Separate scheduling has to be done at the macro and the micro lev- els – the former to establish the overall programme timing (as part of the implementation plan) and the latter to ensure that specific information gathering and evaluations take place when required.
The overall programme
The first thing to establish is whether there is a pre-set date by which the whole programme has to be completed (for organization- al or other outside reasons) or, if not, what the longest acceptable period would be. Once the decision to implement has been taken, most ‘stakeholders’ will want completion as soon as is practicable, although if, for example, the implementation cost is going to be high, management may well be happy for the full implementation to be delayed as much as possible.
In any large programme it will be very important to keep up the momentum, particularly if the existing pay/grading system is sus- pect. Job evaluation has in the past, with some justification, been seen as a never-ending exercise and this should be avoided at all cost. If it is going to take a year or more to cover all the jobs in the organization, the programme should be broken down into phases of not more than three or four months so that genuine progress can be demonstrated and announced at regular intervals.
What jobs?
The decision on whether jobs throughout the organization are to be evaluated using the new scheme, or only those in defined employ- ee groups, should have been taken at the start of the design phase (see Chapter 7) but it is worth reconfirming this before creating the implementation plan. It may be that, as a result of the development and testing process, the initial decision should or has to be reviewed.
If the new scheme is primarily intended to provide more objec- tivity in allocating jobs to an existing grade structure, one approach would be to give priority to those jobs that have been submitted for regrading plus new jobs as yet ungraded. An extension of this is also to evaluate, as a matter of routine, any job where there is to be a change of jobholder. It would not be appropriate to make these the only criteria for selecting jobs for evaluation under the new scheme, tempting though that might be. It would take a long time for jobs that are currently over-graded to be brought in line – a potential source of equal value claims. A full programme covering all jobs should also be implemented.
Another key decision is whether every person will have their job evaluated separately, whether every discrete job with multiple job- holders will be evaluated, whether only ‘generic’ jobs typifying a job type will be evaluated or whether the majority of jobs will be ‘slot- ted’ into grades after a range of ‘benchmarks’ have been established.
Clearly, moving from the first to the last of those options substantial- ly reduces the number of evaluations required, although it should be noted that the last option may not conform to the requirements of equal pay law (see Chapter 4 and later in this chapter).
Where to start?
Assuming that a large proportion of the organization is to be cov- ered, there are essentially three alternatives:
ឣ the scattergun approach;
ឣ the stepped approach;
ឣ a combination of these.
The scattergun approach is to take jobs almost at random through- out the organization and to build up a complete picture gradually.
The benefit of this approach is that no staff group appears to be favoured at any one time but the disadvantages are that it may take some time for sufficient jobs to be evaluated to allow meaningful moderation (see below) and it generally prolongs the programme.
The stepped approach is to identify separate staff groups (usual- ly by department or location) and evaluate all jobs in the group before progressing to the next group. If one group that is keen to move ahead can be identified and handled first, this can set a stan- dard for momentum and goodwill for the rest of the programme. To make best use of time, activities can overlap: eg fact gathering can have moved on to group 3 while evaluations are being carried out for group 2 and moderation/review is being handled for group 1.
An example of an activity chart is given in Figure 10.1.
The combination approach is essentially the stepped approach but it recognizes that there is a need to evaluate key jobs through- out the organization at the start of the programme. These will nor- mally be jobs with multiple jobholders in order to confirm that the provisional grade boundaries do not disadvantage any staff group (particularly not by gender) or to provide additional information so that implementation costs can be more accurately predicted.
How long will it take?
Having established the number of jobs to be evaluated, the overall time required will be almost directly related to the people resources that are made available – the more trained analysts, evaluators, etc available, the more quickly the work can be done. An extreme example of this is the introduction of a new system in the Health &
Safety Executive in the early 1990s.
Case study: The HSE had been formed by the amalgamation of various ‘Inspectorates’ from different government departments, bringing with them over 130 different pay grades. A new system of evaluation, grading and pay needed to be developed and installed as quickly as possible.
With the full participation of the relevant unions, an HSE-spe- cific factor plan was developed and tested and a version of the Gauge system built around this. The Gauge version was also thoroughly tested and both management and unions declared themselves satisfied that the system produced consistent and valid evaluation results.
Eighteen analysts were then fully trained in how to ‘facilitate’
an evaluation with a jobholder and line manager without pre- written job descriptions. Armed with 18 notebook PCs that had HSE-Gauge pre-installed, they evaluated over 2,000 jobs in less than three months. ‘Appeals’ were minimal, as the unions
Activity Month
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Group 1
– Information gathering – Evaluation
– Review/moderation Group 2
– Information gathering – Evaluation
– Review/moderation Group 3
– Information gathering – Evaluation
– Review/moderation Group 4
– Information gathering – Evaluation
– Review/moderation Group 5
– Information gathering – Evaluation
– Review/moderation Final Review
Figure 10.1 Job evaluation programme activity chart
declared that they would only support a request for an evalua- tion review if jobholders could demonstrate that one or more of the answers given during the evaluation (which they were pre- sumed to have agreed at the time) were incorrect.
Scheduling individual meetings
Each fact-gathering meeting, whether it be to prepare a job description, to complete a paper questionnaire or to answer com- puter-generated questions, will ideally involve at least three people – the jobholder, the line manager and the analyst – and take between one and two hours. This means that meetings have to be scheduled well in advance, particularly if they form a collection of meetings in one location. A month or more ahead is often needed in order to avoid holidays and business and other commitments.
The principle must be established that, once set, meetings may not be cancelled except for emergencies. It is all too easy for job evalu- ation to be seen as a low priority and, if this is allowed to happen, the implementation plan and even the credibility of the system itself will be damaged.
Whether or not a staff representative should also attend these meetings is a matter for the organization to decide. If they do attend, it should be made clear that they are there as observers, making sure that the jobholder’s input is respected, and not to take part in the actual evaluation.
The location for the meeting is important and, as the primary purpose is to establish accurate information about the job, it is best held at a location where the jobholder will feel at ease. A quiet, neu- tral location is best, away from all sources of interruption – the line manager’s office is arguably the worst!
Date, time and location should be confirmed in writing (or e- mail) about a week in advance and, if not already issued in other communication, a briefing note about the purpose and conduct of the meeting should be sent (see Appendix 8 for an example).
Top-down, bottom-up or random?
A decision as to whether the more senior jobs or the more junior ones within a group should be evaluated first, or whether they should be selected at random, should be taken by the steering
group and applied throughout the organization. There are argu- ments in favour of each of these approaches but, on balance, pro- vided that the system has first been validated on ‘test jobs’ from all levels, the top-down approach is to be preferred for three reasons:
1. In each evaluation the line manager will have the benefit of previous experience through having been involved in the evaluation of his/her own job. This should lead to more objec- tive input and guidance.
2. Each line manager should be better placed to ensure that the similarities and differences between the jobs for which he/she is directly responsible are properly identified and evaluated, particularly if these are dealt with in quick succession.
3. Perhaps cynically, line managers will be less inclined to encourage overstatement of subordinate jobs. (If the subordi- nate job is evaluated first, and higher than it merits, the man- ager’s own job score could subsequently benefit from this.) There is, of course, the alternate risk that some managers may attempt to understate the subordinate job in order to increase the relative difference between it and their own job.