Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

CMS 2 > A4 - Job Eval: Measuring Content, Value, and External Mkt Links > Flashcards

A4 - Job Eval: Measuring Content, Value, and External Mkt Links Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
Introductory Sommelier Exam (CMS) flashcards Certified Sommelier Exam (CMS 2) flashcards
1
Q

characteristics in the work that the org. values; that help it pursue its strat. and achieve its objs.

A

compensable factors

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

method of job eval. that groups a wide range of work together in one system

A

classification method

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

the process of systematically determining the relative worth of jobs to create a job structure for an org.

A

job evaluation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

the process of ordering job descriptions from highest to lowest based on a global definition of relative value or contribution to an org’s success

A

job ranking

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

most commonly used approach to establish pay structure that uses explicit criteria for evaluating jobs

A

point plan

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

relies on work content - tasks, behaviors, responsibilities

A

job-based structure

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

the relative contribution of jobs to org. goals, to their external mkt rates, or to some other agreed-upon rates

A

relative value of jobs

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q
  • process of systematically determining the relative worth of jobs to create a job structure for the org.
  • eval. is based on a combo of job content, skills required, value to the org, org. culture, and the ext. mkt
  • potential to blend org. forces and external mkt forces is both a strength and a challenge
A

job eval

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

the work performed in a job and how it gets done (tasks, behaviors, knowledge required, etc..)

A

content

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q
  • info that describes a job
  • may include responsibility assumed and/or the tasks performed
A

job content

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Defining Job Eval:

Content and Value

A
  • internal alignment based on content:
    • orders jobs on a basis of skills required for the jobs and the duties and responsibilities associated w/ the jobs
  • internal alignment based on value:
    • orders jobs on relative contrib. of the skills, duties, and responsibilities of each job to the org’s goals
  • job content matters, just not the only basis for pay
  • job value may also include the job’s value in the external mkt (which may differ)
  • relative value (and ext. mkt value) isn’t directly linked to the pay rate
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Linking content w/ the ext. mkt

A
  • aspects such as skills required and cust. contacts take on value based on their relationship to mkt wages
  • usually - if some aspect of job content is NOT linked to wages paid in the ext. labor mkt, then that aspect may be excluded from job evals.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q
  • a point factor system that evals. jobs w/ respect to know-how, prob. solving, and accountability
  • used primarily for exempt (managerial/prof.) jobs
  • states that the measures are indep. of the mkt and encourage rational determination of the basis for pricing job content
  • claims that job eval. establishes the realtive value of jobs based on tehir content, indep. of a link to the mkt
A

Hay job eval. system

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Job eval. views

“measure for measure” VS “much ado about nothing”

A
  • issue whether job evals s/b viewed as a measurement device and then valued according to tech. standards

OR

  • viewed as an admin. procedure that invites discussion and consensus
  • researchers - if job value can be quantified, then job eval. takes on the trappings of measurements and can be judged according to tech. standards
  • those actually involved in making pay decisions - different view
    • see job eval. as a process to gain acceptance of pay differences among jobs
    • administrative process w/ which the parties become involved and committed
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Aspect of Job Evals and Assumptions

Assessment of job content

A
  • content has intrinsic value outside ext. mkt
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Aspect of Job Evals and Assumptions

assessment of relative value

A
  • stakeholders can reach consensus on relative value
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Aspect of Job Evals and Assumptions

external mkt link

A
  • job worth/value cannot be determined w/o ext. mkt
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Aspect of Job Evals and Assumptions

measurement

A
  • honing instruments will provide objective measures.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Aspect of Job Evals and Assumptions

negotiation

A
  • brings rationality to a social/political process
  • establishes rules of the game and invites participation
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

some major decisions in job evals.

A
  • establish purpose of eval.
  • decide whether to use single or multiple plans
  • choose among alt. approaches
  • obtain involvement of relevant stakeholders
  • eval. plan’s usefulness
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

major decisions in job eval.

Establish the Purpose

A
  • Need a purpose - if not, it is too easy to get lost in complex procedures, negotiations, and bureaucracy
    • ensures that the eval. is a rational, systematic tool to achieve an equitable, work-related pay structure rather than a useless bureaucracy
  • _establishing an internally aligned pay structure - support work flow by integrating pay w/ relative contrib. _
    • supports org. strat - what it is about the work that adds value and contribs. to org.; How does this job add value?
    • supports work flow - integrates each ojb’s pay w/ its relative contribs. to org and sets pay for new, unique, or changing job
    • is fair to EEs - can reduce disputes over pay differences among jobs by establishing a workable, agreed-upon structure that reduces the role of chance, and bias in setting pay
    • motivates behavior toward org. objs. - creates the network of rewards (promos, challenging work) that motivates EEs
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

major decisions in job eval

Single vs. Multiple Plans

A
  • Single plan - uses the same factors to eval. all job families
  • Multiple plan - different plans and different factors for different job families
    • allows the plan to be tailored to what is important in each type of work
    • many say that jobs are too varied to be accurately eval’d by a single plan
  • orgs. normally don’t eval. all jobs in the org. at one time
  • many ERs design different eval. plans for different types of work
    • a single, universal plan may not be acceptable to EEs or useful to mgrs if the work covered is highly diverse
    • Hay and the position analysis questionnaire - single plans that have been successfully used across the org.
  • to be sure that all relevant aspects of work are included in the eval., an org may start w/ a sample of benchmark (key) jobs
  • # of job eval. plans used hinges on how detailed an eval. is required to make pay decisions and how much it will cost
  • usually use separate plans for major domains of work: top-exec./leadership jobs, managerial/prof. jobs, operational/technical jobs, and off/admin jobs
  • costs associated w/ all these plans and time push ERs to simplify job structures (reduce titles and level)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q
  • a prototypical job, or group of jobs, used as a reference point for making pay comparisons w/in or w/o the org.
  • have well-known and stable contents
  • their current pay rates are generally acceptable
  • pay differentials among them are relatively stable
A

benchmark (key) job

**group of benchmark jobs, taken together, contains the entire range of compensable factors and is accepted in the external labor mkt for setting wages

24
Q

Benchmark Jobs - process

A
  • ID for as many of the levels in the structure and groups of related jobs as possible
  • benchmark jobs are well known and relatively stable over time
  • common job across a # of different ERs
  • reasonable proportion of the work force is employed in this job
  • sample of benchmark jobs wil include the entire domain of work being eval’d and capture the diversity of the work w/in the domain
  • usually , job eval. plan is developed using benchmark jobs, and then the plan is applied to the remaining nonbenchmark jobs
25
Q

Diversity in the work

(Benchmarking process)

A
  • thought of in terms of depth (verically) and breadth (horizontally)
  • depth of work: ranges from strategic leadership jobs to the filing and mail distribution tasks in entry-level office jobs
  • breadth of work: depends on the nature of business
26
Q

major decisions in job eval

Choosing Among Job Eval. Methods

A
  • common job eval. methods:
    • ranking
    • classification
    • point method
  • different job eval. plans generate different pay structures
27
Q
  • orders job descripts. from highest to lowest based on a global definition of relative value or contrib. to the org’s success
  • ADV: fast, simple, easy to explain, least expensive plan (initially)
  • DISADV: cumbersome as # of jobs increases; basis for comparisons is not called out
A

Ranking

28
Q

(2) ways of ranking

A
  1. alternation ranking
  2. paired comparison
  • may be more reliable than just simple ranking
29
Q
  • a job eval. method that involves ordering the job description alternately at each extreme
  • all jobs are considered
  • agreement is reached on which is the most valuable and then the least valuable
  • evaluators alternate b/w the next most valued and next least valued and so on until the jobs have been ordered
A

alternative ranking

30
Q
  • a ranking job eval. method that involves comparing all possible pairs of jobs under study
  • higher ranked job is entered in the cell of the matrix
  • when all comparisons have been completed, the job most frequently judged “more valuable” becomes the highest ranked job, and so on
A

paired comparison ranking

31
Q

Disadv. of ranking

A
  • criteria on which the jobs are ranked are usually poorly defined
  • if specified at all - usually become subj. opinions that are impossible to justify in strategic and work-related terms
  • evaluators using this method must be knowledgeable about every single job under the study
  • # s alone turn what s/d be a simple task in to a complex one
  • as orgs. chg, difficult to remain knowledgeable about all jobs

**in the long run, the results are difficult to defend and costly solutions may be required to overcome the probs. created

32
Q
  • job eval. method that involves slotting job descriptions into a series of classes or grades that cover the range of jobs and that serve as a standard against which the job descriptions are compared
  • job descripts. not only are compared to the class descripts. and benchmark jobs, but also can be compared to each other to be sure that jobs w/in each class are more similar to each other than to jobs in adjacent classes
  • ADV: can group a wide range of work together into one system
  • DISADV: descripts may leave to much room for manipulation
A

classification

33
Q

Classification process

A
  • series of classes covers the range of jobs
  • class descripts. are the labels
  • job descript. is compared to the class descripts. to decide which class is the best fit for that job
  • each class is described in such a way that the “label” captures sufficient work detail propriate “shelf” or class
  • classes may be described further by including titles of benchmark jobs that fall into each class

**determining the # of classes and writing class descriptions to define the boundaries b/w each class

34
Q

End result of Classification Job Eval. Method

A
  • a job struct. made up of a series of classes w/ a # of jobs in each
  • all these comparisons are used to ensure that this structure is based on the org. strat. and work flow, is fair, and focuses behaviors on desired results
  • jobs w/in each class are considered to be equal (similar) work and will be paid equally
  • jobs in different classes s/b dissimilar and may have different pay rates
35
Q
  • a job eval. method that employs:
    1. compensable factors
    2. factor degrees numerically scaled
    3. weights reflecting the relative importance of each factor
  • _compensable factors are defined on the basis of the strat. direction of the bus. and how the work contributes to these objs. and strats. _
  • _factors are scaled to reflect the degree to which they are present in each job and weighted to reflect their overall importance to the org. _
  • points are then attached to each factor weight
  • _total points for each job determine its position in the job struct. _
  • ADV: compensable factors explain the basis for comparisons and communicate what is valued
  • DISADV: can become bureaucratic and rule-bound
A

point (factor) method

36
Q
  • job attributes that provide the basis for evaluating the relative worth of jobs inside an org.
    • based on the strategic direction of the business and how the work contribs. to these obs. and strat.
  • must be work-related, business-related, and acceptable to the parties involved
A

compensable factors

37
Q
  • setting pay structures almost exclusively through matching pay for a very large percentage of jobs w/ the rates paid in the ext. mkt
  • primary method of job eval.
A

market pricing (of jobs)

38
Q

(6) steps in the design of a point plan (job eval. method)

A
  1. conduct job analysis
  2. determine compensable factors
  3. scale the factors
  4. weight the factors according to importance
  5. communicate the plan and train users; prepare manual
  6. apply to nonbenchmark jobs
39
Q

steps in the design of a point plan (job eval. method)

1. Conduct Job Analysis

A
  • sample of jobs (benchmark jobs) is drawn for analysis
  • content of these jobs is the basis for defining, scaling, and weighting the compensable factors
40
Q

determining the intervals on a measurement instrument

A

scaling

41
Q

steps in the design of a point plan (job eval. method)

2. Determining Compensable Factors

A
  • compensable factors s/b:
    • based on the strat. and values of the org.
    • based on the work performed
    • acceptable to the stakeholders affected by the resulting pay struct.
42
Q

Compensable factors s/b based on the strat. and values of the org.

A
  • leadership of org is best source of info. on where the business s/b going and how it is going to get here
  • reinforce the org’s culture and values as well as its business direction and the nature of the work
    • if direction changes, then the compensable factors may also chg
    • factors may also be eliminated if they do not support the business strat.
43
Q

Compensable factors s/b based on work itself

A
  • important to seek EEs and supers to see what s/b valued in the work itself
    • using some form of documentation (job descript., job analysis, EE and/or supervisory focus groups) must support the choice of factors
  • work-related documentation helps gain acceptance by EEs and mgrs
    • easier to understand
    • can w/stand a variety of challenges to the pay struct.
  • everyone must understand why work is paid differently or the same
44
Q

Adapting Factors from Existing Plans

A
  • tend to fall into (4) generic groups: skills required, effort required, responsibility, and working conditions
    • used in Nat’l Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) plan and included in the Equal Pay Act to define equal work
    • Nat’l Metal Trades Assoc. (NMTA) and NEMA and the Steel Plan were developed for manufacturing and/or office jobs
  • Hay Guide Chart-Profile Method - most widely used
    • Hay factors of know-how, prob. solving, and accountability use guide charts to quantify the factors in more detail
45
Q

Hay Guide Chart-Profile Method

A
  • (3) factors: Know-how, Prob. solving, Accountability
    • working conditions - another factors used when dealing with nonmanagerial jobs
  • use guide charts to quantify the factors in more detail
  • ‘know-how’ is first measured on 2 dimensions:
    • scope (practical procedures, specialized techniques, or scientific disciplines)
    • depth (minimal, related, diverse, or broad)
    • after that the degree of human relations skills required (basic, important, or crticial) is judged
    • the cell that corresponds to the right level of all 3 dimensions for the job being eval’d is located in the guide chart
    • the cell gives the points for this factor
46
Q

How many Factors?

