tag:theconversation.com,2011:/uk/topics/job-evaluation-3806/articlesJob evaluation – The Conversation2022-05-23T12:23:46Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1820092022-05-23T12:23:46Z2022-05-23T12:23:46ZHow to make performance reviews less terrible – especially given the challenges of supervising remote workers<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/464567/original/file-20220520-21-6r6t14.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=73%2C184%2C4839%2C3359&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">A better way?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/four-business-people-sitting-at-desk-holding-score-royalty-free-image/sb10064401w-001">Andersen Ross/DigitalVision via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p><a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/on-leadership/wp/2014/01/27/study-finds-that-basically-every-single-person-hates-performance-reviews/">Few office workers seem to like performance reviews</a>, those annual examinations of how well workers are doing their jobs. And many seem to outright hate – or fear – them. </p>
<p>A 2015 survey of Fortune 1000 companies found that nearly two-thirds of employees <a href="https://hbr.org/2018/03/people-dont-want-to-be-compared-with-others-in-performance-reviews-they-want-to-be-compared-with-themselves">were dissatisfied with performance reviews</a>, didn’t think they were relevant to their jobs – or both. In a separate survey conducted in 2016, a quarter of men and nearly a fifth of women <a href="https://www.shrm.org/hr-today/news/hr-news/pages/conducting-performance-reviews-get-out-the-tissues.aspx">reported crying</a> as a result of a bad review. The figures were even higher for younger workers. </p>
<p>And that was during the much simpler pre-pandemic times, when <a href="https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2012/demo/p70-132.html">pretty much all professional workers</a> were in the office daily and could be assessed similarly. Things are trickier today, as some employees work entirely from home, others come to the office and still others split their time between the two. Almost 75% of U.S. companies <a href="https://www.zippia.com/advice/hybrid-work-statistics">are adopting a hybrid model</a>, with 55% of employees saying they want to work remotely at least three days a week. </p>
<p>I am a professor of <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=1Zx5gHQAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao">industrial-organizational psychology</a>, a field that conducts scientific studies to better understand the workplace. Here are three challenges that I believe employers and their employees will face and ways to overcome them. </p>
<h2>1. Familiarity gap</h2>
<p>One of the biggest challenges involves the difficulty of creating a connection with your boss.</p>
<p>Employees who share the same physical space as their managers will have more opportunities to interact with them on a regular basis than those working remotely. This gives officegoers a leg up over peers who work remotely most or all the time.</p>
<p>For example, Matt comes to the office five days a week. Jake, who does the same job, makes it in only on Wednesdays. Over time, their mutual supervisor, Jill, will naturally become more familiar with Matt than she is with Jake, as Matt is available to join her for lunch, engage in a quick chat in her office or say “hi” as they pass in the hall. </p>
<p>The more familiar we are with other people, the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000085">more we tend to like them</a>. And research has found that how much a manager likes you <a href="https://doi.org/10.5465/256225">can have a significant impact</a> on their evaluation of you.</p>
<p>The best way to even the playing field is by making it easier for workers to interact with their bosses when they’re working remotely. Employers can do this by scheduling short but frequent check-ins with remote workers throughout the day or providing virtual office hours when managers are available. </p>
<p>Another strategy is creating always-on chatrooms that all workers can use to communicate with supervisors in a similar way. To encourage more social interactions, companies can bring back the <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2021/07/15/virtual-happy-hour-end-zoom-fatigue-covid-vaccine-party/7878068002/?gnt-cfr=1">Zoom happy hours</a> that became popular during the pandemic – though <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/home/the-six-dos-and-donts-of-zoom-happy-hours/2020/05/14/e173af4e-93a0-11ea-82b4-c8db161ff6e5_story.html">ideally in a way</a> that <a href="https://www.fastcompany.com/90603928/how-to-upgrade-your-zoom-happy-hours-so-youre-excited-to-turn-on-your-camera">make them more fulfilling</a>. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ym_EHcf_HbU?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Performance reviews can be painful.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>2. Fewer observations</h2>
<p>I teach my students that the most accurate performance ratings are obtained when <a href="https://www.doi.org/10.1177/1059601100252005">reviews are based on observable behaviors</a> rather than subjective evaluations of traits. </p>
<p>This is because while it is possible to define and standardize behaviors and <a href="https://www.doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8325.2011.02045.x">to train raters</a> on how to observe and rate them, traits are inherently subjective. </p>
<p>Take the trait “creativity.” How do you define creativity? How would you rate it, for example on a scale from “below expectations” to “exceeds expectations?”</p>
<p>Now imagine converting that into a behavior, such as “generates practical ideas in novel situations.” That’s something that could be reasonably and objectively assessed on a scale of never to frequently. </p>
<p>The problem is that observing behaviors is difficult if not impossible when employees are working remotely. One way to address this is for employers to adopt a <a href="https://open.lib.umn.edu/humanresourcemanagement/chapter/11-2-appraisal-methods/">results-based system</a>, in which employees are evaluated based on productivity metrics such as client satisfaction, sales volume or number of units produced – criteria designed to fit the position.</p>
<p>Shifting the focus of performance appraisal from behaviors to results for all employees ensures that managers do not have to worry about being unable to observe their direct reports on the job. And employees get the flexibility to decide how they will complete their assigned tasks by being held accountable only for the end result. Thus, all workers are held to the same standards. </p>
<p>One other option that can help rate workers evenly is by <a href="https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.633031">applying tracking technology</a> – though this can be <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/sep/16/tattleware-employers-spying-working-home">controversial</a> and <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2015/05/14/some-companies-are-tracking-workers-with-smartphone-apps-what-could-possibly-go-wrong/">problematic</a>, for example by eroding employee privacy and creating more stress. In general, these systems track how remote workers are spending their time on their computers and phones.</p>
<p>But it’s vital to implement these systems right – for example, by being extremely transparent regarding what is being tracked and what data is being collected. When done right, tracking can be a useful way to more fairly evaluate certain types of employees, such as customer service reps or administrative assistants.</p>
<h2>3. One review to rule them all</h2>
<p>Alas, performance reviews based on results may not work for every job. </p>
<p>For example, evaluating a teacher based solely on student test scores <a href="https://www.epi.org/publication/bp278/">may be problematic</a>, since scores are also influenced by environmental factors such as poverty or a lack of family support. Similarly, an employee responsible for long-term strategic planning cannot immediately be evaluated based on results since it is impossible to know whether the plan will succeed before it is implemented. </p>
<p>The key thing here is to use only one type of review system for all employees. Evaluating employees by different standards may create fairness and even legal concerns if doing so might lead to different outcomes for groups explicitly protected from discrimination by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. <a href="https://www.eeoc.gov/employers/small-business/3-who-protected-employment-discrimination">It is illegal to discriminate</a> based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, disability or genetic information. </p>
<p>Since the evaluation helps determine who gets a raise or promotion and who might be fired, it is a particularly sensitive document. For example, imagine that a group of employees using one type of review gets more promotions than another batch that follows a different system – and that also happens to include a higher proportion of racial minorities. The organization may then face a discrimination lawsuit in which it may be required to prove that the two evaluations are equivalent.</p>
<p>At the end of the day, an employer should use a type of evaluation that can effectively measure any employee’s performance. If judging on results doesn’t work, an organization could try a behavior-based system but revise it so that it doesn’t favor employees working in the office. Another system is competencies reviews, the <a href="https://www.xperthr.com/benchmarking-and-surveys/performance-appraisals-2021-xperthr-survey-report/50138/">most popular type</a>, which assess employees on competencies such as attention to detail, timeliness and quality of work. </p>
<p>Performance reviews will always be a drag for many workers – however <a href="https://www.villanovau.com/resources/hr/understanding-performance-evaluations/">vital they are to an organization’s success</a>. By their nature, they can be excruciating, and not everyone can get a raise or promotion. But at least the reviews should be fair and not put anyone – such as those working primarily from home – at a disadvantage.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/182009/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Yalcin Acikgoz does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Performance reviews were always a challenge, but even more so in the age of hybrid work, when some employees are in the office more often than others.Yalcin Acikgoz, Associate Professor of Psychology, Appalachian State UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/686392016-12-20T01:33:09Z2016-12-20T01:33:09ZHow ancient wisdom can help managers give their employees better feedback<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/150767/original/image-20161219-24310-gj8y4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Old books know best.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Old books via www.shutterstock.com</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Giving feedback is unquestionably one of the most challenging tasks for any leader, as it can be painful to both the giver and receiver. It is nonetheless invaluable: <a href="https://hbr.org/2014/01/your-employees-want-the-negative-feedback-you-hate-to-give">Research has shown</a> that employees recognize the importance of feedback – whether positive or negative – to their career development. </p>
