Whether you evaluate a job using the Competitive Market Pricing Method or Point Factor Method, you may hear this when you share your pay grade recommendation, and it doesn’t meet the business leader’s expectations.
· “Yes, well that pay level is lower than I expected. What do I need to add to the job description to make this a grade 11?”
· “We need to pay $125,000 to $150,000. Can you find a salary survey match that gets us to that total compensation level?”
· “The candidate we want to hire is expecting $90,000 so the grade you want to assign to the job isn’t good. What do I need to do to get the job assigned a higher grade?”
BIG SIGH. AND BIG RED FLAG.
And then the HR or Compensation professional who did the job evaluation has to explain that the process is meant to be objective based on a job description that accurately represents the work that will be performed.
The job’s value is based on a consistent set of factors such as relevant experience, education, responsibilities, skills, knowledge, qualifications, mental and physical effort, and working conditions.
The scrutiny of pay decisions, the evaluation process for jobs, and focus on pay transparency is making these conversations even more challenging.
To solve pay inequities there is an increasing need to educate business leaders on why cherry-picking numbers and then creating documentation to support those numbers is not acceptable.
I know these conversations aren’t easy, but they are necessary to maintain integrity in the process and to ensure legally defensible final decisions.
#jobevaluation #salary #pay #paytransparency #payequity #compensation #rewards #hr #humanresources #pointfactor #marketpricing #salarysurveys #incentives #basesalary #variablepay #bonus #commission #cherrypickingnumbers #integrity #legallydefensible