UPI Study › Courses › Human Resources Management › Free lessons › Lesson 3.12 Free with a free account
4 Methods for Figuring Out What a Job Is Worth
Human Resources Management · Chapter 3: How Management Theories Shape the Way Jobs Are Built and OrganizedSection 3.12 · lesson 22 of 9115 min · free with a free account
Free preview
Create a free account to keep watching
It takes a minute and costs nothing. Your free account unlocks all of Chapter 1 and 3 more lessons of Human Resources Management.
Lesson complete
Earn the 3 college credits for Human Resources Management
Enrolling adds a quiz after each lesson, the graded work and the official transcript. Recommended for credit by NCCRS.
Next lesson: How Job Analysis Helps Set Fair and Consistent Performance Standards →← Writing Job Descriptions, Job Specifications, and Position DetailsNext lesson: How Job Analysis Helps Set Fair and Consistent Performance Standards →
In this lesson
Compare the work, explain the factor choices, and separate scores from pay.
- Distinguish internal equity from market competitiveness
- Compare ranking, classification, point factor, and factor comparison
- Explain degrees, weights, and embedded value choices
- Use committees, consistency checks, and an appeal route
Free study notes
Get this lesson's notes by email
The key points and 4 practice questions with answers, in your inbox. One email, free.
One email. Unsubscribe in one click.
Transcript
Everything said in the video, section by section (1,959 words). Read along, or search it.
How Management Theories Shape the Way Jobs Are Built and Organized
4 Methods for Evaluating Jobs
Job evaluation systematically determines relative job worth, producing an ordering or scores inside the organization. Evaluate the job's demands, rather than the incumbent's personal performance. Good or poor performance does not change the work's demands. The objective is internal equity, creating defensible relationships between jobs that make comparable demands. External competitiveness asks a different question, using market salary evidence rather than evaluation alone. Four methods approach relative worth in different ways. They include ranking, classification, point factor, and factor comparison. The point factor method records degrees and weights, making its judgments explainable and scalable. The resulting numbers still apply chosen values, rather than discover a neutral definition of worth. Missing work demands can produce distorted scores, even when every arithmetic operation is correct. Committees, benchmark checks, and appeals make the process more consistent and open to challenge. The Harlow case changes a factor definition, after correct scoring exposes a demand nobody initially noticed.
Evaluate the Work
The Incumbent’s Performance Does Not Regrade the Job
Evaluation asks what the job requires, of whoever occupies the role at the time. An excellent performer in a modestly graded job does not automatically occupy a more demanding job. A poor performer does not reduce a demanding job's requirements. Its next incumbent must still meet those same demands. Performance belongs in appraisal and pay progression, while evaluation compares the work itself. When a committee discusses how well someone performs, it has moved away from job evaluation. Internal equity means comparable demands receive comparable grades, through a defensible and consistent process. External competitiveness compares the organization's pay, with what the market pays for similar work. Salary survey evidence informs that market question, which the evaluation score cannot answer independently. A highly priced market role may evaluate modestly internally, creating a conflict for pay-structure design. The reverse can also occur, when a demanding internal role has a lower external market price. Evaluation supplies the internal ordering, leaving market positioning and individual pay to further decisions.
Ranking
Order Whole Jobs Without Measuring the Gap
Ranking compares whole jobs, placing them in order from most to least demanding. It does not break the jobs into factors, or build a detailed scoring scheme first. The method is quick, understandable, and inexpensive for a limited collection of distinct roles. The number of jobs can grow substantially over time. The possible comparisons grow even faster, creating a scaling problem. Ordering fifteen jobs is manageable, while ordering two hundred creates a much larger comparison burden. Ranking also says nothing about the distance, between neighboring jobs in the resulting order. Knowing that one job outranks another does not show how large their demand difference is. That missing information limits how the ordering can support a graded pay structure. Holistic judgment is also difficult to defend, because factor-by-factor reasoning has not been recorded. The method therefore fits small organizations, with few distinct jobs and limited risk of challenge. Use ranking's simplicity knowingly, rather than assume its order contains a score that was never measured.
Classification
Define the Grades Before Placing the Jobs
Classification begins by defining a set of grade descriptions. Those are written before any particular jobs are evaluated. Each definition describes a level of skill, responsibility, and complexity, against which the work is read. The job is placed in the grade whose written description provides the best overall match. Once those definitions exist, assigning a new job is quick and the structure remains administratively stable. The match also records part of the reasoning, making the decision more explicit than whole-job ranking. The method is associated in the source with large public-sector structures, and stable job families. Its main weakness is rigidity, because definitions covering many jobs must remain fairly general. A demanding dimension and a modest one can coexist, leaving the job without a comfortable grade match. Hybrid and novel roles expose this problem, especially when the organization creates new combinations of work. Forcing the job into an unsuitable definition preserves convenience, at the expense of an accurate comparison. Inspect the grade structure when fit fails, rather than blaming every unusual role.
