Should an organization adopt an analytical job evaluation scheme? What are the problems and how can they be overcome?
Job evaluation aims to establish a fair and workable system of differentials between various jobs in the organization, sort out anomalies between similar jobs in different parts of the same organization, review the jobs in an organization, which have changed over time, and assess the value of a job that is hard to fill (Chartered Management Institute, 2005). In job evaluation, each job is also rated on the basis of the necessary skill, experience, responsibility, and working conditions. Evaluation procedures must be linked to the demands of the job or be shown able to predict performance of the important functions in the position as determined by job analysis.
Job evaluation has been defined as a generic term to describe a set of procedures which create a hierarchy of jobs based upon their worth to an organization. Job evaluation has become important as a means of implementing comparable worth statutes, particularly in the public sector. At present, at least 14 states now have some form of legislation prohibiting gender inequality in compensating jobs of comparable worth. Unfortunately, there are currently no clear standards for assessing the validity of job evaluation. No consistent approach for resolving this problem is apparent either in current practice or in rationalizations of practice (Lewis, 1989)
Job evaluation deals with jobs impersonally and is not concerned with the race, creed, color, age, or sex of the employee unless in some way these personal variations become pertinent to the jobs. Equal pay for equal work is the very essence of job evaluation.
Job evaluation was designed to eliminate paternalistic management practices that evaluated a worker’s family circumstances, work history, and other personal considerations in determining wages. As the personnel function became depersonalized, such discretion was discouraged. Job evaluation was also supposed to reduce pay disparities across departments and divisions of the company and to lessen employee grievances and spiraling wage costs due to competition between groups of employees or even individual employees within the organization. The pioneers of early job evaluation did not raise the issue of gender in their writing. Overall, their key objective was to rationalize personnel policy (Figaro, 2000).
Simple approaches towards job evaluation tend to be non-analytical. For example, one method takes one job as the benchmark against which all others are assessed; certain factors in a job are examined in comparison with the benchmark. Another method is to define a grading structure first, then review job specifications within that framework and make any adjustments.
More analytical approaches tend to involve factor weighting and point scoring systems Each job will be assessed on a number of key factors, such as the size of the budget controlled, the number of staff reporting to the post, direct interface with customers, the level of technical expertise required and the potential impact on the organization’s success. Points are awarded for each factor from a predetermined set of specifications (for example, 5 points if there are 4 or fewer staff reporting, 12 points in the case of 5-15 staff, 20 points in the case of 16-50 and so on) and a total reached which provides the final level of importance. This is then reviewed to take into account any further points of detail that have additional impact on the job’s value.
Job evaluation follows the principles of scientific management. The scientific method of approaching a business problem is based on a systematic way of thinking. It is not necessary that we have laboratory-devised and control-tested formulas in order to establish such as system. But it is necessary to establish a uniform, inflexible framework for thinking about jobs, so that the plan administrators and the supervisors will use the same factor values (Figaro, 2000).
According to certain findings, job evaluation is considered to be as the most crucial aspect in determining the appropriate value and process of human resource management as it involves vivid relationships to provide solutions to some HRM applications for appropriate updates and other important details (Antonioni, 1994). Tarnow, (1993) stated that job evaluation involves used for compensation planning purposes, it is the process of comparing a job with other jobs in an organization to determine an appropriate pay rate for the job. It is also the methods and practices of ordering jobs or positions with respect to their value or worth to the organization.
Recent investigations have focused on differences in job performance ratings generated by groups compared with ratings generated by individuals. This topic is important given the contemporary trend toward the use of teams and groups in organisational settings. Using experimental laboratory methods and students as subjects, Jordan & Heath (1996) showed that after completing a task, most individuals ranked their own performance lower the median (a negative performance illusion), whereas most group members ranked their group performance above the median (a positive performance illusion), contradicting previous research showing a positive illusion for both individuals and group members. The authors labelled the differences between group and individual perceptions of job evaluation as the “evaluation gap.”
On the other hand, Martell & Borg (1993) scrutinised the relative accuracy of having individuals or groups of individuals provide ratings on a behavioural checklist after reviewing a pencil-and-paper vignette depicting the work behaviour of a police officer. Ratings were made either immediately or after a five-day delay. Results showed that groups remembered more accurately than individuals under a delayed condition, but no differences were observed when ratings were made immediately. They argued that using groups to provide ratings may be a help but not a panacea for dealing with rating accuracy. Research is just starting to examine the issue of group versus individual rating sources. Before we progress too much further, it might be wise to develop more theoretical specifications of when and why groups may provide more accurate evaluations of performance.
2.2 Job Evaluation Systems
Apparently, there is a substantial increase of interest lately in so-called “360-degree“performance measures. Actually, 360-degree feedback system is a type of Job Evaluation System. A Job Evaluation System measures incorporate evaluations from a number of different ratter perspectives which are supervisor, peer, subordinate, self, and even customers and are used for feedback and/or personnel decisions. Apparently, (1995) developed a model and propositions regarding the impact of such a outsource system on perceptions of goal accomplishment, re-evaluation of self-image, and changes in performance-related outcomes (i.e. goals, development, behaviour, and subsequent performance). These authors also articulated a number of potential moderators of the major components of the model.
According to Tarnow, (1993), an excellent starting point in terms of becoming aware of 360-degree instruments and systems is a special issue of Human Resource Management. Included in this issue the article of (1993) focusing on understanding the relationship between the self and other ratings, a cluster focusing on improving the value of others’ feedback, and a final cluster dealing with the impact of 360-degree feedback as a management intervention.