<p>Many even welcome it, provided it’s given well. One <a href="https://hbr.org/2014/01/your-employees-want-the-negative-feedback-you-hate-to-give/">study</a> of nearly a thousand employees both in the U.S. and abroad found that 92 percent believed that negative feedback is effective at improving performance – “if delivered appropriately.”</p>
<p>Unfortunately, most leaders are reluctant and uncomfortable providing negative feedback – and when they give it, they don’t follow the “appropriate” advice above. In a <a href="http://zengerfolkman.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/ZF-Feedback-The-Powerful-Paradox.pdf">study of 2,700 leaders</a>, researchers found that a majority tend to avoid giving negative feedback and 43 percent described doing so as a “stressful and difficult experience.” </p>
<p>There are a host of reasons why this may be the case, most of which can be boiled down to the notion that humans are wired to avoid pain. So how can managers become better at providing their employees with negative feedback that successfully highlights problems and how to resolve them?</p>
<p>My experience in coaching executives on giving meaningful and effective feedback reminds me of an ancient Sufi saying dating back to the 13th century.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“Before you speak, let your words pass through these three gates: At the first gate, ask yourself, ‘Is it true?’ At the second gate, ask yourself, ‘Is it necessary?’ At the third gate, ask yourself, ‘Is it kind?’” </p>
</blockquote>
<p>In other words, as long as managers always ensure their feedback is unbiased, essential and civil, it’s almost certain to be effective and help an employee grow. And it’s a philosophy supported by existing research.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/150768/original/image-20161219-24263-q9cxci.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/150768/original/image-20161219-24263-q9cxci.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/150768/original/image-20161219-24263-q9cxci.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/150768/original/image-20161219-24263-q9cxci.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/150768/original/image-20161219-24263-q9cxci.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/150768/original/image-20161219-24263-q9cxci.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/150768/original/image-20161219-24263-q9cxci.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Giving negative feedback can be an uncomfortable experience.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Office interaction via www.shutterstock.com</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Overcoming biases</h2>
<p>Researchers have consistently found that bias - conscious and unconscious - influences our views of others. Personal bias clouds our perceptions so profoundly that employee performance ratings often reveal more about the person conducting them than the person being rated. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.rc.usf.edu/%7Ejdorio/Performance%20App/Scullen,%20S.%20E.,%20Mount,%20M.%20K.,%20&%20Goff,%20M.%20(2000).pdf">One of the most comprehensive studies</a> on the topic examined the performance ratings of 4,492 employees. It found that idiosyncratic bias – such as the tendency to rate based on an overall impression (halo error) or assign higher/lower ratings than warranted (leniency error) – accounted for 62 percent of the variance in the ratings, whereas actual performance accounted for only 21 percent. Simply stated: It’s more about the person giving the rating than the actual performance of the person being evaluated. </p>
<p>In another example, a <a href="http://www.uccs.edu/Documents/dcarpent/altruism.pdf">study</a> conducted at New York University found that men and women received different evaluations after demonstrating the same altruistic behavior, such as volunteering to help a co-worker who was in a bind even though the employee would end up being late for another co-worker’s party. </p>
<p>The employees were then given performance evaluations and reward recommendations – that is whether they should get salary increases, promotions, high-profile projects or bonus pay. Women were consistently evaluated more harshly than their male counterparts and were penalized to a greater degree if they were unwilling to help. </p>
<p>Similarly, <a href="http://gender.stanford.edu/people/caroline-simard">research has shown</a> managers are more likely to perceive women’s accomplishments as part of the team effort, while men’s were seen as individual efforts. </p>
