Defense against the ‘Dark Arts’ of Job Evaluation: A Crash Course!

Let me start with a confession. I have made a living out of job evaluation – both as an external consultant (who conducts job evaluation and trains/certifies the client team on job evaluation) and as an internal process owner. I have had the opportunity to get trained/certified in three different job evaluation methodologies and practice two of them extensively. Job Evaluation can be a very useful tool to establish the relative size of jobs in a systematic manner and this can serve as an input to various processes like organization design, job banding, rewards, career pathing, talent movements etc.

Now, the question is “why would anyone need to defend against such a useful thing?”. It is because job evaluation requires the investment of time and money and because one can be at the ‘receiving end’ of job evaluation as a Business Leader, HR Business Partner, People Manager or as an employee – when job evaluation becomes more of a hassle than a help. For a Business Leader who values flexibility job evaluation can comes an unnecessary hurdle to pass (See Paradox of HR Systems for a related discussion). In such a case, the business leader might just take a decision on the grade fitment of an employee and ask the HR Business Partner to ‘push it through the HR system’ somehow. Similarly, for a manager (who is trying to keep an employee motivated by providing vertical career growth) or for an employee (who looking for a promotion), job evaluation can become a serious impediment to what one wants to achieve.

Job evaluation is not an exact science. While the job evaluation providers might claim that their methodology has been successfully applied across countries and industry sectors, it is indeed possible that a particular methodology (especially one with fixed factors and factor weightages - most of the popular job evaluation methodologies fall into this category) favors certain types of jobs. This can lead to situations where the job evaluation scores don't accurately reflect the contribution various jobs make to a particular organization. It has been argued that job evaluation is a 'rationalized institutional myth' - 'rationalized' because it has a clearly articulated methodology and a 'myth' because it is accepted as true because it is believed.

Job evaluation involves a significant amount of judgement (which can be subjective, even when guided by a well-defined framework and quality checks). In a way, job evaluation is more of a ‘negotiated agreement’. In such a situation, if one doesn’t have political power, one might be at a significant disadvantage as compared to people who have such power. In extreme circumstances, job evaluation can become a tool for ‘powerplay’. Yes, there are also situations where the job evaluation process owner gets a bad name even when he/she hasn’t done anything wrong.

So, what are some of the options for defending against job evaluation? The following discussion can give you some ideas.

Avoid it if possible

Job Evaluation takes significant time and resources. Job Evaluation makes practical sense only if the jobs are relatively stable. So, if the jobs in your unit haven’t yet stabilized, you have a good case for arguing that job evaluation shouldn’t be applied to your unit at this stage. A similar argument can be made if your operating strategy involves recasting jobs frequently (requiring frequent reevaluation of jobs which can be expensive and time consuming). Also, if job evaluation is not very commonly used by the companies in your industry segment, that can give you a good argument against the applicability of job evaluation.

 There are indeed ways to implement job evaluation in the above-mentioned contexts. It is just that it is a bit more difficult to do so and that the case is less compelling.

Create a lot of exceptions when you can

Here the idea is to be a bit generous with the grade-fitment of the employees before job evaluation becomes applicable to your unit. Sometimes, this happens automatically. For example, for a new unit that is doing a lot of hiring, this helps to attract better talent.  Once job evaluation takes place, these employees will become ‘red circled’ (exceptions where the jobholder's grade is higher than what the job is evaluated at). However, it is very unlikely that the organization will reduce the grade of an existing employee in such cases. Therefore, it continues till the employee continues on the same job. Another option here is to get a ‘powerful leader’ (competent authority) to grant exceptions – to allow an employee to be hired/fitted at a level that is higher than that indicated by the job evaluation results. If there are a very large percentage of exceptions, it adversely impacts the credibility of job evaluation process. Therefore, each exception can make the next exception a bit easier!

Of course, these kinds of strategies can create long-term issues and inefficiencies for the unit and hence they can backfire from a long-term point of view.

Rob Peter to pay Paul but do pay Peter back with interest when Peter’s job is being evaluated

This involves shifting some of the responsibilities handled by one employee to another employee when the latter’s job is being evaluated and then more than reversing the process (by moving even more responsibilities back to the former employee) when the former’s job is being evaluated!  Yes, this can be a complicated process and lead to ‘red-circled’ employees if the job evaluation is practiced in the company in a strict manner (which involves reevaluating all the impacted jobs when there is a change in responsibilities of a particular job/when a new job is created necessitating the job evaluation). However, this takes a lot of effort to track changes and reevaluate on an ongoing basis – especially if these changes are done carefully over a period of time.

Such a complicated process is required as ‘simply inflating the responsibilities’ is unlikely to work. Job evaluation supposed to be done based on approved job descriptions and hence just being creative about the job responsibilities won’t do -unless there is no such validation/approval process for job descriptions in place. Also, job evaluation is done top-down and a job is evaluated in the context of the constellation of jobs surrounding it (especially the job of the reporting manager) and hence inflating the job responsibilities can lead to easily noticeable overlaps that serve as a red flag to the person evaluating the job. 

If you can't convince them confuse them

If the person doing the job evaluation doesn’t put in enough effort to understand the organization context and the responsibilities of the other jobs around the role being evaluated, one might have a decent chance of getting a higher job evaluation by confusing the job evaluator on the contribution the particular job makes! A liberal use of organization-specific jargon might not also be a bad idea!

Other tricks of the trade

Positioning the job as a clear successor position to the manager’s job and arguing that the overlaps with the manager’s role are by design (because of the requirements of the particular context) might work in some cases! In most of the job evaluation methodologies, some of the factors tend to be hierarchical and hence the evaluations on those factors are constrained by the evaluation of the manager's job on the same factors). Hence, this approach is not always so easy. 

