AUS Job Evaluation Survey Report

Summary

Job evaluation (JE) became formalised into the general staff employment agreement in 2001. This survey is the first attempt to monitor and assess its effectiveness since an audit in 2003. The survey was robust with a return representing 22% of AUS General Staff members. The key findings were:

• Position descriptions are not considered to be accurate by a substantial proportion of staff;
• The position description has become a barrier to staff applying for re-evaluation.
• Managers play a key role in how staff view the JE process and outcome.
• The JE Committee is not well known among staff.
• The process is perceived as being too slow.
• The process is perceived as being based on ambiguous criteria which makes it difficult for staff to understand banding decisions.
• Some staff are either unaware or ill-informed about JE.

To improve the JE, AUS recommends that:

• The position description should no-longer be required as an information source for re-evaluations.
• Staff should be better and more uniformly informed about how to apply for re-evaluation.
• A joint AUS-Management working party on position descriptions should be convened to consider the role and content of position descriptions in the future.
• Managers should be trained to a higher uniform standard to prevent inconsistencies in staff experience with the JE process.
• The JE Committee needs to be better promoted and its role better advertised to staff. The composition of the Committee should inspire confidence in its function.
• The JE process should include the required response times for each step.
• A working party should be convened to update band descriptors and set standards of feedback to staff.

Introduction

Job evaluation (JE) is a method for determining which salary band a position falls within. JE became practice at the University in 2001 after AUS members agreed to include it in the General Staff Collective Agreement. Since the initial introductory phase, job evaluation has continued to be used to evaluate new positions and re-evaluate existing positions, when required, to assess whether they are in the correct band.

The focus of this survey is the continuing application of job evaluation since the introductory phase in 2001. In particular AUS was interested in knowing how the process has been applied throughout the university and whether there were differences in its application between service units or occupational groups.

When analysing the results, we have highlighted aspects of the process which could be enhanced to improve the experience for our members.

Results

Survey forms (see appendix A) were sent to all 472 general staff members of the AUS. A total of 103 responses were received, representing 22% of the general staff AUS membership.

Demographic data was collected from respondents, in order to identify trends in particular occupational groups or college/service units. The breakdown of responses into these groups was as follows:

College/Service Unit	Number of Respondents
Arts	8
Engineering	13
Science	22
Other Colleges	3
ICTS	5
Library	25
SRDU	5
Student Admin	5
UC Opportunity	5
UCTL	5
Other Service Units	7

General Staff Occupational Group	Number of Respondents
Admin	28
IT	8
Library	26
Technician	28
Other	13

The response rate was such that it was not always possible to draw conclusions with high statistical certainty. However, clear themes did emerge as the survey responses were considered a whole and the survey was adequate to identify real trends.

Comments which were representative of the responses to each questions, or to issues raised by the questions are reproduced here. Some comments have been edited to remove identifying information; it has been indicated where this has occurred.

How accurately do you believe your current position description describes your current role?



50% of respondents reported that their position description (PD) was somewhat inaccurate, giving estimates of accuracy in the 20-80% range. A further 1% reported that their PD was less than 20% accurate. The remaining 49% reported their PD as being greater than 80% accurate.

Of those who reported that their PD was inaccurate the main reasons given for the discrepancy were that there were aspects of the role which they were performing which were not recorded in their current PD or that their PD had not been updated as their role changed over time.

“I didn’t have the opportunity to write it myself. Includes duties I don’t do. Doesn’t describe as clearly as I would like, what I do do.”

“Still contains accountabilities which I am not responsible for, and doesn’t highlight all those responsibilities I have.”

“My job has evolved and changed due to dept. procedure changes and responsibility levels”

Some respondents also commented on the time it took to have their PD’s updated.

“In process of getting a new PD created, this has taken over 3 years.”

“Been in the same position for more than [several] years but only got the 90% accurate position description a year ago.”

There were also some remarks about PD’s not being specific enough.

“Position descriptions recently changed to be very basic and generic. Could be said to describe anything.”

“It is so generic it would cover any [job title] person.”

Were you aware that the university has procedures for re-evaluating jobs to see if they are correctly banded?



Overall, 18% of respondents were unaware that the JE process existed.

The results indicate that the JE process is not equally well understood or implemented in all parts of the University. Library staff would appear to be more aware about JE than other staff and staff from the other service units and within the College of Engineering, seem to have the lowest levels of awareness. Results from the Colleges of Business, Education and Law have been excluded from this graph as the level of response was too low to draw significant conclusions.

Who might you/have you approached to obtain information about the job re-evaluation process? (respondents were asked to rank sources of information in the order they would approach them)



Just over 50% of respondents would approach their manager in the first instance when seeking information about JE. The HR website was the most favoured second source of information.

If you sought information were you able to find the information that you needed?

Of the 41 respondents who had sought information, 23% reported that they couldn’t find what they needed.

How could the information available to you be improved?

The two main ways which respondents felt the information could be improved were that JE should be more actively promoted and that there should be more information available on the process.

“Simplified. More on web site. Better idea of what really happens.”

“HR could make the option to be re-banded more widely available. (Have just looked at HR site-very easy to understand).”

“It should be pushed and made available from my manager. And time made available with support to do it correctly”

“Clear list of conditions to be met for re-banding and list of steps to take to apply. Should be independent of the manager supervisor.”

Have you ever sought to have your job re-evaluated? If not, please give reasons.

Of the 68 respondents who indicated they had not sought re-evaluation, 51% believed that either their current banding was correct, or that they had not been in the role long enough either to apply, or judge whether they should apply for re-evaluation.

Of those who didn’t apply for reasons other than those above, the largest reason cited (25%) as the barrier to them applying was lack of management support.

“I have never felt that I would get any support to do this. The feeling I get is that I would be stepping out of line.”

“My job description was changed last year […] and it was made clear that it was not a good time to make a fuss.”

If [you have sought re-evaluation] was the outcome satisfactory from your point of view?

Of the 28 members who responded that they had applied for re-evaluation 57% were satisfied with the outcome. A number did comment however on the time which it took to reach this outcome.

“It was re-evaluated and re-banded to a higher band but the process took too long!!! I’ve waited almost a year[…]”

“It took several years to have it re-evaluated to Band 2 from Band 1 when everyone else doing a similar job was already on Band 2.”

“It took almost a year to sort it out!! Far too long. Manager dragged the chain.”

The main reason stated for dissatisfaction with the outcome was the assertion that staff in similar roles were banded more favourably.

If [you have sought re-evaluation] was the process satisfactory from your point of view?

Of the 25 responses to this question, 56% reported that the process was not satisfactory. The main reasons given were a lack of management support, that it took too long to get a result (see above comments), that there was no explanation of the outcome and that the application process was difficult and time-consuming.

“Reluctant manager. Had to keep chasing up”

“Seemed resented by management. Had to insist.”

“A general lack of understanding by all parties.”

“For the amount of work me, my colleagues and managers went to to put it together-there was a one-line response with no justification whatsoever. This process surprised and disappointed everyone.”

“I was in the fortunate position that my manager was 100% behind me and the process was organised by him. The outcome might have been different if my manager was not in favour of re-evaluation.”

How could the process be improved?

The main area for improvement identified was the amount information available throughout the process.

“More information about job evaluation, plus sample of job descriptions of different band.”

“Keep informed of process.”

“More transparency, objectivity, direct involvement of the staff member.”

“My experience is fine however in general more input from staff and managers. HR has little/no practical experience of positions.”

Have you ever been told you are not eligible to apply for re-evaluation?

Of the 78 members who responded to this question, 17% had been advised they were not eligible to apply. However, 27% of library staff members who responded had been advised they were not eligible. This may suggest that library staff have been discouraged from applying in greater numbers than other occupational groups.

Respondents’ comments indicated that where staff had been advised they could not apply it has been by their supervisors/managers, not HR.

What do you think your manager or supervisor’s role is/was in the job evaluation process?
What do you think your role, as a manager/supervisor, is in the job evaluation process?



Both staff and managers identified the main role of managers in the process to be that of providing information and support to staff.

(For managers/supervisors) Have you ever received training in the job evaluation process?
If yes, do you think the training was adequate?
How could the training be improved?

Only four of the 17 respondents who identified themselves as managers or supervisors had received training in JE. Those who had received training felt that it was adequate, with one exception. Perhaps because so few had received training, there were only two responses to the question on how to improve training. One respondent commented that their training had not been recent and the other remarked:

“Some training of some sort for a start would be very useful! A general overview of the process, steps to follow would be good. When/how/under what circumstances etc.”

Have you ever needed further support from HR for the job evaluation process?
If yes, was adequate support available?

Only three managers who responded to this had required further support and all confirmed that the support received was adequate.

Further comments

Further comments received on the JE process can be broken down as follows:

Comment	Number of respondents
Don't trust JE system/no transparency	12
No career path/can't progress past top of band	8
Dependence on management support	7
Outcomes seem unfair/inexplicable	5
Experience/qualifications not recognised	5
Evaluators don't understand specifics of jobs	4
Problems with width/placement of bands	4
Problems with position descriptions	4
Other negative comments	16
Positive comments	3

Specific comments included:

“When my position did go through the job evaluation process, I was not involved in the process. Thus I don’t think the position description which resulted was very accurate.”

“Membership of the panel-crucial that the panel has the understanding, expertise and experience to know what band staff should be in.”

“In my experience it has been totally demeaning, unsatisfactory and badly managed by library management. It has resulted in lowering staff morale, and unfair inaccurate job descriptions and remuneration in more than one case. Please help fix this situation.”

“Although I have done well out of the job evaluation process I am still against it as it has placed us all into capped boxes with very little incentive to develop our careers.’

“I am not sure how transparent the points counting process for (re)evaluation is. Some types of position seem to get a higher “value” than others e.g. HR admin positions seem to be at a higher banding that other admin positions. Yes they deal with “people” and that is “important to get right” but so do the rest of us and “financial” and “academic” accuracy is just as important. I understand too that the size of budget for the dept. is a consideration. Money is more important than academic/student functions??”

“I think the job evaluation process is so cumbersome it puts people off going through it[…]”

“After receiving this survey I was prompted to go to HR’s website and see what was there. Didn’t realise some of this info was available-more than I expected. I suspect a lot of staff aren’t aware/have forgotten about the possibility of JE, periodic reminders/publicity of the possibility would be good. I also get the feeling that job re-evaluation tends to be discouraged-although no one has come out and SAID that, but you do hear of cases where people are told things like “you might drop a band” or “they’re a lot tougher these days” which is off putting. Whether this is actually true or not is another matter.”

“Personalities are involved and if management do not support an employee then there is little chance of your position being re-banded […]”

“It just needs to be specific”

Summary and recommendations

Position descriptions

The results of this survey suggest that a large number of general staff in the university do not currently have a position description which is more than 80% accurate. Comments throughout the survey also suggest that it can be difficult and time-consuming to get an accurate position description or one which is not generic. Given that a position description is one of the information sources which are used for evaluating and re-evaluating positions this is of concern.

It is also worth noting that aside from job evaluation, inaccurate position descriptions can also have an impact on performance management and salary reviews.


AUS makes the following recommendations concerning position descriptions and their role in the job evaluation process:

1. The position description should no longer be required as an information source for re-evaluations, although they can still be provided as additional information if desired by the applicant. In fact, a position description was not a requirement in the original JE process which AUS agreed to. A position description questionnaire filled in and verified by their manager provides sufficient information to re-evaluate a role. Maintaining the position description as a requirement has become a barrier to staff applying for re-evaluation.
2. Staff should be better and more uniformly informed about how to apply for re-evaluation. As a start, they should be advised during induction that they are able to apply for re-evaluation after the first six months in a role. Currently this is not widely known. This is particularly important in the case of newly created positions which have only been evaluated against a position description which may prove to be inaccurate after some time spent in the role.
AUS suggests a joint working party on position descriptions be convened between university management and the AUS to consider the role and content of position descriptions in the future.

The role of managers in the JE process.

Managers were identified as the first choice for source of information on JE by staff. Yet, when asked only four out of 17 managers who responded had received training. Where training had been received, however, it was adequate.

Respondents also identified that support or lack thereof from their manager was vital in whether both the outcome and process were satisfactory to them.

Interestingly, both managers and staff who responded cited providing support and information to the staff member as the primary role of the manager in the process.

These facts make the lack of training of managers an issue of considerable concern to AUS.

AUS makes the following recommendations concerning the role of managers in the information process:

4. Training in the job evaluation process (not method) should be mandatory for all supervisors and managers. Refresher training should also be required on a regular basis.
5. Information and training from HR in the JE process needs to make it clear to managers and staff that only the job evaluation committee can determine whether positions are eligible for re-banding. Staff will need managers to verify what they have recorded in their application for re-evaluation but they do not require their permission to apply.
6. HR needs to create an effective monitoring process to ensure that managers are providing a uniform experience across the campus.

The role of the Job Evaluation Committee in the JR process.

Although the survey did not ask respondents if they were aware of the role of the Job Evaluation Committee, some responses suggest there may be confusion or concern about the role of the Committee. Some respondents clearly identified job evaluation as an HR process and did not seem aware of the existence of the Committee. Other respondents were aware of the Committee but were concerned about its composition and how this may affect results.

AUS makes the following recommendations concerning the role of the Job Evaluation Committee:

7. Information and training from HR in the JE process should include a description of the role of the JE Committee as the evaluators of all new positions and re-evaluations.
8. The composition and resourcing of the committee should be such that it ensures appropriate occupational representation amongst the evaluators when a position is being evaluated. Information on the occupational composition of the JE committee should be available to staff.

The speed of the JE process.

Many of those surveyed commented on how slow the process was.

Hopefully, recent changes to the administration of the job evaluation process will have improved this situation but there are still aspects of the process which warrant attention.

AUS makes the following recommendations concerning the speed of the JE process:

9. As per Recommendation 1 above, providing position descriptions should no longer be a requirement when applying for job evaluation.
10. The JE process should include the required response times for each step of the process. This must include maximum limits on the time to be spent by managers verifying the information to be supplied for evaluation and then forwarding it to the job evaluation committee.

Information and communication.

A number of issues were raised and suggestions made with regard to information and communication as it relates to job evaluation.

Respondents have commented that they would like more information on: what criteria need to be met to advance to a higher band through job evaluation; progress reports throughout the process, especially where there is a holdup; and why an application has been unsuccessful.

AUS makes the following recommendations concerning information and communication:

11. A joint AUS-University Management working party to be convened to update the now outdated band descriptors. The working party should also have input from Strategic Pay and the current Job Evaluation Committee members. Having relevant and current band descriptors may also make it easier to explain why an application for re-evaluation has been unsuccessful.
12. Progress reports must be provided to applicants if there is a hold-up in the JE process.
13. As per Recommendation 2 above, staff should be advised during the induction process about JE.

Conclusion

Job evaluation was introduced as a joint Union-University initiative and now forms part of the conditions guaranteed by our collective agreement. On-going co-operation between university management and AUS is vital for job evaluation to be a success and to continue to be acceptable to our members.

The results of this survey show that while there are many aspects of JE that work well, there are still important elements of the process which require urgent attention. Of particular concern is the fact that so many respondents viewed the system with distrust and considered it lacking in transparency. The above recommendations put forward by AUS, on the basis of feedback from our members, will help ensure a more robust JE process, with more staff buy-in.

Acknowledgements

Thank you to all AUS members who participated in the survey and particular thanks to those who helped in the construction of the questionnaire and analysis of the survey results. It is this kind of member participation which enables AUS to best represent its members concerns to university management.

---

For a printable copy of this report, or of the survey form included as Appendix A, please contact AUS Canterbury Branch.