[Informational Manual, Industrial Job Evaluation Systems] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov] INFORMATIONAL MANUAL INDUSTRIAL JOB EVALUATION SYSTEMS WAR MANPOWER COMMISSION BUREAU OF MANPOWER UTILIZATION DIVISION OF OCCUPATIONAL ANALYSIS AND MANNING TABLES AUGUST 1943 INFORMATIONAL MANUAL ON INDUSTRIAL JOB EVALUATION SYSTEMS WAR MANPOWER COMMISSION Division of Occupational Analysis and Manning Tables WASHINGTON, D. G August 1943 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U. S. Government Printing Office Washington, D. C. - Price 10 cents PREFACE This manual has been prepared primarily to introduce the field analysts to the subject of job evaluation in order to familiarize them with the relationship between job evaluation and occupational analysis and to enable the analysts, wherever possible, to utilize profitably job evaluation materials prepared by industrial plants. The information contained herein does not represent original research but is simply an abstract of representative textbooks, articles from periodicals, and working manuals of industrial concerns. Readers interested in the details of job evaluation are referred to the bibliography. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Preface___________________________________________,_______ n Introduction__________________________________________________ m Planning the Job Evaluation Program_________________________ 1 Collecting and Recording Job Data_____________________________ 3 Job Evaluation Systems________________________________________ 6 1. The Ranking System____________________________________ 6 2. The Job Classification System_________________________ 7 3. The Point System__________________________________ 7 4. The Factor Comparison System.________________________ 10 Pricing the Job______________________________________________ 14 Relationship to Occupational Analysis________________________ 15 Glossary_____________________________________________________ 19 Bibliography_________________________________________________ 20 Appendixes_______________________________________________ 22 n INTRODUCTION This manual is concerned chiefly with summarizing job evaluation principles and explaining the manner in which job evaluation may affect classification, manning tables, and other similar occupational analysis products. There will be no detailed discussion of the basic principles of occupational analysis1 since such information, of course, can be obtained from pertinent manuals of procedures already prepared. ? A careful classification of workers with respect to the work they do is a basic requisite for the orderly and economic operation of any industrial organization. Such a classification of workers involves a classification of the jobs that exist in the organization. An accurate job classification is not only essential to sound recruiting, upgrading, vocational counseling, and allied activities—which are the concern of occupational analysts as well as of industrial organizations—but also is essential in computing wages, one of the most important single problems of industrial management today. The method generally adopted by industry, to classify its jobs for purposes of most accurately determining wages, is job evaluation. Job evaluation consists essentially of an analysis and pricing of jobs, a record of the analysis frequently being used also as a job specification for recruitment and other personnel purposes. While job evaluation and occupational analysis differ in purpose, they involve fundamentally the same technique. Both must depend on specific information on all phases of a job which relate, on the one hand, to the payment of wages and, on the other, to the knowledge of training grades, classification factors, testing programs, and all other products calculated to enhance the efficiency and increase the value of personnel and placement procedures. Both depend on job analysis to secure these facts and to present them in proper form for study. And since the facts required for either program must cover the job in a complete fashion, both will depend on job analysis to uncover essentially the same facts although the ultimate measure applied to those facts will differ. Historically, job evaluation springs from the same origin as the job analysis conducted by occupational analysts—time and motion study. The first scientific plan for the study of jobs and wage relationships was advanced in tnis country in 1881 by Frederick W. Taylor, who made time studies and analyzed jobs into units and duties in the machine shop of the Midvale Steel Company. The analysis consisted largely of a sequential listing of the steps needed for production and the time necessary for each step, so as to accumulate a standard time for the production of a single unit. Out of this approach arose 1 To avoid confusion of terms, “occupational analysis” will be used throughout this manual to indicate any of the activities with which occupational analysts are concerned as opposed to activities concerned with job evaluation. “Job analysis” will be used exclusively, as defined in the glossary, to designate the process of compiling and studying job information. in IV INTRODUCTION the many incentive wage payment plans which we find in evidence today. The establishment of wages by analysis has been found in practice to be a very definite step forward from time-honored methods of fiat or individual bargaining, inaccurate methods which lead to wage discrepancies and intense employee dissatisfaction. Since the time of Taylor, several systems of job evaluation have been evolved and much material has been collected and published. The systems range from an extremely simple procedure for subjectively ranking jobs throughout an organization in the order of their adjudged difficulty, to elaborate point or similar systems that evaluate parts of a job separately. The theory and method of operation of several basic representative systems will be discussed in the following pages. PLANNING THE JOB EVALUATION PROGRAM As indicated previously in this report, occupational analysts frequently may find it profitable to utilize existing job evaluation data to supplement their own field analyses. However, the establishment contemplating a job evaluation program may be examining the nature of its jobs and their inherent characteristics carefully for the first time. If this is the case, the establishment is aided by available job information and may benefit from the techniques and products of occupational analysis programs. Before discussing job evaluation procedures, an introductory explanation of the process by which a job evaluation program is instituted may be of assistance to occupational analysts in determining possible or inherent relationships between the two fields represented by job evaluation and occupational analysis. The initial installation of any job evaluation program usually follows a careful study and planning on the part of administrators either in the personnel department or in some other top executive capacity in the organization. Certainly the determination of the necessity of installing a system would be based on such things as a careful analysis of cost records of the company, number of employees in the organization, type and diversity of work done, comparison of wage rates with “going rates” in the community, and employee attitude and morale. The latter is a potent factor. It is claimed by some writers that most frequently the impetus for a job evaluation program comes initially from the performance level. The employees, of course, are most sensitive to inequalities in wage rates for jobs of variable difficulty within the organization and also between rates paid by the firm and rates paid for comparable jobs by outside firms. Ana so a careful management gives close attention to signs of employee unrest and dissatisfaction with wages. Management has found that employee attitudes have a tremendous effect on production costs, as strikes or Labor Board cases have forcefully brought out. Next, the institution of such a program probably would follow considerable research in the effectiveness of various job evaluation systems established in related organizations. Despite the fact that there is considerable literature available describing the merits of each of the existing job evaluation systems, at present there seems to be a lack of established unbiased and objective criteria to aid management in determining when and what kind of job evaluation plan would be most effective in a specific type of organization. What type of job evaluation system to use, then, is usually a matter of individual judgment and preference. Practically every type of job evaluation plan claims advantages over all the others. Once it has been decided to use some sort of job evaluation system, one or a combination of any of the several methods described in this manual will 1 2 INFORMATIONAL MANUAL be selected according to whether the jobs are of a manual, clerical, or administrative type, according to the funds or personnel available for the program, according to the experiences of other organizations, and according to the personal preference and convictions of those responsible for the program. A consideration which should not be overlooked by those planning a job evaluation program is the possible value of byproducts which might be evolved during the course of the evaluation program. For example, the job data collected during the evaluation study might serve as job specifications for recruitment purposes and in such personnel activities as upgrading and training. Here, application of occupational analysis techniques to the processing of job information collected as a result of the job evaluation survey may be of aid in the utilization of this information. Also, efficient utilization of the results of a job evaluation program may be enhanced if occupational analysis products are known and considered. Once the program has been formulated, administrative decision must be made as to who will make the study. The choice usually lies between assigning the work to employees of the firm or bringing in professional analysts to do the job. There has been considerable discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of the two methods.1 A combination of the two methods is sometimes employed. One or more outside analysts are hired by the firm to supervise analysts selected from the company pay roll. This enables the company to profit by having personnel trained in the job evaluation techniques when the study is completed. Also, it enables the company to retain a considerable amount of background information and knowledge gathered throughout the study. This is especially helpful in the subsequent maintenance of the job evaluation system established. 