Likewise, Antonioni (1994) illustrated the results of a field study using 38 managers and their subordinates and showed that subordinates preferred providing appraisal feedback to their managers anonymously. However, Antonioni (1994) stated that managers viewed upward appraisals more positively when such feedback was provided under conditions of accountability or when they were aware of the identity of the subordinates. Under conditions of accountability, subordinates tended to inflate their rating of managers, suggesting that rate identification may influence such feedback information.
Basically, the job evaluation system is an attempt to develop organisation performance by escalating the range of data integrated in the assessment. Recognising that assessment and action planning are also parts of the feedback system allows management to better alter the job evaluation system to its specific organisation. It is also important to identify whether the system is focused on management, the employee, or the customer. Moreover, each focal point has different requirements signifying who should participate in each factor. Will the system be used solely for development or is there a need to use this feedback for organisational purposes? The latter raise additional issues that must be solved for job evaluation system to be successful. Finally, the organisation’s environment, control system, and task interdependence may affect the likelihood that job evaluation system can succeed in a particular case, since it must fit with existing organisational processes and approaches.
Certainly, job evaluation system can be tuned to the realism of many modern associations. When associations direct employees to “focus on the customer” and place people in work arrangements that emphasise cooperation, 360-degree feedback allows customers, team members, and others to have a voice in the proper assessment process. However, not all organisations are designed for or need this much participation. Forcing job evaluation system participation as a part of the feedback process when it is not well-suited to the organisation is a quick route to failure.
Basically, it is recognised the definitive research on job evaluation system have yet to be done. Yet, organisations must make decisions on what use they will make of the technique. Using existing research and theory, it is suggested that some elements that should help determine which approach to job evaluation system should work best in certain circumstances. Definitely, as organisations gain more experience and research evolves, the researcher understanding of what characteristics help match the firm to the system will improve. However, the limited range of characteristics listed here should help companies seeking a good fit with a job evaluation system by providing elements for consideration before deciding to adopt job evaluation system.
Many organizations do not place much importance on performance evaluations. Even more striking is the fact that several organizations don’t even require annual evaluations. The reason for this attitude is that there are many problems with current methods of completing performance evaluations. First, in many cases the process is subjective. The instrument used is very general and broad based. This requires the supervisor to add his or her own commentary regarding their team member’s performance. Second, there appears to be a lack of organizational commitment to complete meaningful evaluations (Stein, 2006).
To correct this obstacle, a department head needs to train all members required to complete performance evaluations, and then set up an organizational accountability system. When a department trains all its supervisors, a foundation of consistency is developed. After training is completed, the accountability factor is implemented. This is where the first-line supervisor’s boss, usually the battalion chief, plays an important role. It is obvious that not all first-line supervisors will have the same dedication or make the same effort when completing the evaluations. When the evaluation is sent through channels, the battalion chief, or whoever supervises the first-line officer, should review it for accuracy and completeness.
When the performance evaluation process is completed properly, everyone gains. The worker being evaluated has the opportunity to identify, discuss and address performance areas that need improvement. Additionally, a realistic and action-oriented plan for achieving team member career goals is developed.
The supervisor has the opportunity to convert general daily supervisory impressions of team member performance into an objective, job-related, officially recorded history. The supervisor is also given an opportunity to encourage, guide, praise, warn or otherwise counsel the team member. In addition, the performance evaluation becomes a communication tool, motivational tool, clarification tool, future-planning tool, recognition tool and documentation tool. How is this accomplished? First, the team member and supervisor meet. Expectations are discussed, as is performance as it relates to the member’s job description. Also, this is the time to discuss personal goals and organizational goals desired by the member (Stein, 2006).
Several threats to the validity of job evaluation exist. The training of raters and the selection of factors and factor weights all have a bearing on the validity of job evaluation outcomes. Subjectivity on the part of raters, for example, is an often cited problem.(4) The selection and weighting of compensable factors also has significant bearing upon the validity of job evaluation outcomes. Misuse (or misinterpretation) of statistical procedures is also problematic (Lewis, 1989).
Of primary importance at present is determination of a theoretical basis for confirming (or disconfirming) the validity of pay (the outcome) resulting from job evaluation (the measure). Considering job pricing and job evaluation together departs from the usual view that job evaluation and pricing are separate. However, systems theory suggests that job evaluation and pricing should be considered parts of an organized, unitary compensation system. Moreover, job evaluation as it is usually practiced merely reflects external exchange rates and does not adequately define job worth apart from external rates (Lewis, 1989).
Given relationships between pay, satisfaction, and benefit accruing to employee and employer, it follows that job satisfaction of an employee should be considered the underlying variable determining the validity job evaluation (or any other approach taken to establish and maintain pay). Satisfaction occurs to the extent pay is perceived to be equitable when internal and external pay comparisons are made by adequately paid employees.
Employee satisfaction resulting from pay adequacy and equity serves as an effective proxy for the job worth construct. Such “satisfaction” indicates that the worth of the job has been tapped (at least from the employee’s perspective). Looking at “job worth” from the standpoint of the employee may seem a radical departure from standard practice. However, from the employer’s perspective, if the “true worth” of a job is not tapped by job evaluation (and reflected in pay) then, barring mitigating circumstances mentioned previously, resulting employee dissatisfaction will compromise the attraction, retention, and motivation of employees–important purposes of pay.
Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment