Factors Contributing to the Implementation of Unbiased Job Evaluation Schemes
| Published date | 01 May 1987 |
| Pages | 21-25 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/eb055576 |
| Date | 01 May 1987 |
| Author | Abby Ghobadian,Michael White |
| Subject Matter | HR & organizational behaviour |
Factors Contributing to the
Implementation of Unbiased Job
Evaluation Schemes
by Abby Ghobadian, Senior Lecturer, Middlesex Business School, and
Michael White, Senior Research Fellow, Policy Studies Institute, London
Introduction
The aim of
this
article is to identify some of the factors that
contribute to the implementation of "unbiased" job
evaluation schemes. The data used for the present analysis
were collected as part of a major survey concerned with the
extent and nature of job evaluation schemes in operation in
the United Kingdom, sponsored by the Department of
Employment. We focus particularly on the unbiasedness of
pay between female and male workers.
The following three broad areas were identified as those
most likely to affect the probability of a job-evaluated
payment scheme being unbiased: (1) factors connected with
introduction and implementation of job evaluation and
under direct management control; (2) structural factors
which, in practical terms, are outside management control,
and (3) personnel policies and practices.
Our main hypotheses were that the scheme's degree of
formality, the extent of employees' participation and
formality of
associated
personnel policy could positively
influence the probability of the job-evaluated pay structure
being free of bias.
In this article, however,
we
only discuss the effect of factors
directly connected with "formality" of job evaluation and
the extent of employees' participation on the likelihood of
designing a bias-free job-evaluated pay structure. The likely
effect of structural factors, personnel policies and practices,
and residual factors (directly connected with mechanics of
job evaluation) on design of bias-free schemes is not covered
here.
These, however, are covered fully in our forthcoming
publication[1].
The International Labour Organisation (ILO) Convention
100 called on members to promote, by means appropriate
to the methods in operation for determining rates of
remuneration, and, insofar as is consistent with such
methods, ensure the application to all workers of the
principle of
equal
remuneration for men and women workers
for work of equal value. A similar definition of equal pay
was embodied in Article
119
of the Treaty of Rome (1958).
These international conventions and the increasing internal
pressure for equal pay led in the UK to introduction of the
Equal Pay Act in 1970 which came into force in 1975. The
Act has had the effect of raising the relative position of
women's pay from
63
per cent to
74
per cent of
men's
pay[2].
The Equal Pay Act of 1970 allowed a woman to claim
equal pay to that of a man only if her job was "the same
or broadly similar" or the
two
jobs were rated as equivalent
under a common job evaluation scheme, or would have been
given an equal value but for the evaluation being made on
a system setting different values for men and women on the
same demand under any heading. In 1982, however, the
European Court of Justice ruled that the UK's equal pay
legislation fell short of Community requirements. This led
to amendment of the Equal Pay Act of 1970. The
amendments to the Act came into force on
1
January 1984.
It is a widely held assumption that job evaluation, by
assessing the value of
the
job and not
the
job holder, enables
women to be paid on rates which are appropriate to their
skill levels and in relation to the rates of comparable men.
Such assumptions have not been tested rigorously; however,
based on a limited number of
cases,
they appear to
have
some
positive support[3]. Starting from this assumption, the
purpose of our research was to identify, in further detail,
the factors that contributed to the implementation of
unbiased job evaluation schemes.
Prior Hypotheses
In this section,
we
identify the factors that, in our
view,
could
influence the design and implementation of a bias-free job
evaluation scheme. Furthermore, we hypothesise how these
factors influence the unbiasedness of the job evaluation
schemes. The prior hypotheses were based on the review of
the relevant literature and authors' practical experience in
regard to job evaluation and payment systems.
Initially,
we
identified three main areas which could affect
the design and operation of an unbiased payment scheme
based on the results of job evaluation. These were:
(1) the choice of job evaluation technique, method of
implementation and administration;
(2) structural factors, and
(3) personnel policies and practices.
It is important to recognise two important points. First,
points
(1)
and (3) are under direct management control, while
point (2) represents exterior conditions that cannot, in
practical terms, be influenced by management. Second, the
three areas mentioned above are not mutually
exclusive,
but
may be associated. This point is discussed in more detail later
in this section.
In our view, the more "formal" the job evaluation
technique, method of implementation and administration,
the more likely
is
the resultant pay structure free of
(sex)
bias.
By "formality", we mean rigour of application determined
by establishing and following a set of rules consistently. In
addition, the extent of
employees'
participation, in our view,
could influence the fairness of the job-evaluated pay
structure. "Formality", in the sense used in this article, is a
multi-dimensional concept and we have used a series of
PR 16,5 1987 ■ 21
To continue reading
Request your trial