Employers are turning to the tried and tested technique of job evaluation as a way of dealing with pressure to conduct equal pay audits, new research claims.
Though critics have claimed the technique is bureaucratic and a “bogus science”, the IRS research shows that it has taken on a new lease of life – particularly in the public sector, where employment procedures are often more structured and formalised.
Almost half of the 162 companies and public sector bodies taking part in the survey already use job evaluation to determine the relative importance of roles within their organisation – and a third more plan to introduce it in the near future.
The main reasons (ranked in order of importance) for evaluating jobs are as follows:
– Determining pay and grading structures
– Comparing rates with the external market
– Helping to conduct an equal pay audit
– Clarifying career paths
– Developing performance management/appraisal systems
– Identifying and measuring competencies
– Analytical schemes (where jobs are broken down into their individual components, each of which is individually assessed and ranked) are used by the majority of employers – around 86% of those using job evaluation – largely because analytical schemes can enhance objectivity in valuing jobs and help in protecting employers against equal pay claims. Non-analytical schemes mean the job as a whole is assessed.
Click here for more information about the full survey.
