Common use of Evaluating Jobs Clause in Contracts

Evaluating Jobs. 7.1 Consistency and objectivity are essential attributes in evaluation. The following list represents the most common do’s and don’ts for evaluators. They should: • not make assumptions about the nature or scope of others’ jobs. This can lead to underestimation or overestimation of the value of different jobs. • ensure that any important job demands are not omitted. • ensure that there is no double counting of job demands. • be wary of the “halo effect”, that is an unconscious assumption that a job holder should score highly on all factors, because the job holder has scored well on the first factor(s). • be wary of the “reverse halo effect”, that is an unconscious assumption that a job holder should not score well on all factors, because the job holder has not scored well on the first factor(s). • be aware that jobs that are known to have high status will not necessarily score highly on all factors. Similarly jobs which have low status will not necessarily score poorly on all factors. • not allow prior knowledge about present pay or the status of job holders to influence rating decisions. 7.2 The following points represent good practice which may be helpful to evaluation panels: everyone on the panel should have an opportunity to read the job information before any formal discussion takes place [see Technical Note 11]. • The outcomes of the panels should be monitored by a moderation/consistency panel for the purposes of ensuring consistency and to avoid gender bias • evaluation on the basis of job content, rather than job title or historic grading or pay. • apply local conventions for interpreting key words and parameters in the factor plan or questions in Gauge™ to ensure standard interpretation and to reflect local circumstances [see Technical Note 1] panels should aim to operate on a basis of consensus and to record their decisions and the reasons for them 7.3 Where a reasonable adjustment is made to a job under the provisions of the Equality Act 2010, evaluation should generally follow the principle of evaluating the job, not the job holder. For example, where a reasonable adjustment involves the disabled job holder using technology that the post would not otherwise require or the re-allocation of minor or subsidiary duties to another employee, these modifications should not affect the evaluation of the post. Where, however, major adjustments are made to the duties of a post, beyond what might be deemed “reasonable”, in order to enable a disabled person to take or stay in the job, and which substantially alter the job, the job should be re-evaluated as a “changed” job. Guidance and examples of “reasonable adjustment” are provided in the “Code of Practice for the elimination of discrimination in the field of employment against disabled persons or persons who have had a disability”. 7.4 Wherever possible, panels should reach a consensus on the evaluation of individual jobs and every effort should be made to do so. In the event of strong disagreement, it often helps to put that job aside and return to it after a number of (possibly similar) jobs have been evaluated. Panels’ decisions (and the reason for them) must be recorded giving scores by factor as well as the total scores for each job.

Evaluating Jobs. 7.1 Consistency and objectivity are essential attributes in evaluation. The following list represents the most common do’s and don’ts for evaluators. They should: •  not make assumptions about the nature or scope of others’ jobs. This can lead to underestimation or overestimation of the value of different jobs. •  ensure that any important job demands are not omitted. •  ensure that there is no double counting of job demands. •  be wary of the “halo effect”, that is an unconscious assumption that a job holder should score highly on all factors, because the job holder has scored well on the first factor(s). •  be wary of the “reverse halo effect”, that is an unconscious assumption that a job holder should not score well on all factors, because the job holder has not scored well on the first factor(s). •  be aware that jobs that are known to have high status will not necessarily score highly on all factors. Similarly jobs which have low status will not necessarily score poorly on all factors. •  not allow prior knowledge about present pay or the status of job holders to influence rating decisions. 7.2 The following points represent good practice which may be helpful to evaluation panels: everyone on the panel should have an opportunity to read the job information before any formal discussion takes place [see Technical Note 11]. •  The outcomes of the panels should be monitored by a moderation/consistency panel for the purposes of ensuring consistency and to avoid gender bias •  evaluation on the basis of job content, rather than job title or historic grading or pay. •  apply local conventions for interpreting key words and parameters in the factor plan or questions in Gauge™ to ensure standard interpretation and to reflect local circumstances [see Technical Note 1] panels should aim to operate on a basis of consensus and to record their decisions and the reasons for them 7.3 Where a reasonable adjustment is made to a job under the provisions of the Equality Act 2010Xxx 0000, evaluation should generally follow the principle of evaluating the job, not the job holder. For example, where a reasonable adjustment involves the disabled job holder using technology that the post would not otherwise require or the re-allocation of minor or subsidiary duties to another employee, these modifications should not affect the evaluation of the post. Where, however, major adjustments are made to the duties of a post, beyond what might be deemed “reasonable”, in order to enable a disabled person to take or stay in the job, and which substantially alter the job, the job should be re-evaluated as a “changed” job. Guidance and examples of “reasonable adjustment” are provided in the “Code of Practice for the elimination of discrimination in the field of employment against disabled persons or persons who have had a disability”. 7.4 Wherever possible, panels should reach a consensus on the evaluation of individual jobs and every effort should be made to do so. In the event of strong disagreement, it often helps to put that job aside and return to it after a number of (possibly similar) jobs have been evaluated. Panels’ decisions (and the reason for them) must be recorded giving scores by factor as well as the total scores for each job.

Evaluating Jobs. 7.1 Consistency and objectivity are essential attributes in evaluation. The following list represents the most common do’s and don’ts for evaluators. They should: • not make assumptions about the nature or scope of others’ jobs. This can lead to underestimation or overestimation of the value of different jobs. • ensure that any important job demands are not omitted. • ensure that there is no double counting of job demands. • be wary of the “halo effect”, that is an unconscious assumption that a job holder should score highly on all factors, because the job holder has scored well on the first factor(s). • be wary of the “reverse halo effect”, that is an unconscious assumption that a job holder should not score well on all factors, because the job holder has not scored well on the first factor(s). • be aware that jobs that are known to have high status will not necessarily score highly on all factors. Similarly jobs which have low status will not necessarily score poorly on all factors. • not allow prior knowledge about present pay or the status of job holders to influence rating decisions. 7.2 The following points represent good practice which may be helpful to evaluation panels: everyone on the panel should have an opportunity to read the job information before any formal discussion takes place [see Technical Note 11]. • The outcomes of the panels should be monitored by a moderation/consistency panel for the purposes of ensuring consistency and to avoid gender bias • evaluation on the basis of job content, rather than job title or historic grading or pay. • apply local conventions for interpreting key words and parameters in the factor plan or questions in Gauge™ to ensure standard interpretation and to reflect local circumstances [see Technical Note 1] panels should aim to operate on a basis of consensus and to record their decisions and the reasons for them 7.3 Where a reasonable adjustment is made to a job under the provisions of the Equality Act 2010Xxx 0000, evaluation should generally follow the principle of evaluating the job, not the job holder. For example, where a reasonable adjustment involves the disabled job holder using technology that the post would not otherwise require or the re-allocation of minor or subsidiary duties to another employee, these modifications should not affect the evaluation of the post. Where, however, major adjustments are made to the duties of a post, beyond what might be deemed “reasonable”, in order to enable a disabled person to take or stay in the job, and which substantially alter the job, the job should be re-evaluated as a “changed” job. Guidance and examples of “reasonable adjustment” are provided in the “Code of Practice for the elimination of discrimination in the field of employment against disabled persons or persons who have had a disability”. 7.4 Wherever possible, panels should reach a consensus on the evaluation of individual jobs and every effort should be made to do so. In the event of strong disagreement, it often helps to put that job aside and return to it after a number of (possibly similar) jobs have been evaluated. Panels’ decisions (and the reason for them) must be recorded giving scores by factor as well as the total scores for each job.

Evaluating Jobs. 7.1 Consistency and objectivity are essential attributes in evaluation. The following list represents the most common do’s and don’ts for evaluators. They should: •  not make assumptions about the nature or scope of others’ jobs. This can lead to underestimation or overestimation of the value of different jobs. •  ensure that any important job demands are not omitted. •  ensure that there is no double counting of job demands. •  be wary of the “halo effect”, that is an unconscious assumption that a job holder should score highly on all factors, because the job holder has scored well on the first factor(s). •  be wary of the “reverse halo effect”, that is an unconscious assumption that a job holder should not score well on all factors, because the job holder has not scored well on the first factor(s). •  be aware that jobs that are known to have high status will not necessarily score highly on all factors. Similarly jobs which have low status will not necessarily score poorly on all factors. •  not allow prior knowledge about present pay or the status of job holders to influence rating decisions. 7.2 The following points represent good practice which may be helpful to evaluation panels: everyone on the panel should have an opportunity to read the job information before any formal discussion takes place [see Technical Note 11]. •  The outcomes of the panels should be monitored by a moderation/consistency panel for the purposes of ensuring consistency and to avoid gender bias •  evaluation on the basis of job content, rather than job title or historic grading or pay. •  apply local conventions for interpreting key words and parameters in the factor plan or questions in Gauge™ to ensure standard interpretation and to reflect local circumstances [see Technical Note 1] panels should aim to operate on a basis of consensus and to record their decisions and the reasons for them 7.3 Where a reasonable adjustment is made to a job under the provisions of the Equality Act 2010, evaluation should generally follow the principle of evaluating the job, not the job holder. For example, where a reasonable adjustment involves the disabled job holder using technology that the post would not otherwise require or the re-allocation of minor or subsidiary duties to another employee, these modifications should not affect the evaluation of the post. Where, however, major adjustments are made to the duties of a post, beyond what might be deemed “reasonable”, in order to enable a disabled person to take or stay in the job, and which substantially alter the job, the job should be re-evaluated as a “changed” job. Guidance and examples of “reasonable adjustment” are provided in the “Code of Practice for the elimination of discrimination in the field of employment against disabled persons or persons who have had a disability”. 7.4 Wherever possible, panels should reach a consensus on the evaluation of individual jobs and every effort should be made to do so. In the event of strong disagreement, it often helps to put that job aside and return to it after a number of (possibly similar) jobs have been evaluated. Panels’ decisions (and the reason for them) must be recorded giving scores by factor as well as the total scores for each job.