12.2 Job evaluation


Although performance- related factors have become an increasingly important part of the remuneration structure, for most employees the base salary still accounts for the largest proportion of their pay. Thus determining the base salary for each job within the organization is one of the most important tasks in remuneration management. This involves assessment of the value of a job with regard to its specific contribution to the overall success of the corporation.

There are four basic job evaluation methods: ranking, classification, the point method and the factor comparison method (Kanungo and Mendonca, 1992, p. 247). Ranking and classification are referred to as non-analytical methods (each job is evaluated as a whole and is classified as most demanding, less demanding or least demanding), whereas the point method and the factor comparison method are seen as analytical methods (each job is evaluated independently of other jobs using a specific set of remunerable factors) (Hopfenbeck, 1989, p. 305).

In Poland a number of individual job evaluation methods are used, but most fall into the point method category. In Rostkowski s survey on job and performance evaluation, 70 per cent of firms indicated that they were using such a method (Rostkowski, 2001, p. 12). Also known as the point rating or point factor method, the point method evaluates jobs by reference to an evaluation system that assigns point values to a set of remunerable factors (Kanungo and Mendonca, 1992, p. 254). A job is evaluated for each factor and the overall value of the job is determined by adding up the points assigned to each remunerable factor.

According to Oleksyn, designer of the Polish AWP job evaluation method, the point methods used by Polish corporations can be divided into three different categories (Oleksyn, 2001, p. 3):

  1. Universal methods designed by individuals (scientists, consultants ) for use directly in a wide range of firms.

  2. Universal methods adapted to the specific needs of individual corporations.

  3. Methods developed by employees or external consultants for use in a particular firm.

However type 3 methods are often in fact type 2, because a type 1 method has been chosen to form the basis of the evaluation system. The existence of a real need to develop a completely new method is actually quite unlikely and it is mostly done for psychological reasons (on the part of the firm) or in commercial interests (on the part of the consultant). Furthermore these ˜tailor made methods have certain shortcomings (ibid., p. 4):

  • Insufficient theoretical knowledge of and practical experience in job evaluation on the part of the people involved in developing the system.

  • Inappropriate selection of renumerable factors (due to group or individual interests).

  • Insufficient consideration of the situation on the external labour market.

  • Insufficient pretesting of a new method before its implementation.

All in all, point methods dominate job evaluation in Poland. Two have been developed specifically for the Polish context: UMEWAP and AWP, from which different versions have evolved. Other point methods have been developed for use in Polish firms under foreign ownership, including those designed and promoted by two international human resource consultancy firms: Hay and Mercer (ibid., p. 3).

The most frequently used method is UMEWAP, which was developed in the 1980s by the Polish Ministry of Social and Labour Affairs. According to Rostkowski (2001, p. 12) 48 per cent of companies use this method. It was even more dominant in the past, but this was due to the fact that for a time it was practically the only method known to Polish managers (Oleksyn, 1995a, p. 21).

The remunerable factors in UMEWAP are based on the CIOS model (developed by the Comit International de l Organisation Scientifique), which also forms the basis of many Western job evaluation systems, for example the system developed by Bloch in Germany. UMEWAP has been updated two times. The original version, UMEWAP-85, was followed in 1987 and 1995 by UMEWAP-87 and UMEWAP-95 respectively. The latter adapted the system to the new demands of the market economy, but UMEWAP-87 still seems to be the most frequently used version.

Job evaluation with UMEWAP considers four groups of remunerable factors: complexity, responsibility, demands (physical and mental) and working conditions (Jacukowicz, 1988, p. 21; Kopertynska, 1996, p. 63). For each compensatable factor, there is a certain maximum number of points that can be credited. In the work complexity category, for example, this value is 75 for ˜education , 55 for ˜experience , 25 for ˜skillfulness , 45 for ˜mental ability and 25 for ˜co-operation , whereas in the demands category the values are 45, 25, 25, 20 and 20 for the compensatable factors ˜physical demands , ˜demands on nerves and senses , ˜mental demands , ˜ monotony and ˜psychological demands due to a low prestige of the job , respectively.

Many companies have adapted UMEWAP eliminating one or more dimensions to their specific organizational requirements, if these are of no relevance to the jobs being evaluated (Kopertynska, 1995, p. 24) and adding new dimensions, such as ˜responsibility for coordination . Modifications may also be made to the scales used for evaluation and the maximum number of points awarded to each remunerable factor (for example the maximum number of points for ˜education requirements may be reduced by 10 while that for ˜responsibility for the work process may be increased by 15).

One of the main problems with modifying the UMEWAP method at the firm level is that the adaptations are usually carried out by employees with insufficient experience in job evaluation. Whereas the original method is relatively well structured and easy to understand, the results of modified evaluation systems are not always understood by employees whose jobs are being evaluated. In one case the job of one secretary was given a 40 per cent higher rating than that of another, although their job descriptions were basically identical. The reason for this was that the higher educational level of the first employee had been taken into consideration, even though this contradicted the very idea of job evaluation (it was the job, not the person holding the job, that should have been evaluated). Another frequent occurrence is double consideration of the experience: besides the general experience-related renumerable factor in the job evaluation system a certain amount is paid on top of the base salary to reflect the professional experience of individual employees. Hence modifications that are made to the UMEWAP method without due care and knowledge can lead to lack of transparency and consistently, leading to dissatisfaction on the part of employees and the possibility of conflict between them and the management. When it is not clear whether pay differences are due to performance or are the result of good relations with management, individual negotiations or other such factors, employees acceptance and support of the remuneration system may be put at risk. In practice it is not so much the nominal level of pay that determines employees satisfaction and motivation, but the issue of justified differences in pay.

A further problem area is the updating of job evaluations. In many companies the method was introduced before 1989 but the jobs have not been re-evaluated since then, even though they have undergone considerable change (Rostkowski, 2001, p. 6). In other companies jobs have been re-evaluated but the task has been carried out halfheartedly, again leading to inconsistency, lack of transparency and potential pay-related conflict between workers and management (Sekula, 1995, p. 27). Managers frequently have considerable difficulty trying to explain and justify the final results of the job evaluation process.

In general, then, the use of UMEWAP has not proven to be unproblematic in the Polish context, even though the method is regarded as relatively easy to manage when compared with other methods (Oleksyn, 1995a, p. 21).

The problems encountered with UMEWAP were one of the main reasons for developing the simpler AWP method of job evaluation (ankietowe wartosciowanie pracy, or questionnaire-based job evaluation), which requires no specific knowledge of job evaluation. Besides the original method there are two modified versions: AWP-2 and AWP-2 bis. A questionnaire is completed for each job being evaluated (a separate job description is not required, Oleksyn, 1995b, p. 11). For each question the evaluator selects one of the several options presented in the questionnaire, for example ˜For the job, the following education is required: (a) Primary education, (b) Vocational level, (c) . . . ). For each answer a fixed number of points is allotted so that the job value can be determined on the basis of the options chosen by the evaluator . The AWP-2 bis method is based on 15 analytical criteria from the CIOS system (Oleksyn, 2001, p. 6):

  • Level of education required

  • Experience required

  • Independence and innovativeness

  • Foreign language abilities required

  • Computer-related abilities, computer-based work

  • Cooperation within the organization

  • Skilfulness

  • Responsibility for work results and subordinates

  • Responsibility for machinery/means of production

  • Responsibility for the safety of others

  • Responsibility for external contacts

  • Intellectual demands

  • Attentiveness and perceptiveness

  • Physical demands

  • Unusual working hours

In general the AWP method seems to have proven its worth in practice, which can mainly be attributed to the fact that it is simply structured and easy to apply (Oleksyn, 1995b, p. 15). In comparison with UMEWAP, however, it is used by a relatively small number of companies (among the companies examined by Rostkowski only 6 per cent used AWP while 48 per cent used UMEWAP “ see Rostkowski, 2001, p. 12).

Besides the methods of job evaluation developed specifically for the Polish context, some Polish companies use analytical methods tailored to their own specific needs. Twelve per cent of the companies studied by Rostkowski were using such methods. It is difficult to evaluate the quality of these methods, but they have certain limitations compared with the universal methods. The main problem is that they generally consider a very limited number of remunerable factors, and sometimes the value of a job is defined only by the amount of training and experience required to carry out the tasks in question. Another common shortcoming is the overvaluation of certain factors, for example physical demands may already be reflected in the base salary, but then a second allowance is added for extraordinary demands related to the job.

The final group of analytical job evaluation methods used in Poland are those promoted by international human resource consultancies. Of the companies examined by Rostkowski, 4 per cent used such methods. At the moment the Mercer and Hay methods seem to be the most popular. The Hay method is used by several hundred mainly international companies, and the Mercer method is rapidly catching up. The basic approach of these methods is similar to that of the other point methods but they concentrate more on international market orientation and compare jobs inside the organization with those in comparable firms. On this basis the firm decides how to position itself vis-  -vis its competitors in the job market, that is, whether to be among the top-paying 5 per cent, 10 per cent or 25 per cent of employers for a given position.

Thirty per cent of the companies examined by Rostkowski used non-analytical job classification methods (Rostkowski, 2001, p. 12) in which jobs are placed in pre-established classes. Each class reflects such factors as education, responsibility, degree of difficulty and extent of public contact. The classes are arranged in an ascending order, from the most simple to the most complex in terms of the factors that make them up. During evaluation the description of each job is reviewed and the job is placed into the class that best matches the job description. Thus a job s value is determined by its position in the predetermined series of classes (Rostkowski, 2001, p. 21; Hopfenbeck, 1989, p. 307f.; Kanungo and Mendonca, 1992, p. 248f.)

According to Oleksyn (2001, p. 2), job evaluation is dominated by non-analytical methods in smaller Polish corporations, whereas larger firms tend to make more use of analytical methods.




Change Management in Transition Economies. Integrating Corporate Strategy, Structure and Culture
Change Management in Transition Economies: Integrating Corporate Strategy, Structure and Culture
ISBN: 1403901635
EAN: 2147483647
Year: 2003
Pages: 121

flylib.com © 2008-2017.
If you may any questions please contact us: flylib@qtcs.net