1E. H. Little, Some Considerations in Installing a Salary Administration Plan, AMA Office Executive Series, No. 27. COLLECTING AND RECORDING JOB DATA The first step in any job evaluation program is the job analysis. This is the process of studying and recording the facts, functions, and conditions that go to make up a job. The job analysis is the basic device which serves as the point of departure for all the numerous types of job evaluation systems in use today just as it serves as the point of departure for all products of occupational analysis. Job analysis is necessary because no job can be said to exist until it is defined, for without definition it lacks concept. Likewise, in order to have universal understanding and appreciation of this concept, the definition is not sufficient without being recorded. While there is almost universal agreement that some record of the job should be made, there is little agreement on what kind of record will best serve as the basis for establishing salary standards. Two well-known types of job analysis are the Methods Study, occasionally used, and the job description,1 the latter being by far the most common type of analysis. Methods Study, or time and motion study as it is frequently called, is accomplished by an analyst observing the job and making a detailed study of the timing of the operations of the job, analysis of their sequence, and recording of employee’s body movements. Methods Study is principally a tool of industrial engineering, although it was the forerunner of most of the j ob analysis methods in use today. Since its inception in 1881, it has developed into a highly specialized technique for analyzing methods of work principally in mechanical pursuits where the operations are specialized, repetitive, and more or less the same from day to day. Most analysts concerned entirely with job evaluation, and not with the improvement of methods of work, feel a detailed methods study unjustifiably tedious.2 The primary purpose of a job description, on the other hand, is to provide a record of only the more important facts about the job that will establish the degree of skill and responsibility involved, and that will provide a definition of each pay-roll title and a uniform nomenclature for use throughout the organization. Job descriptions are obtained in a variety of ways: By allowing the employee to write a description of his job through filling out a questionnaire; by an analyst writing the job description after interviewing the employee, or observing him at his work; or by an analyst writing the job description on the basis of an interview with the supervisor without reference to the employee.8 Job description forms which are used in practically all job evaluation systems contain space for four basic types of information : »The job description is a close approximation to the job schedule form used by the occupational analysts. See p. 15 for a discussion of this relationship. 2See Ralph A. Barnes, Motion and Time Study for a detailed discussion of the field of motion and time study. 8 See Job Evaluation for the Establishment of Salary Standards, Life Office Management Association. 1938, for a discussion of the pros and cons of each method. 8 4 INFORMATIONAL MANUAL 1. Space in which is entered the data necessary to identify the position and to indicate its general place in the organization. Blanks are frequently provided here for indication of the pay-roll title, department and section, title of supervisor, and code, if a classification system is used. 2. Adequate space is allowed for a full description of the duties performed, to be presented according to either the sequence of operations or the order of their importance. The complete description usually indicates what work is done; and if significant, how, when, and where the work is carried on. Sometimes it is found helpful to indicate also the reason for the operation and its relation to other work of the company. 3. Space for additional factual data and definitions of certain terms, to make clear the responsibilities involved, and the hazards, if any. 4. Finally, space is provided for recording, when they have been determined, the necessary personal qualifications for the job, which will serve as a guide for use in hiring and promotion. While all job evaluation programs are carried out on the basis of the information listed above, the more elaborate systems, such as the Point System and the Factor Analysis System, require additional information that will provide a means of more efficiently analyzing the most important aspects, or component parts, of the jobs. Therefore, on the same type of job description form, the Point and similar systems provide for additional information which defines and analyzes facts, conditions, or requirements that relate to the critical factors forming the basis of the job evaluation. (See Appendix I, p. 22, for comparison of the two types of job analysis.) In other words, if the evaluation is made on the basis of the education, intelligence, experience, and the like, required by an individual to handle a job, provision is made for recording these facts on the same form with the job description, even though they do not form a part of the actual definition of the function and. duties of the job itself. The finished job description therefore serves a dual purpose—first, as a means of defining and recording the facts relating to the functions and responsibility of the job itself; second, as a means of defining and recording those requirements relating to the factors used in the evaluation. Most authorities in the field of job evaluation stress the fact that too much emphasis cannot be placed upon the importance of accurate, complete, and intelligible job descriptions. They are important, first, in order that accurate ratings result from the installation: second, in order that subsequent changes in jobs can be recognized and reflected in changed rating; third, in selling the plan to employees, for they will have much greater confidence in the accuracy and impartiality of the rating if they see, in the job descriptions, true and complete pictures of the work they do. The job descriptions used as a basis for job evaluation differ little fundamentally from the job analysis schedules prepared by occupational analysts. The primary difference is in the interpretation of results—more emphasis being placed? in occupational analysis, on classification factors such as responsibility and mental application than on more strictly compensable factors such as physical requirements and job monotony. INDUSTRIAL JOB EVALUATION SYSTEMS 5 Thus, to a certain extent, job analysis schedules prepared by occupational analysis are useful to organizations conducting a job evaluation ; and conversely, job descriptions prepared in the course of the job evaluation may be useful in the preparation of occupational information products. However, any occupational analyst utilizing a job description prepared by an industrial organization for job evaluation purposes should first become thoroughly familiar with the exact definition of job factors—which will be discussed later—used in that organization. 662018*—43---------8 JOB EVALUATION SYSTEMS The four basic systems of job evaluation are the Ranking System, the Classification System, the Point System, and the Factor Comparison System. (See Appendix I, p. 22 for tabular comparison of these systems.) The four systems, explained below, may be divided into two general groups, quantitative and nonquantitative. NONQUANTITATIVE MEASURES The Ranking System and the Job Classification System employ nonquantitative methods of listing jobs in order of difficulty. These systems merely arrange the jobs in sequence according to importance or in a series of grades, whereas the quantitative measures indicate numerical “distances” between jobs or job grades. Nonquantitative measures, especially the Jbb Classification System, are fundamentally similar with respect to methods employed in classifying jobs to the Dictionary of Occupational Titles, since the latter by nonquantitative methods provides for the classification of jobs on the basis of duties and responsibilities into predetermined categories. The Ranking System This system of job evaluation is sometimes referred to as the cardsorting system because, under it, jobs are arranged from high to low as are the cards of a playing-card deck. First, all the jobs in an individual division or department are carefully analyzed and ranked in their order of importance, or in their order or value to the company, by a committee which includes line supervisors in charge of the individual departments. This ranking for each department requires a good deal of checking to eliminate disagreements, because each job is evaluated in terms ot other jobs and not in salary or wage rates, and this must be done without reference to the personality or the efficiency of the employees holding these positions. The ranking is usually accomplished without the preparation of job descriptions, although the use of job descriptions, when available, makes the decisions more accurate. When all the departmental rankings have been made, it is necessary to combine them into one organizational ranking. This combining necessitates agreement between department heads and their supervisors on interdepartmental relationships, which at times may be quite difficult to establish, because consideration of the present job holder and his salary may color the determination of the interdepartmental relations. This is best done by the use of an organization chart which lists each department on a separate line with its ranking of the individual jobs extended horizontally. Individual jobs and also departments can then be compared vertically and the relationships among them determined. 