Job Evaluation (Point-Factor Method)
A systematic method for sizing jobs (not people): rate each job against weighted factors, sum the points, band the points into grades. It is the backbone of internal pay equity and the input to salary structures.
Explore
Use it — size a job
Rate a job (not a person) on each factor. Weights are illustrative — real plans calibrate them to the organization.
In practice, point totals map to grades via banding (e.g. 300-399 = Grade C). The evaluation is only as good as the factor definitions and calibration committee.
When to use
- Building or repairing a salary structure and grade architecture
- Pay-equity work that must stand up to regulator or works-council scrutiny
- Resolving chronic "my job is bigger than theirs" disputes with a method
When not to use
- Very small organizations — whole-job ranking is cheaper and good enough
- When market pricing alone answers the question (single-family, market-hot roles)
- As a performance assessment; it sizes the chair, not the person sitting in it
Worked example
A 1,200-person insurer has 14 legacy grades and constant title inflation. A point-factor evaluation of 60 benchmark jobs rebuilds the architecture into 9 grades. Two departments discover mirror-image roles two grades apart — the equity fix costs €400k, phased over two years, and ends a wave of grievance cases.
Common pitfalls
- Evaluating the incumbent instead of the job description
- Letting managers lobby the committee — governance is the method
- Skipping calibration across job families, which recreates the inequity you started with