Job Evaluation:  an assessment of job tasks and responsibilities in order to create a top-to-bottom hierarchy reflective of the relative value that the company places upon its jobs.

Throughout my Compensation career I have never enjoyed having to evaluate jobs.  Quite the opposite.  As soon as I progressed high enough in my organization I delegated responsibility to a subordinate and washed my hands of it.  Job evaluation is a thankless task, with the evaluator subject to criticism from all sides.

• If you agree with an evaluation request, you are only admitting to the obvious.

• If you disagree and value the job different (lower), you clearly do not understand the key duties and responsibilities.

• The subjective nature of the process is viewed with suspicion by everyone.

• Job evaluators do not receive Christmas cards.

In spite of my disdain for the process the act of evaluating jobs has been found useful by companies since the 1930′s.

• They need a method to establish a hierarchy of job importance (A is bigger than B, B is bigger than C, etc.).

• They need to explain the relationship of jobs, one to another (A is how much bigger than B?).

• They want to set employee expectations and manage the Reward process (price the jobs).

Job Evaluation does have other purposes as well.  The internal assessment sets career progression steps and assists with organizational development (which jobs are necessary).  It also allows the company to avoid criticism that the competitive labor market (external forces) has dictated which jobs should be paid more or less than others.

Despite these worthy contributions the criticism of the process continues to come from many directions:

• Job descriptions are often poorly written, with content manipulated by managers to gain advantage.

• Pressure is often brought to bear on the Evaluator to increase (almost never the opposite) a rating.

• Evaluation language, forms  and procedures are often complicated and confusing to employees and managers alike.

• Senior management support for the integrity of the process is often limited.

• Employees are skeptical of an inherently subjective process where decisions are made by someone from outside their functional area.

For those who use a job evaluation process (whole job or quantitative), a further step of valuation is to place a price tag on each position – and to do that you need to conduct a study of the competitive marketplace.

Market Pricing

Here is the one process that gets you straight to the core of the matter – placing a monetary value on your jobs.  Some of its advantages as an evaluation process are:

• It is more objective, especially if using multiple survey sources.

• It is easier for management to accept, vs. the judgment of “some analyst in HR.”

• It is easier to defend results to otherwise biased managers.

• The evaluator is subject to less criticism (a personal favorite).

Most companies follow both processes, job evaluation and then market pricing.  Does that two-phased effort add value?  I have my doubts, especially if the prime goal is to establish a salary structure.

Sometimes the competitive market conflicts with your hierarchy.

What if the marketplace indicates a job is worth @$50,000, but as a result of your evaluation process the current midpoint is either much higher or much lower?  Ignoring the market could prove costly, in terms of either dollars or employee disengagement.  But if you follow competitive practice – then what is the point of your internal, job content-based evaluation process?

When faced with a choice most companies would make the change.   Dealing with reality, they would say.  So at the end of the day the true indicator of the value placed on your hierarchy is through market pricing.

Another concern is that, while Job Evaluation can be a long and tedious process it isn’t a sufficient end in itself.  You still have to price the jobs to create an effective salary structure.  The external survey data needs to be “interpreted” by a skilled analyst in order to ensure position matches are appropriate and the subsequent data properly integrated.  We call this “massaging the data.”

Some examples of how market data can be massaged between the survey source(s) and the salary structure:

• When you cluster diverse market data points into a graded salary structure.

• When you are not able to afford competitive rates you may lower the value of each position and create a below market salary structure.

• When you move jobs into certain grades to reflect the organizational realities of your company (the senior analyst must be either one or two grades higher than the core analyst).

• There will also be “favored sons,” positions that must be slotted a certain way in your hierarchy, regardless of market data.

If your goal is to price the internal and external value of your positions you do not need an involved job evaluation process, but you do need market pricing.   I would suggest a market pricing effort first, to establish competitive pay levels, and then if desired for other purposes follow up with some form of whole job evaluation process (keep it simple).  Finally, the evaluator(s) should recommend a degree of massaging to ensure that the final results “make sense,” both from an internal as well as external viewpoint.

Managers don’t like to write job descriptions; which means they won’t do them, will procrastinate endlessly or will delegate the responsibility to almost anyone else.  If pushed into a corner many will simply throw together a half hearted effort that is quickly flagged by its poor quality.

