I'd like to say a kind word about the job evaluators out there. You know who I mean; those unappreciated, oft-criticized and generally disrespected Human Resource analysts who have been given (because no one volunteers) the thankless task of deciding which jobs in your organization are more or less important than others.
These practitioners are often viewed by those on the receiving end as displaying the behavior of a smug know-it-all, a blind follower of the rules, and having a general attitude of superiority, all wrapped up in a God complex. Unless they agree with you.
They don't receive Christmas cards.
Somebody Has To Do It
But job evaluation is a task that needs to be done. It's critically important to the organization. Somebody has to establish order amidst the organizational chaos, to sort out a viable stepping stone hierarchy of jobs, from minor to major - and by how much. For most of us it's Human Resources who establishes and maintains this internal objectivity; the alternative (having managers decide on their own jobs) would be like having the fox in the chicken coop.
Practically all companies of any size and complexity have some sort of a rating system to establish relationships between jobs and to maintain the credibility of that valuation process. Employees are trained in the application of that rating system / process, and as such are charged with its administration.
For their part Managers don't like evaluators; the independent valuation process keeps them from doing whatever they feel like. The system keeps order, while maintaining equity and fairness through objective application. Many Managers though, have a "what have you done for me lately?" mentality. When they approve of an evaluation result, there's silence - because the result was obvious. When they don't agree with the result the evaluator is a blind idiot. So all the evaluators hear from their audience, their clients, is criticism, anger and disrespect.
True enough, mistakes can happen, especially in an inherently subjective process, but in a worst case scenario how far off can an evaluator be? One grade? Usually there's an appeal process. As it is, evaluators can only work on the basis of the information provided (what they're told) before the evaluation. With no skin in the game, without even knowing the names of the affected employees, they try to do what's fair, and that's to report (to make the decision) as objectively as possible on the internal value of a job. To remain as unbiased as possible.
But the art of evaluation remains the butt of jokes, the kicking boy of every complainant out there who doesn't like the score.
- You don't know the job as well as I (manager, employee, department head, etc.)
The criticism is that the evaluator can't possibly understand, and therefore accurately rate a job they're only told about, or after reading a job description. So the (biased) view of the job holder(s) should sway the evaluation.
- Evaluation is subjective; so is the result. Why should I trust you?
Every job evaluation system is subjective. Even the point factor formulae are simply a compilation of a series of scored subjective decisions. The key here is the standard and consistent application of criteria, no matter which job is being evaluated.
- Job descriptions are the problem
The forms used for evaluation purposes are criticized as old, outdated, inaccurate, incomplete and generally not reflective of what is truly going on. However, this complaint is usually heard after the result is reported.
- Squeaky wheels get greased; outside pressures negate objectivity and credibility
Because of the subjectivity element evaluators are perceived of as easily manipulated by pressure points; politics, favored sons, avoiding controversy, want to be liked, etc.
Who would want such a job? I didn't. As my own HR career progressed I passed off this no-win responsibility as soon as I could. It was like being the medieval tax collector, reviled by all - just for doing your job. So I've been there, know what it's like to be responsible for making those decisions and facing the wrath (never the thanks) of angry managers and employees.
So give the job evaluators a break and cut them some slack. They're doing the job that you wouldn't want. They mean well, and they're doing the best they can under trying conditions. Instead of criticizing them, help them to better understand the job being evaluated.
And next time around, send them a Christmas card.
Chuck Csizmar CCP is founder and Principal of CMC Compensation Group, providing global compensation consulting services to a wide variety of industries and non-profit organizations. He is also associated with several HR Consulting firms as a contributing consultant. Chuck is a broad based subject matter expert with a specialty in international and expatriate compensation. He lives in Central Florida (near The Mouse) and enjoys growing fruit and managing (?) a brood of cats.
Thanks to Chuck Csizmar CCP / Compensation Café
http://www.compensationcafe.com/2012/02/job-evaluators-deserve-respect.html
| To Get Uninterrupted Daily Article(s) / Review(s) Updates; Kindly Subscribe To This BlogSpot:- http://Ziaullahkhan.BlogSpot.com Via "RSS Feed" Or "Email Subscription" Or "Knowledge-Center Yahoo Group". | |
| BlogSpot | |
| Other Sites Related To This Blog; Kindly Visit: | |
| Amazon Books | |
| Amazon Magazines | |
| Kindle Store | |
| Products | |
| Google+ | |
| Facebook Page | |
No comments:
Post a Comment