6 INDUSTRIAL JOB EVALUATION SYSTEMS 7 From the organizational ranking obtained by collating the departmental rankings, it is possible to determine the number of groups or grades of jobs that are present in the organization. These groups or grades may then be carefully defined to insure the proper future allocation of new or revised jobs. Job Classification System Under this system, a number of classifications or predetermined grades are established in advance by a committee of operating heads in the organization, and jobs are assigned to these classifications. The classification of positions is based on the assumption that every job contains certain definite elements or phases and that these elements can be classified into grades varying in difficulty and responsibility. To apply this system to any particular organization, it is first necessary to set up certain job levels or grades and define these job levels in terms of the elements of the jobs in the organization, in which the duties and responsibilities are clearly defined for each level. (See Appendix II, p. 23.) Such a system must be based on the principles of variation in difficulty, as represented by the number and kind of rules which regulate the work done, and tne degree of responsibility, as indicated by whether or not the operations are subject to check.. Of necessity, a job “measuring stick” of this sort must be based on a thorough knowledge of the jobs in the organization so that all work elements will be included and their difficulty and responsibility will be clearly distinguished. After the grades have been established, whether defined in simple terms or described by detailed definitions, it is then necessary for the analysts to define and classify each job into the proper grade. The job specifications are read and analyzed; and on the basis of the duties and responsibilities reflected in each, each is assigned to its proper category in the classification structure. QUANTITATIVE EVALUATION MEASURES The Point System and the Factor Comparison System are similar, in that they break the job down by analysis into basic factors or elements and measure these factors both qualitatively and quantitatively. Information derived from either of these two systems because of its preciseness and detail frequently will be of considerable value to analysts preparing manning tables and other occupational analysis products. The Point System Point systems of job evaluations have probably had the widest application of any of the systems. They are now being used extensively by several major industrial concerns and are rapidly gaining widespread usage. In some instances they have been applied only to plant jobs, while in others the system originally applied to the plant jobs has been carried over to include the office positions. Under the point system a number of factors, such as age, education, years of training needed, and physical effort involved, are predetermined as factors which probably will be found common to all jobs. 8 INFORMATIONAL MANUAL A schedule of points to be assigned for the various gradations of each factor is then prepared. For example, one point may be assigned for required education of grammar school or less; two points tor 1 or 2 years of high school; three points for 3 or 4 years of high school; four points for 2 years of college; and five points for college completion. In applying this point scale, any job adjudged to require a high-school graduate would receive a credit of three points for educational requirements. There are many variations of the point system, some using weightings and others combined with graphic rating scales. (See Appendix III, p. 24, for one example.) To set up a point system of evaluation, the major factors found in every occupation to be covered by the survey must first be determined; and point values, based on the relative importance of each factor, must be assigned. Since each factor will occur in individual jobs in varying amounts, it is necessary to provide some basis of evaluating job components quantitatively in terms of major job factors.1 This requires that a number of levels or degrees be established within each major factor and each level strictly defined to indicate its scope. It is then necessary to assign points for the defined conditions and circumstances so that a consistent interpretation of the elements included in each factor can be made. The definitions and assigned points establish a comparative standard which will assist in making the point assignment when evaluating each factor of a job. Although the levels or degrees of each factor are expressed or defined in written form, it is usually desirable to have such definitions accompanied by examples of standard or well-defined jobs which have already been classified under each degree. Thus, if a unique job is being rated, it will be compared with the examples given of jobs which have already been rated. The point systems have as their basis the concept that those factors should be used which are common, at least to jobs in a fairly wide range of levels, even though they are not common to all plant jobs. Therefore, according to that concept, the differences in jobs are reflected in differences in the values which can be attached to these factors. There are many variations in the nature and number of these factors recognized in the point methods, in fact, more than could be accounted for by differences in the various organizations using them, the number of factors ranging from 3 to as many as 50. The use or more than 15, or, at the most, 20 factors is almost certainly an unjustified refinement. Definitions of factors—and, if feasible, of varying degrees of values within factors—are important. There are three methods by which these factors may be determined. First, by arbitrary decision that certain characteristics or factors should be present in, and important to, all jobs in the organization. Second, oy an analysis of methods in use elsewhere. Such a survey made by the Pennsylvania Company has indicated that the five factors, mental effort, skill, physical effort, responsibilitv, and working conditions, are included in all existing systems and that other factors used can be reasonably classified under the five major headings. The only objection that has been offered to this method of selection is that the 1 See K. F. Bradbury, Job Evaluation Analyzed, Advanced Management, January 1940, for a discussion of this subject. INDUSTRIAL JOB EVALUATION SYSTEMS 9 analysis assumes these original factors to be correct for all jobs in all organizations. Third, by the determination of the factors by analysis of the job descriptions for the particular organization to which the system is to be applied. There are several advantages claimed for this last system ot factor selection. Among them are : («) All factors that are applicable to any job in the organization are included in the list, even though they might apply only to one j ob. Though the list will be large, the majority of jobs can be evaluated by the use of only a few out oi the total list, (b) The factors selected will definitely apply to the organization, (c) There 'will be little possibility that any job will be evaluated only in terms of factors of minor importance to it, while overlooking one of major importance. The only objection to this method is the time necessary for development. Under it all jobs in the organization must be studied before the factor scales are set up, and then must be restudied and valued accordingly.1 The basic factors to be looked for in the jobs in the original study have been described by one author as : (1) The minimum abilities which the employee must bring to the job and the extent to which he is called upon to use them on the job. (2) The responsibilities which the employer places on the employee in the job. (3) The conditions under which the job must be performed. Any or all of these three basic factors may be expanded into two or more specific factors according to the peculiar requirements of each industry or company. “It appears almost too obvious to state that the job content and requirements be rated and not the attributes of the men in the job; however, dll too frequently job evaluations fail because the individual, not the job, has been considered.”2 These three basic factors have been paraphrased by another author as : (1) The qualities and abilities necessary to carry the (2) load under the assigned (3) conditions of work. From these two statements of basic analysis it would seem reasonable that all specific factors would be likely to fall under one of these three headings.3 When the factors to be used in the system have been determined, it is essential that various levels or degrees be established and defined so that these factors can be discriminated in different jobs. The degrees are usually assigned numerical values in either of the two following ways: 1. Predetermined weights.