Compensation & Benefits Review

http://cbr.sagepub.com Job Evaluation: Still at the Frontier

Laurent Dufetel Compensation Benefits Review 1991; 23; 53 DOI: 10.1177/088636879102300408 The online version of this article can be found at: http://cbr.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/23/4/53

Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for Compensation & Benefits Review can be found at: Email Alerts: http://cbr.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://cbr.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Downloaded from http://cbr.sagepub.com by Raluca Paraschiv on November 15, 2007 1991 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

indepth appreciation of the advantages job evaluation provides, critics do not recognize that this process can still help companies move to "new frontiers" in their development.
Without
an

Job Evaluation:
Still
at
LAURENT DUFETEL

the Frontier

Managing Director, Hay Groups Worldwide Compensation Practice

Many peoplework,&dquo; organization

of

had its roots in the &dquo;scientific standardized that &dquo;commodity&dquo; jobs into strategy workers-the uneducated simplified responsibilities and tasks so that unskilled, bulk of the labor market at the time-could execute them. Instead, job evaluation actually stems not from businesss need to standardize, but its need to specialize when, in the 1920s, leading industrial organizations in the United States were developing sophisticated service and production technologies-technologies that required people with new, cutting-edge capabilities and skills. With few-or no-parallels in business or industry, these unique specialty jobs were difficult-if not impossible-to price. Never intended as the only way to structure a reward system, job evaluation emerged as the most accurate and comprehensive means companies had to overcome the limitations and negative effects of pricing these,specialty jobs on the basis of two other compensation systems in use then (as now): pay for knowledge or pay on the basis of the labor market. Because it has been used for so long by so many organizations, job evaluation has inevitably been misinterpreted and misused. Seeing only its constraints, rather than the broad opportunities it offers, job evaluations disappointed users and academics have begun to revisit old pay-for-knowledge and pricing ideas. Without an indepth appreciation of the advantages job evaluation provides, they do not recognize that this process, with its breadth and adaptability, can still help companies move to &dquo;new frontiers&dquo; in their development. But the key to using

believe that
a

job evaluation

53
Downloaded from http://cbr.sagepub.com by Raluca Paraschiv on November 15, 2007 1991 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

job evaluation in the current era will be getting back to the basics and innovating
from there.

Relearning

the basics of
.

job evaluation

means

taking

fresh look

at

its

key

concepts: ~ Job evaluation involves management judgments and decisions. ~ Job evaluation stresses that the value of a job is the &dquo;value added&dquo; that it creates for the organization. . Job evaluation sees that every job, no matter what level or size, must be examined with an unbiased eye for the contribution it can make to the

organization.
Innovation includes these elements:

Seeking to use technology, especially the computer, as a tool, but not a substitute for decisions. ~ Introducing new evaluation concepts that reflect new organizational realities. ~ Building bridges between quantitative job analysis (the jobs worth) and qualitative analysis (the jobs critical competencies).
o

Why Analyze Jobs?

Is

&dquo;job&dquo; still a valid concept? The fundamental argument most often leveled at job analysis is that organizing according to &dquo;jobs&dquo; is misleading. Fearing that job descriptions inhibit employee initiative and restrict organization flexibility, many business leaders declare that jobs cannot or should not be defined. Recent corporate efforts aimed at freeing up obsolete job hierarchies through delayering, job enrichment, employee involvement, or total quality assurance programs have

reinforced this belief for some. But to use the job evaluation approach, jobs do not need to have fixed, rigid definitions; they simply need to have enough content and scope to be analyzed. After all, we must have some sort of framework to help us understand what needs to be accomplished in an organization; if not, how can we hire, train, develop, and motivate the right people to do the work? And, at the same time, without understanding each jobs responsibilities and scope, how can we identify those that are poorly designed-and change and monitor them to serve the organization better? Is a &dquo;job description&dquo; a &dquo;job restriction&dquo;? Some managers naively believe that employees automatically limit their behavior to what is written on a piece of paper. But we all know people who do the right work-and more-even before they are asked for it. And we all know people who have a special talent for avoiding work that is clearly their responsibility. The point is this: Jobs do not exist as entities on their own; at any given time, they are the reflection of a particular job holder-the result of an intricate, often subtle compromise between
54
Downloaded from http://cbr.sagepub.com by Raluca Paraschiv on November 15, 2007 1991 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

what the

organization needs, what management thinks is needed, what people are available to staff the position, and what the selected incumbent is capable of or is entitled to do. A job description does not interpret the work or encourage specific job-related behaviors; it is the individual incumbents flexible or rigid way of carrying out that job-=-and the internal culture in which he or she works-that
broadens or restricts its scope. How do you deal with jobs that change constantly? Some people will argue that their jobs are continuously changing on the basis of company priorities and the workload at the time. They feel they have no permanent or specific accountabilities ; instead, they contribute as called for to projects that may vary in scope, size, duration, and value to the organization. But many industries, such as engineering, have always worked almost exclusively on a project management basis. Some functions, such as research and development, work the same way. For such situations, job evaluation can categorize a series of typical project management jobs, measuring not what a the person is most often person actually does at a given time, but the type of work that to assess the job, obvious more even becomes responsible for. (In this case, it more difficult task, the you also need to assess the person. The latter is clearly underscoring the need for instruments that bridge the gap between job analysis and assessment of peoples talents and competencies.) What is sound job analysis? Job analysis is most useful when it successfully discerns a jobs key responsibilities or accountabilities, defining the end results required but retaining enough flexibility to let the incumbent figure out how to what an employee is get the work done. It is crucial to accurately distinguish from what company managereally responsible for and actually accomplishing ment-or even the evaluator-are predisposed to think this should be. The job analyst must feel free to discover that the important jobs are not, or are no longer, the expected ones. Good job analysis is a delicate, sometimes painful exercise. Done well, it lends support-not restraint-to organization change, by making people more aware of the critical jobs of the future. But job analysis often runs the risk of being a complacent exercise, sometimes rightfully assailed for lack of insight (failing to capture the real essence of a job); sometimes criticized for inadvertently or deliberately reinforcing the status quo. (For example, because the job title is &dquo;controller,&dquo; we want the job analysis to fit what we think a controller should do, normally does, or used to do in the past.) Pressure to see things &dquo;as they have always been&dquo; can sometimes be quite strong, with negative effects reflected in reinforcing an existing bureaucracy or &dquo;glorifying&dquo; dull jobs to save face for their declining incumbents. But we run exactly the same-if not greater-risks when we simply rely on assessing peoples skills or market

pricing a job.
55
Downloaded from http://cbr.sagepub.com by Raluca Paraschiv on November 15, 2007 1991 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

Why Evaluate Jobs?

The

History of Job Evaluation

Job evaluation research started around the turn of the century, with the National Electric Manufacturing Association/Midwest Industrial Management Association (NEMA/MIMA) program-still used in many countries under a variety of names-which was the first widely applied system. Up through the 1950s, Edward Hay, Samuel Burk, and Eugene Benge introduced a number of innovations, which, along with additional improvements, ultimately resulted in the Hay Guide Chart-Profile Method, a point-factor process applicable to a full spectrum of jobs. Following this lead, some companies developed their own job evaluation systems. Over the years, job evaluation has become the method of choice to help leading companies in business and industry value jobs. Why is there such interest in job evaluation? Before job evaluation, there were only two ways of rewarding employees: paying for education and skills and pricing jobs on the basis of their value on the labor market. Companies that were leaders in their fields faced a problem: Because they were on the &dquo;cutting edge,&dquo; they were creating their own specialty jobs and teaching their employees unique techniques or processes that did not exist elsewhere. These new types of jobs simply could not be surveyed on the labor market. The strength of the job evaluation approach, embodied in the Hay Guide Charts, is that it does not ignore the value of pricing or the value of paying for talent; it provides the means to integate both. Paying for Responsibility and Talent Pay still needs to relate both to jobs and people-thus the development of the concept of salary ranges. How individual salaries should vary within ranges has been adapted in many ways: performance, merit, level of professional proficiency, and seniority-all criteria related to individuals-have all been taken into account. The approach preferred by Hay incorporates the idea of pay based on employee skills. Beginners or apprentices are paid at the bottom of the salary range, and experts-those with the most comprehensive capabilities for the job-are paid at the top of the range. But like all concepts, this system is not always properly implemented. For example, some organizations believe they do not need to (or cannot) differentiate individual pay within the same job. This imposes an inappropriate rigidity that is actually not inherent in the job evaluation process. Balancing Corporate and Market Value At the outset, the Hay Guide Chart job-evaluation technology was designed with exquisite flexibility to accommodate business leaders needs for both knowledge/ skills assessment and pricing. On the one hand, the charts were custom-tailored
56
Downloaded from http://cbr.sagepub.com by Raluca Paraschiv on November 15, 2007 1991 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

reflect the unique internal value system of each organization: On the other, they featured a standard scale (Hay or Standard Points) to allow intercompany compensation comparisons. This intent has never changed, although newer techniques and processes may be used to accomplish these goals.
to

