U of L Job Evaluation Manual

Introduction
The purpose of this manual is to serve as a reference guide for the Hay Job Evaluation Methodology used to evaluate AUPE positions at the University of Lethbridge. This manual is not intended to be a training manual to prepare individuals to be ob evaluators or to be a definitive resource on ob evaluation methodology. As the organi!ation continually changes" the information in this manual may become outdated or ne# information may be added. $nformation in this manual #ill be updated as necessary. %or additional information" users of this guide may contact Human &esources at the University of Lethbridge at '()*+ *,-.,,/(.

Job Evaluation System

Job evaluation is the analysis and evaluation of #or0 for the purpose of determining the relative value of obs #ithin an organi!ation. Job evaluation may also provide valuable information for organi!ational analysis and for human resource planning and management strategies such as succession planning" performance management" compensation" etc. %or a ob evaluation system to be effective" care must be ta0en in ensuring the system is as ob ective as possible. $t is important that each ob be evaluated on the basis of current, regular and on-going work conditions and job content. $t is also essential that the focus of the evaluation process be on the purpose" scope and responsibilities of #or0 assigned to the position" and not an incumbent1s personal 2ualities or performance. $n other #ords the focus is on the position and not the individual's+ in the position. As obs are very often affected in some #ay by organi!ational change" maintaining the ob evaluation system re2uires that departments periodically revie# their organi!ation design and structure to determine if significant changes have occurred. Any change in an organi!ation1s structure may alter the content of a ob" #hich may result in an ad ustment in the evaluation of the ob. $deally the position description should be updated every time there is a substantial change to a position3s purpose" scope" and4or responsibilities.

Joint Committees
The Job Evaluation 5ommittee 'JE5+ shall meet to ointly evaluate AUPE positions. Membership on this committee is confined to management 'Human &esources+ and union 'AUPE+ ran0s. $deally" the JE5 #ill be a representation from a cross.section of ob classes to every e6tent possible. The JE5 #ill evaluate all AUPE obs in the #or0place" as #ell as maintain the integrity of the Hay Plan. Job evaluation decisions shall be unanimous and deemed final and binding upon the Parties" sub ect to appeal procedures.

U of L Job Evaluation Manual

Page 1 of 12

Job Evaluation Procedures

The follo#ing general procedures #ill be used to evaluate obs7 i. ii. All incumbents #ill complete the Job Evaluation 8uestionnaire 'either individually or as a group if they choose+. The $ncumbent" Manager and 9ean49irector #ill sign the 8uestionnaire" and submit to Human &esources. :here further documentation is re2uired" the JE5 #ill determine ho# that information #ill be obtained. This may include having members of the JE5 intervie# the incumbent and manager. Any additional information #ill be gathered in such a manner as to minimi!e any disruption to the #or0place. The JE5 #ill evaluate the position using information from the completed 2uestionnaire and any additional intervie#s 'if necessary+. The JE5 #ill evaluate positions based on comparisons #ith other AUPE evaluated positions.

iii.

Overview of t e !ay "et od

Job Evaluation methods provide a systematic approach and frame#or0 to sort positions in an e2uitable manner. The Hay method #or0s because it is a dynamic process that organi!ations adapt and apply in #ays that meet their needs. $t is based on the notion that obs can be measured on the basis of their relative contribution to the overall ob ectives of the organi!ation. ;y considering core aspects of content and conte6t that are common to all obs" it provides a clear" understandable and systematic basis for defining and comparing the re2uirements for all 0inds of obs at all levels. The Hay Method is based on the idea that obs can be assessed in terms of< the knowledge re2uired to do the ob< the t inking needed to solve the problems commonly faced< the res#onsibilities assigned" and< the working conditions associated #ith the ob. These four factors are often referred to as =compensable factors>. The Hay approach ran0s obs by level of accountability they carry in setting and achieving organi!ational goals and ob ectives. The focus of the ob evaluation process using the Hay Method is on the nature and the re2uirements of the ob itself" not on the s0ills" educational bac0ground" personal characteristics" or the current salary of the person holding the ob.

U of L Job Evaluation Manual

Page 2 of 12

The four compensable factors '?no#.Ho#" Problem @olving" Accountability" and :or0ing 5onditions+ are measured using a series of charts referred to as the =Hay Auide 5harts>. Each of the four compensable factors has a Auide 5hart outlining the dimensions of each of the factors and their respective point levels. Each ob is given a ran0ing in accordance #ith the four factors in relation to other obs in the organi!ation" resulting in a total point level.

