« Here's How HR Can Influence Your Company's Bottom Line | Main | What Makes Someone an Executive? »



Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Chuck: your solution will definitely work well for most small and many large firms whose benchmark jobs can be identically matched with excellent precise relevant market survey data.

Folks should remember that market pricing IS a point-factor job evaluation system of its own: each "point" is a whole dollar and the only factor is the job title (or "whole job").

Since most employers can't precisely match each job and also have unique internal values even for benchmark jobs where the skill, effort, responsibilities and working conditions are identical, a need to "interpolate" frequently arises. THAT is where most job eval systems that incorporate subjective factors and weights fall apart.

Easiest solution is to "peg" job values as X% or Y$ above or below the closest relevant benchmarks. Has its flaws, but remains defensible: i.e., we consider our Left-Handed Specialist to be 8% more valuable than the more easily found Right-Handed peer. Why? Cuz the CEO sez so!

Or use paired comparison for the many unique jobs. There are lots of alternative JE methods.

Simply having SOME semi-objective system to consistently settle disputes about where a "different" job should fit in the internal peer/pay structure is immensely valuable.

Back in The Day, I used high-level predictive statistical analysis systems to custom design point-factor plans that precisely predicted the current desired market/internal value of every benchmark job. It was then consistently applied to unique jobs. Problem was, of course, it had to be carefully regularly updated and periodically re-validated. Like, when internal values change dramatically, or when STEM or other hot job market values move inconsistently.

It's a number-cruncher's dream but a nightmare for KISS system advocates.

Agree with you 100%.

The comments to this entry are closed.