A number of plans are designed to evaluate all the jobs in an organization. Elizur's Scaling Method of Job Evaluation is one such method. It reportedly has the additional advantage of meeting the requirements of a Guttman scale. The Factor Evaluation System (FES) developed for federal pay grades 1-15 can also be considered a total organizational plan. Such plans can be expected to become increasingly popular, in view of the conclusion of a National Science Foundation study that they permit the job comparisons needed to eliminate pay discrimination.
An apparently increasingly popular job evaluation technique is to use a standardized job analysis questionnaire. For example, the Position Analysis Questionnaire (PAQ) discussed in the previous chapter, has been used in numerous organizations for policy capturing the job dimensions by regressing them against wage rates for jobs. Although only nine of the PAQ elements are typically used for job evaluation, they are very similar to those found in traditional plans. Nationwide Insurance developed a job-content questionnaire and used it in this way. Pact, Inc., of Glendale, California, has developed a comprehensive questionnaire called EvaluRate. The Management Position Description Questionnaire (MPDQ) has been used as a job evaluation plan in a number of organizations. Interestingly, however, Gomez-Mejia, Page, and Tornow found with 657 positions that traditional job evaluation systems were at least as valid and more accepted by supervisors and job incumbents.

The expanding use of computers has undoubtedly encouraged such plans. One consultant (Newpher and Company of Oakbrook, Illinois) offers a standardized job analysis questionnaire with 100 variables and a choice of four job evaluation plans derived from the database provided.

Some job evaluation plans actually rely almost entirely on labor-market information. The guideline method of job evaluation, for example, collects market-pay information on a large proportion of the organization's jobs and compares the "market rate" with a schedule of pay grades constructed on 5 percent intervals. The schedules include midpoints and ranges of 30 to 60 percent. Job evaluation consists of matching market rates to the closest midpoint. Adjustments of one or two grades may be made to accommodate internal relationships. Key jobs are placed into grades and the remaining jobs positioned by comparison with them.

METHODS

The next step in the job evaluation process is to select or design a method of evaluating jobs. Four basic methods have traditionally been said to describe most of the numerous job evaluation systems: ranking, classification, factor comparison, and the point plan. The dimensions that distinguish these methods are (1) qualitative versus quantitative, (2) job-to-job versus job-to-standard comparison, and (3) consideration of total job versus separate factors that when summed make up the job. These four methods as listed here, may be thought of as increasing in specificity of comparison. Ranking involves creating a hierarchy of jobs by comparing jobs on a global factor that presumably combines all parts of the job. The classification method defines categories of jobs and slots jobs into these classes. Factor comparison involves job-to job comparisons on several specific factors. The point method compares jobs on rating scales of specific factors.

These four basic methods are pure types. In practice there are numerous combinations. Also, there are (as mentioned) many ready-made plans as well as numerous adaptations of these plans to specific organization needs. The following sections describe these basic plans and provide some examples.

JOB RANKING

As its name implies, this method ranks the jobs in an organization from highest to lowest. It is the simplest of the job evaluation methods and the easiest to explain. Another advantage is that it usually takes less time and so is less expensive.

Its primary disadvantage is that its use of adjacent ranks suggests that there are equal differences between jobs, which is very unlikely. Other disadvantages stem from the way the method is often used. For example, ranking can be done without first securing good job descriptions. This approach can succeed only if evaluators know all the jobs, which is virtually impossible in an organization with many jobs or with frequently changing jobs.

Another disadvantage is that rankers are asked to keep the "whole job" in mind and merely rank the jobs. This undoubtedly results in different bases of comparison among raters. It also permits raters, whether they realize it or not, to be influenced by such factors as present pay rates, competence of job incumbents, and prestige of the job. This difficulty can be overcome by selecting and defining one or more compensable factors and asking raters to use them as bases of job comparison. Even then, unfortunately, factor definitions are often so general that rankings are highly subjective.

If the ranking method is used in accordance with the process described in the next section, it may yield the advantages cited and minimize the disadvantages. Developing a job ranking consists of the following steps:

1.		Obtain Job Information. As we have noted, the first step in job evaluation is job analysis. Job descriptions are prepared, or secured if already available.

2.		Select Raters and Jobs to Be Rated. Raters who will attempt to make unbiased judgments are selected and trained in the rating procedure. Less training is required for ranking than for other methods of job evaluation. If job descriptions are available, it is unnecessary to select as raters only those people who know all the jobs well; this is probably impossible anyway except in very small organizations. If all the jobs in the organization are to be ranked, it may be wise to start with key jobs. Another approach is to rank jobs by department and later combine the rankings.

3.		Select Compensable Factor(s). Although ranking is referred to as a "whole-job" approach, different raters may use different attributes to rank jobs. If judgments are to be comparable, compensable factors must be selected and defined. Even as broad a factor as job difficulty or importance is sufficient, so long as it is carefully defined in operational terms. Seeing that raters understand the factors on which jobs are to be compared will help ensure that rankings are made on that factor.

4.		Rank Jobs. Although straight ranking is feasible for a limited number of jobs (20 or less), alternation ranking or paired comparison tends to produce more consistent results. Straight ranking involves ordering cards (one for each job) on which job titles or short job briefs have been written. In case more information is needed by raters, it is useful to have the actual job description at hand. Alternation ranking provides raters with a form on which a list of job titles to be ranked are recorded at the left and an equal number of blanks appear at the right. The raters are asked to record at the top of the right-hand column the job title they adjudge the highest, and cross out that title in the list to the left. Then they record the lowest job in the bottom blank and the remaining jobs in between, crossing out the job titles from the left-hand list along the way. In paired comparison, raters compare all possible pairs of jobs. One way to do this is with a pack of cards on which job titles have been recorded, as in straight ranking. Raters compare each pair of jobs at least once. The card of the job adjudged higher is checked after each comparison. After all comparisons have been made, the raters list the jobs, starting with the job with the most check marks and ending with the job with the least. A similar approach is to use a matrix like the one in Figure 14-5. For each cell in the matrix, the raters provide a check if the job listed on the left is higher than its counterpart on the top. The number of times a job is checked (tabulated in the "Total" column on the right) indicates its rank. Although this method of comparing pairs of jobs is less cumbersome, the number of comparisons increases rapidly with the number of jobs. The number of comparisons may be computed as (n)(n � 1) ÷ 2.

5.		Combine Ratings. It is advisable to have several raters rank the jobs independently. Their rankings are then averaged, yielding a composite ranking that is sufficiently accurate.

Although job ranking is usually assumed to be applicable primarily to small organizations, it has been used in large firms as well. Computers make it possible to use paired comparison for any number of raters, jobs, and even factors. But the other disadvantages remain. Unless job ranking is based on good job descriptions and at least one carefully defined factor, it is difficult to explain and justify in work-related terms. Although the job hierarchy developed by ranking may be better than paying no attention at all to job relationships, the method's simplicity and low cost may produce results of less than the needed quality.

Job Classification

The classification method involves defining a number of classes or grades of jobs and fitting jobs into them. It would be like sorting books among a series of carefully labeled shelves in a bookcase. The primary task is to describe each of the classes so that no difficulty is experienced in fitting each job into its proper niche. Jobs are then classified by comparing each job with the class description provided.

Advantages

The major advantage of this method is that most organizations and employees tend to classify jobs. It may therefore be relatively easy to secure agreement about the classification of most jobs. The classification method also promotes thinking about job classes among both managers and employees. If jobs are thought of as belonging in a certain grade, many problems of compensation administration become easier to solve. In fact most organizations classify jobs into grades to ease the task of building and operating pay structures. When jobs are placed into grades or classes subsequent to job evaluation by any method (or even by informal decision) those grades often become the major focus of compensation administration. When jobs change or new jobs emerge, they may be placed in the job structure by decision or negotiation. It may be necessary to use formal job evaluation only infrequently, if agreement cannot be reached without it.

Perhaps the greatest advantage of the method is its flexibility. Although classification is usually said to be most useful for organizations with relatively few jobs, it has long been used successfully by the largest organization in the world, the United States government. In fact, it is the primary job evaluation method of most levels of government in the United States, as well as of many large private organizations. In these organizations, millions of kinds and levels of jobs have been classified successfully.

Advocates of classification hold that job evaluation by any method involves much judgment. They also believe that classification can be applied flexibly to all kinds and levels of jobs, while being sufficiently precise to achieve management and employee acceptance, as well as organization purposes. Although the federal government adopted the Factor Evaluation System (a point-factor method, discussed later) in 1975 as an easier way of assigning jobs to GS grades 1-15, many local governments continue to use the classification method.

Disadvantages

Disadvantages of classification include (1) the difficulty of writing grade level descriptions and (2) the judgment required in applying them. Because the classification method considers the job as a whole, compensable factors, although used in class descriptions, are unweighted and unscored. This means that the factors have equal weight, and a little of one may be balanced by much of another. Terms that express the degree of compensable factors in jobs are depended on to distinguish one grade from another. It is quite possible that a given grade could include some jobs requiring high skill and other jobs requiring little skill but carrying heavy responsibility.

It is even possible under the federal classification system for a job to fit into one grade on one factor but a different grade on another. In fact, the system employs both the use of higher levels of a factor and additional factors in descriptions of higher grades. These features cause little trouble because of the federal career system. But private organizations would probably have trouble justifying and gaining acceptance of such results.

Steps

Classification methods customarily employ a number of compensable factors. These typically emphasize the difficulty of the work but also include performance requirements. The terms used in grade descriptions to distinguish differing amounts of compensable factors necessarily require judgment. For example, distinguishing between simple, routine, varied, and complex work and between limited, shared, and independent judgment is not automatic. While the judgment involved in such distinctions may produce the flexibility just cited as an advantage, it may also encourage managers to use inflated language in job descriptions and job titles to manipulate the classification of jobs. Developing a job classification system requires these steps:

1.		Obtain Job Information. If it is to function properly, classification, like all other job evaluation methods, must start with job analysis. A description is developed for each job. Sometimes key jobs are analyzed first and their descriptions used in developing grade descriptions; then the other jobs are analyzed and graded.

2.		Select Compensable Factors. Job descriptions are reviewed to distill factors that distinguish jobs at different levels. This is often done by selecting key jobs at various levels of the organization, ranking them, and seeking the factors that distinguish them. Obviously, the factors must be acceptable to management and employees.

3.		Determine the Number of Classes. The number of classes selected depends upon tradition, job diversity, and the promotion policies of the organization. Organizations tend to follow similar organizations in this decision. Those favoring more classes argue that more grades mean more promotions and employees approve of this. Those favoring fewer classes argue that fewer grades permit more management flexibility and a simpler pay structure. Obviously, diversity in the work and organization size increases the need for more classes.

4.		Develop Class Descriptions. This is a matter of defining classes in sufficient detail to permit raters to readily slot jobs. Usually this is done by describing levels of compensable factors that apply to the jobs in a class. Often, titles of benchmark jobs are used as examples of jobs that fall into a grade. Writing grade descriptions is more difficult if one set of classes is developed for the entire organization, than if separate class hierarchies are developed for different occupational groups. More specific class description eases the task of slotting jobs, but also limits the number of jobs that fit into a class. A committee is usually assigned the writing of class descriptions. It is often useful to write the descriptions of the two extreme grades first, then those of the others.

5.		Classify Jobs. The committee charged with writing grade descriptions is often also assigned the task of classifying jobs. This involves comparing job descriptions with class descriptions. The result is a series of classes, each containing a number of jobs that are similar to one another. The jobs in each class are considered to be sufficiently similar to have the same pay. Jobs in other classes are considered dissimilar enough to have different pay. Classification systems have been used more in government organizations than in private ones. Most are designed to cover a wide range of jobs and are based on the assumption that jobs will be relatively stable in content. Although classification tends to produce more defensible and acceptable job structures than ranking, it may substitute flexibility for precision. It is easy to understand and communicate, but its results are non-quantitative.

FACTOR COMPARISON

This method, as the name implies, compares jobs on several factors to obtain a numerical value for each job and to arrive at a job structure. Thus it may be classified as a quantitative method.

Factor comparison itself is not widely used: it probably represents less than 10 percent of the installations of job evaluation plans. But the concepts on which it is based are incorporated in numerous job evaluation plans, including the one that is probably used the most, the Hay Plan.

Factor comparison involves judging which jobs contain more of certain compensable factors. Jobs are compared with each other (as in the ranking method), but on one factor at a time. The judgments permit construction of a comparison scale of key jobs against which other jobs may be compared. The compensable factors used are usually (1) mental requirements, (2) physical requirements, (3) skill requirements, (4) responsibility, and (5) working conditions. These are considered to be universal factors found in all jobs. This means that one job-comparison scale for all jobs in the organization may be constructed, and this practice is often followed upon installation of factor comparison. However, separate job-comparison scales can be developed for different functional groups, and other factors can be employed.

Factor-comparison concepts employed in other job evaluation plans should be noted. Job-ranking plans that use two or more compensable factors and weighting them differently are essentially factor-comparison plans. The practice of assigning factor weights statistically on the basis of market rates and the ranking of jobs on the factors employs a factor-comparison concept. The use of universal factors in the Hay plan and a step called profiling (to be discussed later) are factor-comparison ideas. Finally, the use of job titles as examples of factor levels in other job evaluation plans is a factor-comparison concept.

Advantages

A major advantage of factor comparison is that it requires a custom-built installation in each organization. Such a plan may result in a better fit with the organization. Another advantage, according to its developers, is that comparable results accrue whether the plan is installed by management, employee representatives, or a consultant. The type of job comparisons utilized by the method is another advantage. Since relative job values are the results sought, comparing jobs with other jobs seems logical. Limiting the number of factors may be another advantage in that this tends to reduce the possibility of overlap and the consequent overweighting of factors.

Still another advantage would seem to be the job-comparison scale. Once employees, union representatives, and managers have been trained in the use of the scale, visual as well as numerical job comparisons are easily made. The use of a monetary unit in the basic method has the advantage of resulting in a wage structure as well as a job structure, thus eliminating the pricing step required in other plans. It is questionable, however, whether this advantage offsets the disadvantage of possible bias introduced by monetary units.

Disadvantages

One disadvantage of the method is its use of "universal" factors. Although, as mentioned it is quite possible for an organization to develop its own compensable factors, factor comparison uses factors with common definitions for all jobs. This means using the same factors for all job families.

The definition of key jobs may be another disadvantage. A major criterion of a key job in factor comparison is the essential correctness of its pay rate. Since key jobs form the basis of the job-comparison scale, the usefulness of the scale depends on the anchor points represented by these jobs. But jobs change, sometimes imperceptibly. When jobs change and when wage rates change over time, the scale must be rebuilt accordingly. Otherwise users are basing their decisions on what might be described as a warped ruler.

The use of monetary units may represent a disadvantage if, as is likely, raters are influenced by whether a job is high-paid or low-paid. An unnecessary possibility of bias would seem to be present when raters use the absolute value of jobs to determine their relative position in the hierarchy.

Finally, the complexity of factor comparison may be a serious disadvantage. Its many complicated steps make it difficult to explain and thus affect its acceptance.

The Basic Method

Several variations in the basic method of factor comparison have appeared in response to one or more of these disadvantages. Understanding these modifications requires an understanding of the basic method. For that reason, it is discussed first.

1.		Analyze Jobs. As in other job evaluation methods, the first step is to secure job information. Sometimes only key jobs are analyzed prior to construction of the job-comparison scale. But all jobs to be evaluated are eventually subjected to job analysis. Job descriptions are written in terms of the five universal factors. Note that the factors and their definitions govern the job description. For this reason, the organization will want to determine if its jobs can be described in these terms. It will do this by analyzing some key jobs and deriving compensable factors.

2.		Select Key/Jobs. With job information at hand, the job evaluation committee selects 15 to 25 key jobs. This step is critical because the entire method is based upon these jobs. The major criterion for selection, as we have noted, is the essential correctness of the wage rate. However, the jobs should represent the entire range of jobs to be evaluated and be stable in content.

3.		Rank Key Jobs. Next, key jobs are ranked on each of the five factors. Committee members individually rank the jobs, then meet as a committee to determine composite ranks. These jobs are called tentative key jobs. They remain tentative until they are eliminated in later steps or become "true" key jobs.

4.		Distribute Wage Rates Across Factors. The next step is to decide for each key job how much of its wage rate should be allocated to each factor. This should be done individually and the results merged into one committee allocation.

5.		Compare Vertical and Horizontal Judgments. This involves crosschecking the judgments in steps 3 and 4. If a key job is assigned the same position in both comparisons, the judgments reinforce each other. If they do not, that job is not a true key job. Making this comparison may involve ranking the money distribution as well, and then comparing the two ranks. This table identifies jobs that are not true key jobs and that will therefore be eliminated from the scale; and it indicates adjustments in the money distribution that would permit sufficient similarity in rankings to retain a job as a benchmark.

6.		Construct the Job-Comparison Scale. The job comparison scale incorporates the corrected money distribution allocations to the key jobs (For an example, see Figure 14-6).

7.		Use the Job-Comparison Scale to Evaluate the Remainder of the Jobs. This is done by comparing the job descriptions of nonkey jobs, one factor at a time, with jobs on the scale to determine the relative position. The evaluated wage for each nonkey job is the sum of the allocations to the five factors. Once evaluated, a nonkey job becomes another benchmark to use in evaluating the balance of the jobs.

Variations of the Basic Method

We have seen that factor comparison concepts are used in other job evaluation plans. The potential bias from the use of dollar-and-cent units, for example, has been met by multiplying monetary values by some constant, resulting in points.

The Percentage Method

This is a more fundamental modification of basic factor comparison. It meets the disadvantage of monetary units and may be used in case of doubt about the corrections of wage rates for key jobs. The percentage method employs vertical and horizontal comparisons of key jobs on factors, as does the basic method. In fact, the two methods are identical in their first three steps. At this point percentages are assigned to the vertical rankings by dividing 100 points on each factor among the key jobs in accordance with their ranks. The money distribution in the basic method becomes a horizontal ranking of the importance of factors in each job. This ranking is also translated into percentages by dividing 100 points among the factors in accordance with their ranks. Comparison of vertical and horizontal percentages involves expressing each percentage as a proportion of a common base. Then either the horizontal or the vertical percentage for each factor in each job, or an average of the two, forms the basis of the job-comparison scale. In practice, the percentages recorded in the scale are usually adjusted from a table of equal-appearing intervals of 15 percent. Hay, who developed the percentage method, argued that 15 percent differences are the minimum observable in job evaluation. The job-comparison scale in the percentage method is a ratio scale (equal distances represent equal percentages), but is used in the same way as in the basic method.

Profiling

A profile is a distribution in percentage terms of the importance of factors in a job. 100 percentage points are distributed in accordance with their horizontal rankings. This distribution is used like the percentage method already described.

The Use of Existing Wage Rates to Weight Factors

This can now be considered a concept derived from basic factor comparison. The well-known Steel Plan, for example, was developed by deriving factor (and degree) weights statistically by correlating job rankings by factors with existing wage rates of key jobs.

The Hay Guide Chart-Profile Method

Undoubtedly the best-known variation of factor comparison, this plan is reportedly used by more than 4,000 profit and nonprofit organizations in some 30 countries. It is described by the Hay Group (a team of management consultants) as a form of factor comparison for the following reasons: it uses universal factors, bases job values on 15 percent intervals, and makes job-to-job comparisons. The plan is tailored to the organization. Profiling is used to adjust the guide charts and to check on the evaluation of jobs. The plan may be used for all types of jobs and is increasingly used for all jobs in an organization.

The universal factors in the Hay plan are know-how, problem solving, and accountability. These three factors are broken down into eight dimensions. Know-how (skill) involves (1) procedures and techniques, (2) breadth of management skills, and (3) person-to-person skills. The two dimensions of problem solving are (1) thinking environment and (2) thinking challenge. Accountability has three dimensions: (1) freedom to act, (2) impact on results, and (3) magnitude. A fourth factor, working conditions, is sometimes used for jobs in which hazards, environment, or physical demands are deemed important.

The heart of the Hay Plan is its guide charts use of 15 percent intervals. Although these charts appear to be two-dimension point scales, the Hay Group insists that, except for the problem-solving scale they may be expanded to reflect the size and complexity of the organization. It also states that the definitions of the factors are modified as appropriate to meet the needs of the organization.

Profiling is used to develop the relationship among the three scales and to provide an additional comparison with the points assigned from the guide charts. Jobs are assumed to have characteristic shapes or profiles in terms of problem-solving and accountability requirements. Sales and production jobs, for example, emphasize accountability over problem solving. Research jobs emphasize problem solving more than accountability. Typically, staff jobs tend to equate the two.

Installation consists of (1) studying the organization and selecting and adjusting guide charts, (2) selecting a sample of benchmark jobs covering all levels and functions, (3) analyzing jobs and writing job descriptions in terms of the three universal factors, (4) selecting a job evaluation committee consisting of line and staff managers, a personnel department representative, often employees, and a Hay consultant, and (5) evaluating benchmark jobs and then all other jobs.

Point values from the three guide charts are added, yielding a single point value for each job. Profiles are then constructed and compared on problem solving and accountability, as an additional evaluation.

Note that the Hay plan is independent of the market. Also an organization using the plan must rely heavily on an outside consultant for both installation and maintenance.

POINT-FACTOR METHOD

The point-factor method, or point plan, involves rating each job on several compensable factors and adding the scores on each factor to obtain a point total for a job. A carefully worded rating scale is constructed for each compensable factor. This rating scale includes a definition of the factor, several divisions called degrees (also carefully defined), and a point score for each degree. The rating scales may be thought of as a set of rulers used to measure jobs.

