Chapter 5: Issues in Job Evaluation and Pay
To enhance efficiency and equity in a variety of core personnel functions such as recruitment, examination, selection, performance management, and compensation, it is useful that we understand the content of jobs and that we evaluate and group jobs that are similar in their associated tasks and responsibilities together into categories or classes. This is known as “rank in job,” where the characteristics of the job rather than the characteristics of the person holding the job determine the rank. The design, application, and maintenance of job evaluation systems is considered a major responsibility of human resource specialists, especially in government merit systems where emphasis is placed on achieving equity in selection procedures and pay administration.
To understand and ultimately describe the content of jobs, an analysis of the required tasks and the knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs) associated with them is necessary. Jobs change over time as technology, organizational structure, and demands placed on jobs change. Therefore, it is important to have other sources of information. One such source is the incumbent employee. An analyst can ask employees about the content of their jobs by administering a survey consisting of a job analysis questionnaire that provides information about the variety of tasks associated with specific jobs. The survey is an efficient way to collect a substantial amount of information. It is also useful to ask employees about their jobs in direct personal interviews. The third common source of information about job content is the supervisor who has responsibility to oversee work performed in the job under analysis. Four specific techniques of job analysis are used in both the public and private sectors. The first whole-job method in which jobs are compared to each other is known as “ranking” and is the simplest of all the approaches. A personnel specialist is to read job descriptions and place them in rank from the most important to the least. The second whole-job approach is known as “grade description” or “job classification.” It provides a modest improvement over the ranking techniques. Jobs are compared with evaluation standards. The factor –comparison approach is the most difficult technique to explain. First, the identification of “benchmark” jobs are determined to be appropriately compensated. Next, job factors or characteristics that justify compensation are identified. A determination is made of how much of the pay of each benchmark job is attributable to each of the selected factors. Each job evaluated becomes an additional benchmark. The final approach to job evaluation is the factor/point technique. This requires that jobs be broken down into compensable factors for purposes of evaluation, and that the presence of those factors be compared with predetermined standards.
Job evaluation is a key target of Civil Service Reform II initiatives because it is at the heart of conventional merit systems. The federal government is in the process of fragmenting into a wide variety of pay plans, many of which are intended to address the needs of individual agencies to attract and retain certain categories of workers, most importantly skilled professionals and occupations that are in high demand.
To enhance efficiency and equity in a variety of core personnel functions such as recruitment, examination, selection, performance management, and compensation, it is useful that we understand the content of jobs and that we evaluate and group jobs that are similar in their associated tasks and responsibilities together into categories or classes. This is known as “rank in job,” where the characteristics of the job rather than the characteristics of the person holding the job determine the rank. The design, application, and maintenance of job evaluation systems is considered a major responsibility of human resource specialists, especially in government merit systems where emphasis is placed on achieving equity in selection procedures and pay administration.
To understand and ultimately describe the content of jobs, an analysis of the required tasks and the knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs) associated with them is necessary. Jobs change over time as technology, organizational structure, and demands placed on jobs change. Therefore, it is important to have other sources of information. One such source is the incumbent employee. An analyst can ask employees about the content of their jobs by administering a survey consisting of a job analysis questionnaire that provides information about the variety of tasks associated with specific jobs. The survey is an efficient way to collect a substantial amount of information. It is also useful to ask employees about their jobs in direct personal interviews. The third common source of information about job content is the supervisor who has responsibility to oversee work performed in the job under analysis. Four specific techniques of job analysis are used in both the public and private sectors. The first whole-job method in which jobs are compared to each other is known as “ranking” and is the simplest of all the approaches. A personnel specialist is to read job descriptions and place them in rank from the most important to the least. The second whole-job approach is known as “grade description” or “job classification.” It provides a modest improvement over the ranking techniques. Jobs are compared with evaluation standards. The factor –comparison approach is the most difficult technique to explain. First, the identification of “benchmark” jobs are determined to be appropriately compensated. Next, job factors or characteristics that justify compensation are identified. A determination is made of how much of the pay of each benchmark job is attributable to each of the selected factors. Each job evaluated becomes an additional benchmark. The final approach to job evaluation is the factor/point technique. This requires that jobs be broken down into compensable factors for purposes of evaluation, and that the presence of those factors be compared with predetermined standards.
Job evaluation is a key target of Civil Service Reform II initiatives because it is at the heart of conventional merit systems. The federal government is in the process of fragmenting into a wide variety of pay plans, many of which are intended to address the needs of individual agencies to attract and retain certain categories of workers, most importantly skilled professionals and occupations that are in high demand.
No comments:
Post a Comment