E(ual Pay !ay "et od Com#ensable ,egislation -actors

?no#.Ho#

@0ill

Problem @olving

Effort

Accountability

&esponsibility

:or0ing 5onditions

Physical Effort" Environmental %actors" @ensory Attention" Mental @tress

$orking from documentation w ic describes t e content of t e job %t e Job Evaluation &uestionnaire' and t e environment in w ic it is #erformed, #lus t e definitions and (ualitative measures #rovided %by t e !ay #lan', eac job is given a ranking on t e four factors in relation to ot er jobs in t e organi)ation* ?ey ob functions and ma or responsibilities of the ob are compared to the definitions of degree levels in order to determine the most appropriate level. The corresponding points for that level are then assigned to the ob and are combined for all factors to derive a total score. Hay Auide 5harts provide the standard tools used to systematically evaluate all UofL obs. Auide 5harts were tailored by !ay to suit t e +niversity of ,et bridge organi)ation and t e jobs to be evaluated*

U of L Job Evaluation Manual

Page 3 of 12

Overview of t e -our Com#ensable -actors

.* /now-!ow
This Auide 5hart measures the total 0no#ledge" s0ills and competencies re2uired in a ob to reali!e its accountabilities and to perform the ob in an acceptable manner. $t consists of three dimensions7

5BAC$T$DE7

Practical procedures and 0no#ledge" speciali!ed techni2ues" and learned s0ills< MACAAE&$AL7 The real or conceptual planning" coordinating" directing" and controlling of activities and resources associated #ith an organi!ational unit or function< and" HUMAC &ELAT$BC7 Active" practicing" person.to.person s0ills in the area of human relationships.

Cognitive /now-!ow
,evel 1* 2asic E0#lanation :or0 of this 0ind is e6tremely simple" short cycle in nature" and typically involves manual effort. %amiliarity #ith simple #or0 routines< #or0 indoctrination. 5apable of carrying out uninvolved" standard procedures 1345O6 using e2uipment or machines #hich are simple to operate. E6perienced in applying methods or procedures" #hich generally are #ell defined and straightfor#ard" but #ith occasional deviations. @0ill in the use of speciali!ed e2uipment may be needed.

2* Elementary C* Intermediate Skill 1nd5Or /nowledge

Accomplished in implementing practical procedures or systems" #hich are 4* E0tended Skill moderately comple6 1345O6 speciali!ed s0ills" #hich re2uire some 1nd5Or /nowledge technical 0no#ledge 'usually non.theoretical+ to apply. E* 4iverse or S#eciali)ed -* Seasoned, 4iverse or S#eciali)ed 7* 2road or S#eciali)ed A sound understanding of and s0ill in several activities #hich involve a variety of practices and precedents O6 a basic understanding of the theory and principles in a scientific or similar discipline. E6tensive 0no#ledge and s0ill gained through broad or deep e6periences in a field 'or fields+ #hich re2uires a command of E$THE& involved" diverse practices and precedents O6 scientific theory and principles O6 both. Mastery of theories" principles" and comple6 techni2ues B& the diverse" cumulative e2uivalent gained through broad seasoning 1345O6 special

U of L Job Evaluation Manual

Page 4 of 12

"astery

development.

"anagerial /now !ow

This is 0no#.ho# re2uired to integrate and harmoni!e diversified functions involved in managerial situations 'operating" supporting and administering+. $t is practiced directly in ElineE assignments" consultatively in EstaffE assignments or both #ays. This factor reflects the 0no#ledge and s0ill re2uired for integrating and harmoni!ing activities" resources and functions involving some combination of planning" organi!ing" integrating" coordinating" evaluating" staffing and4or controlling. Managerial ?no# Ho# is reflected on the guide charts as the values ETE 'tas0" #hich is essentially =none>+" E$E 'minimal+" E$$E 'diverse+" E$$$E 'broad+" and =$DE 'total+. Managerial ?no# Ho# is a continuum li0e all other factors in the ran0ing process. Evaluators must always com#are w at levels a##ly to a job being evaluated relative to ot er #ositions in t e organi)ation. %or e6ample" 9irectors and Maintenance supervisors both plan but there is a significant difference in difficulty" scope and time frames. The organi!ational structure in #hich a ob e6ists must be considered so that the ob above the one being evaluated and its impact is considered. The ne6t layer above the ob being evaluated is there because the ob being evaluated cannot Edo it allE on its o#n. The level above brings added value from the standpoint of planning" organi!ing and coordinating activities. Layers of management cannot be ignored #ith respect to their impact on the positions belo# both in managerial 0no# ho# and freedom to act. E6planations for the levels follo#. ,evel E0#lanation

8*

Performance of a tas0's+ highly specific as to ob ective and content" and not involving the leadership of others.