Designing a point plan is complex, but once designed the plan is relatively simple to understand and use. Numerous ready-made plans developed by consultants and associations exist. Existing plans are often modified to fit the organization.

Advantages

Probably the major advantage of the point method is the stability of the rating scales. Once the scales are developed, they may be used for a considerable period. Only major changes in the organization demand a change in scales. Job changes do not require changing scales. Also, point plans increase in accuracy and consistency with use. Because point plans are based on compensable factors adjudged to apply to the organization, acceptance of the results is likely. Factors chosen can be those that the parties deem important. Point plans facilitate the development of job classes or grades. They also facilitate job pricing and the development of pay structures.

Carefully developed point plans facilitate job rating. Factor and degree definitions can greatly simplify the task of raters.

Disadvantages

As mentioned, developing a point plan is complex. There are no universal factors, so these must be developed. Then degree statements must be devised for each of the factors chosen. All this takes time and money. Further, point plans take time to install. Each job must be rated on the scale for each factor, usually by several raters, and the results must be summarized and agreed to. Considerable clerical work is involved in recording and collating all these ratings. Much of this time and cost, however, can be reduced by using a ready-made plan.

Steps

The steps in building a point-factor plan are as follows:

Analyze Jobs. As in all other job evaluation methods, this step comes first. All jobs may be analyzed at this point, or merely a sample of benchmark jobs to be used to design the plan. A job description is written for each job analyzed.

Select Compensable Factors. When job information is available, compensable factors are selected. Although the yardsticks on which jobs are to be compared are important in all job evaluation methods, they are especially important in the point-factor method. Because a number of factors are used, they must be the ones for which the organization is paying.

Define Compensable Factors. Factors must be defined in sufficient detail to permit raters to use them as yardsticks to evaluate jobs. Such definitions are extremely important because the raters will be referring to them often during their evaluations. When the factors chosen are specific to the organization, the task of defining them is less difficult. Also, it is often argued that definitions may be more precise when the plan is developed for one job family or function. There seems to be a growing tendency to define factors in more detail. See figure 14-7 for an example.

Determine and Define Factor Degrees. As we have noted, the rating scale for each factor consists of divisions called degrees. Determining these degrees would be like determining the inch marks on a ruler. It is necessary first to decide the number of divisions, then to ensure that they are equally spaced or represent known distances, and finally to see that they are carefully defined. The number of degrees depends on the actual range of the factors in the jobs. If, for example, working conditions are seen to be identical for most jobs, and if jobs that differ from the norm have very similar working conditions, then it is sufficient to have no degrees. If, on the other hand, seven or even more degrees are discernible, that number of degrees is specified.

A major problem in determining degrees is to make each degree equidistant from the two adjacent degrees. This problem is solved in part by selecting the number of degrees actually found to exist and in part by careful definition of degrees. Decision rules such as the following are useful:

1. Limit degrees to the number necessary to distinguish between the jobs.

2. Use terminology that is easy to understand.

3. Use standard job titles as part of degree definitions.

4. Make sure that the applicability of the degree to the job is apparent.

Determine Points for Factors and Degrees. Only rarely are compensable factors assigned equal weight. It is usually determined that some factors are more important than others and should bear more weight.

Factor weights may be assigned by committee judgment or statistically. In the committee approach, the procedure is to have committee members (1) carefully study factor and degree definitions, (2) individually rank the factors in order of importance, (3) agree on a ranking, (4) individually distribute 100 percent among the factors, and (5) once more reach agreement. The result is a set of factor weights representing committee judgment. The weights thereby reflect the judgments of organization members and may contribute to acceptance of the plan.

The committee may then complete the scale by assigning points to factors and degrees. Next a decision is usually made on the total points possible in the plan � say 1000. Applying the weights just assigned to this total yields the maximum value for each factor. For example, a factor carrying 30 percent of the weight has a maximum value of 300 points. Thus the highest degree of this factor carries 300 points. Assigning points to the other degrees may be done by either arithmetic or geometric progression. In the former, increases are in equal numbers of points from the lowest to the highest degree. In the latter, increases are in equal percentage of points. Arithmetic progression is found in most point plans, especially those designed for one job family rather than the entire organization. But just as different factors usually have different numbers of degrees, some factors may employ geometric progression.

Because it is usually assumed that all jobs include some of a factor, the lowest degree is usually assigned some points. A simple way of assigning points to degrees is as follows:

1. Set the highest degree of a factor by multiplying the weight of the factor by the total possible points.

2. Set the minimum degree of the factor using the arithmetic or percentage increase figure.

3. Subtract these two figures.

4. Divide the result by the number of steps (numbers of degrees minus one).

Add this figure successively to the lowest degree.

