Job evaluation

The term job evaluation describes a standardized procedure that evaluates positions within a company / organization on the basis of role and competence requirements. The position holder , title or reporting channels are not evaluated, but only the position as a structural unit of the organization with 100% standard performance. The terms function evaluation and position evaluation are borrowed from English, job evaluation or job grading are usually used synonymously. The information relevant for the evaluation of the positions is mostly collected from position descriptions, organizational charts and position plans or in interviews with the responsible managers.

Demarcation from labor value recording

While in the case of job value recording or job evaluation in the narrower sense, individual activities and processes are recorded by means of job descriptions and, if necessary, examined ad personam for affected employees ( methods-time measurement ) or the basic remuneration is directly linked to the score achieved in the evaluation via key figures, In the case of a job evaluation, the job with its requirement profile is viewed as a structural element of the organizational unit with 100% performance.

Methods of job evaluation

The methods of job evaluation can initially be divided into two types: analytical and non-analytical (summary) job evaluation.

In the "summary job evaluation", the requirements of the positions are assessed in their entirety and assigned to a rank or group in comparison to other activities. The assessment is mostly based on standardized job descriptions and is made as a reasoned decision.

Two common representatives of the summary job evaluation are the "ranking" and the "wage group procedure".

• In the "ranking process", the requirements for positions are compared with one another as a whole and the positions are then ranked, for example by means of individual pair comparisons. A ranking of the values ​​of the positions in direct comparison with neighboring positions is generated.
• In the "wage group procedure", a reference group is first defined (in collective agreements usually referred to as a corner group. "Activities that require a completed 3-year training"). Then all the requirements of a position are compared with reference examples and the position is then assigned to a group.

In the "analytical job evaluation", the requirements for a position are evaluated using a series of individual evaluation factors. The individual factors can be graded in their characteristics and weighted differently. The value of the position results from the sum of the individual factor results.

Here, too, two main procedures can be mentioned: "Ranking procedure" (job ranking) and "level number procedure" (job grading)

• In the "ranking process", individual work requirements are weighted, assessed and ranked. The sum of the individual values ​​results in the total requirement that is used for the classification. Possibly. the evaluation matrix is ​​supplemented by clearly defined anchor positions.
• In the case of the “step number method” or “grading”, the evaluation criteria are presented on a more abstract level as weighted and graded factors. Points are awarded for each factor and the total number of points gives the grade / value level.

Historical development

In the context of rationalization and the associated changes in corporate management (scientific management) after the Second World War, the evaluation of work and positions also experienced a stronger scientific systematization. Above all, the recording of labor values ​​according to REFA should be mentioned here, which was created in the 1920s and was initially used primarily in production, but was later expanded to include commercial activities. Another milestone is the Geneva scheme. This scheme was developed in Europe in 1950 and continues to this day.

In the USA, Dale Purve developed the Hay Guide Charts as a job evaluation system that followed the principles of scientific management.

As a rule, the following main categories can be found in the rating systems:

• Mental demands
• Physical demands
• External working conditions
• responsibility

The changes in the world of work due to technologization and digitization and in society (keyword: equality) have ensured that the evaluation models are constantly being adapted to reality. The trend is moving from the measurement of individual activities to a holistic assessment of the requirements for specialist skills, responsibility and social skills.

Methods in comparison

Summary job evaluation

Analytical job evaluation

Easy to use Relatively little effort (supposedly) to be understood without prior knowledge Risk of strong subjectivity in the assessment Non-transparent process Limited comparability of the results Discrimination Potential Elaborate quality assurance

Consistent requirement categories across all positions Transparent process with verifiable results Less influence of subjectivity High level of acceptance among those involved Comparability of the results Less potential for discrimination The complexity of the systems requires a high level of abstraction from the job evaluator High effort for systems and training (depending on the provider / in-house development)

application areas

Compensation structure

When it comes to leadership and compensation , a systematic compensation structure is a critical factor for companies. An ideal remuneration system is performance and market-oriented, is perceived by employees as fair and can be flexibly adapted to a changing corporate environment. The introduction of a systematic job evaluation forms the basis of such an ideal-typical remuneration system. The data basis used for job evaluation must not be too extensive on the one hand, since evaluation processes would be lengthy and hardly practicable, especially in large companies, and on the other hand not kept too general so that the work content can be clearly understood and the individual positions can be clearly delimited from one another.

In addition, job evaluation to meet the maxim “equal money for work of equal value” will gain in importance, since analytical job evaluation systems are particularly well suited to determining the equivalence of positions across different functional families. The legal basis in the European Union is Directive 2006/54 / EC: "The principle of equal pay means the elimination of any discrimination on the basis of sex in relation to all pay components and for work that is recognized as equivalent -conditions. If a job grading system is used to determine pay, that system must be based on criteria common to both male and female workers. ”For example, in the UK legal system, equal pay claims affect the design of pay and job evaluation systems in court From: Practically only analytical job evaluation systems for the justification of salary differences are recognized in court. The factors by which these systems evaluate a position must be non-discriminatory and apply to the entire workforce. Differences in the remuneration of equivalent positions must therefore be justified by non-gender-specific factors.

Job architecture

The results of the structured determination of requirements for all positions in an organization form the basis for a company-specific level system in the company's nomenclature. The general level requirements are supplemented by family and position-specific information. This data is supplemented by career models and, if necessary, appropriately graded competence catalogs.

Employee and organisation development

By defining the requirements, core processes of HR work are given a clear content structure or can be improved, for example relevant competencies, criteria for personnel selection or critical stages of an induction plan can be designed.

Performance management

A uniform job evaluation provides the basis for the pre-structuring of target agreements for each (management) level with typical target types and defined, if necessary, cross-departmental key figures, matching the requirements profile of the job.

Analytical job evaluation system provider

providers	Evaluation criteria	Careers
BWI - Functional Job Evaluation	Job requirement: professional activity Effective range Decision-making authority Professional competence Communication / customer orientation Job requirement: managerial duties Leadership skills: line Leadership skills: project / subject Job requirement: stress factors Environmental influences Physical strain Passive psychological stress source	Possible depending on the requirements of the organization ("model career")
grade the job evaluation engine	all careers Expertise Experience Thinking / problem solving Organizational skills communication common to the specialist and management career Process responsibility Scope of the decisions specifically for the specialist career Responsibility for employees Functional responsibility specific to the management career Management span & managed group of employees Organizational responsibility specific to project management Project responsibility & leadership range Project size source	Professional career Leadership career Project management career
Hay Group - Guide Charts Profile Method of Job Evaluation	Knowledge Expertise / technical knowledge Management skills Social competence Thinking power Thinking framework Thought requirements responsibility Room for maneuver Type of influence Influencing quantity (order of magnitude) source	no career differentiation
Kienbaum - Kienbaum Grading	Importance of the tasks Contributions to corporate strategy Importance of business processes Role in business processes Economic responsibility Budget responsibility Control of value drivers Influence on key performance indicators guide Disciplinary leadership Professional leadership Project-related leadership communication Range and level External and internal impact	Leadership career L 1: Board of Directors / Management L 2 - L 3: Upper management level L 3 - L 4: Middle management level L 5 - L 6: Operational management level Professional career L 4: Specialist / Speaker (Senior) L 5 - L 6: specialist / speaker L 7: Specialist / speaker (junior) / clerk (high complexity) L 8: Clerk (medium complexity) L 9b: clerk (low complexity) / skilled worker L 9a: skilled workers 10b: learned strength 10a: unskilled strength
Mercer - International Position Evaluation	influence Organization size Type of influence Influence strength communication Art Framework (partner etc.) innovation Degree of innovation complexity Knowledge Expertise Leadership responsibility scope Working conditions (only applicable if necessary) Type of risk Environmental conditions source	no career differentiation
pwc - Strata	Knowledge and ability Expertise Company knowledge Social competence solve problems Thinking framework Level of difficulty Influence and responsibility Freedom of choice Influencing factor (budget responsibility) Influence on target achievement source	no career differentiation
Towers Watson - Global Grading System	Expertise Business knowledge Troubleshooting guide Sphere of influence Type of influence Communication / interpersonal skills	Professional career Volume 1: Unskilled Volume 2: Learned Volume 3IC: Student specialists Volume 4IC: Experts Leadership career Volume 3M: team leader Volume 4M: Middle Management Volume 5FS: Functional Strategic Management Volume 5BS: Strategic Business Management

Job evaluation in public administration

The basis for the job evaluation and the classification in the public administration is the description of the task area (BAK) in which the work processes of the workplace are recorded. The operations are assigned to the characteristics of the legal basis. This results in the remuneration for one position .

Legal basis for public sector employees

Decisive for the job evaluation of employees in the public sector is Art. 9 para. 3 of the Basic Law and § 4 of the Collective Agreement Act . The examination takes place according to § 12, § 13 and § 14 of the collective agreement (TV-L).

Legal basis for civil servants

For civil servants , Art. 33 Paragraphs 2 and 5 of the Basic Law apply. The examination is carried out in accordance with the Federal Salary Act ( BBG ).

literature

• Jörg Sonntag / Jürgen Bauer: The classification according to the BAT . Luchterhand, 3rd edition May 1992
• Wolfgang Kuß: Job evaluation according to the BAT . Josef Moll Verlag, 4th revised edition 1992
• Wolfgang Dahm: The right of civil servants , Beck, as of December 1, 1989

See also

• Downgrading

Individual evidence

1. ↑ Dirk Holtbrügge: Personnel Management . Springer Gabler, Berlin 2013, ISBN 978-3-642-35296-6 , doi : 10.1007 / 978-3-642-35297-3 .
2. ^ The Handbook of Work Analysis . In: Mark A. Wilson, et al. (Ed.): Series in Applied Psychology . Routledge, New York 2012, ISBN 978-1-84872-870-7 (English).
3. ↑ Michael T. Brannick, Edward L. Levine, Frederick P. Morgeson: Job and Work Analysis . Sage, Los Angeles 2007, ISBN 978-1-4129-3746-7 (English).
4. ↑ What is job evaluation? Retrieved December 25, 2015 . 
5. ^ Developing an Analytical Job Evaluation System Free of Sex Bias. (PDF) Equal Opportunities Commission Hong Kong, accessed December 25, 2015 . 
6. ^ F. Poels: Handbook of Job Evaluation and Remuneration Strategies . Crest Publishing House, New Delhi 2004, ISBN 81-242-0445-4 .
7. ^ Michael Armstrong, et al .: Job Evaluation. A Guide to Achieving Equal Pay . Ed .: Michael Armstrong. Kogan Page, London 2003, ISBN 0-7494-3966-1 , pp. 35 ff .
8. ↑ Salary systems | BWI Unternehmensberatung GmbH. Retrieved on September 23, 2018 (German). 
9. ↑ Ulmer, Gerd .: Successfully designing salary systems: IT-supported wage and salary determination . 4th, updated and revised Edition Springer, Berlin 2013, ISBN 978-3-642-35788-6 .
10. ↑ gradar.com
11. ↑ Factors of job evaluation. In: www.gradar.com. Retrieved December 25, 2015 . 
12. ↑ haygroup.com
13. ↑ English brochure Hay Guide Chart. (PDF) Retrieved December 25, 2015 . 
14. ↑ kienbaum.de
15. ↑ mercer.de
16. ↑ International Position Evaluation System (IPE). Retrieved December 25, 2015 . 
17. ↑ pwc.de
18. ↑ Across all areas: A consistent remuneration system - Figure 1 of 1. In: FAZ.NET. Retrieved December 25, 2015 . 
19. ↑ towerswatson.de
20. ↑ Bayer, Olaf and Hennings, Dirk: Script: Job Assessment in the State of Berlin , Status: February 2018