I*

Performance or direction of activities" #hich are similar as to content and ob ectives #ith appropriate a#areness of other activities.

II*

9irection of an important unit #ith varied activities and ob ectives O6 guidance of an important subfunction's+ or several important elements across several units.

U of L Job Evaluation Manual

Page 5 of 12

III*

9irection of a ma or unit #ith noticeable functional diversity O6 guidance of a function's+ #hich significantly affects all or most of the organi!ation.

I9*

Management of all units and functions #ithin the organi!ation.

!uman 6elations Skills

Human &elations @0ills are the active" face to face s0ills needed by a ob holder for various relationships #ith other people #ithin and outside of the organi!ation. Human &elations @0ills range from EFE 'basic+" to E,E 'important+" to E*E 'critical+. $t must be 0ept in mind that EFE is not a E)E. $t is assumed that all obs re2uire a minimum of common politeness. At the opposite e6treme" a ob that re2uires the ability to motivate" convince or sell others to gain results is a E*E. Human &elations s0ills are not synonymous #ith being a nice person and they are not necessarily interchangeable. Level descriptions follo#.

,evel

E0#lanation This is the base level of interpersonal s0ill utili!ed by most individuals in the course of performing the ob. Maintaining courteous and effective #or0ing relationships #ith others to re2uest or transmit information" as0 2uestions or get clarification.

.* 2asic

This level of interpersonal s0ill is re2uired in obs in #hich understanding and :* Im#ortant influencing people are important re2uirements in the ob. @0ills of persuasiveness or assertiveness as #ell as sensitivity to the other person1s point of vie# are often re2uired to influence behavior" change an opinion" or turn a situation around. The re2uirement for public contact does not necessarily demand this level of human relations s0ills" particularly if the purpose is to provide or solicit information. $n addition" positions #hich assign #or0 and4or monitor and revie# #or0 of other employees 'generally supervising AUPE positions+" usually re2uire at least this level of s0ill.

U of L Job Evaluation Manual

Page 6 of 12

;* Critical

The highest level of interpersonal s0ill is usually re2uired by positions in #hich alternative or combined s0ills in understanding and motivating #eo#le are important in the highest degree. Jobs #hich re2uire negotiating s0ills are often found at this level" but consideration has to be given to the po#er bases being utili!ed. %or e6ample" $n negotiations bet#een buyers and sellers of products" services" concepts" or ideas" less Human &elations s0ill may be re2uired by the EbuyerE #ho has the latitude to say EnoE than by the seller #ho must turn the EnoE to EyesE. This level of s0ill is usually re2uired for positions accountable for the development" motivation" assessment and re#ard of other employees.

?no#.Ho# points are derived from the matching of the three dimensions described above. %or e6ample" a 5ognitive scoring of =9>" combined #ith a Managerial scoring of =$> and Human &elation s0ills of =*> provides a total ?no#.Ho# ran0ing. Bften the notation used to display the ?no#.Ho# factor is #ritten as" =9$*>.

:* Problem Solving
This Auide 5hart measures the thin0ing re2uired in the ob by considering t#o dimensions7 The environment in #hich the thin0ing ta0es place< and" The challenge presented by the thin0ing to be done. Problem @olving is the amount and nature of the thin0ing re2uired in the ob for analy!ing" reasoning" evaluating" creating" e6ercising udgement" forming hypotheses" dra#ing inferences" arriving at conclusions and the li0e. To the e6tent that thin0ing is limited or reduced by ob demands or structure" covered by precedent" simplified by definition" or assisted by others" then problem solving is diminished and results are obtained by the automatic application of s0ills rather than by the application of the thin0ing processes to 0no#ledge. Problem @olving measures the e6tent by #hich ?no#.Ho# is employed or re2uired. EGou thin0 #ith #hat you 0no#.E Therefore Problem @olving is treated as a percentage of ?no#.Ho#. 8 e evaluation of Problem Solving s ould be made wit out reference to t e job<s freedom to make decisions or take action= t ese are measured on t e 1ccountability C art*

8 inking Environment
,evel 1* !ig ly Structured E0#lanation Thin0ing #ithin very detailed and precisely defined rules and instructions AC94B& #ith continually present assistance.

U of L Job Evaluation Manual

Page 7 of 12

2* 6outine

Thin0ing #ithin detailed standard practices and instructions AC94B& #ith immediately available assistance or e6amples. Thin0ing #ithin #ell.defined" some#hat diversified procedures. There are many precedents covering most situations AC94B& readily available assistance. Thin0ing #ithin clear but substantially diversified procedures. There are precedents covering many situations AC94B& access to assistance. Thin0ing #ithin a #ell.defined frame of reference and to#ard specific ob ectives. This is done in situations characteri!ed by functional practices and precedents. Thin0ing #ithin a general frame of reference to#ard functional ob ectives. This is done in situations characteri!ed by nebulous" intangible or unstructured aspects Thin0ing #ithin concepts" principles and broad guidelines to#ards the organi!ation3s ob ectives or functional goals. This is done in an environment that is nebulous" intangible" or unstructured. Thin0ing #ithin business philosophy AC94B& natural la#s AC94B& principles governing human affairs.

C* Semi-6outine

4* Standardi)ed

E* Clearly 4efined

-* 7enerally 4efined

7* 2roadly 4efined

!* 1bstract

8 inking C allenge
,evel .* 6e#etitive :* Patterned ;* 9aried >* 1da#tive ?* +nc artered E0#lanation $dentical situations re2uiring resolution by simple choice of 0no#n things. @imilar situations re2uiring search for solutions #ithin area of 0no#n things. 9iffering situations re2uiring search for solutions #ithin area of 0no#n things Dariable situations re2uiring analytical" interpretative" evaluative" and4or constructive thin0ing. Covel or nonrecurring path.finding situations re2uiring the development of ne# concepts and imaginative approaches.

Problem @olving points are derived from the matching of the t#o dimensions described above. %or e6ample" a Thin0ing Environment scoring of =9>" combined #ith a Thin0ing 5hallenge scoring of =*> provides a percentage. To find Problem @olving points" match the ?no#.Ho# total score and the Problem @olving H. This provides the total Problem @olving ran0ing.

U of L Job Evaluation Manual

Page 8 of 12

;* 1ccountability
This Auide 5hart measures the relative degree to #hich the ob" performed competently" can affect the end results of the organi!ation or of a unit #ithin the organi!ation. Accountability is related to the opportunity #hich a ob has to bring about some results and the importance of those results to the organi!ation. Tied closely to the amount of opportunity is the degree to #hich the person in the ob must ans#er for 'is accountable for+ the results. $t reflects the level of decision.ma0ing and influence of the ob through consideration" in the follo#ing order of importance" of7 %&EE9BM TB A5T . the nature of the controls that limit or e6tend the decision.ma0ing or influence of the ob< JB; $MPA5T BC EC9 &E@ULT@ . the immediacy of the influence of the ob on a unit or function of the organi!ation< and" MAAC$TU9E . the magnitude of the unit or function most clearly affected by the ob.

-reedom 8o 1ct
%reedom to act measures the nature of the controls that limit or e6tend the decision.ma0ing or influence of the ob. $t is measured by the e6istence or absence of personal or procedural control and guidance 'supervision and guidance+. Limitations on freedom to act are largely organi!ational 'relating to both organi!ational placement and control as #ell as the nature of the activity in terms of end results and can differ bet#een seemingly e2uivalent obs in different departments+. %reedom to act in a ob is constrained to the degree that it is more circumscribed or limited by e6ternal factors or is defined by others and4or is limited by organi!ation or functional policies. The %reedom to Act can be evaluated in a range from & to A. 8uantitatively it is the most important dimension of accountability.

,evel

E0#lanation

These obs are sub ect to e6plicit" detailed instructions 1345O6 constant personal or procedural supervision.

These obs are sub ect to direct and detailed instructions 1345O6 very close supervision.

These obs are sub ect to instruction and established #or0 routines 1345O6 close supervision.

These obs are sub ect" #holly or in part" to standardi!ed practices and procedures" general #or0 instructions and supervision or progress and results.

U of L Job Evaluation Manual

Page 9 of 12

These obs are sub ect" #holly or in part" to practices and procedures covered by precedents or #ell.defined policies" and supervisory revie#.

These obs" by their nature and si!e" are sub ect to broad practices and procedures covered by functional precedents and policies" achievement of a circumscribed operational activity" and to managerial direction.

These obs" by their nature or si!e" are broadly sub ect to functional policies and goals and to managerial direction of a general nature.