And that’s for new descriptions.   Showing a similar distaste managers won’t be interested in recommendations to periodically update whatever they already have on file.

When faced with a compulsion from HR, a typical response of passive resistance would be to take a minimalist approach, providing only the least acceptable product, so they could check this onerous duty off their to-do list and get back to more important work.

Now why is that?  Why is the lowly job description document considered as popular as a mafia lawyer or a used car salesman?  Why do so many managers consider preparing a job description a thankless task, one they often delegate to the less informed and those even less interested?

The Manager’s favorite kicking-boy

Let’s see how many reasons you can identify with.

• HR formatting: a common criticism is that the “forms control people” have designed an either complex or lengthy (often both) document that demands answers to questions that go well beyond “what does the job do?”

• It takes too long: managers can more easily verbalize a job’s tasks or accountabilities then they can put pen to paper.  Description preparation is not considered an easy or simple process.

• Better writers get a better deal:  a belief that those who are more comfortable with writing (can turn a better phrase) will receive better / higher salary grades and pay.  The fear by is that prose will trump content.

• No time:  managers will tell you that they always have better things to do; namely activities that more directly relate to advancing the needs of the business.

For those critical of their organization’s job descriptions I’d venture to say that all four of the above reasons were checked, right?

So why do we need the darn things in the first place?  Why do we periodically turn our managers into administrators?   Because, contrary to populist sarcasm outside of HR, those descriptions do perform several important functions.

• Job description: (duh!) a description of the role and responsibilities of the job holder, to explain what activities should be taking place
• Job evaluation:  to assist in determining which job is more important.  Evaluators use the descriptions to help measure the internal value of each job, one to another.
• Market pricing:  ensures that when the Analyst is reviewing competitive pay practices, like jobs are matched.
• Performance appraisal: helps both the employee and the manager know with specificity what activities (and results) are expected from those performing a particular job
• Organization structure: the description aids a manager in establishing why a job is needed, and how it differentiates from other jobs.  It provides the justification to create a position or hire a new employee.

Thus we see that the simple fact of describing the job generates several ongoing benefits to the company.  Let the debate continue about formats, word count and other compensable factors, but most would agree – you really need to describe what performance you’re prepared to pay for.

The cost of getting it wrong

So what happens when the balance of importance vs. distaste is skewed, when descriptions are carelessly slapped together, left in a closet to go out of date or simply ignored as new / revised jobs are established?  How bad can it get?

It can get to be an expensive dilemma.

• Incorrect job evaluation: you get the grade wrong.  Typically erring on the high side when descriptions are vague, outdated or filled with puffery results in artificially higher grades.  That action pushes up fixed costs (salaries), without a corresponding increase in value received (performance).

• Mismatch in market pricing: like the above, incorrect matching could hand the job a higher price tag than warranted by actual responsibilities.  Again, costs go up.

• Title inflation:  when definitions are vague or too similar to like jobs the environment is ripe for “throwaway titles”, meaningless designations meant to placate employees.  The trouble is, this insidious practice actually worsens employee discomfort over time, while also raising compensation costs.

I don’t like job descriptions either, and hate to write them.  But I recognize that they’re good for me and for the business.  So here are a few tips ‘n tricks to help you swallow a sometimes bitter pill.

• Keep it simple, and keep it short.  Focus on major tasks or accountabilities.  More than two pages can be overkill.

• Write the “basic purpose” last.  Don’t start with it.  Trust me, the task is easier that way.

• Get yourself a resource library that carries a host of pre-written benchmark descriptions.  Either in book form or better – go online.  Now the job is editing, not creation.  Note: I am not recommending a source, as there are hundreds in a Google search, from the generic to the specific.

• Don’t have the employee write the description.  Too much chance for bias creep and unintended influences.  It’s a manager’s responsibility.

• Consider an annual review to keep content current.  Such is a small project if maintained, but a eventually a large one if ignored

The bottom line?  It’s ok to hate job descriptions (a salve to my conscience), as long as they are given the proper attention and respect.  The benefits do outweigh the hassle.

Do you want to be admired and respected by your colleagues, recognized by senior leadership for who and what you are?  Do you want to be known throughout your universe as one who sets the standard?

Then solve a problem.  Stand up and show someone how to get things done.  Clear the pathway; support someone’s idea, save a step somewhere.  Do what it takes.