Understanding Jobs and Identifying Career Paths their Moreover, the flexibility of job analysis and job evaluation goes way beyond not Charts Guide the original intent. There are, in fact, many applications of directly related to managing pay-such as mapping the organization, facilitating For example, career development, or gauging overall organization effectiveness. 1000 its rank &dquo;strategic&dquo; top one international company uses job evaluation to executive of the positioned with every career in potential ladders, eight jobs

for against this grid. From this grid, the company can also prepare nominations from incumbents monitor and growth new jobs, anticipate recruitment needs, division to division in the organization.

The Alternatives

Pay-for-SkiilslKnowledge
With education and knowledge increasingly critical to business success, the But should we be concept of paying for knowledge and skills is very appealing. what with do they know? paying people for what they know or for what they Lets consider the case for skills-based pay on the shop or blue-collar level-its original application. Some industries face the challenge of bringing compensation for their lowest-level jobs and their incumbents skills up to a minimum

economically viable-and humanly acceptable-threshold. Skills-based pay can be the compensation strategy most appropriate during this transition, because it features an incentive that eases the painful process of retraining. This does not contradict-but is in complete harmony with-job evaluation tenets that would define pay increase rules below and at the lowest (acceptable) job grade. It is tempting to embrace the pay-for-skills/knowledge approach in the case of knowledge workers who play an increasingly important role in many organizations. One assumption is that pay for knowledge encourages people to develop their capabilities; another is that by stressing individuals skills, rather than specific jobs, people will broaden their view and be more willing to cooperate,

work as teams, and step in for one another. But until now, skills-based pay has had limited application outside the hourly worker group; consequently, it is difficult to discuss the strengths or weaknesses of taking this approach with this has not yet felt the effects type of employee group. Furthermore, skills-based pay inevitable the or attempts to overturn of time, business and management crises, the system.
57
Downloaded from http://cbr.sagepub.com by Raluca Paraschiv on November 15, 2007 1991 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

equity and external competitiveness create conflict. Skills-based pay does provide a practical solution for salary comparisons across jobs and organizations. And if you choose to go without a system to handle equity, the loudest voices-the most influential and best-organized groups of workers-often will get the &dquo;lions share&dquo; of the payroll. Moreover, a devastating battle may ensue each time you need to correct a deviation. The problem is similar-if not more difficult-with competitiveness of pay. Here, for the same reasons, you need some method of comparing your company with other companies. In either case, your position is surely stronger when you have some way to gauge the relative worth of key skills within and across employee groups. Pay-for-skillslknowledge can easily be misinterpreted or misused. The best way to illustrate this is to look at European banks, where systems that are very similar to skills-based pay have been widely used. Because most banking skills are unique to the profession and not taught in schools or universities, most banks have their own in-house training programs. After high school, individuals begin their careers with a bank and learn everything within the company. Their pay rises on the basis of the type and number of in-service courses they complete. But this does not eliminate tensions and competition around performance and pay. Employees quickly learn to fight for &dquo;equal learning opportunity&dquo;regardless of their real ability and willingness to learn. Learning credits often are granted automatically on the basis of seniority. None of these educational efforts have kept some employees skills from becoming obsolete. The highest-paid people are always the ones who have been with the company long enough to attend the most courses; yet they often are not the most capable because much of their knowledge may be outdated or their actual learning experience may not be really relevant. All this does not help to reinforce an achievement-oriented culture. People are primarily concerned with what they have to learn to get more money, not what they could do to help the company move ahead. Such examples are not isolated; they exist widely throughout business and industry.
not

Internal

Market Pricing

surface, pricing jobs on the basis of market rates is also very appealing. It seems as if this pricing method does not require complex methodologies, does not create an administrative burden, and does not generate conflicts. Because data are assumed to be objective, pricing jobs this way seems fair and realistic, reflecting the balance between supply and demand. Or does it? The labor market is unlike other markets. The labor market does not work by the same criteria and rules as Wall Street or the Chicago Board of Trade. In an ideal market, there is merchandise that can be easily identified and transferred, an abundance of supply and demand, and a group of other mechanisms that ensure
58
Downloaded from http://cbr.sagepub.com by Raluca Paraschiv on November 15, 2007 1991 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

On the

that regulation. (Practically, efficient markets exist only for commodity goods

can

tolerate normalization.) the In fact, the labor market meets hardly any of these prerequisites. First, accurate an &dquo;merchandise&dquo; is not easily defined. This means that conducting as those pricing survey can be as complex and the results as controversial reliable most the of matter a fact, produced by the job evaluation process. (As surveys are those based on job evaluation.) to meet the Second, in the labor market, there rarely is an abundance of supply For demand for many key jobs. Specialty jobs have very narrow markets. Geneva instance, try to price the job of your German manager who heads up your Italian and subsidiaries, computer center that services your English, French, Y? especially when that center uses a mainframe brand X with operating systemand (This real request is not unlike many addressed daily to compensation benefits managers around the world.) limited. As a Finally, labor market regulation mechanisms are very slow and but only negotiated prices by both result, there is no &dquo;fair&dquo; price for many jobs, too familiar with parties on a case-by-case basis. Procurement specialists are all can rely on this problem. For commodity goods and services, they know that they market prices; but for specialty goods and services, they usually develop scoring to job evaluation processes, or cost/benefits analysis techniques that are identical with the same purpose and similar methodologies. a Controlling the &dquo;black market&dquo; hiding behind the &dquo;free&dquo; market is problem. with bargaining, Organizations that only use surveys are not well equipped to deal &dquo;free&dquo; the behind compensaflourish to market&dquo; just allowing a healthy &dquo;black The situation. of following that control to type evaluation serves tion market.

Job

example

illustrates this.
a

job evaluation system was set up in a large corporation over an the strong objections of one group executive who feared it would introduce when unwarranted level of bureaucracy into the company. A couple of years later, welcomed the the work had to be updated, this same group executive not only
Some years ago

out a real consultants, but also praised the previous work. &dquo;You helped me sort of dozens were nightmare,&dquo; he commented. &dquo;Before using evaluation, theresame Each the thing. salary surveys circulated in-house, but no two surveys said To make unhappy. a be everyone battle, leaving compensation review used to

things

validity of one argument over the another. Job evaluations greater clarity and rationality has certainly decreased
even

worse, there was

no

way to prove the

level of confrontation we were dealing with.&dquo; Purchasing talent at market price may be purchasing &dquo;mercenaries.&dquo; Many the long businesses cannot survive without the loyalty of their employees over characterized by is if it reciprocal, term. But commitment can exist only management indicating strong concern for equity, putting employment opportu59
Downloaded from http://cbr.sagepub.com by Raluca Paraschiv on November 15, 2007 1991 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

nities into perspective, and, in some cases, disregarding fluctuations in the market. In contrast, market pricing means following others, not planning your own destiny with a clear view of what is unique about your company. By not taking internal equity into account, the organization may end up paying whatever the market dictates for one profession but not another. Similarly, with little concern for the past or the future, pay levels will fluctuate with the market. If you let this go too far, employees start to think what is important is not what they do for the company, but how much they cost-and the next time they are offered more money for a position elsewhere, they will leave. This is especially important in light of the growing shortage of skilled workers both in Europe and North America. Companies that too closely follow market trends are likely to attract &dquo;mercenaries&dquo;-expensive workers who are loyal to their profession and their own talents, but not to their employer.

Rethinking Job Evaluation

The

Concepts

Even if neither pay-for-knowledge/skills nor market pricing provides a widely acceptable solution to rewarding employees properly, this may not necessarily mean that job evaluation, just as it stands, is the only way to go. Certainly, all the shifting and changing in todays work values and job content calls for human resources (HR) professionals and management to look again at the fundamental principles of job evaluation, putting them under careful scrutiny to make sure
meet the needs of the 1990s. Value jobs according to their real outputs. The driving factor in weighing jobs according to the Hay Guide Charts is the idea of &dquo;accountability,&dquo; innovative even now as it was when Edward Hay introduced it. Accountability means that a must be useful to the organization, and convey a sense of job meaningful, purpose. A good example is the description one employee wrote for a job that included cleaning the officers, replenishing the vending machines, supplying coffee and doughnuts during meetings, and serving in the cafeteria: &dquo;The purpose of my job is to contribute to improving the working environment for company XYZs employees.&dquo; When you have such a clear idea of what you want the outcome to be, there is a solid chance that you will focus on the right tasks to achieve those results. Consider the qualitative-as well as the quantitative. Job outputs are not all quantitative; some are qualitative and not easily measured. Because it is easier to assess quantities, job evaluation in the past sometimes overemphasized dollar outputs at the expense of the more intangible contributions. For example, in the 1960s and 1970s, many organizations were driven solely by the &dquo;bottom-line,&dquo; with the finance officer providing the main impetus. The Guide Chart complied