<p>In these cases, actual performance is contaminated by the biases, emotions and idiosyncrasies of the person making the evaluation. By carefully considering personal biases that could affect their evaluation of an individual’s performance, managers can greatly enhance the feedback experience for an employee.</p>
<p><a href="http://kirwaninstitute.osu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/implicit-bias-2016.pdf">According to experts</a>, a key to curbing biases is to develop awareness and insight into them. The <a href="https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/">Implicit Association Test</a>, for example, is one such tool to help uncover unconscious beliefs. Many organizations such as Google, Microsoft and Facebook have in fact developed training programs to help employees develop this insight. </p>
<h2>Too much information?</h2>
<p>As we all know, <a href="https://workplacetrends.com/the-global-workforce-leadership-survey/">feedback is built</a> directly into the corporate infrastructure – and that doesn’t include the unsolicited kind. </p>
<p>Is this abundance of feedback necessary? Not always, researchers say. <a href="http://public.kenan-flagler.unc.edu/Faculty/swaminaj/research/paper/NS.pdf">Studies conducted</a> at the Georgia Institute of Technology and the University of North Carolina concluded that the more feedback a participant received in a management simulation, the lower his or her subsequent level of performance.</p>
<p>Similarly, University of Michigan <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749597811000513">researchers</a> challenged the more-is-better notion when it comes to feedback, finding that performance improves when feedback is given, but only up to a certain tipping point, after which, performance significantly decreases.</p>
<p>As a leader, it is important to pay attention to how often you are providing feedback, particularly negative feedback. Although you may be reluctant in delivering this type of feedback, when you do, it should be measured and rationed.</p>
<p>Additionally, the tainting factor of bias must be put in check as to its impact on feedback. Does your feedback reflect the requirements of the actual job or your personal preferences for how to do the job? Feedback in the latter category may be unnecessary and not helpful, as it is attached to a personal preference rather than what’s required for successful performance.</p>
<h2>It’s all in the delivery</h2>
<p>There is substantial evidence demonstrating the damaging impact of negative feedback on employee attitude, performance, goal commitment and satisfaction. If this is the case, then why would employees want negative feedback, as the research suggests? The answer lies in how feedback is delivered. </p>
<p>Employees are motivated to improve job performance when feedback is delivered in a constructive and considerate manner. A <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Lisa_Steelman/publication/242347571_Moderators_of_employee_reactions_to_negative_feedback/links/552673ed0cf21e126f9db274.pdf">study of 400 manufacturing employees</a> examined negative feedback on employee motivation to improve performance. They identified feedback delivery as a critical factor. Feedback delivery (aka interpersonal consideration), significantly affected whether an employee was motivated to improve his or her job performance. Employees were most motivated to improve when they received negative feedback that was constructive and respectful.</p>
<p>Along the same lines, a <a href="http://www.academia.edu/2871025/When_is_Criticism_Not_Constructive_The_Roles_of_Fairness_Perceptions_and_Attributions_in_Employee_Rejection_of_Critical_Supervisory_Feedback">study on workplace justice</a> examined how fairness affects the acceptance of negative feedback. Fairness in the study was defined as the “extent to which the manager showed respect and consideration for their subordinate.” The researchers found that criticism delivered with greater interpersonal fairness resulted in higher rates of feedback acceptance and invoked trust and satisfaction towards the supervisor.</p>
<p>As the old adage goes: it’s not what you say but how you say it. </p>
<h2>Sage advice</h2>
<p>Taken as a whole, the ancient wisdom still resonates.</p>
<p>Given that the point of feedback is to improve performance, research supports the components of this framework as providing a distinct advantage. Even if corporate America doesn’t uniformly value advice from the sages, it certainly recognizes their potential byproducts: productivity and increased revenue. </p>
<p>Honest, balanced and compassionate feedback has been shown to improve both.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/68639/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Khatera Sahibzada does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Many managers say they’re uncomfortable giving negative feedback, yet employees tend to consider it helpful to improving importance. Research – and a 13th-century saying – offers some tips.Khatera Sahibzada, Adjunct Lecturer in Applied Psychology, USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and SciencesLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/640772016-08-30T12:25:19Z2016-08-30T12:25:19ZSouth Africa should use a more scientific approach to appoint its public protector<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/135932/original/image-20160830-28233-1xkji9g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">South Africa's public protector, Thuli Madonsela, was rated among the world's 100 most influential people by Time.
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Lucas Jackson/Reuters</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>South Africa is in the process of selecting a <a href="http://www.timeslive.co.za/politics/2016/08/24/Mkhwebane-nominated-as-Public-Protector-candidate">new public protector</a> to replace the incumbent, Thuli Madonsela. The country’s National Assembly is responsible for recruiting her replacement. But the way it goes about doing this is deeply flawed.</p>
<p>Firstly, the recruitment and selection ad hoc committee assembled to make the decision consists entirely of politicians. It has 11 members – six from the governing African National Congress, two from the main opposition Democratic Alliance, one from the Economic Freedom Fighters and two from smaller parties. All represent their party interests. This hugely compromises the professional ethics of recruitment and selection. </p>
<p>The second problem is that a mere interview process is inadequate if the aim is to identify behavioural characteristics like integrity, <a href="https://pmg.org.za/committee-meeting/22629/">honesty and reliability</a>. These are characteristics the public protector needs to have.</p>
<p>These problems could be addressed if a more competency based assessment selection method was used. A more professional approach would be appropriate since the key post should be occupied by an apolitical, professional person. He or she is not an elected political office bearer.</p>
<p>The public protector’s job is to promote clean governance in public administration. It has the power to investigate <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-south-africas-public-protector-has-set-a-high-bar-for-her-successor-63891">improper conduct</a> in any sphere of government. Its goal is to strengthen South Africa’s <a href="http://www.constitutionalcourt.org.za/site/constitution/english-web/ch9.html">constitutional democracy</a>.</p>
<h2>A proper job analysis</h2>
<p>The public protector is required to be <a href="https://pmg.org.za/committee-meeting/22629/">“fit and proper”</a>. That means he or she must be honest, have integrity and be reliable. A proper job analysis would provide a more specific and detailed account of these key behavioural competencies. Because the current process relies on interviews, it opens the door for personal judgement and biases. Interview questions are not informed by a proper job analysis exercise. </p>
<p>A job analysis is a technical process. It is a systematic review of a job that culminates in identifying and determining in detail the particular duties of a job (job description) and its requirements (job specification). The process also provides details about the relative importance of the identified duties and requirements of a given job. </p>
<p>The private sector is often viewed as being more efficient and effective than the public sector. This is partly because, for the most part, it recruits the candidates who are best qualified. This is possible because of a thorough job analysis to determine a particular job’s inherent requirements. These include the right personality, which is often determined through instruments or exercises that assess behavioural attributes.</p>
<p>Psychologist Alwyn Moerdyk defines assessment as “the process of determining the presence of, and/or the extent to which, an object, person, group or system possesses a particular property, characteristic or <a href="http://www.takealot.com/the-principles-and-practice-of-psychological-assessement/PLID33057086">attribute</a>.</p>
<p>This is only possible through professionally managed job analysis process. This shouldn’t be difficult given that Madonsela has provided a benchmark in terms of the required properties, characteristics and attributes to seek in her successor. Her courage and integrity brought prestige to the office and made it one of South Africa’s most trusted public <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-south-africas-public-protector-has-set-a-high-bar-for-her-successor-63891">governance institutions</a>. </p>
<p>The process of a competency-based assessment is predicated on the job specification and description. It eliminates biases and subjectivity. It is also the basis on which interviews are done. Good interview questions would be aimed at identifying a "fit and proper” candidate by interrogating their <a href="https://pmg.org.za/committee-meeting/22629/">character</a>. Only competency based interviews can achieve this.</p>
<p>The basis of competency-based assessment rests on the underlying principle that past behaviour predicts future performance. It directly measures skills and abilities specifically relating to, in this case, the job of a public protector. It is important to balance these skills and facets of the job with personal attributes so that allowance is made for the individual to use their discretion and creativity in achieving the job outcomes.</p>
<p>Competency-based assessment is highly valuable. It is related directly to the job, rather than assessing broader behavioural and past events that are not related to the job. Many of the recent interviews done by the ad hoc committee were disrespectful and demeaning of some candidates’ characters and professional statures. Some were subjected to unwarranted personal attacks. And some were subjected to inquisitions about their ideological positions with no relevance to the requirements of the job. </p>
<p>Competency-based assessments are in line with the requirements of the current South African labour legislation – the <a href="http://www.labour.gov.za/DOL/legislation/acts/labour-relations/labour-relations-act">Labour Relations Act</a> and the <a href="http://www.labour.gov.za/DOL/downloads/legislation/acts/employment-equity/eegazette2015.pdf">Employment Equity Act</a> – in that applicants and employees are screened and evaluated only in terms of the inherent and critical job-related competencies.<br>
Competency-based assessment allows for flexibility to accommodate the different candidates. It has been shown to cut across biases based on attributes such as gender, culture and race. It also obviates stereotyping and has a higher level of <a href="http://www.sajip.co.za/index.php/sajip/article/viewFile/31/29">predictive and face validity</a>. This is particularly important given South Africa’s transformation and affirmative action imperatives.</p>
<p>This is why professionals need to manage the process. The recruitment of the country’s public protector would be done better if scientific recruitment methods were followed. Parliament would do well to involve recruitment professionals to ensure that its choice of a suitable candidate is both professional and fair.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/64077/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Sandiso Bazana does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The public protector needs to be “fit and proper”. That means he or she must be honest, reliable and have integrity.These qualities cannot be assessed through an interview and background checks only.Sandiso Bazana, Lecturer in Organisational Psychology, Rhodes UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/90742012-09-13T04:51:49Z2012-09-13T04:51:49ZWhat is work worth? Taking a systematic approach to remuneration<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/15325/original/hz5q5zz5-1347337054.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">How much should CEOs get paid? Job evaluation systems may provide an answer.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Are CEOs worth their massive remuneration packages, or is there too much cash in the corner office?</p>
<p>Executive pay has been in the spotlight in recent weeks amid a lacklustre reporting season for some of Australia’s biggest companies. Beleaguered Qantas chief Alan Joyce chose to <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2012/s3574708.htm">forgo his bonuses</a> after the company’s first annual loss since 1995; ANZ has <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/profit-loss/anz-widens-pay-freeze-on-growth-fears/story-fn91vch7-1226452922372">extended its executive pay freeze</a> for 900 of its senior executives in anticipation of subdued lending growth in 2013-14.</p>
<p>In contrast, there seemed to be little contrition from the Commonwealth Bank, where former CEO Sir Ralph Norris is evidently owed $9.6 million in salary and potential bonuses for the final five months of his tenure. This means that, during this period, he was earning around $64,000 a day - more than many of his bank employees would earn in an entire year.</p>
<p>Job evaluation systems may provide an answer. Over the last half century or so, job evaluation has become a common feature in the employee remuneration landscape for many organisations. Job evaluation systems are widely used in different types of organisations for establishing a notional grading of jobs in the determination of a reasonable level for a position’s pay.</p>
<p><strong>What is job evaluation?</strong></p>
<p>Job evaluation (JE) is an analytical, systematic and methodical approach to remuneration. JE is based on the work content of the job, its complexity and challenges, as well as the knowledge, skills, experience, training, qualifications and interpersonal skills required to do the job.</p>
<p>A job evaluation system’s explicit purpose is classification and grading of positions – that is, work - not employees. This typically takes place before recruitment and selection of employees, in order to establish at which level a job is to be situated in the organisation.</p>
<p>Commonly used in the public sector, job evaluation systems are also extensively used in the private sector. Indeed, job evaluation is used in a broad variety of organisations, including banks, universities, retail, insurance and telecommunications companies. Yet the concept of job evaluation is sometimes maligned and is frequently misunderstood, partly due to myths being perpetuated.</p>
<p><strong>The myth of performance appraisal</strong></p>
<p>For example, job evaluation (JE) is frequently confused with performance appraisal. However, given that JE is a job-based approach to remuneration systems rather than person-based, it is specifically not concerned with evaluating employees, nor with measuring their performance. The focus of a job evaluation system is solely on the respective position or job and the content of the work within that job. Thus it is the job that is evaluated, not the employee.</p>
<p><strong>Old pay and “new pay”</strong></p>
<p>Job evaluation can be usefully considered in contrast to “New Pay”, an American term coined some two decades ago (making it now a somewhat dated term). The “new pay” is characterised by variable or contingency pay, such as bonuses, commissions and other incentives or inducements — which are contingent on employee performance. These forms of pay can be seen as employers transferring risk to employees, whose pay is no longer stable.</p>
<p>Although something of an anathema for job evaluation practitioners, these types of variable remuneration have become fashionable in Australian organisations. A case in point is executive pay.</p>
<p><strong>Why does this matter?</strong></p>
<p>The Productivity Commission’s recent report on executive remuneration has revealed vast growth in executive pay. This has grown by about 250% in Australia since the early 1990s. CEOs at the top 100 companies have enjoyed pay rises of about 10% per annum after inflation. The top 20 CEOs are paid about $10 million on average. This is 150 times average weekly earnings.</p>
<p>How can such excess ever be justified? Such possibilities are much less likely with job evaluation. A JE system would evaluate the job of CEO – the work itself - relative to the other jobs in the organisation and is thus more likely to achieve a fair and reasonable outcome, acceptable to more stakeholders.</p>
<p><strong>But what about the market?</strong></p>
<p>Market factors are separate from JE and, while organisations might consider the remuneration market as part of the recruitment and selection process when appointing a CEO, JE provides a reasonable starting point in terms of workforce relativities. Typically, a board makes decisions regarding short-term incentives - such as bonuses - and long-term incentives - such as shares or options via its remuneration committee.</p>
<p><strong>Job Evaluation and Good Practices</strong></p>
<p>Research carried out in the varied work settings of the public sector, where job evaluation is used extensively, suggests a range of good practices of which three main ones are dominant, agreed by employees, unions, management and human resources practitioners.</p>
<p>Firstly, before the job is evaluated, the position should be analysed and documented to produce a concise position description, which is more than a list of tasks. This includes gender neutral job titles – such as clerical officer, fire-fighter (not fireman), police officer (not police-man) chairperson, flight attendant (not steward/ess) and so on.</p>
<p>In order to avoid historical bias and potential to undervalue women’s work — gender should not be considered unless demonstrably relevant. Some of the “soft” aspects of “caring” jobs are hard to evaluate, and this is where a thorough job analysis (JA) process is fundamental as a pre-requisite to JE, in order to capture those elusive soft skills, such as communication, negotiation, problem-solving, planning, co-ordination, organising and so on.</p>
<p>Secondly, JE is most effectively and fairly carried out by a panel of trained and experienced job evaluators, with union participation as well as management.</p>
<p>Thirdly, training for job evaluators is fundamental. The language of work and job evaluation can seem like a different language and the JE process includes a JE system manual requiring some explanation and interpretation, so that job evaluators can all be ‘on the same page’ with terminology.</p>
<p>To avoid historical bias associated with many jobs, training highlights typical areas of bias and gender stereotypes in jobs. Training can help evaluators focus on the job, instead of the person doing the job.</p>
<p>Indeed, JE is not perfect, since only those who use JE can ensure the fairness aspect, by minimising bias and applying the JE process within the determination of a reasonable level for a position’s pay. While job evaluation systems can be a useful tool in the pay determination process, they alone cannot <em>ensure</em> fairness. JE can <em>enable</em> it. This is an important distinction between ensuring and enabling: like most systems, JE is only as good as those who implement it. </p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/9074/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Brenda Ware does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Are CEOs worth their massive remuneration packages, or is there too much cash in the corner office? Executive pay has been in the spotlight in recent weeks amid a lacklustre reporting season for some of…Brenda Ware, Sessional Lecturer, University of SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.