HR Perspective with Memory Nguwi
Continued from last week
Peromnes is also widely respected and provides a structured method for comparing jobs across organisations.
The mistake many organisations make is assuming that system selection determines project success. In reality, the competence of those applying the methodology is often more important than the methodology itself. A poorly executed Hay evaluation can produce less credible results than a well-executed Paterson exercise. Organisations should therefore focus less on methodology debates and more on ensuring that the chosen methodology is applied professionally, consistently, and objectively.
Stage 4: Establish project governance
A job evaluation project requires a formal governance structure. Without governance, disagreements, appeals, and implementation challenges can quickly undermine confidence in the process. Governance provides oversight, accountability, and a mechanism for resolving issues that inevitably arise during the project.
A steering committee should be established to oversee the project. The committee should include senior leaders who understand the organisation and can provide guidance on major decisions. The role of the committee is not to influence evaluation outcomes but to ensure that the project remains aligned with organizational objectives and follows agreed principles.
Governance structures also enhance credibility. Employees and managers are more likely to trust the process when they know there is independent oversight. Strong governance helps prevent perceptions that grading decisions are being manipulated to favour particular individuals, departments, or functions.
Stage 5: Conduct stakeholder education
Stakeholder education is arguably the most important stage of the entire project. Most employees have never participated in a job evaluation exercise and often misunderstand its purpose. Some believe it is a salary review exercise. Others assume it is a restructuring initiative designed to eliminate jobs. These misconceptions create anxiety and resistance long before any jobs are evaluated.
Organisations should invest significant time explaining what job evaluation is and what it is not. Employees should understand that jobs are being evaluated rather than people. Managers should understand that incumbent performance, qualifications, and tenure have no influence on grading outcomes. Executives should understand that the process may reveal organisational issues that require attention.
Organisations that neglect stakeholder education usually experience higher levels of resistance and significantly more appeals. By contrast, organisations that communicate openly and consistently throughout the project tend to achieve greater acceptance of the final outcomes. Communication should therefore be viewed as a core project activity rather than an administrative afterthought.
Stage 6: Review organisational structure
Before evaluating jobs, the organisation should review its structure. One of the most valuable aspects of job evaluation is that it exposes structural weaknesses that may otherwise remain hidden. Many grading problems are actually symptoms of poor organisational design rather than flaws in the grading system itself.
It is common to find excessive management layers, unclear reporting relationships, duplicated responsibilities, and inflated job titles during this stage. Some organisations have managers supervising one or two employees while others have multiple layers performing similar work. Such structures create distortions that complicate job evaluation and reduce organisational effectiveness.
Reviewing the structure before evaluating jobs improves the quality of the final outcomes. It allows the organisation to clarify accountabilities, eliminate unnecessary complexity, and ensure that the evaluation process reflects the reality of how work is organized. Structural clarity provides a much stronger foundation for grading decisions.
Stage 7: Develop high-quality job descriptions
The quality of job descriptions largely determines the quality of job evaluation outcomes. No methodology can compensate for poor job descriptions. If the information describing a job is inaccurate or incomplete, the resulting evaluation will inevitably be flawed.
A well-developed job description should clearly define the purpose of the role, major accountabilities, decision-making authority, reporting relationships, financial responsibilities, people management responsibilities, and organizational impact. Particular emphasis should be placed on actual responsibilities rather than historical duties or aspirational expectations.
Many organisations discover that their job descriptions have not been updated for years. Some documents bear little resemblance to the work currently being performed. This stage therefore requires significant effort, but it is one of the most important investments in the entire project. Accurate job descriptions are essential for achieving credible evaluation outcomes.
Stage 8: Decide who will conduct the job evaluation
One of the most important decisions in a job evaluation project is determining who will actually evaluate the jobs. Surprisingly, many organisations devote considerable attention to selecting a system while paying little attention to selecting the evaluators. Yet the credibility of the entire exercise depends on the competence, objectivity, and consistency of those applying the methodology.
One approach is to engage external consultants to evaluate all jobs independently. This approach provides a high degree of objectivity and technical expertise. Consultants bring experience from multiple organisations and are generally less influenced by internal politics. However, they may require time to understand the organisation’s unique context and operating environment.
A second approach is to establish an internal job evaluation committee. Internal committees possess deep organisational knowledge and often increase ownership of the results. However, they can also be vulnerable to bias, departmental lobbying, and grade inflation if not properly managed.
A third approach, and often the most effective, is a hybrid model. In this model, external consultants provide technical leadership while internal managers contribute operational knowledge. This approach combines objectivity with organisational understanding and creates opportunities for knowledge transfer. Many of the most successful projects I have been involved in have used this model.
Regardless of the approach selected, evaluators must be trained and calibrated before the process begins. Job evaluation is a specialised skill. Seniority alone does not guarantee competence in evaluating jobs. Consistency, objectivity, and evidence-based decision-making must be reinforced throughout the exercise.
Stage 9: Conduct job evaluation process
Once preparation has been completed, the formal evaluation process can begin. Evaluators must focus exclusively on the content of the job rather than the individual occupying it. This distinction is fundamental and should never be compromised.
Factors such as employee performance, tenure, academic qualifications possessed by incumbents, personal relationships, and historical salary levels should play no role in grading decisions. The focus should remain on the accountabilities, complexity, decision-making authority, and organisational impact of the job itself. Every decision should be supported by evidence contained within the job description.
One of the greatest risks at this stage is allowing assumptions to replace facts. Where information is unclear, clarification should be sought rather than guessed. A disciplined and evidence-based approach is essential for maintaining credibility and ensuring consistency across the organisation.
Stage 10: Conduct a consistency review
After jobs have been evaluated, the results should undergo a rigorous consistency review. The purpose of this review is to determine whether the resulting hierarchy makes organisational sense and whether relationships between jobs are logical and defensible.
A technically correct evaluation outcome may sometimes create practical inconsistencies. For example, two jobs may receive similar evaluations despite significantly different organisational impacts. Such situations require careful examination to determine whether the issue lies with the evaluation or with the underlying job description.
Consistency reviews provide an important quality assurance mechanism. They help identify anomalies before implementation and strengthen confidence in the final outcomes. Organisations that skip this stage often encounter avoidable disputes later in the process.
Stage 11: Develop the grade structure
The next step involves translating evaluation outcomes into a coherent grading structure. The grading structure should create meaningful distinctions between jobs while remaining simple enough to administer effectively. A well-designed grading structure supports workforce planning, succession planning, career management, and remuneration administration. It should provide a clear framework for managing organisational growth and future changes.
lNguwi is the managing consultant of Industrial Psychology Consultants and a registered occupational psychologist.