—The numerical value of the factor degrees are established on a scale of 0-10, for example. Usually the same scale is used for all factors, though in some cases the individual factors have scales of varying size to express their relative importance. But whether the factor scales are equal or not, they are applied to all jobs evaluated. The correctness of the weights obtained, of course, depends on the arbitrary judgment of those who originate it. 2. Selected weights.—A maximum total of points is decided upon, the amount usually being set sufficiently high so that individual job ratings can be in even numbers, to facilitate conversion of the points into actual Wob Evaluation for the Establishment of Salary Standards, Life Office Management Association, 1938. * E. J. Benge, Job Evaluation and Merit Rating, National Foreman’s Institute, 1941. »Job Evaluation for the Establishment of salary Standards, Life Office Management Association, 1938. 10 INFORMATIONAL MANUAL salary figures. This total is then apportioned among the several factors that have been selected, on the basis of their relative importance as determined by the pooled judgment of a Job Evaluation Committee. A different percentage distribution of total points for each factor may be made for each general type of work, such as common labor, factory machine operation, and clerical work. There are some who believe that it is possible to justify point differences even within such categories of work. If the factors obviously differ in significance between groups of jobs within a general category, the use of different weights is desirable, provided, of course, that sets of weights can be decided upon that are satisfactory for each group. While the maximum points assigned to a factor scale (e. g., working conditions) will be the same for all types of jobs within a broad work category, the maximum points of all the scales within each broad work category must always total to the arbitrary maximum points for any category of the system. Thus, if one factor scale is assigned more points, another must have less points. These relative variations in scale size are determined by the Job Evaluation Committee which judges the relative importance of the factors for the type of jobs to be measured. When individual jobs are evaluated by such factor scales, the sum total of the job’s factor points will almost always be well under the maximum total points of the system. Only a few jobs, at the top of the group, may closely approximate this total. The Factor Comparison System1 This method of job evaluation is known by various other designations, such as the Key Job System or the Job Comparison System, and is a modification of the Point System described above. It is classed separately, since it differs considerably from the point system in that all jobs are evaluated in terms of a rating scale based on selected key jobs. The major features which distinguish this method from the point system are: (1) The factors used are assumed to be fundamental to all jobs and of universal application. The same three basic factors of minimum ability, responsibility, and working conditions mentioned in relation to the point system apply also to the Factor Comparison System, since both systems must determine just what is in a given job and to what extent it is present. (2) The point values are set after analysis of the jobs and are derived from existing rates of key jobs. (3) The degrees of each factor are expressed by sample or key jobs. The basic principles and practical application of this system are outlined in the following paragraphs. This system evaluates jobs relatively using certain existing key jobs as points or degrees on the evaluation scale, rather than descriptive definitions of such degrees as applied in the point system. These key jobs are jobs for which compensation has been determined to be standard or the rates of which are not subject to controversy. This system has the advantage of establishing a fixed relationship between xThe description of this method of job evaluation is abstracted from Manual of Jot Evaluation, Benge, Burk, and Hay. INDUSTRIAL JOB EVALUATION SYSTEMS 11 job value and actual compensation, since it is based on adequately compensated key jobs; and, in addition, it will hold up for all jobs whether the major determining factors are skill and mentality or physical and working conditions. This system of evaluation generally utilizes five critical factors: Mental requirements; responsibility; working conditions; physical requirements; skill requirements. In some special cases these factors may be combined or may be further broken down. For example, in hazardous industries, it might be advantageous to break down the working-conditions factor into surroundings and hazards. Jobs are compared according to these factors which are common to all jobs. The differences found in such jobs can be easily quantified by this means. The mechanics of this system are outlined generally as follows: The first step to be taken in setting up an evaluation system of this kind is the selection of between 15 and 25 key jobs in order to develop a basis against which to evaluate the remaining jobs in the company. These key jobs should range in rate of compensation from somewhere near the lowest-paid job to be covered by the survey to approximately the highest. All jobs selected should be those which are capable of exact and well-understood definition, and no job should be included in the key position list if there is any disagreement about the existing rate. These rates are compared, if possible, with competitive rates. No job for which the wage or salary rate has included compensation for length of service, disability, or other extraneous elements should be used as a key job. When any doubt as to the selection of key jobs exists from the point of view of competitive wage rate comparisons, a labor market survey of key-job rates should be made prior to the study. After the key jobs have been selected and the job descriptions carefully studied, they are ranked by several different analysts and members of the Job Evaluation Committee in each of the critical factors in the order of their relative, importance and in accordance with individual opinions. The jobs are ranked from lowest to highest in order of the importance of the first factor, say, mental requirements; then for the second factor, skill; and so on until all jobs have been ranked for all factors. In the case of the working-conditions factor, the lowest rank is assigned to the job having the most agreeable and least hazardous working conditions and the highest rank number to the job having the most disagreeable and hazardous conditions. This ranking preferably is done by several analysts several times over a period of weeks, and then the returns are analyzed statistically to determine the average distribution “or relative ranking of the key j obs. (See Appendix IV, p. 26.) After ranking, the key jobs then are evaluated by careful study and examination of the individual job descriptions, the evaluation being made in terms of the present money rate for each job for each of the critical factors. In other words, the present typical or average salary for each of the key jobs is divided into parts, one part being assigned to each of the factors in accordance with its estimated importance. For instance, assume that the job of painter is one of the key jobs and is now being paid at a rate of 60 cents per hour, which is the plant aver 12 INFORMATIONAL MANUAL age. In the pooled judgment of several analysts, the different facts are estimated to be worth: Mental requirements________________________________________$0.10 Skill requirements____________________________________________ . 19 Physical requirements_______________________________________________ . 11 Responsibility______________________________________________ . 10 Working conditions____________________________________________ . 10 Total____________________________________________________________$0. 60 The point or money values determined for each of the critical factors in this job are then entered, in the order of their relative predetermined ranking, on each of the five separate factor evaluation scales. Suppose that painter has been assigned a rank of fifth in mental requirements in relation to the other selected key jobs. Then, from the above table, it would be seen that the factor 10 would be in the fifth entry on the evalution scale for mental requirements. Similarly, the other point values would be entered in their proper relative positions on the evaluation scales for the other critical factors. (See Appendix V, p. 27.) Usually the ranking of several key jobs in one or more critical factors is hot consistent with the point value determined. If the inconsistency is small, corrections and adjustments are made to bring the jobs into line with the rest. Jobs in which large discrepancies occur are thrown out to avoid introduction of error into the system. The remaining key jobs supply separate comparison scales, or “measuring sticks,” one tor each critical factor. Each measuring stick will have a number of points, from lowest to highest, distributed at varying intervals along the scale. Each point on each scale will be characterized er defined by a key job. (See Appendix VI, p. 28.) When there is a wide spread between some one job and the key job immediately above or below it, supplementary key jobs are sometimes used. These are chosen at random from among all departments represented in the survey, the only requirement being that there is no serious controversy regarding the rates being paid for these jobs. Slight changes are made in each of the comparison scales to give a smooth geometric progression for ease in evaluating the other jobs in the plant. After this has been done and the completed comparison scale approved by all concerned, it is ready for application to all other positions in the survey. The completed comparison scales in most programs are composed of the elements of about a dozen original key jobs and about 50 supplementary key jobs. This is not too many, however, since there may be from 7 to 75 steps on each factor scale, and usually there are several hundred jobs to be valued. In one company with about 1,000 salaried workers whose jobs were included in the plan, there were 650 different jobs requiring rating. Similar ratios are the rule with the Factor Comparison System, these ratios usually being less than 2 to 1 for salaried positions and up to 4 to 1 for jobs held by wage earners. With other rating methods, the ratios are usually much greater, because the effort to simplify evaluation results in combining many jobs in one job description, the jobs essentially being different in detail. All other jobs in the organization are rated by each analyst in the committee and the results compared, following the preparation and approval by department heads of the written descriptions of all jobs. The analysts now compare all other jobs in the company with key jobs. INDUSTRIAL JOB EVALUATION SYSTEMS 13 The new jobs are placed in correct order of rank for each of the five factors, one at a time, by comparing them with the key jobs on the rating scales for each factor. Each job is compared with the key jobs on each factor and given a value for the factor. Adding up the values for all factors gives the total point value for the job, discrepancies being smoothed out by the analysts working as a group. When rating the jobs, the analyst rereads the descriptions of key and auxiliary jobs and becomes thoroughly familiar with them. Each analyst selects from the descriptions of all the remaining jobs those which he himself has prepared and rates them first, rating the others afterward. This produces more accurate results, because his greater familiarity with the jobs he has described will permit more accurate ratings of those jobs than others. First, a rough ranking of the job descriptions is made, those of lowest probable value being placed on top of the pile. One description is taken at a time and carefully read. Its mental requirements are compared with those of the key or auxiliary jobs that seem closest to it. In making this comparison, account is taken not only of the requirements themselves but of the intensity with which they must be used. By “intensity” is meant the proportion of the total time which the factor is required on that job. After completing the comparison, the Mental Requirement rating which seems correct for the job being valued is selected. The analyst proceeds in the same manner by comparing this same job with the key jobs in the skill requirements scale, then for physical requirements, for responsibility, for working conditions, and so on until each factor has been rated. As the valuing proceeds, each analyst constantly reviews the ratings of the original key jobs. As the number of jobs that he has rated increases, it is sometimes discovered that one of the factor values of an original key job appears to be out of line. In this event, he makes the changes necessary on his work sheets, so that his opinion may be later considered by all raters. When the raters have completed rating all of the remaining jobs, they sit together in committee to compare the results of their work. If the ratings of each individual job made by the analysts are sufficiently similar, these ratings are averaged, and the nearest step (or point value) on the comparison scale is selected for each job. If the ratings obtained, by different analysts are not sufficiently similar for the same job or jobs, the evaluation process is repeated until the analysts reach a closer agreement concerning the rating to be given such jobs. All evaluations made are verified by departmental heads, and any disagreements are ironed out by conferences between them and the rating committee. The ratings assigned to each job are further validated by comparison with the ratings of similar jobs in other departments. The final result is an agreed-upon company-wide grading of all jobs. PRICING THE JOB Job pricing is the ultimate objective of job evaluation programs. Here the relationship between job evaluation and occupational analysis ceases. However, the methods of job pricing should be clearly understood, since this ultimate objective determines the nature of the whole evaluation program and therefore the interpretation necessary in relating occupational analysis and job evaluation. After the jobs have been evaluated or related in terms of difficulty and value to the organization by one of the four methods outlined, it becomes necessary to make this material of value for salary administration. Internal consistency of the different jobs in terms of relative value to the company must be translated into internal consistency in terms of dollars and cents. This salary system must then be subjected to the test of comparison with salaries outside the organization to determine whether or not it is externally consistent. Determination of internal consistency can best be accomplished by comparing the jobs covered in the valuation study with the salaries being paid to them. This is usually done by a chart in which individual jobs are plotted on the basis of their value as determined by the job evaluation on one axis against their present salaries in terms of annual, monthly, weekly, or hourly payments on the other. A curve is then drawn through the mean salary for the different grades of jobs, and from this curve it is a simple matter to determine which jobs are over- or under-compensated with respect to the mean curve and the exact amount, in dollars and cents, which each job is wrongly paid. After the jobs have been adjusted internally, it is usually desirable to compare the wage structure with that existing in similar organizations in order to achieve external consistency. External relationships are usually determined by what is commonly known as a labor market survey, the purpose or which is to measure the adequacy of the present company wage or salary scales in relation to competitive labor markets. This includes a comparison of the general level of the organization’s wage scale and the market-wage scale, as well as comparison of central wage or salary tendencies within the organization, with the same tendencies in competitive labor markets. When computation of the market wage-line has been completed, final decision as to the wage or salary line to be installed within the company can be made on the basis of competitive position, economical ratio of wages and salaries to total costs, company position in the community, grade of employee hired, and all other factors influencing the individual company’s traditional wage policy. 14 RELATION TO OCCUPATIONAL ANALYSIS It is apparent from the foregoing that these evaluation systems provide information that—with the usual values and limitations of raw data—applies directly to occupational analysis problems. In both job evaluation and occupational analysis, a fundamental requisite is a knowledge of each individual job sufficient to determine its nature and to distinguish it accurately from other jobs. In the process of developing a program of either type, factors which affect these aspects must be determined. Following the determination of the specific factors important to the development of a given product, jobs are then identified and measured in terms of these factors. In wage evaluation, those factors pertinent to the program are the compensable factors—conditions inherent in a job which affect the worth of that job in dollars and cents. In the case of occupational analysis, no single adjective can adequately describe the nature of the job factors which must be considered. Here the character of the factors depends on the purpose of the analysis and varies according to the end product which stems from it. For example, in the preparation and review of manning tables, those factors which affect the vulnerability of a job to the draft, suitability of a job for the employment of women or handicapped, the nature and duration of training, and the possibilities of upgrading and job reengineering (job breakdown) must be specifically determined for each job studied. In preparation of the Dictionary of Occupational Titles and similar materials, those factors which aid in establishing a standardized concept and practical classification of a job are considered. In the preparation of aptitude tests, performance tests, and similar products, a careful determination of a number of component job elements is made in order to apply any of several measuring sticks either to a given job or to a field oi endeavor. In any event, analysis of a few “compensable” factors and those factors commonly considered in occupational analysis should disclose similarities—or dissimilarities—affecting the application of job evaluation information to occupational analysis. At the same time, study of a few such examples would serve to suggest others in which the same comparisons hold true. COMPARISON OF FACTORS Among the most common of the compensable factors which have been used in wage evaluation studies in the past are : Education. Responsibility for material or Experience. product. Initiative and ingenuity. Responsibility for safety of others. Physical demand. Responsibility for work of others. Mental or visual demand. Working conditions. Responsibility for equipment or Unavoidable hazards.1 process. 1This group of compensable factors is used by the National Electrical Manufacturers’ Association in one of the most widely known of job evaluation programs and Is fairly representative of similar programs throughout the United States. 15 16 INFORMATIONAL MANUAL Education, as a compensable factor, is defined as the job requirements for the use of shop mathematics, drawings, measuring instruments, trade knowledge, and the like. The reason for its inclusion as a compensable factor is obvious. The time spent in acquiring this education is of direct value to the employer and therefore reimbursable. In occupational analysis, the factor Education has direct applications. It indicates training grade—a basic requirement in manning tables. Also, by showing portions of the job which can be acquired in other than on-the-job methods, it points the way toward applicable training programs which can be or are instituted to provide wartime replacements, and thus assists in manpower analyses. In the preparation of definitions for the Dictionary of Occupational Titles, education is one of the primary measures of skill as well as an important indicator of jobs on the clerical and professional level. Other applications of this factor in preparing occupational analysis materials are readily apparent. Experience, as a compensable factor, is defined as the length of time usually or typically required by an individual, with the specified education or trade knowledge, to learn to perform the work effectively. It is closely associated with the factor education, and frequently requirements for one can be substituted for the other. In occupational analysis, experience is used in conjunction with education and usually for the same purpose. In addition, the nature of experience often provides a clue to the means by which educational programs can be used to supplant experience requirements, a consideration vitally important in the wartime utilization of women and other labor reserve groups. Initiative and ingenuity, as a compensable factor, appraises the independent action, exercise of judgment, the making of decisions, or the amount of planning which the job requires. This factor also appraises the degree of complexity of the work. This factor is important m occupational analysis, since it is one of the prime indicators of the exact nature of a specific job and serves to distinguish it from closely related jobs. Information concerning this factor is always necessary in preparing job descriptions for manning tables, job analysis schedules, job definitions for Dictionary of Occupational Titles, job families and other occupational information products, not only because it distinguishes a job from closely related jobs, but because it serves to validate the factors discussed above, experience and education. Physical demand, for compensation purposes, is* defined as the amount and continuity of physical effort required. This factor includes the effort expended handling material (weight and frequency of handling), operating a machine or handling tools, and the periods of unoccupied time. This factor must be specifically measured for any labor utilization program. It is especially important in determining the suitability of women or other labor reserve groups for a specific occupation. Likewise, application of this factor to the component tasks of a job provides valuable information regarding job reengineering. INDUSTRIAL JOB EVALUATION SYSTEMS 17 The compensable factor mental or visual demand evaluates the degree of mental or visual concentration required. It appraises the alertness and attention necessary, the length of the cycle, and the coordination of manual dexterity with mental or visual attention. In conjunction with initiative and ingenuity, this factor serves to discriminate among jobs. It distinguishes skill variations and emphasizes important and difficult work tasks within the job structure. It may provide a guide to the aptitudes for successful job performance. The three factors concerning responsibility may be considered together. Responsibility for equipment or process, for product, or for the safety or others are highly important factors regulating the compensation for a specific job. These factors are likewise of utmost importance in preparing occupational analysis products. For example, in the preparation of manning tables, the degree to which the factors are present in a job may be a deciding influence in assigning a minimum training time for each job. Too, it is apparent that a careful evaluation of responsibility is necessary in discriminating among closely related jobs, in making accurate classifications, and in working out job reengineering, upgrading, and other problems within a specific plant. Working conditions, together with unavoidable hazards, are factors requiring specific reimbursement in the form of wages. In the occupational analysis programs these factors are considered chiefly for the purpose of determining occupational suitability. In wartime the necessity of increasing employment of women and physically handicapped makes consideration of these conditions of vital importance. In connection with the discussion of factors, it must be emphasized that no standard collection of compensable factors—and their accompanying definitions—exists today. As previously stated, each organization conducting an evaluation program chooses its own set of factors for consideration on the basis of its own needs and experience. However, all such factors, of necessity, will cover the same general conditions of the job. The occupational analyst utilizing evaluation materials will find little difficulty, provided he examines carefully the factors as defined for each individual study with which he is concerned at the moment. Careful appraisal of those factors as a basic step in his study will enable him to utilize the evaluation material effectively and accurately. JOB STATEMENTS Besides the measurement of factors, the organization conducting an evaluation program is vitally interested in the preparation of job statements accompanying individual job analyses. These job statements are used to establish the identity of a job under study and to clarify the job factors which have been listed as inherent in the job. They may be considered to be somewhat the equivalent of the statement contained in a single definition of the Dictionary of Occupational Titles. The clarity of the job statement made will vary according to the individual study, some being very detailed discussions of work performed, others limiting themselves to a bare explanation which—it is hoped—will be sufficiently identifying for the use of a trained personnel worker thoroughly familiar with the jobs and the technical language of a given industry. It is here that occupational analysts, by virtue of their train 18 INFORMATIONAL MANUAL ing in the preparation of concise descriptive material, may assist the personnel engaged on an evaluation program. Conversely, finished job statements, depending on their quality and completeness, should provide excellent source material for any phase of the occupational analysis and manning table program. POINT VALUES While point values are concerned directly with ultimate wage scales and represent essentially a departure from occupational analysis techniques, they may be utilized by the occupational analyst, provided caution is exercised in their use. Point totals assigned to a job represent a mathematical sum total obtained from all the components of a job. Since the measure of factors applicable to a job evaluation program is their compensability, this total represents a correct rating from that standpoint. However, in occupational analysis, the factors applicable to a given job are those determined by the final product or the several products of the program. In many cases all compensable factors can be shown to apply to occupational analysis work. In others, some factors may mean little or nothing even though they are compensable. In yet other cases specific factors must be considered which may not be considered as compensable and therefore may have been completely ignored in the evaluation study. In any case, the comparative weight or importance assigned to any given factor in occupational analysis work will not necessarily be the same as that assigned to it as a compensable factor. As an instance of this, let us consider one factor, that of surroundings or working conditions. In classifying jobs for the Dictionary of Occupational Titles, the surroundings in which a job is performed are important only in rare instances, and point totals assigned to this factor would be meaningless. In fact, such totals would have to be discounted to secure a classification of the job. On the other hand, in preparing manning tables, the surroundings of a given job might have an important bearing on the suitability of the job for the hiring of women. In such a case the relative point total assigned to the factor of surroundings for the purpose of determining wages would be considerably less than the relative weight that might be assigned this factor when utilized in determining the suitability of a given job for the employment of women. If carefully used, with a knowledge of their limitations, point evaluation totals may, however, be considered in preparing job schedules and manning tables, because they indicate to some extent the rank of a job relative to other jobs within the specific organization. To sum up, job evaluation programs are conducted for one, and only one, reason—to determine rates of pay. The fact that these programs measure compensability should serve to warn the analyst that interpretative conversion must first be applied to job evaluation materials to utilize them properly. Once this is done, little difficulty should be encountered, for, if the weighting assigned to the several compensable factors is known and interpreted correctly, nonapplicable criteria can be discounted. The remaining applicable measures may be utilized to provide very specific information concerning the occupational nature of a job in question. GLOSSARY Compemsable factors.—Frequently called job evaluation factors. Those job factors which are used as a direct basis for wage or salary determination. Although these factors may vary in title and definition in individual programs, normally they involve the skills, responsibilities, job knowledges, and working conditions. Job analysis.—The process of studying the operations, duties, and organizational relationships of jobs to obtain data for writing job descriptions and job specifications. It may, and frequently does, include some methods study. Job classification.—A system of relating different jobs to each other by grouping them in accordance with certain broad general principles of relationship, such as duties and responsibilities. Job description.—The written description of the operations, responsibilities, and duties of an individual job. Job evaluation.—The complete operation of determining the value of an individual job in an organization in relation to the other jobs in the organization. It begins with job analysis to obtain job descriptions and includes relating the descriptions by some system designed to determine the relative value of the jobs or groups of jobs. It also involves the pricing of these values by establishing minimum and maximum salaries for each group of jobs based on their relative value. The operation ends with the final checking of the resulting salary system. Job factor.—Any one of the constituent elements, circumstances, or influences that contribute to produce a complete job. Job ranking.—A system ot relating different jobs to each other by direct comparison. Jobs are compared to each other in each department of a company, and a departmental ranking from lowest to highest is made. The collation of all departmental rankings gives one continuous company ranking for the group of jobs to be graded, from the lowest to the highest. Job specification.—The written statement of the abilities, qualities, and other personnel requirements of an individual job. It is of use to the employment department; but even when it includes a job description, it is not intended for job evaluation, because it emphasizes the personnel rather than the work factors of the job. Key jobs.—Jobs that serve as standards against which other jobs are compared and evaluated. They are jobs for which the compensation has been determined to be correct according to the duties and responsibilities involved and which do not include such extraneous factors as seniority or disability compensation. Point valuation.—A quantitative system to relate different jobs to each other by the determination of the degree to which selected factors enter into each job. The assignment of numerical values for each job establishes its position in the complete system. Salary evaluation.—The evaluation, in terms of money, of jobs compensated for in fixed amounts, as by the year, quarter, month, or week. Wage evaluation.—An evaluation, in terms of money, of jobs primarily manual or mechanical in nature. Such jobs are, for the most part, on a piece work or hourly basis. 19 BIBLIOGRAPHY The following list of articles and texts is given both as the source material for this report and as an aid to those who wish to study specific aspects of the problem of job evaluation more fully. A crossindex, by subject matter, is not included, as it might prove misleading in the case of the more complete articles and books which cover the broad field of job evaluation. Usually the titles are sufficiently descriptive to guide those interested in special phases of the work. Balderston, C. C-----Salary and Wage Setting______AMA Institute of Manage ment, Series No. 17.1 Balderston, C. C-----Wage Setting Based on Job Industrial Relations Coun-Analysis and Job Evalua- selors, 1940. tion. Baruch, Ismar--------Position, Classification in Civil Service Assembly of the Public Service. United States and Canada 1942. Benge, Burk, and Manual of Job Evaluation_________Harper & Bros., 1941. Hay. f Benge, E. J----------Job Evaluation and Merit National Foremen’s Insti- Rating. tute, 1941. Bills, M. A----------Origin of Job Classification Life Office Management As- and Its Early History. sociation, Annual Proceedings, 1934. Bradbury, K. F_______Job Evaluation Analyzed______Advanced Management, January, February, . March, 1940. Cramer, S. C---------Job Analysis-----------------AMA Office Executive Series, No. 25.* Griffenhagen, E. 0— Classification and Compen- AMA Office Executive satzon Plans as Tools in Series, No. 17.1 Personnel Administration. Hopf, H. A-----------Improving Management AMA Annual Convention, Through Job Analysis. Series No. 62.1 Hopwood, J. C--------Salary, Wages, and Labor Ronald Press, 1937; Mc- Relations. Donald & Evans, 1938. Kelly, C-------------Job Analysis--------------AMA Office Management Series, No. 53.1 Little, E. H---------Some Considerations in In- AMA Office Executive Se- stalling a Salary Adminis- ries, No. 27.1 tration Plan. Pierce, F. W---------Job Analysis and Its Use_____AMA Committee Report No. 7.i Riegel, J. W___------Wage Determination___________University of Michigan'Press, 1937. Riegel, J. W---------Salary Determination—________University of Michigan Press, 1940. Scott, Clothier and Personnel Management__________McGraw Hill, 1935. Mathewson. Stigers and Reed-----Theory and Practice of Job The Maple Press Co., York, Rating. Pa., 1942. 1 American Management Association, 330 West 42d Street, New York City. 20 INDUSTRIAL JOB EVALUATION SYSTEMS 21 Weed, D. W____________Job Evaluation_______________AMA Production Series, No. 3? Job Analysis________________War Manpower Commis- sion, Division of Occupational Analysis and Manning Tables, Washington, D. C. (To be published in 1944.) Job Evaluation for the Estab- Life Office Management As-lishment of Salary Stand- sociation, 1938. ar ds. Job Evaluation — Formal Nat’l. Industrial Conference Plans for Determining Board, 247 Park Ave., Basic Pay Differentials. New York, N. Y. Job Evaluation Manual_______Carnegie-Illinois Steel Corporation. Job Rating Plan__________:__National Metal Trades Association, 122 South Michigan Ave., Chicago, Ill. 1 American Management Association, 330 West 42d Street, New York City. APPENDIXES Appendix I. Comparison of the Four Basic Systems of Job Evaluation. II. An Example of the Classification System of Job Evaluation (Description of Job Classes). III. An Example of the Point System of Job Evaluation (General Foods Job Rating Scale). IV. Sample Ranking of Key Jobs (Factor Comparison System). V. Average Cents per Hour Assigned to Key Jobs (Factor Compari-- son System). VI. Sample Key Job Comparison Scale (Factor Comparison System). Appendix I Comparison of the Four Basic Systems of Job Evaluation Job Evaluation Banking System Classification System Point System Factor Comparison System The job analysis.—A narrative description of the job with the duties, responsibilities, degree of difficulty, and required qualifications clearly brought out. The job analysis .—A narrative statement of duties and qualifications. In addition, the job is broken down into the important compensable factors, such as required experience and training, mental effort, and physical effort. The amount to which each factor is present in the job is indicated by a short narrative statement. Method of Relating Jobs Method of Relating Jobs Method of Relating Jobs Met hod of Relating Jobs Jobs are ranked in their order of relative difficulty or value to the company, and grade levels are sometimes defined after the jobs have been ranked. Jobs are allocated to grade levels which are defined arbitrarily prior to evaluatingjobs. Jobs are related by factorial analysis. A restricted number of fairly specific factors are selected for application to a limited number of types of work. The point values are predetermined before analysis of jobs and are decided arbitrarily, and the degree of each factor is expressed by a definition. Jobs are related by factorial comparison. The factors used are assumed to be fundamental to all jobs and of universal application, the point values are set after analysis of jobs from existing rates of key jobs, and the degress of each factor are expressed by sample jobs. 22 Appendix II AN EXAMPLE OF THE CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM OF JOB EVALUATION (DESCRIPTION OF JOB CLASSES) A. Work of office- or messenger-boy character. B. Simple operations. Use of few definite rules. Routine operations performed under close supervision. 1. Simple clerical work requiring no experience; or training, but no experience, on simple machines, such as sorting, key punch, ditto, and adding machines. 2. Simple clerical work but requiring some experience to perform job satisfactorily. 3. Outside training but little experience on more difficult machines, such as typewriter, nonlisting calculators, multigraph, etc. C. Requiring recognized clerical ability. Application of a large number of rules though definite and specific; or considerable experience on machines listed under B-3. 1. Requiring recognized clerical ability, but the exercise of no definite responsibility, either because of the character of the work or the closeness of the supervision. 2. Experienced operators on following machines: Typewriter, nonlisting calculators, bookkeeping, and tabulating machines. 3. Work of C-l character but of more responsible nature. D. Requiring complete and intensive knowledge of a restricted field. 1. As above. 2. Work of D grade plus supervisory responsibility of a minor character. E. Requiring knowledge of general policies; command of general rules and principles with application to cases not previously covered and may require long experience with the company. 1. Work of the above character where experience is not necessarily long but must have been gained within the company. 2. Work of a more technical or more difficult character but experience not necessarily within the company. 3. Work of E-l grade plus supervisory responsibility. 4. Work of E-2 grade, with long experience with the company. Or work oi D grade which is not subject to check and therefore where the promotion of the employee on the job is generally undesirable. F. Work of a highly technical or confidential nature or of semiexecutive supervisory character. 1. Highly technical or confidential work. 2. Semiexecutive and supervisory in character. Source: E. H. Little. 23 24 INFORMATIONAL MANUAL Appendix III An Example of the Point System of Job Evaluation (General Foods Job Rating Scale) ¿ S A o esents degree to which >f value. s College Grad, plus Technical. Ornes or Factory jobs— Reserve for places where grad. tech, or spec, preparation is necessary. 5 Years or More. Ornes or Factory jobs—Reserve forim-portant supervisory or technical jobs. 18 Months or More. Extreme. Reserve for the most severe jobs. Extreme. Reserve for important jobs with a mass of details that cannot be routinized. ì rating value which repr ss intermediate degrees c GO College Graduate. Or- 1 fice or Factory jobs—major superv., some advanced office, chemistry, engineering. 4 Years. Office jobs—substancial background and knowledge. Factory jobs—trades and typical foremen. 12 Months. Strenuous. For unusually busy-or exacting jobs where endurance is taxed frequently. Very important. For jobs where details constitute a big problem—should be important details. jrmance. Mark in column at extreme right the i odd number ratings as 1, 3, 5, 7, and 9 to expre O H. S. plus Bus. or Voc. School. Or-ncE better cler., bkkpg., or secretarial. Factory jobs—dept, heads and foremen. 3 Years. Office jobs—for better cler., steno., or equivalent. Factory jobs—some trades; minimum for leader. 6 Months. Active. For busy jobs that keep occupant “on his toes” most of time —somewhat above average. Important. For jobs where details outside the control of routine or superv. merit extra consideration. High School Graduate. OrncE jobs— ordinary clerical, typing, etc. Factory jobs—better clerical, supervisory and trades. 2 Years. Office jobs for avge. cler., steno., or equivalent. Factory jobs— many proc, and machine tending. 3 Months. Average. For normal activity at usual types of work under good working conditions. Substantial Number. About right for job on varied work— typical clerk or leader of small 1 gang. asís of 100 percent perf< pplies to this job.1 Ust 2Years High School. Or vice jobs— about minimum. Factory jobs— leader of small gang; simple figuring; semi-trades. 1 Year. Office jobs—minor clerical or equivalent. Factory jobs—important labor. 1 Month. Moderate. Where occupant is seldom extended; many ordinary routine jobs. Recognized Factor. For jobs that are well routinized or directed but have some details. Bate the job on the b factor a] o Grammar School. OrricE jobs—seldom applicable. Factory jobs—ordinary labor or equivalent. None. Office jobs—possibly messenger. Factory jobs— strictly common labor. Very little. Very Light. For simplest exer-dse of mind or body; some easy routine job. Very Few. Simplest labor jobs or equivalent take this rating. FACTORS Education—this is the formal preparation required to perform the job. Need not be obtained in school but assume school standards in this rating. Previous Experience in same or related work. This is the practical preparation required and includes essential experience in preceding jobs. Training time on job. Time to comprehend all aspects of job. Indude time for understudying any other job which is part of duties. Physical or Mental fatigue in job due to requirements or to working conditions. This is the “wear and tear” resulting from the work.1 Details to organize and handle outside of routine or explicit instructions. Weigh “importance” and “frequency.” INDUSTRIAL JOB EVALUATION SYSTEMS 25 Exceptional. Reserve for the most exacting jobs—great concentration plus high skill. New Problems Constantly. Reserve for jobs where it is necessary to face and decide im- portant matters constantly. 6 Credits or More (explain). Exceptional. Reserve for jobs where personality and abil-ily to cooperate are primary qualifica- CO C O Directly Affects Success of Business. Reser ve.for jobs where effect of gain or loss . is estimated to reach $50,000 or its equiv. Total Rating fob This Job. Very Important. For jobs which require undivided attention and where failure would be a § 8 a 3 O <0 Great Deal of Independent Thinking. About right for many of the high-grade supervisory jobs. 5 Credits (explain). Very Important. For major contacting positions with customers or- per- o a a o ça Very Important. For jobs where effect of gain or loss is estimated not to exceed $25,000 or its equivalent. ret narrowly. ractice Instructions. 6/17/37 Important. • Office and factory jobs requiring special care and precision. Daily Problems. For jobs requiring independent thinking and action almost daily. 4 Credits (explain). Above Average. For important contacting jobs where factor should get some extra recogm- a o Important. For jobs where effect • of gain or loss is estimated not to exceed $10,000 or its equivalent. issible but de not interpi lained in the Standard Pi ■dinary. ¡tick jobs—about right for the avge. 1CTOBY jobs — many proc, and machine tending. equent. >r jobs requiring in d ep enden t thinking and action possibly once a week. Dredits (explain). rerage. >r all jobs where occupant must jontact others tb some extent, as ¡veil as the boss. »derate. >r jobs where elect of gain or loss is estimated not to exceed $3,000 or its equivalent. heet as closely as p< leavy work, as exp] ÖO fe CO sèi planations on this rating s dium, medium heavy, or 1 Recognized Factor. For jobs where quality is of enough importance to become a factor. 1/ ' Occasional. For jobs particularly well routinized or directed. 2 Credits (explain). Below Average. For ordinary rank-and-file jobs where occupants merely work together in groups. Very Little Relation. For jobs where effect of gain or loss is estimated not to exceed $1,000 or its equivalent. Minor Considera-ation. For all low grade jobs where there is little need or op- portumty for care or skill. Very Little. For jobs where little or no resourcefulness is required. 1 Credit (explain). 1 ■ Very Little. For a job where occupant works alone and contacts are unimportant. No Direct Relation. For jobs that involve practically no loss or gain to the company. niformity follow the ex ight, light medium, me Quality requirements—extent job demands care and •kill. Weigh “care,” “skill,” “accuracy,” and “frequency of applies- tion.” Resourcefulness—extent to which initiative and ingenuity are required on problems outside the control of routine or supervision. Weigh “importance” and “frequency.” Versatility—number of major skills or operations required. Weigh number and quality of talents, recognizing that some might rate more and others less than 1 credit. Cooperation and Personality—need for tact and agreeableness in working with others. Allow for outside contacts. Responsibility—relation of job to company assets and success of business. Base on reasonable assumptions and include both tangible and intangible effect on product, equipment and goodwill. Consider checks and supervision. 1 For purposes of general u * For factory jobs base on 1 Source: A. F. Kindall, A. M. A. Personnel, February 1938. Appendix IV Sample Ranking of Key Jobs (Factor Comparison System) M Requirements Responsibility Working Mental Skill Physical Conditions 1 Patternmaker Patternmaker Rammer Substation operator. Patternmaker Rammer. 2 Substation operator. Machinist . Machinist Poleman Poleman. 3 S ubstation Laborer Machinist Laborer. 4 Pipe fitter operator. Pipe fitter Pipe fitter Pipe fitter ... Pipe fitter. Painter. 5 Painter Painter Machinist Drill-press operator. Painter 6 Drill-press operator. Carpenter’s helper.. Poleman. Drill-press operator. Carpenter’s helper. Poleman Painter Drill-press operator. Machinist. Carpenter’s helper. Patternmaker. 7 8 Patternmaker... Carpenter’s helper. Drill-press operator. Substation operator. Carpenter’s helper. Poleman 9 Laborer Rammer Rammer 10 Rammer Laborer Laborer Substation operator. 26 Appendix V Factor Comparison System Job Present rate Average cents per hour assigned to— Mental requirements Rank Physical requirements Rank Skill Rank *0 c s 2 PS 1 Rank Working conditions Rank Cents Patternmaker 92 26.8 1 10.2 7 33.4 1 15.8 2 5.8 9 Machinist No. 1 88 21.7 3 12.2 5 32.1 2 13.8 3 8.2 7 Substation operator Pipe fitter No. 2 Painter „ 82 24.9 2 4.1 10 21.1 3 27.7 1 4.2 10 68 11.1 4 14.0 4 20.1 4 12.2 4 10.6 4 60 10.1 5 10.8 6 18.8 5 10.6 6 9.7 5 Poleman 62 5.6 8 19.2 2 7.2 8 6.9 8 13.1 2 Drill-press operator 50 8.8 6 8.2 9 14.2 6 10.5 5 8.3 6 Rammer 48 3.2 10 21.9 1 4.2 9 5.0 9 13.7 1 Carpenter’s helper 46 7.8 7 9.0 8 13.2 7 8.9 7 7.1 8 Laborer 42 5.5 9 17.7 3 3.0 10 4.1 10 11.7 3 Source: E. J. Benge. 27 s 13 a Ph oo a 5? » 2 a « & a « >3 ◄ a a 2 c5 8 Ö 04 Q rH o> 00 o *o CO Pi a M ◄ 2 55 a VITON OPERATOR a 09 3 ITTER « Ed PRESS OPERATOR NTER’S HELPER [AN ER « a a Eh Eh Eh CO a ICHI ?E F INT] A a RPE LEM BOR mm: ◄ 0 LJ ◄ 3 ◄ O -< a CO 2 a a Q O a >4 a co 13 a S s co 'A O Ph 09 K « $ s w a »H ° o> *- »O ■* Ph « O o « a a a -< a a a a a a a a a a a W o M o ro % o ◄ 2 a a a CO co a a 5 «< J? a S H a a « M a !5 55 ◄ a a a a a 00 a a a a H o a ■TTP a § a a a S a a S 2 a o a t> a a «5 o •< CO a 2 a Q a o a a a «5 u> a o « a 8 ä o co M >3 ◄ O oo § O '00 ° a a 3 s « R « ” s x= I i ° a S n- d O' « § w go « ^2 a M s a Ma M a M a a 2 •< 00 eo co C4 CO C4 8 o> 3 co t- 'M* co a a M •< a o ◄ ◄ a 2 co a a 0 o a a a 00 a ¡25 a 2 a « a O’ a Ph 3 O co >■ » a I RAMMER 22 1 POLEMAN 19 I LABORER 18 PIPE FITTER 14 I MACHINIST 12 1 PAINTER 11 PATTERNMAKER 10 1 CARPENTER’S HELPER 9 1 DRILL-PRESS OPERATOR 8 | SUBSTATION OPERATOR 4 | 09 o a « 55 O o O Z M Ph O £ RAMMER , 14 POLEMAN 13 LABORER 12 PIPE"FITTER 11 PAINTER 10 MACHINIST 8 DRILL-PRESS OPERATOR 8 CARPENTER’S HELPER 7 PATTERNMAKER 6 SUBSTATION OPERATOR 4 28 - Q