Posted: June 1st, 2021

A Job Evaluation System

Save Time On Research and Writing
Hire a Pro to Write You a 100% Plagiarism-Free Paper.
Get My Paper

We interviewed Dan Withdrew of Hedgerow Inc. Who gave us insight on what it is like to manage and operate a faculty In the growing gas industry and how Job Evaluations have benefited his company. Lastly, we looked Into Issues or changes that should be farther researched in Job Evaluating. Employee perceptions and acceptance or support of the Job evaluation program will ultimately determine its success or failure (El-HaJJi, 2011).
El- Hajji proposes the idea that a neutral committee should have full control and authority over job evaluations; however, In all situations an appeal must be heard, discussed, analyzed and then responded to, preferably through a Joint management-union committee. So no one Is oft voiceless and in complete oppose with the procedure. Among other notable advantages El- Hajji claims conducting Job evaluation through a committee approach leads to more objectivity, better understanding, more accuracy, and greater acceptance from the different participating parties with respect to the results obtained.
A Job evaluation system will be deemed more trust worthy and reliable when conducted by a professional committee. With a more dependable method both parties will favor the processes. This is important because the way in which a job is evaluated is just as significant as the consequences of the evaluation. The people chosen for the committee should include both genders and those who have experience and understanding of the Jobs being evaluated. The number of persons is dependent on the size of the organization, the number of Jobs In need of evaluation and the diversity of the firm. Strategy could also be very advantageous.

This strategy is known as Ad Hoc Job Evaluation. This is a committee that does not evaluate the Job but instead chooses “benchmark” Jobs to compare to. In this case equal representation is also a demand. For greater synergy and compromise, the chairman of the Job evaluation should be impolitely nonbiased and accepted by all parties involved. Too many can bog the process but too few may not evaluate the whole picture and may not result in the most optimal decisions. The use of these committee approaches is only recommended when the benefits outweigh the costs, hiring a committee is no small feat.
Over the past decade a noticeable decrease in unionized firms has been trending. The author believes this trend is likely to continue. In such a fierce Job market, both for employers and employees, managers have lately offered a satisfying method of compensation so the need for unions is not so relevant. In any case of Job evaluation it is necessary to display the results. A ranking of the Jobs with their weight should be made available to the public, this way all employees understand what the evaluation is about. This also gives employees knowledge and opportunity to appeal.
It was to the author’s dismay however that only thirty-six percent of employers to reveal the Job evaluation results, the rest choose not to. When implementing evaluations El-HaJJi suggests that firms avoid any quick fix methods as solutions to discrepancies resulting from or during an evaluation. Although a quick-fix may yield initially favorable results it is highly likely that in the future these actions will result in long term negative effects. Job evaluation defines as a procedure in which Jobs are compared to one another to determine a wage.
Collies encourages the use of a Job evaluation in conjunction with market pricing which takes into account the labor market to decide a Jobs worth. Like El-HaJJi, Collies supports a team of senior executives, familiar with the organization and its operations to carry out a Job evaluation along with the potential assistance of an outside source to maintain the best interest of all parties and encourage the process in a timely fashion. Mainly Collies emphasizes the increasingly popular practice of internal Job evaluations with and external comparison to benchmark Jobs and wages in the market.
Additional external considerations include the rising implications of legal restrictions if any kind of discrimination is portrayed in an evaluation firms may be called upon to Justify their decisions. A prominent message from this article is that HER must be sure to consistently “update” their Job evaluation methods as the firm progresses, it should document and periodically review the system so it can evaluate new Jobs or changed Jobs using he same method. Items to be recorded include: Selection of compensable factors. Definition of degrees for each factor. Determination of values (weights) for factors and degrees. Application of these criteria to derive points on each factor and a point total. Allocation of each Job too grade (range of points) or exact position in the hierarchy based on total points These factors reflect the rapid mutation of both internal and external considerations. As an organization grows and develops the Job evaluation method must do the same. It high value and weight may or may not carry on with time different aspects may come more or less essential. Future additional research should be applied to differentiating core methods for firms with in a specific industry.
With a standard set for similar industries the application of external comparisons and evaluations would be much greater and more effective. Implications for managers dealing with Job evaluations vary from differing fields and organizations, but one of the most frequent issues seems to be how and what to compare between different Jobs/tasks within an organization, and choosing a scale of different compensation. Upon receiving results of a Job evaluation, many managers eave had problems designing a suitable compensation system, or deciding if that particular Job should even exist within their organization.
Brian Dive explains that one of the biggest problems with Job evaluations is that they are quantitative results, tallying up numbers from ranks, weights or points. “Job evaluations are fair and objective, which is what lead to quantitative results” (Dive, 2010). The problem that can be biased or objective is what qualitative factor managers decide and choose with the results. Questions for managers may be… Should this position exist? How is it benefiting our organization or the Jobs above or beneath it? How much more or less should be paid for the differences between Jobs? How are the specific skills for the Job assessed? The results of a Job evaluation can give you numbers and scores, but it relies heavily on what the manager decides to do with them. This leads to organizational design and how Jobs and tasks are separated, the rewarding of benefits, base wage, and how the Job pays are scaled. Another problem manager’s face in Job evaluating is the decision of benchmarking. “Benchmarking, if we aren’t careful, can waste our time ND even be counter-productive to our lean efforts. ” (Browning, 2011).
Benchmarking focuses on setting your Jobs particularly in relation to one Job that is chosen as the benchmark. Problems with this can be differences in Jobs, and choosing the right Job to be set as the benchmark. This is going to vary within every organization; a common mistake is benchmarking Jobs of the same Job title instead of the same Job content. Another tricky decision is evaluating what other companies/markets are comparable to yours; most companies evaluated themselves higher than what they actually were when benchmarking. Rhombi, 2004).
Lastly, management needs to assess what the best decisions to come out of a Job evaluation. They are the ones who will hold the information about the Jobs, and decide what changes can or will take place within the organization. They need to remain unbiased and make sure they are designing Job structure and Job compensation fairly with the given statistics from the evaluations. To give us more insight on this issue, we had an interview with a manager of a gas and oil company who gave us a more hands on and detailed account of what his Job consists of when it comes to Job evaluations.
We interviewed Dan Withdrew of Dubos PA who is the Hedgerow is an oil and energy company that stretches over 50 countries and provides oil and gas to refining energy companies. We chose to interview Dan, because oil and gas fields have a very different internal alignment and structure. We wanted to learn how these types of fast growing and multi-billion dollar gas corporations operate from a human resources position, and how they use Job evaluations in their complex environments. We first asked Dan if his company used Job evaluations, and if so what format and how frequently they were assessed.
Dan replied “We go through a lot of Job evaluations, probably more than most companies are used to. We have to keep continually doing this because the Jobs in this field are so complex and there are different levels of stages that require our workers to do different Jobs, but mostly because of safety concerns and policies. There is a risk in our line of work, and safety is huge policy that carries a hefty fine if it is not followed” (personal communication, March 25, 2013). Because of this, Hedgerow Inc uses a Job Safety Analysis more than any other method.
They use this every day by having employees fill out forms n every shift. A Job Safety Analysis OSHA) is filled out by the employees to cover and protect the actual Job/task they did on their shift. It breaks down a major task into steps, and assesses correct movements and positions they are required to take. It also evaluates risks and hazards that come with certain tasks on a Job. Hedgerow also has safety evaluations from headquarters randomly without warning from time to time. Besides a AS format, Hedgerow also uses point systems like Hay Guide Charts.
Dan states “We have used these twice since I have been employed here starting 7 years ago. The evaluators are Compensation Analysts sent from our Management headquarters in Texas, the experts run through every position that our office and shop runs. I have the decision to make changes within my own office such as pay raises and Job scheduling but the benchmarking and Job designing for our gas field is evaluated by highly trained professionals in engineering and management. ” (personal communication, 2013).
We asked Dan why Hedgerow chose a system like the Hay Guide Charts, and what factors relied heavily on it. He answered that they needed to know how much of a difference in Jobs there really was. For instance some positions on the rig require more experience and engineering background, as others may be hard labor and long hours. The major factors for choosing the Hay system was to assess accountability, experience, risk and knowledge, stress and amount of physical or mental input and working conditions. The working conditions were a very important part of the evaluation. Most people don’t realize we run these rigs 2417, 365 days a year through the blistering heat or freezing cold. Some of the employees that work in the shop don’t have to endure this, but the remainder of my on-location service tech’s do” (personal communication, 013) Dan stated that because of Job Evaluations in Hedgerow, they have implemented a rotating schedule for the rig hands. They work two weeks, which usually consist of being on location at the rig about 80-100 hours a week and then they get one week off. This works better because being away from home and working that many hours a week is a very tough Job, so when these guys get home they Just want as much time our workers so they can mentally and physically be here when they come back, but also raises AS ratings for the same reason” (personal communication, 2013) The pay grades have also changed in the past 2 years. A driller is the highest paying Job because it involves the most accountability and experience, because of this change, Hedgerow had to set different standards for the rig hands and service tech men whose Jobs were also evaluated.
They also gave the employees more flexible benefits. Dan explained that most of his employees are married with a family at home that they are the sole provider for. While they want and need health coverage, there’s also the single bachelor who Just wants a higher pay check. When asked about gender and inequality bias in Job evaluating, Dan answered “As ar as race and religion or heritage, there has never been any discrimination. However, we have never had a female employee in the shop, or field service. Of the two times my office has went through Job evaluations, both times they were conducted by a male Compensation Analyst.
I would like to think that if a female were to be employed here and went through a Job evaluation or vice versa that there wouldn’t be any bias but to be honest this a male dominated field, so there may be some UN-comfortableness” (personal communication, 2013). As far as the AS goes, it can be extremely biased. If something goes wrong on a rig, and whoever was on location at the time didn’t follow the proper steps for the task, they can still fill out a SIS, and once it’s signed it helps guarantee that a mishap (maybe a rig busting or someone being hurt) cannot be solely faulted back to the employee or our company. It benefits us, but we’ve had employees do this and come back and try to sue us because they say it was our fault we didn’t provide the correct safety gear for their job, but it has also worked vice versa where a gas company has fired someone for not following the SIS, and in turn didn’t have to pay unemployment for this season” (personal communication, 2013). The last question we had for Dan was what he hoped could come out of the evaluations or be researched farther. Dan replied, “Retirement. Just kidding.
I hope that it helps the oil and rig Jobs get a little more organized and stable. This is a crazy business, and it seems like I’m running around constantly sending out workers every which way I can to catch Jobs and watch the rigs. I would like to see a better scheduling and not have to tell my guys that even when they are home for that one week, that they are still on call if we need them. Oh, ND a raise” (personal communication, 2013). Our group decided that Job evaluations should be farther researched.
We would like to see Job evaluations that have a safety standard collaborated with the evaluation itself. Much like Withdrew explained about the AS being able to be manipulated and used against the company or vice versa, there should be a new form of safety added to Job evaluations in fields like gas, oil or factories. We feel that by making safety standards part of an actual Job evaluation, there would be better clarified and corrected Job descriptions for these positions. It could also help make the standard AS less manipulative.

Expert paper writers are just a few clicks away

Place an order in 3 easy steps. Takes less than 5 mins.

Calculate the price of your order

You will get a personal manager and a discount.
We'll send you the first draft for approval by at
Total price: