Sample Job Evaluation Methodology

Sample_Documents

DISCLAIMER: This is a sample template provided for informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal, tax, or financial advice. Organizations should consult their own legal and tax advisors and tailor this document to reflect their specific business needs, geographies, and applicable laws.

Job Evaluation Methodology: <Company Name>

Document Type	Job Evaluation Methodology
Category	Base Compensation
Version	v<Version Number> (e.g., v1.0)
Effective Date	<Effective Date>
Last Review Date	<Last Review Date>
Next Scheduled Review	<Review Month/Year> (e.g., every 24 months)
Owner	Total Rewards, <Company Name>
Approved By	<Approving Body/Title> on <Approval Date>
Geographic Scope	<Global/Regional/<Country>>
Systems of Record	<HRIS Name>, <Job Evaluation Tool/Vendor Name>

Document Purpose and Objectives

• Describe the methodology <Company Name> uses to evaluate jobs consistently, fairly, and transparently across the enterprise.
• Provide a factor-based point methodology that supports job architecture, internal equity, and external competitiveness.
• Enable standard processes for creating, evaluating, and maintaining job documentation and market alignment.
• Define governance, roles, responsibilities, and approval requirements for job evaluation decisions.
• Support compliance with applicable laws in <Country>/<Region> while enabling local flexibility where necessary.

Scope and Applicability

• In Scope
  • All regular employee jobs at <Company Name> including individual contributor and people leader roles.
  • Permanent full-time and part-time roles; fixed-term roles over <Duration Threshold> (e.g., 6 months).
  • Global functions, regional functions, and business unit roles that align to the job architecture.
  • New jobs, job changes, reorganizations, mergers and acquisitions integration, and job rationalization projects.
• Out of Scope
  • Temporary, intern, co-op, and contractor roles managed through <Vendor Name> or contingent workforce programs.
  • Executive jobs evaluated under the separate Executive Job Evaluation process and governed by the <Compensation Committee Name>.
  • Roles covered by collective bargaining agreements where evaluation is prescribed by the agreement; coordinate with <Labor Relations Contact>.
  • Country-specific statutory job classification systems where mandated; align outcomes while maintaining internal equity.
• Applicability
  • This methodology applies to job evaluation for base compensation structures, pay ranges, and job leveling.
  • It does not determine individual pay decisions; individual pay is guided by <Company Name>’s Base Pay Administration policy, market ranges, performance, experience, and internal equity.

Guiding Principles

• Equity and Consistency: Equal jobs are evaluated equally; similar jobs are evaluated using the same factors and process.
• Market Informed, Internally Aligned: Evaluation outcomes support competitive market positioning and internal job architecture.
• Role, Not Person: Evaluate the job’s content and requirements, not the incumbent’s performance or tenure.
• Transparency and Simplicity: Clear factor definitions, documented decisions, and accessible methodology.
• Governance and Control: Decisions are auditable, approved at the right level, and retained in the system of record.
• Agility with Discipline: Enable timely business decisions while maintaining methodological rigor.

Methodology Overview

• <Company Name> uses a factor-based point methodology calibrated to market data and mapped to job grades and pay ranges.
• Jobs are evaluated on core factors with defined degrees and point values. Total points determine grade placement.
• Factors are weighted to reflect <Company Name>’s business strategy, risk profile, and critical capabilities.
• Evaluation outcomes are validated through calibration sessions, internal equity checks, and market benchmarking.
• Results are documented in the job evaluation record and linked to job codes in <HRIS Name>.

Evaluation Factors and Weights

• The following core factors are used across all functions. Sub-factors may be applied for specific job families where needed.

Factor	Description	Weight (%)
Knowledge and Expertise	Depth and breadth of specialized knowledge and practical know-how required to perform the job.	25
Problem Solving	Complexity, ambiguity, and creativity required to analyze and resolve problems.	20
Impact and Accountability	Magnitude of decisions and their impact on business outcomes, financials, and risk.	20
Communication and Influence	Interpersonal skills required to influence, negotiate, and build consensus.	10
Leadership and Team Scope	Responsibility for people leadership, matrix leadership, and team outcomes.	10
Operational Scope and Autonomy	Breadth of scope, independence of action, and level of oversight.	10
Working Conditions and Risk	Physical, environmental, safety, and regulatory risk inherent in the role.	5

• Total weight equals 100%. Adjustments to weights require approval by <Approving Body> and must be applied consistently across comparable populations.

Factor Degree Structure

• Each factor has degrees with point values. Degree definitions reflect increasing requirements and scope. The following illustrates example degree structures. Full degree definitions are provided in the Job Evaluation Toolkit maintained by Total Rewards.

Example: Knowledge and Expertise (Weight 25%)

Degree	Description	Points
1	Basic knowledge of standardized procedures; work is closely supervised. Typical of entry roles.	40
2	Working knowledge of a defined discipline; applies standard techniques with some judgment.	80
3	Advanced knowledge in a specialized field; integrates concepts; recognized resource within team.	120
4	Expert knowledge spanning multiple disciplines; sets standards; recognized internal expert.	160
5	Enterprise authority or external thought leader; shapes strategy and industry practices.	200

Example: Impact and Accountability (Weight 20%)

Degree	Description	Points
1	Limited impact; affects own tasks; minimal risk exposure.	32
2	Affects team deliverables; measurable impact on quality, cost, or schedule.	64
3	Affects sub-function or product line; decisions influence near-term financials.	96
4	Material impact on business unit results; decisions carry significant risk/return.	128
5	Enterprise-level impact; decisions affect strategic direction and sustained financial performance.	160

• Points are calibrated so that the sum of maximum degrees across all factors approximates a target maximum (e.g., 1,000 points). The full factor library includes degree descriptors and indicators to aid consistent scoring.

Point Plan and Grade Mapping

• Total points determine grade placement. Grade bands are reviewed every <Review Frequency> (e.g., 24 months) and adjusted following global market review and internal calibration.

Grade	Point Range	Typical Career Level
G1	200–300	Entry/Foundational
G2	301–420	Intermediate
G3	421–560	Experienced
G4	561–720	Senior
G5	721–880	Lead/Manager
G6	881–1040	Senior Manager
G7	1041–1200	Director
G8	1201–1360	Senior Director
G9	1361–1520	Vice President

• Example: A job scored at 585 points maps to Grade G4 (Senior) and aligns to the market reference range for G4 in <Country/Region>.

Job Architecture and Documentation Standards

• Job Architecture
  • Jobs are organized into Functions, Job Families, and Career Levels with consistent leveling criteria.
  • Career level descriptors define scope, independence, influence, and leadership expectations.
  • Titles follow the naming convention: <Function> <Job Family> <Career Level Descriptor> (e.g., Analyst, Senior Analyst, Manager).
• Job Documentation Requirements
  • Each job requires a current Job Profile including: Job Summary, Key Responsibilities, Required Qualifications, Preferred Qualifications, Decision Making, Problem Solving, Contacts, Working Conditions, and Physical Requirements.
  • Job Profiles must be written in clear, plain language; use action verbs; avoid person-specific references.
  • Job Profiles must be approved by the Hiring Manager and HRBP before evaluation.
  • Job Profiles are stored in <HRIS Name> as the system of record with a unique Job Code.
• Competencies
  • The <Company Name> competency framework supports but does not replace factor scoring; alignment is encouraged.

Roles and Responsibilities

• Total Rewards
  • Owns the methodology, factor definitions, tools, and governance.
  • Facilitates evaluations, calibrations, and audits.
  • Maintains the grade structure and market reference points.
• HR Business Partners (HRBPs)
  • Advise managers on job design and documentation standards.
  • Initiate job evaluation requests and ensure completeness of submissions.
  • Communicate outcomes and next steps to business leaders.
• People Managers
  • Provide accurate job content and business context.
  • Ensure that requests reflect the job, not the individual.
  • Implement approved outcomes and maintain role clarity with employees.
• Business Leaders
  • Sponsor organizational design decisions and approve budgetary impacts.
  • Participate in calibration to ensure internal consistency across teams.
• Compensation Committee/<Governance Body>
  • Approves methodology changes, grade structure changes, and exceptions beyond delegated authority.
• Legal and Compliance
  • Advise on regulatory considerations (e.g., pay equity, job classification laws).
  • Review methodology changes for compliance impact.
• Employee Relations/Labor Relations
  • Coordinate as needed for roles covered by works councils or collective agreements in <Country>.

Evaluation Process

Triggers for Evaluation

• New roles created due to business need or organizational changes.
• Material changes to existing roles (e.g., scope increase, new accountability).
• Job rationalization or harmonization projects following M&A.
• Periodic audits initiated by Total Rewards.

Submission Requirements

• Completed Job Profile in <HRIS Name> or approved template.
• Organization chart indicating reporting lines and team scope.
• Business justification including strategic drivers, expected outcomes, and budget implications.
• Market data request parameters (e.g., peers, industry, location) if benchmarking is needed.
• Confirmation of alignment to job family and career level descriptors.

Evaluation Steps

1. HRBP submits a complete request through <Workflow Tool Name> with required documentation.
2. Total Rewards validates completeness and may request clarifications or edits.
3. Evaluator assigns preliminary factor degrees and point totals based on Job Profile.
4. Evaluator reviews comparable internal roles and preliminary market benchmarks.
5. Total Rewards conducts calibration with HRBP and, if needed, cross-functional panel.
6. Total Rewards finalizes points and recommends grade mapping.
7. HRBP and Business Leader review and acknowledge evaluation outcome.
8. Total Rewards records the decision in <HRIS Name> and updates job code and grade.
9. HRBP communicates approved outcome to Manager and relevant stakeholders.
10. Total Rewards monitors internal equity and market alignment for the role.

Service Levels and Turnaround Times

• Standard request: <Number> business days from complete submission to decision (e.g., 10 business days).
• Expedited request: Prioritized for critical hiring; requires Business Leader sponsorship and Total Rewards approval.

Calibration and Quality Assurance

• Quarterly calibration sessions review a sample of evaluations for consistency and potential bias.
• Annual audit compares point distributions by function, location, and demographic attributes to identify patterns.
• Total Rewards maintains a library of benchmark roles for each job family to guide consistent scoring.

Market Integration

• Market benchmarking informs grade structure and pay ranges but does not override factor-based internal alignment.
• Use <Vendor Name> surveys and peer cuts aligned to industry, size, and geography.
• Target market position is defined in the Base Pay Philosophy (e.g., <Percentage> percentile).
• When market data suggests variance from internal evaluation, Total Rewards investigates job content, market definitions, and internal equity before recommending adjustments.
• Geographic differentials are applied per the Geographic Pay Differentials policy and do not change the job’s grade.

Global and Local Considerations

• The methodology is global and standardized; local implementation may vary due to legal requirements.
• Where local law mandates specific job classification (e.g., in <Country>), align outcomes to statutory grades and document mapping.
• Works council consultation is required in <Country/Region> before implementing structural changes affecting roles.
• Language translations of Job Profiles must be reviewed for accuracy by <Translation Vendor>.

Handling New Jobs, Job Changes, and Reorganizations

• New Jobs
  • Validate business need and ensure no existing job is equivalent.
  • Draft Job Profile; align to job family and career framework.
  • Evaluate using full process; set grade and market range accordingly.
• Job Changes
  • For scope changes less than <Percentage> (e.g., 20%) of responsibilities, update Job Profile only; no new evaluation required unless factors materially change.
  • For material changes, re-evaluate. If points shift the grade, follow approval workflow for grade movement.
• Reorganizations
  • Conduct job mapping workshops to align legacy roles to the job architecture.
  • Use bulk evaluation and calibration to ensure consistent outcomes across affected teams.

Appeals and Exception Process

• Managers may request reconsideration within <Number> days of outcome communication with additional objective evidence.
• Total Rewards will review with HRBP; if unresolved, escalate to <Governance Body> for final determination.
• Exceptions to grade mapping or title conventions require written justification and approval by <Approving Body>.

Approval Workflow

1. Total Rewards Evaluator recommends factor degrees, points, and grade.
2. HRBP reviews and confirms alignment to organization needs.
3. Business Leader approves budgetary impact if grade changes.
4. Total Rewards Manager approves final outcome within delegated authority up to <Grade/Level>.
5. <Compensation Committee Name> approves outcomes for roles at Grade >= <Threshold Grade> or those with enterprise impact.

Systems, Tools, and Data Management

• Primary system of record is <HRIS Name>; evaluation records and attachments are stored under the job code.
• Evaluations are performed in <Job Evaluation Tool/Vendor Name>, synchronized daily with <HRIS Name>.
• Access is restricted to Total Rewards, HRBPs, and authorized leaders; permissions managed via <Access Control Process>.
• Retention: Evaluation records retained for <Number> years or per local law, whichever is longer.
• Data privacy: Processing complies with <Country/Region> data protection laws (e.g., GDPR in the EEA); see Privacy Policy.

Pay Equity and Compliance Considerations

• Job evaluation supports pay equity analyses by providing a consistent basis for comparing roles.
• Total Rewards partners with Legal to conduct annual pay equity reviews and remediate gaps per <Remediation Policy>.
• Where local pay transparency laws apply (e.g., in <Country/Region>), grade and range information is disclosed per policy.
• Note: This methodology does not establish employment terms or guarantee compensation outcomes; individual pay decisions are subject to performance, experience, location, and budget.

Risk Management and Controls

• Key controls include documentation completeness checks, dual-review of factor scoring, and periodic audits.
• Segregation of duties: Evaluator and approver cannot be the same individual for grades >= <Threshold Grade>.
• Control failures are logged in <Issue Tracking Tool> with remediation plans and due dates.

Implementation Guidelines

• Pilot
  • Test methodology in <Pilot Function/Region> for <Number> weeks; refine degree definitions based on feedback.
• Training
  • Provide role-based training for HRBPs, managers, and leaders; maintain e-learning modules and office hours.
• Change Management
  • Communicate rationale, benefits, and process to stakeholders; provide FAQs and timelines.
  • Use a change impact assessment to identify affected roles and processes.
• Timeline
  • Phase 1: Design finalization and governance approval by <Date>.
  • Phase 2: Pilot and calibration by <Date>.
  • Phase 3: Enterprise rollout by <Date>.
• Success Measures
  • Reduction in evaluation cycle time by <Percentage> within 12 months.
  • Improved internal equity metrics and calibration consistency scores.

Internal Equity Checks

• Compare point totals and grades for similar roles across business units and locations; investigate outliers.
• Use band-within-grade point dispersion guidelines (e.g., mid-point clustering within ±<Percentage> of grade midpoints).
• Track distribution of grades by function and region; ensure alignment to organization design.

Documentation Standards and Audit Trail

• Every evaluation record must include factor-by-factor degrees, total points, grade mapping, and rationale.
• Keep a summary of comparable roles considered during evaluation.
• Capture approver names, dates, and any exceptions granted.
• Maintain a change log for any post-approval edits with timestamps and reasons.

Review Cycle and Continuous Improvement

• Methodology review occurs every <Number> months to validate factor definitions, weights, and grade thresholds.
• Total Rewards conducts external benchmarking of point plan practices and updates as needed.
• Material changes require communication, retraining, and documented governance approval.

Frequently Used Examples

• Technology: Software Engineer II
  • Knowledge and Expertise: Degree 3 (120)
  • Problem Solving: Degree 3 (96)
  • Impact and Accountability: Degree 2 (64)
  • Communication and Influence: Degree 2 (48)
  • Leadership and Team Scope: Degree 1 (24)
  • Operational Scope and Autonomy: Degree 3 (72)
  • Working Conditions and Risk: Degree 1 (20)
  • Total Points Example: 444 mapped to Grade G3
• Manufacturing: Production Supervisor
  • Knowledge and Expertise: Degree 3 (120)
  • Problem Solving: Degree 2 (64)
  • Impact and Accountability: Degree 3 (96)
  • Communication and Influence: Degree 3 (60)
  • Leadership and Team Scope: Degree 3 (72)
  • Operational Scope and Autonomy: Degree 3 (72)
  • Working Conditions and Risk: Degree 3 (40)
  • Total Points Example: 524 mapped to Grade G3–G4 boundary; calibrate vs. internal peers

Governance and Escalation Matrix

Issue Type	First-Line Resolution	Escalation	Final Arbiter
Disagreement on factor degree	Total Rewards Evaluator and HRBP	Total Rewards Manager	<Governance Body>
Grade mapping dispute	Total Rewards Manager	Head of Total Rewards	<Compensation Committee Name>
Exception to title convention	HRBP	Total Rewards Manager	Function Leader
Methodology change	Head of Total Rewards	<Executive HR Leadership Team>	<Compensation Committee Name>

Metrics and Reporting

• Time to complete evaluations (target: ≤ <Number> business days).
• Percentage of evaluations passing calibration without change (target: ≥ <Percentage>).
• Distribution of point totals within grades vs. target bands.
• Internal equity variance reduction across comparable roles (target: ≤ <Percentage>).
• Stakeholder satisfaction score from post-evaluation surveys (target: ≥ <Score>/5).

Legal Notices

• This methodology is not a contract and may be modified at <Company Name>’s discretion.
• Compliance with local laws in <Country/Region> is mandatory; where conflicts arise, local law prevails.
• For roles with regulated credentialing or licensure, ensure alignment with applicable statutes before finalizing evaluations.

Glossary

• Job Evaluation: Systematic process to determine the relative value of jobs using defined factors and points.
• Job Architecture: Structured framework of functions, families, and levels describing career progression.
• Factor: A job attribute (e.g., Knowledge) used to evaluate roles.
• Degree: A defined level within a factor that describes increasing requirements and assigns points.
• Points: Numerical values assigned to factor degrees; total points map to a grade.
• Grade: A level in the pay structure with an associated market range and governance rules.
• Calibration: Comparative review of evaluations to ensure consistency and reduce bias.
• Market Reference Point: Benchmark value (e.g., median) used to anchor pay ranges.
• HRBP: Human Resources Business Partner.
• System of Record: Authoritative repository for job and evaluation data.
• Internal Equity: Fairness of pay and grade alignment among similar roles within the organization.

References and Related Documents

• Base Pay Philosophy, <Company Name>.
• Base Pay Administration Policy, <Company Name>.
• Geographic Pay Differentials Policy, <Company Name>.
• Executive Job Evaluation Methodology, <Company Name>.
• Privacy Policy and Data Retention Standard, <Company Name>.
• Works Council Engagement Guidelines for <Country/Region>.

Communication to Employees and Managers

What Job Evaluation Means at <Company Name>

At <Company Name>, we use a consistent approach to understand the relative size and complexity of our jobs. This process is called job evaluation. It looks at the role itself, not the person in the role, to determine the job’s level, called a grade. Grades help us organize jobs, set fair and competitive pay ranges, and support growth and career development across the company.

Our method considers several aspects of a job, such as the knowledge required, the complexity of problems you solve, how your work impacts the business, the level of collaboration and influence needed, the degree of leadership responsibility, how much independence the job has, and any working conditions or risks. Each aspect has clear definitions and is assigned points. The total points place a job into a grade. This creates a consistent and transparent framework across teams and locations.

What Stays the Same and What Might Change

Most employees will not see changes to their day-to-day work as a result of job evaluation. The process does not measure individual performance or determine pay increases. Instead, it ensures that jobs with similar responsibilities are placed at similar grades, which helps us maintain internal fairness and align to market practices. If your job is affected, you will be informed of your job grade and what it means for your career path and pay range.

How Grades Relate to Pay Ranges

Every grade has an associated pay range that reflects the external market for similar roles in <Country/Region>. Your actual pay within the range depends on your experience, performance, skills, and where you are located, in line with our Base Pay Administration policy. Being placed at a new grade does not automatically change your current pay. If a change is needed, your HR partner and manager will guide you through next steps.

What You Can Expect During an Evaluation

If your role is being evaluated or re-evaluated, you and your manager may be asked to review or update your Job Profile. This document describes the purpose of the job and your key responsibilities. It is important that the Job Profile reflects the role accurately and objectively. The evaluation will be completed by our Total Rewards team with input from HR and business leaders. We aim to complete standard evaluations within <Number> business days after receiving a complete request.

Your Role in the Process

You can support the process by:

• Reviewing your Job Profile for clarity and accuracy when asked.
• Focusing on the role and responsibilities rather than your personal achievements.
• Asking questions to understand how your job fits within our job architecture and grade structure.

Where to Find More Information

For details about your job’s grade or pay range, speak with your manager or HR Business Partner. You can also visit <Intranet Link or Portal Name> to read the overview of our job architecture, see example career paths, and access FAQs. If you have concerns or questions about an evaluation outcome, your HRBP can explain the rationale and the steps to request a review.

Frequently Asked Questions

• Does job evaluation affect my performance review or bonus?
  • No. Job evaluation is about the role, not performance. Your performance review and variable pay follow separate processes.
• Will job evaluation change my title?
  • Sometimes. If we are standardizing titles across teams, your title may change to align with our naming conventions. Your responsibilities and grade determine title alignment.
• Can I see the factors used to evaluate my job?
  • Yes. You can request a summary of the factors and the grade for your role from your HRBP.
• What if my job changes significantly?
  • If your responsibilities grow or change materially, your manager and HRBP can request a re-evaluation.

Our Commitment

We are committed to fair and equitable pay practices. By using a consistent job evaluation methodology, we can better align our jobs across the company, ensure internal fairness, and stay competitive in the market. If you have questions, please reach out to your manager or HR partner. We value transparency and will do our best to explain how your role fits within our framework.

Contact Information

• HR Business Partner: <Name/Email>
• Total Rewards: <Distribution List/Email>
• Employee Support Center: <Phone/Portal>

Effective Date for Communication

This communication is effective as of <Effective Date>. We will update this page if there are changes to our methodology or processes.

---

Document Information:

• Document Type: Job Evaluation Methodology
• Category: Base Compensation
• Generated: August 22, 2025
• Status: Sample Template
• Next Review: <Insert Review Date>

Usage Instructions:

1. Replace all text in angle brackets < > with your company-specific information
2. Review all sections for applicability to your organization
3. Customize content to reflect your company's policies and local regulations
4. Have legal and HR leadership review before implementation
5. Update document header with your company's version control information
6. At bottom of the document you find a short example on how the content could be communicated to end-users, for instance employees.

This sample document is provided for reference only and should be customized to meet your organization's specific needs and local legal requirements.