Most of the job evaluation systems work in such a way that ‘stealing responsibilities from the jobs of the subordinates’ won’t have any beneficial impact on the job evaluation score of the job being evaluated. Hence the attempt to steal responsibilities from the jobs of the peers and the manager!

Being in the good books of the ‘job evaluation overlord’ can also be highly beneficial because of the judgement and discretion involved in job evaluation. This might reduce the chances of the 'overlord' exercising his/her 'negative power' (the power to block) in the cases of imperfections in the job descriptions and/or in the rationale to justify a particular evaluation. In most contexts, often there are imperfections in the job descriptions and the rationales and even the ‘job evaluation overlord’ has to pick and choose the battles he/she wants to fight to avoid being seen as too bureaucratic/unrealistic. 

In lieu of a conclusion

So, where does this discussion leave us? Job evaluation, like most things in life and work-life is a mixed blessing. Job evaluation not an exact science (it is both a science and an art). It is resource intensive and can introduce rigidity into the system. However, job evaluation can serve as a very valuable input to organization design, job banding, rewards, career pathing and inter-unit talent movements.  

As we have seen above, it has been argued that job evaluation is a rationalized institutional myth. One of the key functions served by a myth is the maintenance of social order (order in the social system called the organization, in this case). In this sense, job evaluation elevates the decisions on aspects like band-fitment from the realm of 'common sense' to the realm of the ‘scientific'. It provides an explanation and justification for an organizational hierarchy that might otherwise have been difficult to explain. Job evaluation signals to the employees the notion that the current structure of inequality is right and just! Yes, organization reality is socially constructed to a large extent and maintenance of social order is very important in business organizations too!

Therefore, for an organization the key question is whether it adds net value in the particular context – considering the benefits, the cost, the effort required and the possible side effects. Of course, for an individual it is essentially a matter of whether it is a help or a hassle for him/her and hence the decision on ‘whether or not to attempt a defense against job evaluation’ is likely to depend on that (moderated by altruistic and masochistic tendencies)!

 Any comments/thoughts?

On what good looks like : HR policies and processes

This post is an attempt to come back to a topic that we had explored here 7 years ago. The topic is the implications of the unstated assumptions that organizations and individuals have on 'what good looks like'. 

In the the previous post (See 'On what good looks like') we had explored this mainly from the point of view of selection decisions and 'person-organization fit'. In this post, let's look at it from the point of view of the different options for running the HR function, especially from the point of view of HR policies and processes.  

Now, if you were to ask me what is the significance of 7 years, I can only say that the number 7 is considered to be a 'perfect number' in many cultures and that some even associate mystical qualities to it!

When it comes to the underlying (unstated) definition of 'what good looks like' we had identified two themes that can be conceptualized as two ends of a continuum. They were 'absence of variation'  and 'presence of value' . Let's see what this means from the point of HR policies and processes.

In 'absence of variation' kind of organizations (where the definition of quality is similar to the 'Six Sigma' definition of quality), consistency of implementation of HR processes/policies is of paramount importance. This ensures ‘procedural justice’. This is also largely in line with HR models that emphasize process stability and maturity. This would mean very few or no exceptions! The essential message to the employees in this way of working is something like  "If you are eligible for something you don't have to ask for it (because you will get it without asking). If you are not eligible for something, then also you don't have to ask for it (because you won't get it even if you ask)."

In 'presence of value' kind if organizations(where the definition of quality is more like 'fitness for purpose'), the emphasis is on what makes most sense (adds most value) in a particular situation. This approach leads to a lot of flexibility in running HR (subject to some broad principles/HR philosophy and the laws of the land, of course). But it also can lead to a lot of exceptions. This, in turn, can lead to perceived inconsistency unless the HR and Business leaders have deeply understood the broad principles/HR philosophy and also have extensively communicated the same to the employees. 

Most of the companies find their equilibrium point somewhere in the continuum between the two polar opposites. The state of evolution of the company, the state of evolution of the HR function in the company, the industry in which the company operates, the culture of the company and the personal preferences of the leaders are often the factors that impact the choice of the equilibrium point. 

It can be argued that when the size a company becomes very large, it tends to gravitate towards the 'absence of variation' kind of underlying definition of quality (See 'Paradox of HR systems' for a related discussion). 

It can also be said that in those contexts where 'the owner and the manager are the same person' (e.g. in the case of partnership firms and proprietor-driven companies) there is often an affinity towards the 'fitness for purpose' kind of underlying definition of quality (See 'HRM in partnership firms' and 'Of owning and belonging' for more details)

Again, it can be argued that as the HR function in a company evolves, the underlying definition of 'what good looks like' often follows a U-curve kind of pattern - starting with 'fitness of purpose' kind of definition (as HR policies and processes are yet to take root). moving towards the 'absence of variation kind of definition' (when there are very detailed policies and procedures in place) and then coming back to 'presence of value'  kind of definition (when the policies and procedures are perceived to be too restrictive/bureaucratic). This is especially significant in companies that are operating in rapidly changing industries, and hence requiring more agility in terms of people management also. By the way, this 'U-curve' is a concept is found in many of the social sciences (See 'U-curve and Simplicity @  the other side of Complexity' for more details). A similar argument can be made in the case of some of the key enablers in HR, like behavioral competency frameworks, that assume that 'there is one right way of doing things' and hence comes very close to the 'absence of variation' kind of underlying definition (See 'Competency frameworks : An intermediate stage?' for more details).  

It is also possible to create some sort of a ‘synthesis’ of these two definitions of 'what good looks like' ('absence of variation' and 'presence of value') that act like the 'thesis' and the  'antithesis'. One pragmatic option could be to define the policies/procedures very clearly/in detail, and also define an exception process that is very tough!

Any comments/ideas?