A
  • some factors may have overlapping definitions or may fail to acct for anything unique in the criterion chosen
    • concern - if overlapping, raises the concern about double counting the value of a factor
  • another challenge - “small #s”
    • even if one job in our benchmark has 1 characteristic, we tend to use that factor for the entire work domain
    • unpleasant working conditions - common example
47
Q

steps in the design of a point plan (job eval. method)

3. Scale the Factors

A
  • involves using exps to anchor the factors
  • once the factors are determined, scales reflecting the different degrees w/in each factor are constructed.
  • each degree may also be anchored by the typical skills, tasks, and behaviors taken from the benchmark jobs that illustrate each factor degree
  • most factor scales consist of 4-8 degrees
    • many use extra, undefined degrees such as + or - around a scale number in order to adequately differentiate among jobs
  • may also use interval scaling - determining degrees is whether to make each degree equi-distant from the adjacent degrees (major prob.)
48
Q

(4) criteria suggested for scaling factors

A
  1. limit the degrees to the # necessary to distinguish among jobs
  2. use understandable terminology
  3. anchor degree definitions w/ benchmark job titles and/or work behaviors
  4. make it apparent how the degree applies to the job
49
Q

steps in the design of a point plan (job eval. method)

4. Weight the Factors According to Importance

A
  • judgment of org leaders, a negotiated struct., and a mkt-based struct can be reflected here
  • done after the degrees have been assigned
  • weights reflect the relative importance of each factor to the overall value of the job
    • different weights reflect differences in importance attached to each factor by the ER
  • often determined through an advisory committee that allocates 100% of the value among the factors
  • contemporary job eval. often supplements committee judgment for determining weights w/ statistical analysis - criterion pay struct.
    • pay struct. they wish to duplicate w/ the point plan
50
Q

Criterion Pay Structure

A
  • a pay structure to be duplicate w/ the point plan
  • may be the current rates paid for benchmark jobs, mkt rates for benchmark jobs, weights for predominantly male jobs or union-negotiated rates
  • once it is agreed upon, statistical modeling techniques are used to determine the weight for each factor and the factor scales that will reproduce, as closely as possible, the chosen structure (policy capturing)
  • not only do the weights reflect the relative importance of each factor, but research demonstrates that the weights influence the resulting pay struct.
    • selecting the right pay rates to use as the criteria is critical and the job eval. and its results depend on it.
51
Q

compensable factor importance weights are inferred using statistical methods such as regression analysis

A

policy capturing

52
Q

compensable factor importance weights are assigned by a committee based on judgment

A

committee a priori judgment approach

53
Q

steps in the design of a point plan (job eval. method)

5. Communicate the Plan and Train Users

A
  • communication of the plan and training of the users
  • once job eval. plan is designed, a manual is prepared so that other ppl can apply the plan
    • describes the method, defines the compensable factors, and provides enough info. to permit users to distinguish varying degrees of each factor
    • allows users to apply the plan as its developers intended
  • training will be required
    • how to apply the plan
    • any background info. on how the plan fits into the org’s total pay system
  • may include an appeals process
  • EE acceptance is crucial
54
Q

steps in the design of a point plan (job eval. method)

6. Apply to Nonbenchmark Jobs

A
  • done by ppl who were not necessarily involved in the design process but have been given adequate training in applying the plan
  • plan becomes a tool for mgrs and HR
    • use it to eval. new positions that may be created or reevaluate jobs whose work content has chg’d
55
Q

steps in the design of a point plan (job eval. method)

7. Develop Online Software Support

A
  • widely used in larger orgs.
  • becomes part of a total comp. service center for mgrs and HR to use
56
Q

Who s/b involved in the job eval. process?

A
  • mgrs and EE sw/ a stake in the results need to be involved in the process of designing it
    • use committees, tasks forces, or teams that include reps. from key operating functions, including nonmanagerial EEs
  • no matter the technique no job eval plan anticipates all situations
57
Q

What is the final result of job analysis and job eval. ?

A
  • final result of the job analysis - job descript - job eval. process is a structure or hierarchy of work
    • hierarchy translates the ER’s internal alignment policy into practice

CMS 2 (13 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions