48015237 Job Evaluation

8/6/2019 48015237 Job Evaluation

1/20

JOB EVALUATIONJOB EVALUATION

BY:NEELAM YADAV


2/20


3/20

Job EvaluationJob Evaluation

The evaluation is based on a combination of job content, skillsrequired, value to the organization, organizational culture, and

the external market.

This potential to blend internal forces and external marketforces is both a strength and a challenge to job evaluation.


4/20

Fe atur es of JobFe atur es of Job

EvaluationEvaluationIt tries t o assess j ob s, no tpe ople .

The sta nd ar ds of job evaluati on are relative, no t a bs olute .

The basic i nfo rmati on on which job evaluati on s are ma de is

ob taine d f r om job a nalysis .


5/20

Fe atur es of JobFe atur es of JobEvaluationEvaluation

Job evaluati on s are carrie d out by gr oups, no t byind ividuals .

Job evaluati on do es no t f ix pay scales, but merelypr ovides a basis for evaluati ng a rati on al wa gestructure .


6/20

B e n e fit s of job e valuationB e n e fit s of job e valuation

It tries t o link pay with the requireme nts of the j ob.

It off ers a systematic pr oce dure for determi ning therelative w orth of job s .

An equita ble wa ge structure is a natural outc ome of job evaluati on

An unb iase d job evaluati on te nd s t o elimi nate salaryinequalities by placi ng job s havi ng similar requireme ntsin the same salary ra ng e .


7/20

B e n e fit s of job e valuationB e n e fit s of job e valuation

Empl oyees as well as u nion s participate asmem bers of job evaluati on committee .

Job evaluati on , whe n cond ucte d pr operly a nd withcare, helps i n the evaluati on of new j ob s .

It p oints out p ossi bilities of more appr opriate use of the pla nts labo r force by ind icati ng job s that nee d more or less s killed wor kers tha n those wh o arema nn ing these j ob s curre ntly.


8/20

JOB EVALUATIONJOB EVALUATIONMETHODSMETHODS

1- R ANK ING ME THO D

2 -C LASS IFIC ATION ME THO D

3 -P OINT METHO D

4 -F AC TO R C OMP AR IS ON ME THO D


9/20

R ANKING METHODR ANKING METHOD

It is the simplest meth od of job evaluati on.

In this meth od , job s are arra ng e d f r om hi ghest t o lowest,in or der of their value or merit t o the or ga nizati on.

Job s ca n als o be arra ng e d acc or ding to the relativediff iculty i n per forming them .

Job s are usually ra nk e d in each departme nt a nd the n thedepartme nt ra nk ing s are c ombine d to devel op a n or ga nizati on al ra nk ing.


10/20

Table: Array of Jobs according to the Ranking Method R a nk Mon thly salaries1 . Acc ounta nt R s 3,000

2. Acc ounts cler k R s 1 ,8003. P urchase assista nt R s 1 ,7004. Machi ne -operat or R s 1 ,4005. Typist R s 900

6. Off ice bo y R s 600

ORG434:AdvancedHRM 10


11/20

Acc or ding to this meth od , a pre determi ne d num ber of job gr oups or job classes are esta blishe d a nd job s areassi gn e d to these classi f icati on s .

This meth od places gr oups of job s i nto job classes or job gra des .

Separate classes may i nclu de off ice, clerical, ma na gerial,pers onn el, etc .

JOB CLASSIFICATION


12/20

Following is a brie f descripti on of classi f icati on in a n off ice:C lass 1- Executives: Off ice ma na ger, deputy off icema na ger, departme nt supervis or, etc .

C lass 2 - S killed wor kers: P urchasi ng assista nt, cashier,receipts cler k, etc .

C lass 3 - Semis killed wor kers: Ste no typists, machi neoperat ors, switch bo ar d operat or, etc .

C lass 4 - Semis killed wor kers: f ile cler ks, off ice bo ys, etc .

JOB CLASSIFICATION


13/20

P OINT METHODP OINT METHOD This meth od is wi dely use d curre ntly.

In this meth od job s are expresse d in terms of keyf act ors .

P oints are assi gn e d to each f act or a f ter pr ortising each f act or in or der of imp orta nce .

The p oints are summe d up t o determi ne the wa gerate for the j ob.

Job s with similar p oint totals are place d in similar paygra des


14/20


15/20

Table: Conversion of Job Grade Points into Money ValueP oint ra ng e Daily wa ge rate (R s) Job gra des of key

ba nk off icials

500 -600 300 -400 1 Off icer 600 -700 400 -500 2 Acc ounta nt700 -800 500 -600 3 Ma na ger I Scale800 -900 600 -700 4 Ma na ger II Scale900 -1 ,000 700 -800 5 Ma na ger III Scale

ORG434: AdvancedHRM 15


16/20

F actor Compari s onF actor Compari s onM e thodM e thod

It is m ore systematic a nd scie ntif ic meth od of job evaluati on.

Though it is the m ost c omplex meth od of all, it iscon siste nt a nd apprecia ble .

Und er this meth od , instea d of ra nk ing complete j ob s,

each j ob is ra nk e d acc or ding to a series of f act ors .


17/20

These factors include:

> me ntal e ffort.> physical e ffort.> s kills nee de d.>

resp on sibility.> wor king cond ition s .> kno w-how.> pr ob lem s olving a bilities .

> acc ounta bility, etc .

Wa ges are assi gn e d to the j ob in comparis on to itsra nk ing on each j ob f act or .


18/20

Compari s on of Job EvaluationCompari s on of Job EvaluationM e thod sM e thod s

Advantage Disadvantage

RankingRanking F ast, simple, easy toF ast, simple, easy toexplain, suitable for smallexplain, suitable for smallorg, not expensive.org, not expensive.

Not very accurate , not Not very accurate , notuseful for largeuseful for large org.,leastorg.,leastused methodused method

Cl assificationCl assification Can group a wide rangeCan group a wide rangeof work together in oneof work together in onesystem, simple, moresystem, simple, moreaccurate than rakingaccurate than rakingmethod.method.

Not useful for large org, Not useful for large org,time consuming, nottime consuming, notinvolved detailed jobinvolved detailed jobanalysis.analysis.

PointPoint Compensable factors callCompensable factors callout basis for out basis for comparisons.comparisons.Compensable factorsCompensable factorscommunicate what iscommunicate what isvalued.valued.

Can become bureaucraticCan become bureaucraticand ruleand rule--bound. bound.


19/20

Compari s on of Job EvaluationCompari s on of Job EvaluationM e thod sM e thod s

Advantage Disadvantage

F actor comparison F actor comparison methodmethod

F inds wages for a job,F inds wages for a job,wages can bewages can becalculated speedily,calculated speedily,greater consistency ingreater consistency inthe judgment, size of the judgment, size of

jobs can be measured. jobs can be measured.

Expensive, timeExpensive, timeconsuming,consuming,


20/20

48015237 Job Evaluation

Documents