Job evaluation is not scientific – it cannot be since there is no way of scientifically measuring jobs. It is therefore a process of judgment. The ‘correctness’ of the results it provides can only be assessed in terms of their acceptability to the vast majority of people to whom they apply.
The key to such success lies in guiding the judgment made about jobs within a process which is systematic and minimizes the subjectivity of the results, ensuring they are as objectives and justifiable as possible. To do this there are certain requirements which must be met :
1. An understanding of the job must be achieved.
2. Judgments must be made about the size of each job.
3. Common criteria are needed to assess the job content.
4. A common scale of measurement is required against which to make judgments.
5. Cross-checks are needed to ensure that the judgments are sound.
The key to such success lies in guiding the judgment made about jobs within a process which is systematic and minimizes the subjectivity of the results, ensuring they are as objectives and justifiable as possible. To do this there are certain requirements which must be met :
1. An understanding of the job must be achieved.
2. Judgments must be made about the size of each job.
3. Common criteria are needed to assess the job content.
4. A common scale of measurement is required against which to make judgments.
5. Cross-checks are needed to ensure that the judgments are sound.
6. Rate the Job not the Man.
7. The elements should be clearly defined and properly selected.
Additionally there are a number of basic principles which are important, and underlie the whole process of job evaluation :
(i) Evaluation is concerned with the job not the person performing it. This is very basic, but much easier to say than to achieve in practice. The reason for this is that often those evaluating the jobs will know (perhaps quite well) the actual job holder. Such knowledge should not be used. It is useful to imagine the job being performed – not by the present job holder but by a replacement who performs all aspects of the job acceptability.
(i) Evaluation is concerned with the job not the person performing it. This is very basic, but much easier to say than to achieve in practice. The reason for this is that often those evaluating the jobs will know (perhaps quite well) the actual job holder. Such knowledge should not be used. It is useful to imagine the job being performed – not by the present job holder but by a replacement who performs all aspects of the job acceptability.
(ii) Evaluation is based on Job Content which means that in making evaluation judgments we must be concerned with what the job has to do and achieve. Thus two dangers have to be avoided :
· the judgment on the job size must not be influenced by job titles which can be misleading, or by knowledge of present status and pay
· the jobs are evaluated as they are not as they could be, should be, might be or used to be. It would be wrong to construct a ‘model’ organization and evaluate that, rather than the reality of the organization as it is.
· the judgment on the job size must not be influenced by job titles which can be misleading, or by knowledge of present status and pay
· the jobs are evaluated as they are not as they could be, should be, might be or used to be. It would be wrong to construct a ‘model’ organization and evaluate that, rather than the reality of the organization as it is.
(iii) Since evaluation is concerned solely with organizational reality, care should be given to evaluate jobs at a fully acceptable standard of performance: they should not reflect good or poor performance of current job holders, but what is properly required by the job to achieve organizational effectiveness.
No comments:
Post a Comment