Cognitive Processes and Computer Advances in Job Evaluation: Innovation in Reverse?

Perhaps no other topic in human resources has been the subject of as much ideological acclaim, lip service, and public and private damnation as job evaluation. Job evaluation has been hailed as a means of allowing salary decisions to be delegated more effectively, of supporting systematic gathering of data, and of generally providing employees with a better understanding of how their pay is determined (McMillan & William, 1982). At the other extreme, job evaluation is branded as the "single most effective device apart from blatantly biased selection techniques by which organizations can retain and create discriminatory pay practices" (Thomsen, 1981, p. 348). A few quotes from a survey of employee unions on job evaluation illustrate this point even more succinctly (Janes, 1979, p. 85). Job and wage evaluation seems to confuse our membership, and this adds to the communication problem between management and our union. We believe that free collective bargaining cannot exist if limited by the restrictions imposed by job evaluation. Job evaluation lends itself to management as an instrument to resist legitimate union demands and offers. In fact, management can, and does disavow responsibility for its actions by constantly referring to the evaluation system. Job evaluation tends to dampen bargaining where wage and rate problems are raised to pseudotechnical levels, and trained management personnel find it easier to operate and mystify workers with their jargon, in order that the workers refrain from pressing legitimate grievances. JOB EVALUATION: AN OVERVIEW Job evaluation is an attempt to assess and evaluate a specific job or category of jobs, as opposed to the person holding the job (Leap & Crino, 1989). While some non-quantitative approaches to job evaluation continue to be used (e.g., the ranking method and the classification method), over the last several years, an emerging preference towards quantitative methods is clearly discernible. Two major methods representing the quantitative approach are the factor comparison method and the point method (Arvey, 1986; De Cenzo & Robbins, 1994; Henderson, 1989). The factor comparison method involves selection of benchmark jobs and placement of a dollar value on compensable factors within those jobs. (Benchmark jobs are those which meet two important characteristics--they have a stable set of tasks, duties and responsibilities, and their pay rate, as determined by wage and salary survey, is commensurate with the criteria of external equity.) The point method, by contrast, does not place a direct dollar value on a job. Rather, each job is first assigned a total point value and then the aggregate point value is converted into a dollar figure (Lawler, 1996; Leap & Crino, 1989). There are a number of similarities and areas of overlap between these two basic methods. In addition, there exist almost innumerable variations and combinations. The underlying common theme, however, is the same: selecting a set of compensable factors, benchmark jobs, and then determining a given job's relative worth in comparison to the benchmark jobs. As can be seen, the benchmark jobs provide an overall context for the rating process and for the linkage between internal and external market forces (for a detailed discussion, see Milkovich and Boudreau, 1988, pp. 703-744). LINEAR PROGRAMMING APPROACH TO JOB EVALUATION Subjectivity inherent in the rating process used in job evaluation lies at the core of criticism for many job evaluation systems. Concern over this issue has, over the years, led to a strong advocacy of quantitative and highly sophisticated computer models as aids to improve objectivity in job evaluation. For example, Dertien states emphatically: he key to the design and utilization of a job evaluation plan is utilizing quantitative factor measurements over which very little subjective discretion can be exercised" emphasis added (1981, p. …