Just do it.

It’s not hard, really.  It’s a matter of thinking not of yourself first and foremost, but of a greater good that is broader than yourself – and of focusing your attention on getting the results that help the department, the team, the business.   It’s called a giving of yourself.

All too often what we see from many employees at all levels of the organization is an effort to be the star, the success story, but at the expense of someone else.  “Look at me,” these eager A-types seem to shout, “look at what I have achieved.”  These are folks who seem to have missed reading the memo on team effort.

We all have them in our organization.  They surround us.

Here’s a thought, though.  Isn’t it better to be lifted up (reward, recognition, etc) by someone else, then to be constantly trying to push yourself up there?  Doesn’t that ego rush get a bit tiring, what with the constant pressure of looking over your shoulder to gauge the competition?  Do you get periodic stress headaches, where the muscles at the back of your neck tighten to stone?  Are you sleeping well?

Now picture yourself receiving that award, with the accompanying recognition, spotlight, accolades etc.  Nice feeling, isn’t it?  A proud moment.

I think it does make a difference in how one gets recognized.  I suppose that there are levels of self-satisfaction, but the highest must be when you’re lifted on someone’s shoulder.   When you hear the cheer of the audience.  Self advertisement, political deal-making and a passive resistance that holds others back can’t provide the same level of genuine personal satisfaction.  Because deep down you’ll know you cheated to get there.

Think about someone whom you really admire, in whatever field of endeavor you like.   Chances are it’s someone who has accomplished something, delivered the desired results, made something of themselves.   They stood up for something, right?  Likely that person you admire so much isn’t someone who took shortcuts, pushed others aside, ignored the call for help or otherwise kept their focus solely on the mirror.

So why would you want to do that yourself?

Of course you wouldn’t.  But now reflect a bit on how you practice your relationships at work.  Do you admire yourself, or can you spruce up your act a bit and become more of a team player?

Naive?  Perhaps I am.  But I think we need more heroes out there, more decision-makers, more team players and more people willing to make a stand for what they believe in.

But that’s just me.

You’re interviewing for a new position and prospects are looking good.  You feel that they’re going to extend an offer. You know what salary you want, what you need, what you deserve, but you don’t know whether your prospective employer sees your value in the same terms.   You can’t read their signals.

When they do present an offer of employment the starting salary may be a good figure, or it may not – but where did that number come from?   And could you have anticipated it?

The employment offer that a company extends a candidate doesn’t drop from the sky like a brainstorm of intuitive thought.   Oh-oh, let’s try this!  Nor does the offer necessarily mirror what you think you deserve.  It does relate though, to what the company feels is appropriate for the position they have, what they can afford to pay, and what amount fits within their internal pay structure.  If the figure is also the amount you desired,  that’s icing on the cake.

Candidates often think that what they’re offered has a direct connection to what they were making before, or what they asked for.  If that’s the way you feel, you’d only be partially correct – because it’s not always about you.

Every company has a decision-making process they follow as a guide in constructing an offer.  This process is applied to some extent for every candidate, no matter what final figure is ultimately used in the offer.

First and foremost, the company will have either a hiring range or at least an estimate of what they want to spend (what they were paying the last incumbent, pay rates of similar jobs or peers,  what has been budgeted, etc.).  Thus to the company the job under search already has a value, so they can anticipate what they will likely pay, even before they’ve met you.

So they have a number in mind.  Now you come along and seem like a strong candidate.  They will need  to know how your numbers (wants and needs) compare with what they are prepared to offer.   Bear in mind that they may be reluctant to offer too small or too large an increase over your previous compensation.

Do not attempt to withhold your compensation history – or in any way confuse the issue, as this tactic might explode in your face.   The employer might simply say “fine”, and move on without you.  As they never like surprises, especially when it shows that they didn’t know enough about you before making the offer, any reluctance to explain your compensation history would be a huge red flag.

While hiring guidelines are usually set up for recruiters to follow, exceptions can and will be made, but they’ll likely require some justification, some “selling.”

Offer amounts can also be restricted by policy or precedent:

• Starting salaries may not exceed salary range midpoints

• Hiring below range minimum may be prohibited

Internal equity is also very important, and may dictate an employer’s degree of flexibility.  They cannot afford to anger two employees in order to please one – and they don’t know you.

Many candidates lose sight of the company’s perspective, thinking of their own value in the marketplace – what they deserve, given their personal background and experience.  For its part the company is trying to fill a job for which they already know the value.  That is what commands the offered salary, not what the candidate is necessarily worth in a universe of possibilities.

Consider a hospital seeking to hire a general practitioner, and a brain surgeon applies for the position.  The brain surgeon may well be worth the going rate for their skill set, but the company is hiring a different position, with a different (lower) value.  They don’t need to pay, and likely can’t afford the services of a brain surgeon.

What to do?  Ask about the hiring range, how much the company expects to pay for a qualified candidate.   They will have a number in mind.  Best you know up front in case there is a disconnect in valuing your services, lest you both waste time.

Have you ever walked out of a store because of poor customer service?  Or felt frustrated because the company representative at the other end of the phone did not seem to care?  Or after enduring a bad experience with an employee at a particular establishment you said “never again”?

Customers react first and foremost to the employee they are dealing with, the one they are facing, whether the transaction is financially significant or not.  To the customer, that employee “is” your company, and these buy / not buy decision-makers will consider the treatment they receive a reflection of your company, for good or ill.

It is worth noting that the person who just caused you to take your business elsewhere is likely one of the lowest paid employees in that organization.   Does that reward / impact relationship make sense to you?  It would seem that the organization does not recognize / reward (value) the impact that their employees can have on customer relations.

Does your company acknowledge and measure the value and impact that these employees can have?  Or is this skill set a compensable factor at all?  Have you ever checked?

Many companies have long ignored the importance of the customer-facing job (non-direct sales) in determining a position’s value to their organization.  They consider education (what you know), experience (how long you have been doing something) and competitive survey data (what others are paid for a certain set of skills) in setting their pay scales.  The fact that the position also has the power of gaining or losing customers is often lost on them as “just part of the job description.”

Some job evaluation systems may give a nod for those facing customers on a regular basis, but such recognition is not often viewed as a critical factor – nor does it help determine where in the salary range the incumbent is paid.

Oftentimes it is the lower paid employee or the position with the least amount of “cachet” that presents the jobholder with the opportunity to influence customer action and reaction.  As an example, the employees most commonly approached by guests at Walt Disney World are the Custodial workers.

Is it not surprising then that these employees can have as great an impact on customer good will and retention as your executives?  Studies have also shown that having a pleasant experience when dealing with a company often outweighs price considerations and marketing glitz.

However that does not mean that you have to pay more to these employees than the marketplace suggests, but it is in your best interest to ensure that they are fairly treated:

• Ensure that actual pay centers on the middle of the range or higher.  Do not risk minimum pay scale workers interacting with your customers.
• Hire well into the salary range.  This is not a time to be cheap.  That dollar you saved today could cause you to lose a great deal more later on.   It pays to remember that it costs a great deal more to gain a new customer than to retain an existing one.
• Modify your performance appraisal process to recognize the customer facing role; attitude is just as critical here as know-how and experience.  Your customers place great value on the smile and pleasant demeanor they receive from your employees.
• Develop a point of pride for these workers, coupled with fair and competitive pay, to encourage that the right caliber of employee applies for these positions.
• Avoid structuring these as “dead end” jobs.   Offer upward opportunities for higher performing employees.
• Listen to them; they are talking to your customers and their suggestions for process improvements – even new products and services – should be considered.

How do you know whether your company is vulnerable?  1) Ensure that these positions are regularly surveyed for competitive pay practices, and then 2) Create a report segmenting the actual pay of your customer-facing employees to determine the average compa-ratio and spotlight the presence of low paid workers.   Then you will know how well you are paying those closest to your customers.

Now we should have a final word about direct sales, which is perhaps the ultimate customer-facing job.   Be careful that your training and recognition programs remember to acknowledge the importance of the customer-facing relationship – beyond an immediate financial impact.  Rewards should not be all about short term results.  A customer made unhappy by your sales rep can decide to; 1) not place an order, 2) limit their order and split their requirements with another vendor, and / or 3) spread a negative comment to their professional associates that reflects poorly on your company.

Each unfortunate scenario reinforces the financial and long term impact of the individual employee.

Such would be a hard lesson indeed.