@ub ect to the guidance of broad organi!ation policies" community or legislative limits" and the mandate of the organi!ation.

"173I8+4E
Magnitude represents the si!e of the unit or function most clearly affected by the ob. Every position in every organi!ation has a role to play in helping to achieve the ob ectives of the organi!ation< ho#ever the importance of this role is better understood in the conte6t of a department" or a faculty. The underlying notion in order to score the magnitude component is to recogni!e that $mpact and Magnitude udgments must be made in tandem. There are some organi!ations that use dollars 'budget+ as a useful 2uantitative measure of si!e< ho#ever" the University of Lethbridge scores the Magnitude component by fitting Magnitude and $mpact together. $nstead of using static dollars as a 2uantitative measure of si!e" the tas0 is to 'F+ identify the magnitude of the area most clearly impacted by the ob 'i.e. across the University for several unrelated functions" or #ithin one unit" etc.+" and ',+ measure the ob3s impact at that point. The 2uestion to be ans#ered is7 9oes the position3s magnitude impact #ithin one unit" or does it impact across the University for one function" or perhaps across the University for several unrelated functionsI This #ould differentiate the Magnitude scoring. Another chec0 is to loo0 at the Problem @olving scoring. Positions #here accountability tends to be greater than problem solving 'i.e. o#ner of a business+ #ould have a higher accountability score. The assumption is that a position is balanced 'i.e. problem solving J accountability+" unless actions or activities in the position prove other#ise.

U of L Job Evaluation Manual

Page 10 of 12

,evel E0#lanation M 'Minimal+ &esults usually affect an individual or are usually non.2uantifiable in terms of department budget responsibility" revenues and e6penditure authority.

F 'Dery @mall+ , 'Dery @mall+ * 'Medium+ &esults achieved primarily affect other departments" the University as a #hole and significant client groups e6ternal to University operations. :or0 performed may affect provincial or territorial clientele #ithin a variety of programs or functional areas. &esults are internally focused and affect a unit of the department or may be e6ternally focused and affect a limited segment of clients outside the department. &esults typically affect an entire department and may have some impact on other departments and4or are e6ternally focused affecting a large clientele #ithin a program or functional area.

I"P1C8
$mpact7 The degree to #hich the ob affects or brings about the results e6pected of the unit or function being considered. This is the influence of the ob on a unit.

,evel 1ncillary 1

E0#lanation

Bne of several4many positions" #hich contribute to the end results e6pected of the unit or functions B& informational" recording" or other facilitating services for use by others in achieving results. C Contributory Bne of fe# positions #hich contribute significantly to the end results e6pected of the unit

U of L Job Evaluation Manual

Page 11 of 12

or function B& interpretive" advisory" or other important supporting services for use by others in achieving results. S S ared E2ual and oint control" #ith one other position" of the activities and resources #hich produce the results B& control of #hat are clearly most 'but not all+ of the variables #hich are significant in determining results. P Primary 5ontrolling impact . the position has effective control over the significant activities and resources #hich produce the results and is the sole position 'at this level of %reedom to Act+ #hich must ans#er for the results. Accountability points are derived from the matching of the three dimensions described above. %or e6ample" a %reedom to Act scoring of =9>" combined #ith a Magnitude scoring of =F> and an $mpact scoring of =5> provides a total Accountability ran0ing of 9F5.

$orking Conditions
This Auide 5hart measures the conditions under #hich the ob is performed by considering7 P ysical Effort" #hich measures the degree of physical fatigue that results from the combination of intensity" duration" and fre2uency of any 0ind of physical activity re2uired in the ob. P ysical Environment" #hich measures the physical discomfort or the ris0 of accident or ill health #hich results from the combination of intensity" duration" and fre2uency of e6posure" in the ob" to unavoidable physical and environmental factors. Sensory 1ttention" #hich measures the intensity" duration" and fre2uency of the demand" in the ob" for concentration using one or more of the five senses. "ental Stress" #hich measures the degree of such things as tension or an6iety #hich result from the combination of intensity" duration" and fre2uency of e6posure to factors" inherent in the #or0 process or environment" #hich #ould typically cause stress to someone reasonably suited to the ob. ;y focusing on the important aspects of the content of each ob" the end results #hich each is e6pected to achieve" and the conditions under #hich the #or0 is performed" the Hay Method provides a vehicle for systematically assessing the relationships among the various positions and determining their relative value.

U of L Job Evaluation Manual

Page 12 of 12