HR Perspective with MEMORY NGUWI
IF you carry out a job evaluation and stop there, you have wasted money. That is the starting point, because everything else flows from it. Job evaluation ranks roles.
It tells you the relative size of jobs and how they compare to each other. That is necessary, but it does not fix pay. The mistake many organisations make is to treat job evaluation as the final step, when in reality it is only the beginning.
The first issue to get right is what happens immediately after grading. The grades must be converted into a clear pay structure. This is where the real value sits. A proper pay structure defines salary ranges for each grade, including minimum, midpoint, and maximum levels.
It sets out how employees move within those ranges over time and links pay to both job size and the external market. Without this step, job evaluation remains theoretical. Pay decisions continue to be made in an inconsistent way, and the organisation sees no real benefit from the exercise.
The second issue is what to do if a pay structure already exists. Many organisations assume they can simply slot the new grades into the existing structure. That is a mistake. A company wide job evaluation often changes the relative positioning of roles. Some roles increase in size, others reduce, and new roles may emerge.
If the pay structure is not reviewed and adjusted, a gap opens up between job value and pay. That gap quickly translates into employee dissatisfaction and ongoing disputes. A refreshed structure is not optional. It is part of completing the job evaluation process.
The third issue is the appeals process, which is one of the most important but often neglected steps. Once grading is complete, each employee must receive an individual letter stating the grade of their role. That same communication must clearly explain the right to appeal and the specific grounds on which an appeal can be made. It is central to fairness and acceptance. When employees understand the process and see that there is a formal way to challenge decisions, they are more likely to accept outcomes, even when they do not fully agree.
When the appeals process is ignored or poorly executed, problems do not disappear. They are simply delayed. Employees may appear to accept the results, but dissatisfaction remains. Over time, this shows up in disengagement, repeated complaints, and pressure for regrading. Management then starts making exceptions to manage the pressure coming from employees, and the structure begins to break down. A disciplined and transparent appeals process prevents this by dealing with concerns early and openly.
The fourth issue is how the grading itself is conducted, particularly when internal committees are used. In theory, internal committees should bring knowledge of the organisation and improve accuracy. In practice, they introduce bias. The moment committee members know who occupies a role, their judgment is influenced. They start thinking about the individual rather than the job. Performance, personality, and internal relationships begin to shape grading decisions. What should be an objective assessment of the role becomes subjective.
Closely linked to this is the influence of job titles. Titles carry weight in organisations, and they often distort evaluation outcomes. Roles with senior sounding titles are frequently pushed to higher grades, even when the actual responsibilities do not support that position. This creates inflated structures that are difficult to sustain. To deal with this, organisations must remove job titles during the grading process and force evaluators to focus only on the content of the role, including responsibilities, decision making, and impact.
The fifth issue is the design of the evaluation approach itself. If an organisation relies on a single internal committee, the risk of bias remains high, even with controls in place. A stronger approach is to use two independent committees to evaluate the same roles separately and then compare or average the results. This reduces the influence of any one group. An even more robust option is to use an external panel or consultant. External evaluators are removed from internal politics and can assess roles more objectively. The result is a set of grades that management can defend with confidence.
The sixth issue is overgrading, which is one of the of poorly managed job evaluation. There is often pressure to push roles, especially managerial ones, into higher bands. Roles are moved into upper levels based on title or perceived importance rather than actual job content. This leads to structures where too many roles sit at the top, leaving little room for differentiation. It also drives up costs and creates expectations that cannot be sustained.
In reality, the highest grades should be reserved for roles with significant decision making authority and clear impact on organisational performance. When these criteria are applied properly, only a small number of roles qualify. Most roles fall below these levelsi.e. below F and E levels of Paterson. Ignoring this creates long term problems, including pay compression and constant pressure for further regrading.
The final issue is the misuse of job evaluation as a reward mechanism. Job evaluation is not designed to recognise individual performance or loyalty. It is designed to assess the size and value of roles. When organisations use it to justify higher pay for specific individuals, they undermine the entire system. The structure becomes inconsistent, and internal equity is lost. Over time, the organisation ends up with a pay system that cannot be explained or defended.
When these issues are handled in the right sequence, job evaluation delivers real value. It produces a clear hierarchy of roles, a structured and market aligned pay system, and a framework for consistent decision making. When they are handled poorly the organisation spends significant money on job evaluation and ends up with little to show for it.
Nguwi is an occupational psychologist, data scientist, speaker and managing consultant at Industrial Psychology Consultants (Pvt) Ltd, a management and human resources consulting firm.