Point Factor
Score Degrees Within Chosen Factors
The point factor method breaks jobs into compensable factors, representing demands the organization chooses to recognize. Each factor has defined degrees, describing progressively greater levels of the characteristic being assessed. Points are assigned to those degrees, and factor weights establish their contribution to the total. Evaluators read the job against each factor, select the matching degree, and record its points. The total can then be mapped to a grade band, within the organization's chosen scheme. The advantage is quantitative distance, alongside the ordering of jobs from lower to higher scores. A new job can use the existing scheme, without comparison with every other role. Recorded factor reasoning makes the decision explainable, and gives a challenge something specific to examine. Building definitions, degrees, and weights requires substantial work, rather than a quick launch decision. Running the scheme also requires trained evaluators, who can apply the descriptions consistently to actual jobs. The method supplies a structured comparison, but the factors and weights remain choices that require explanation.
Constructed Scheme
400 Points with Explicit Factor Weights
The constructed example uses a total of four hundred points. Four stated factors each have an explicit percentage weight. Skill receives forty percent, effort fifteen percent, responsibility thirty-five percent, and working conditions ten percent. Those figures describe an instructional scheme, rather than data taken from a real employer's evaluation system. Each factor contains four or five degrees, with written descriptions establishing what each level means. The responsibility example begins with accountability for the person's own work, at its lower degree. A higher degree includes accountability for a team's output, and responsibility for a budget. The matching description determines the degree, rather than the evaluator simply choosing a score by impression. The source's illustrated comparison reports a two-hundred-point gap, produced mainly through the responsibility factor. That gap reflects both the jobs' demands, and how much weight the scheme assigns to responsibility. The weight was chosen by people, so the numeric result does not make the choice neutral. The example explains mechanics, using constructed values rather than actual pay decisions.
Factor Comparison
Benchmark Pay Becomes the Anchor
Factor comparison combines ranking with point-factor logic. It uses selected benchmark jobs to anchor those comparisons. The benchmarks are ranked separately on each factor, rather than given only one whole-job position. Monetary values are then allocated across factors, for each benchmark used in the scheme. Other jobs are compared factor by factor, against those established benchmark values and demands. The method produces a monetary measure, including distance rather than an order alone. Its technical elegance comes with considerable administrative complexity, making the process difficult to run. It can also be difficult to explain, to the people whose roles are being valued. Existing pay rates supply the anchor, bringing their current distortions into the evaluation itself. That makes the benchmarks a source of inherited judgment, rather than an independent neutral starting point. The source describes the method only in outline, because its use is comparatively rare. Recognize its benchmark logic, and distinguish it from scoring degrees within a predefined point scheme.
Compare the Methods
Choose the Output and the Administrative Commitment
The comparison begins with the output each method produces. They supply different information for later pay-structure decisions. Ranking produces an order, with no measured distance between the positions in that list. Classification produces a grade match, recorded against the written definition the job best resembles. Point factor produces a score, with factor evidence supporting both the ordering and the measured gaps. Factor comparison builds a monetary value, through comparisons with benchmark jobs on individual factors. Ranking has low administrative cost, but cannot easily handle a large set of distinct roles. Classification is inexpensive to operate once built, while rigidity becomes difficult for hybrid or novel jobs. Point factor costs more to design, and requires trained interpretation to preserve consistency during use. Factor comparison is complex, difficult to explain, and depends heavily on sound benchmark evidence. Choose the method from the required information, job variety, available resources, and need to defend decisions. A method's convenient administration does not erase, the limitations of what its output can establish.
Compensable Factors
A Score Applies Values the Organization Chose
The traditional factors are skill, effort, responsibility, and working conditions, each describing job demands. The Equal Pay Act of nineteen sixty-three also uses these concepts, within its sex-based equal-pay framework. It addresses substantially equal work under similar conditions, within the same establishment, subject to statutory defenses. Evaluation scores do not settle contested pay issues, which require legal assessment. Skill can include education, experience, and problem-solving; responsibility can include several accountabilities. Subdivision can alter effective weight, if the scoring allocation increases the factor's total contribution. It does not automatically raise the weight, when the original factor budget remains fixed. Heavy supervisory-responsibility weights raise supervisory jobs, while heavy conditions weights raise physically demanding roles. Formal education weights can raise credentialed jobs, reflecting what the scheme has chosen to recognize. None of those choices is neutral, even when the resulting scores are calculated consistently. Explain the factor definitions and total weights, so the value judgment remains visible beside the arithmetic.
Equity and Governance
Correct Arithmetic Can Miss Important Work Demands
A scheme can miss sustained concentration, emotional demands, or responsibility for people's wellbeing rather than money. Jobs requiring those demands then score lower, because the scheme does not adequately recognize their work. Sex-segregated job families can then inherit a pay gap, through apparently technical scoring. The mechanism concerns factor choices, rather than differences in the capability or commitment of the workers. Evaluation committees help challenge assumptions, by combining work knowledge with trained use of the scheme. Agreed employee representatives can participate in union settings, where the parties have arranged that involvement. Consistency checks re-evaluate a sample of benchmarks, detecting drift as evaluators interpret degrees differently over time. An appeal route gives postholders a way to challenge, whether the job has been read correctly. Without that route, the same concern can emerge elsewhere, in a less convenient form of dispute. Evaluation supplies the ordering, while grade ranges and market midpoints require further compensation choices. A point total does not set wages, or substitute for designing the pay structure.
Composite Case
Harlow’s Correct Scores Produce an Indefensible Result
Fictional Harlow Mutual weights responsibility at forty percent. Its definition chiefly recognizes staff supervision and financial accountability. The eleven-person claims team handles distressed customers, without supervisory duties or budget authority. Claims falls two grades below procurement, with one assistant and a modest purchasing limit. Nobody believes the result is defensible, but nobody can identify an error in the scoring. The finance director notes the executive agreed the weights, and changing them reopens every existing score. The claims manager cannot explain the result, while HR questions the scheme's credibility. The accepted change revises the responsibility definition, rather than the agreed weighting itself. It adds customer outcomes, including consequences of error falling on a person rather than a budget. All jobs are re-evaluated under that revised definition, costing the committee another six weeks of work. The episode reveals an unexamined value judgment, rather than a mistake in arithmetic or degree selection. Correct application cannot defend a definition, that systematically overlooks demands the organization needs to recognize.
Reverse Problem
Find the Demand the Scheme Does Not Notice
The reverse problem concerns a care provider, whose direct-care jobs fall in the bottom two grades. Comparable administrative and facilities jobs sit two to three grades higher, under the same scheme. Physical effort, staff supervision, and financial accountability receive heavy recognition in its factor choices. Investigate overlooked demands, including responsibility for people, emotional effort, and sustained concentration. The correction must assess actual job demands, rather than add points to favored people after scoring. Redefine or add factors consistently, then examine every affected job under the revised definitions. Correct arithmetic cannot justify a scheme, that overlooks important demands within the work. Evaluation compares jobs, rather than appraises people or discovers a universal market price for their work. Its defensibility rests on clear definitions, recorded reasoning, consistent use, and a meaningful route to challenge. The next lesson establishes job analysis, the evidence-gathering process supporting documentation, evaluation, and performance standards. Begin with the actual job, so the later structure rests on explainable requirements.
About Human Resources Management at UPI Study
Human Resources Management (Business 306) is a self-paced online course of 91 video lessons in 12 chapters, from what HR does and how jobs are designed to hiring, training, performance reviews, pay and benefits, safety, employment law, unions, global staffing and remote work. It carries a NCCRS credit recommendation for 3 semester credits.
Every lesson transcript is free on pages like this one, and the videos are free with a free UPI Study account. Enrolling adds a practice quiz after each lesson, the graded work and final exam that earn the credit, lifetime access, and an official transcript on completion. UPI Study has helped over 130,000 students with college credits. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.
Enroll now → Course details Download the syllabus All Business courses
Why take it here
Why students take Human Resources Management with UPI Study
Where the credit goes
Universities that work with NCCRS
Human Resources Management carries a NCCRS credit recommendation. These universities work with NCCRS; some are UPI Study's signed partners. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.
Thomas Edison State UniversitySigned partner
University of the PeopleSigned partner
Charter Oak State CollegeSigned partner
Strayer UniversitySigned partner
Columbia Southern UniversitySigned partner
Indiana TechSigned partner
Penn StateWorks with NCCRS
Southern New Hampshire UniversityWorks with NCCRS
SUNYWorks with NCCRS
+many more cooperating universitiesFind my college →Find my college → Not listed? Ask Athena in the corner of this page, or book a 15-minute call.
FAQ
Questions students ask us
About 4 Methods for Figuring Out What a Job Is Worth
What is job evaluation in HR?
What are the four methods of job evaluation?
How does the point factor method of job evaluation work?
Can job evaluation contribute to a gender pay gap?
About the Human Resources Management course
How many college credits is Human Resources Management?
How much does Human Resources Management cost and what is included?
Which universities accept UPI Study credits?
How long does Human Resources Management take?
How are the exams done?
How do my credits reach my college?
Ready for the full course? Earn 3 credits in Human Resources Management.
91 video lessons, a quiz after each one, and the graded work that earns the credit. Recommended for credit by NCCRS.
3 credits · NCCRSEnroll →