they

60
Downloaded from http://cbr.sagepub.com by Raluca Paraschiv on November 15, 2007 1991 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

imbedded in with this trend. This quantitative emphasis, however, is not a bias we have the Guide Charts, but a reflection of the values of those times. Since then, The one. a really but dynamic rediscovered that job output is not a static concept as valuable quantities do not relate to what you own, but to what you create, just the important jobs are not always the ones that appear impressive (close reporting are relationship to the chief executive officers or enviable job title), but rather they future (see those that can make things happen or really change the organizations Exhibit 1). evaluation Some job evaluation concepts may need reinterpretation. In any job or complexity, and system, accountability or responsibility, problem solving know-how are fundamental and permanent components. What changes, however, is the way each is interpreted. over the years and from company to company, an organiA good example is &dquo;management know-how.&dquo; One cannot imagine the way companies zation existing without some form of management system, but in the 1960s, For time. over example, has changed
are

certainly managed ranked high among management priorities-with policies, control and planning In contrast, procedures, and action plans pointing toward the &dquo;predictable.&dquo; needs to be that as one todays future is not as much one that can be predicted the ability to invented. Now, good management calls for creative imagination, implement change, and a &dquo;sixth sense&dquo; for opportunity. In addition, responsibility between for management is more widely shared. There are fewer boundaries over their own work control more have managerial and nonmanagerial jobs. People consists less of (in Hays terminology, more &dquo;freedom to act&dquo;). Management todayothers by giving exercising authority and providing directives and more of leveraging with own their employee to Any jobs. relevant is that them valuable input or influence information to disseminate, an experience to share, or the ability to coach others is an important contributor to the organization. to to What needs to be managed has changed as well. It is still important plan, its on return a develop policies, and to make sure that the organization gets good return financial and physical assets. But it is just as important to get the proper or its customer base. Todays on other assets, such as the companys know-how with managing internal and external corporate leaders are just as concerned as they clients expectations, behaviors, knowledge bases, change, and the like, are with managing more tangible assets.
The Processes
The Hay Guide Sound job evaluation is, above all, sound job understanding. that recognizes and Charts provide that sound understanding in a framework of latitude values management accountabilities, while giving management plenty time. on what it wants to emphasize at a given a powerful managerial tool. Today, HR but job evaluation is not an exact science,
61
Downloaded from http://cbr.sagepub.com by Raluca Paraschiv on November 15, 2007 1991 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

Exhibit 1

Job Evaluation Concepts

and Their Interpretations

professionals and academics appear to prefer the term &dquo;job measurement&dquo; over job evaluation, the original term we are purposefully using here. But measurement does not adequately explain the need for consensus, or group judgments and decisions, so crucial in evaluation. Lets take our example from sports, such as diving or gymnastics. Deciding on a winning performance usually involves a third party, a group of assessors chosen for their credibility; they are knowledgeable
62
Downloaded from http://cbr.sagepub.com by Raluca Paraschiv on November 15, 2007 1991 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

Even about the sport and often belong to a community that produces champions. need to be backed up with these credentials, opinions of the individual judges rules-such averaged, or some consensus reached. In other instances, additional be introduced as as throwing out the highest and lowest scores-can easily

&dquo;levelers.&dquo;

evaluated. This Similarly, jobs cannot simply be measured; they have to be decisions for explains the rationale for job evaluation committees; the need group various the to parts case usually belong by experts is the same. The judges in this their or responsiof the organization and participate because of their knowledge
bilities in the company. work Of course, like any other group activity, job evaluation doesnt always within difficulties smoothly. The process can create real controversy or political conflicts. But in the organization because it identifies or reveals previously hidden its role as a powerful conflict resolution mechanism, the job evaluation process and respect across functions. The can also generate mutual understanding serve to coalesce comparisons that result from the evaluation process can management around such crucial issues as the following: . Integrating the organization. . Emphasizing the importance of new jobs. of activity. . Attracting new or more talent in crucial areas career and planning. supporting . Establishing career roadmaps . Bolstering the credibility of reward systems. critical. Even if the Management ownership-and affirmation-of the process is to HR professionals, line managers, or company delegates the evaluation process evaluation still needs to come to the employees themselves, final approval of job have used job from the top managers in the organization. In organizations that often forget or evaluation for a number of years, however, the participants come to believe misinterpret their respective roles. HR professionals sometimes be responsible should when actually they that they are responsible for evaluations be to valid, management for facilitating the evaluation process. For job evaluation in it. involved become and the must both support process when job Job evaluation should not be reduced to a routine task. In the 1960s, was effort and time of deal a evaluation began to be used more widely, good in devoted to analyzing and understanding jobs before involving top managers has evaluation activities. Since then, in an attempt to reduce costs, the process and evaluabeen simplified and streamlined. Computer-assisted job description these of inexpensive, &dquo;quicktion is now readily available. Unfortunately, many miss the other fix&dquo; job analysis processes are incomplete. Most certainly, they as hiring, training, or staffing and career purposes the process can serve, such

planning.
63
Downloaded from http://cbr.sagepub.com by Raluca Paraschiv on November 15, 2007 1991 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

Innovations

Computer-Assisted Job Evaluation ICAIE) When computer-assisted job evaluation (CAJE) was first introduced, it was heralded as an important improvement on the process. It appeared to be able to produce a job description, a job evaluation, and a quality assurance report automatically-all with a significant amount of time saved by the incumbent, the supervisor, and the job analyst. CAJEs first designers claimed the computer could cut out the decision-making process once and for all, since on its own it could verify or question the accuracy of the job analysis. Moreover, unlike traditional job evaluation, which needed to be customized, the new technology was flexible enough to capture any organizations unique value system. Because it has emphasized process more than concepts, however, CAJEs application has yet to substantiate these claims. So although we acknowledge what CAJE can or might do, we must also recognize what it cannot-or should not do. CA,JE does not replace-but leverages-traditional evaluation systems. In a traditional job evaluation process, you first set your standards by carefully evaluating a core of key jobs. Next, you apply this evaluation scheme to all other jobs in the organization. And, finally, you maintain your system by using your instrument with any new jobs or with those that are modified or changed. With CAJE, you still need a traditional job evaluation system to provide the initial solid analysis of benchmark jobs. CAJE simply streamlines and speeds the job evaluation process for &dquo;nonbenchmark&dquo; jobs. In fact, the accuracy of your CAJE system will greatly depend on-the quality of the technique you use to set your standards during the benchmarking phase. Cave assists-but cant replace-decision makers. Some years ago, the claim was made that because incumbents are the single, most accurate source of information on their own jobs, using their analysis with a CAJE system would result in simplification, improved fairness (as evaluation would now be based upon more accurate information), and reduced conflicts (since group processes could now be dispensed with). Only one of these points-that job holders have the best direct analytical insight into their jobs-is correct. Further, any kind of job analysis also requires making comparisons to gauge how one jobs challenges compare with others. In other words, job analysis calls for an outsiders as well as the insiders perspective. Supporting this notion is extensive experience with CAJE, indicating that group judgment, which levels individual biases, provides more accurate information than that provided by individuals. And, in fact, while the checks and balances built into CAJE applications ensure consistency, they cannot assess accuracy. CAJE will always require human judgment and decision making.
64
Downloaded from http://cbr.sagepub.com by Raluca Paraschiv on November 15, 2007 1991 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

falter-and even fail-if it puts old ideas in its new &dquo;questionnaire boxes.&dquo; With CAJE, the separate parts of the traditional job analysis exercise-job documentation (description) and assessment (evaluation)-are somewhat integrated, through the questionnaire. Designing the questionnaire well is crucial, since this tool not only serves as a data collection instrument, but also embodies the series of criteria that represent the organizations ingrained value system. If the questions are not sound, the process will transmit messages about jobs that are inaccurate-and even destructive. Witness some real examples of questions that do more harm than good: How frequently do you have contact with important people (for example, the CEO, other top executives, board members, or division and department heads)? This question implies that to do an important job, one must impose on the time of people whose time is at a premium. What is your organizational authority level (that is, what are the grades or status currently associated with your job, your bosss job, and the jobs reporting to you)? This is a &dquo;no hope&dquo; job evaluation system. It is intrinsically paradoxical that to evaluate a particular job grade, you set this grade from the outset. With this approach, whatever the jobs current status is in the organization, it will always remain so. . What is the impact of your errors, that is, the effect on the organization if your position fails to perform adequately? This is a job evaluation factor abandoned for decades. We cannot at the same time preach that each and every job is essential to quality and customer satisfaction and then, on the other hand, claim that unsatisfactory performance in some of them has only &dquo;minor&dquo; or &dquo;inconsequenCAJE
can
. .

tial&dquo; effect.

fact, even when factors such as the three above do predict a current jobs size, they are static. They cannot tell you the right way to expand or enhance your job. (For example, weight is the single factor that best predicts the value of a car, but we dont price cars by their weight. Similarly, you dont increase your job content by spending more time with the CEO or by lobbying for a bigger job title,
In

by producing organization.)
but

more
.

added value-either economic

or

intellectual-for the

In sum, computers do not create new knowledge. They allow us to capture and use our knowledge about jobs in new ways. So a CAJE system is only as good as its designers and their understanding of jobs. The machine does not replace the job analyst or evaluator; instead, it simplifies and streamlines the routine work, leaving time for the humans to attend to the more important value-added tasks.

Integrated Job Analysis Models: The Next Step Forward Even with well-designed computer approaches, the job analysis process is likely to seem too cumbersome or expensive if it is only used to determine a pay grade. But most companies want answers to such other key questions as these:
65
Downloaded from http://cbr.sagepub.com by Raluca Paraschiv on November 15, 2007 1991 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

Exhibit 2

Integrated Job Analysis Model for Knowledge Workers

What is the job worth? How well does the job holder perform the job? What critical competencies are required to qualify for the job (or to be an outstanding performer in the job)? o What other jobs may the current incumbent be capable of holding in the future? o What are our staffing needs for this position? Many companies want their job analysis models to be fast and cost-effective, easy to understand and explain to nontechnical people, and reflective of values and behaviors that will encourage employees to create added value for the organization. If they could achieve this through one instrument, exercise, and process, most organizations would be willing to invest more time, effort, and
resources.

Integrated job analysis models-those that can respond to all these factors and can apply to both jobs and people-appear to achieve these goals best. One seven-dimension model that Hay developed for a variety of professional areas of knowledge workers-including those in the engineering, computer sciences, accounting, or legal fields-is a good example of this approach (see Exhibit 2 above). This type of scale lends itself well to describing and evaluating a job, framing a professional career ladder to assess personal/job growth opportunity, and even analyzing staffing needs. Each dimension can also be broken down into several levels of job accountability or individual skill. Other advantages. This integrated model works with either jobs or people, or both, and allows people and jobs to be matched with ease. It is simple to understand and use and can be quickly and economically customized to any
66
Downloaded from http://cbr.sagepub.com by Raluca Paraschiv on November 15, 2007 1991 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

of organization or business. Similar models can be applied to virtually any kind it job family. Most important, this type of model sets up a &dquo;win-win&dquo; situation; clearly shows that if you want to grow as a professional-or expand your job-you have to create added value for your organization. The focus is not on how to knowledgeable you are-a highly subjective judgment-but on the extent which you use your knowledge to help your organization.

Conclusion
As

long as people perceive salary hierarchies-and individual pay-as messages certain recognition, status symbols, measures of personal power, or pictures of a and of valuing vision of the order of the world, the debate on the various ways subside. never work will probably rewarding But society is making fundamental changes in the way we organize work. New declinjobs are being created. Some jobs are increasing-and some are actually these reflect changes can be ing-in importance. Making our assessment systems painful, but critical, nonetheless. to reward Job evaluation remains the most open and flexible option available what account into and taking competitive manner, people in a fair, equitable, work. their to talents they bring employees are responsible for and what Point-factor evaluation methods are crucial to its future. They lend themselves traditional easily to computerization, and we can continue to apply them, in their form, where computers or alternative models are not appropriate.

of

LAURENT DUFETEL is managing director of the Hay Groups Worldwide Compensation in such Practice. He has consulted in the field of management for more than fifteen years in job assurance. and Specializing sales administration, quality areas as organization design, was a key contribDufetel and surveys, compensation measurement, compensation design, for job measurement, utor to the development of Hays computer-assisted technology He holds a degree in civil engineering from LEcole Nationale Des Mines De

HayXpert.
Paris.

67
Downloaded from http://cbr.sagepub.com by Raluca Paraschiv on November 15, 2007 1991 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.