The result of this procedure is an arithmetic progression. Using logarithms and following the same calculations produces a geometric progression.

In the statistical approach to weighting factors, benchmark jobs are evaluated and the points assigned are correlated with an agreed-upon set of wage rates. Regressing this structure of pay rates on the factor degrees assigned each job yields weights that will produce scores closely matching the agreed-upon wage rates. Factor weights were developed statistically in the Steel Plan, which we mentioned in our discussion of factor comparison. The same approach is used to develop weights for factors derived from quantitative job analysis. The statistical approach is often called the policy-capturing approach.

Whether developed by committee decision or by the statistical method, the rating scales are often tested by evaluating a group of benchmark jobs. If the results are not satisfactory, several adjustments are possible. Benchmark jobs may be added or deleted. Degrees assigned to jobs may be adjusted. The criterion � the pay structure � may be changed; or the weights assigned to factors may be changed. In any of these ways, the job evaluation plan is customized to the jobs and the organization.

Write a Job Evaluation Manual. A job evaluation manual conveniently consolidates the factor and degree definitions and the point values (the yardsticks to be used by raters in evaluating jobs). It should also include a review procedure for cases where employees or managers question evaluations of certain jobs. Usually the compensation specialist conducts such reevaluations, but sometimes the assistance of the compensation committee is called for.

Rate the jobs. When the manual is complete, job rating can begin. Raters use the scales to evaluate jobs. Key jobs have usually been rated previously in the development of the plan. The others are rated at this point. In smaller organizations, job rating may be done by a compensation specialist. In larger firms, committee ratings developed from independent ratings of individual members are usual. As jobs are rated, the rating on each factor is recorded on a substantiating data sheet. This becomes a permanent record of the points assigned to each factor and the reasons for assigning a particular degree of the factor to the job. Substantiating data come from the job description.

A.	Formal Education: Considers the extent or degree to which specialized, technical or general education, as distinguished from working experience, is normally required as a minimum to proficiently perform the duties of the job. Credit for general education or technical and specialized training beyond high school must be carefully substantiated, that it is required and not merely preferred, and that it can be shown to be job related (what the education equips the job holder to do, not what the specific degree or course is)
B.	Work Experience: Consider the minimum amount of experience normally required on the job and in related or lower jobs for an average qualified applicant to become proficient. Statements of experience requirements for jobs involving promotions or transfers from other jobs in the Company should be made in terms indicating the average, typical, or ordinary periods of time actually required in the lower job to qualify for entrance to the job being analyzed (not the average length of time before promotional opportunities occur in the job being analyzed and not the time it took the present incumbent to reach the job). Similarly, in jobs requiring experience in the same or related jobs gained outside the Company, both the kind and length of such previous experience should be specified. In determining experience for a particular job, consider only the nature and extent of experience actually required for the proper understanding and performance of all elements of the job. For example, the average employee acquires a general knowledge of many procedures which are not necessary for the particular job, Care must be taken to include under experience required only the type and amount of experience actually required to become proficient on the job.
NOTE: When Education and Experience can be substituted one for the other, total combined years should be distributed for rating purposes on the basis of the division of the time which can be best justified (which represents the most probable "mix").
CAUTION: Although the Knowledge factor closely resembles standards used by companies in setting employment or hiring standards, it should be noted that the evaluation process is a process of comparing relative knowledge requirements between jobs and is not refined to an adequate degree to set hiring standards. In addition, hiring standards are frequently related to equal employment policies and the availability of personnel in the labor market which are not considered directly by the evaluation plan. The plan is concerned only with job values and not the placement of individuals into specific jobs.
Source: Hansen's Job Evaluation Plan for Clerical, Technical, and Production Jobs.

ACCEPTANCE

In this chapter we have frequently mentioned the importance of acceptance of job evaluation results by employees and managers. One way of testing acceptance is a formal appeals process, whereby anyone questioning the evaluation of his or her job may request a reanalysis and reevaluation. Organizations would be wise to include such a process in their job evaluation system. A second option is to include questions about job evaluation in employee attitude surveys.

RELIABILITY

Although evaluating jobs involves a good deal of judgment, few organizations have determined whether different evaluators produce similar results. Not much research has been conducted on the reliability of job evaluation. Early research found that job rating could be improved by a reduction in overlap among factors, good job descriptions, and rater training. Higher reliability results when scale levels, including the use of benchmark jobs, are carefully defined. Familiarity with the jobs also seems to increase reliability. A recent study using a common point system confirmed the importance of training raters but found that consensus rating by groups produced reliability rates as high as those of independent ratings in other studies. This study also found that noninteracting groups produced very similar ratings and that access to information besides job descriptions improved the consistency of the ratings. These findings suggest that consistent ratings of jobs are much less susceptible to administrative conditions than was previously thought.

VALIDITY

The question of which method is the most valid (yields the best results) depends on the circumstances. Ranking methods yield results in less time and at less cost, but work-relatedness may be difficult to defend and inconsistencies among organizational units are quite possible. Factor comparison involves high cost, complexity, and explanation difficulties. The point and classification methods seem more acceptable to managers and employers.

The question of whether the different methods yield similar results has not been finally answered. Studies suggest that different methods yield similar job hierarchies, but a review by Schwab found substantial differences.

COSTS

Job evaluation involves costs of design and administration and the increased labor costs of installation. Labor-cost effects vary for each installation. Design and administrative costs also vary with the type of plan, the time spent by organization members, and by consulting fees (if any). Setting up a program has been estimated at 0.5 percent of payroll, and administering it, 0.1 percent per year.

DISCRIMINATION ISSUES

Although jobs and logically job evaluations are both color-blind and sexless, job evaluation has been cited as both a potential source of and a solution to discrimination against women and minorities. Discrimination may result from multiple job evaluation plans in the organization, from the choice or weighting of factors, and from stereotypes attached to jobs.

While more research is needed, the evidence so far does not establish the existence of discrimination in job analysis and job evaluation. A 1977 study found no evidence of sex discrimination in the use of the PAQ. A study at San Diego State University replicating the 1977 study but using other methods of job analysis found no sex bias either. Other studies, however, have found influence from sex stereotyping and sex composition of jobs.

The National Science Foundation study cited previously maintains that job evaluation may be a solution to problems of pay discrimination. But it suggests that single rather than multiple plans would help and that factors should represent all jobs and be defined without bias. It also suggests some ways of weighting factors to remove potential sex bias. These views will be discussed in more detail in chapter 26.

SUMMARY

The first step in developing a wage structure based upon jobs is to collect information on jobs. This is the function of job analysis. The end product of this collection and analysis is a job description. This document becomes important not only for developing a wage structure but for almost all Human Resource functions.

There is little commonality as to what information to include in job analysis or how to go about collecting such information. This chapter suggests that the information collected needs to focus on what the job is, how it is done, and why it is done. This approach suggests a focus on the activities of the worker as opposed to the worker�s traits or the responsibilities the organization sees in the job.

Methods for collecting job information vary greatly from very informal to highly structured questionnaires. However, the most common method of collecting data is the interview. This leaves the data collection process flexible but subject to great variation. The use of the computer in the future will probably increase the standardization of the data collection process.

The second step toward a wage structure is job evaluation. This is the process by which the organization develops a job structure. The job structure is the hierarchy of jobs within the organization, ordered according to their value and importance to the organization. Job evaluation involves comparing jobs to each other or to a standard, and then ranking them by the standard of organizational importance.

The first decision to be made in developing a job evaluation plan is to decide on the factors that account for the importance of jobs to the organization, called compensable factors. Second, a decision must be made as to what jobs will be placed into the job evaluation plan � all jobs in the organization or some sub-set of jobs. Third, a decision needs to be made as to the type of job evaluation plan that will provide the organization with the best results. Here the organization has a number of choices that have been reviewed in this chapter.

Job evaluation plans are categorized as being either non-quantitative or quantitative. Non-quantitative plans, ranking or classification, rate the job as a whole, clearly rely on the judgments of the evaluator, and are generally simpler and more flexible. These non-quantitative plans are used mainly in small organizations and governmental units. Quantitative plans, factor comparison and point factor, evaluate the job by the use of factors. These are more difficult to set up, provide a basis for determining their accuracy, and are more popular in industry.

Job evaluation has a basic dilemma. On one hand, it is a technical function that requires training and expertise to perform. On the other hand, the usefulness of job evaluation depends on the acceptance by management and employees of the job structure that results from the process. The best way to obtain acceptance is to allow managers and employees a role in the decision making that creates the job structure. Too often, job evaluation is seen by managers and employees as some mysterious, incomprehensible process that has a considerable impact on their wages.