I'm being tasked with coming up with a way to implement Job Evaluation in a medium-sized organisation (around 1,000 employees) who have four different sets of terms and conditions. Two staff groups will be fairly easy to do - and these are probably the lowest paid ones anyway - its the group of specialists and managers who will prove an issue. They've been used to saying 'I'm in a specialist area - pay me more' and getting away with it for years. I'm not sure how people are going to swallow being rewarded for the job requirements only rather than the qualities they can bring to the role.
I'd be grateful for any advice, or details of or your experiences!!
HR Manager, Essex
My suggestion would be to have a trial run first by working on a few jobs from each of the different 'groups'.
Without knowing your grade or pay structure it is difficult to say, but you first need to agree on what gets measured, and what that is measured is considered to deliver more value (in your organisation) or denote a higher skilled job etc. In fact, I would argue that a specialist often is paid more/is at a higher grade.
You need to ensure that any method you use does not have any inbuilt inequality or unfairness. For example, we have a Job Evaluation group set up who assess each job against agreed criteria only. This group includes staff, managers, union and an external person. It is chaired by HR, who are also one of the evaluators. This is of real benefit to us because it is a transparent process.
We have flexibility within the pay structure so that we can differentiate between people in equal grade roles where additional, highly relevant, qualities or skills are brought to the role.
Good luck with it.
© 2010 Reed Business Information Ltd.