You are the Total Rewards Manager for Front Appliance Company. You are usually a pretty relaxed, friendly, and easy-going manager. Although you are a no-nonsense, competent executive, you are one of the most popular managers in the company. This particular morning, however, you feel a challenge ahead.
As chair of Front’s job evaluation committee, you called a late-morning meeting at which several jobs were to be considered for re-evaluation. The jobs had already been rated and assigned to Pay Grade 4. But the Office Manager, Ortho Janson, was upset that one of his employees was not rated higher. To press the issue, Ortho had taken his case to two executives who were members of the job evaluation committee. The two executives (Production Manager Peter Strong and Marketing Manager Margo Arms) then requested that the job ratings be reviewed. Peter and Margo supported Ortho’s side of the dispute, and you are not looking forward to the confrontation that is almost certain to occur.
The controversial job is that of receptionist. Only one receptionist position exists at Front Appliances, and Rebecca Reichart held it. Rebecca has been with the firm 14 years, longer than any of the committee members. She is extremely efficient, and virtually all the executives in the company, including the president, have noticed and commented on her outstanding work. Peter and Margo are particularly pleased with Rebecca because of the cordial manner in which she greets and accommodates Front’s customers and vendors, who frequently visit the plant. They feel that Rebecca projects a positive image of the company.
To begin the meeting, you say the following:
(Fill in what you would say.)
But before you can finish, Peter interrupts: “I suggest we start with Rebecca.” Margo nods in agreement. When you regain your composure, you quietly but firmly assert:
(Fill in what you would say.)
Then you proceed to pass out copies of the receptionist job description to Peter and Margo, who are visibly irritated.
Continue in the meeting and lead the discussion, in a conversational tone as if Rebecca were also in the room.
- Explain to the group why you insist that the job, not the person, be evaluated.
- Share with the others whether or not you think there should be a maximum rate of pay for every job in an organization, regardless of how well the job is being performed. Justify your response.
- Rebecca is earning the maximum of the range for her pay grade. Discuss ways an employee at the top of his/her pay range might be able to obtain a salary increase. Be specific and give good examples that Rebecca might also be able to apply easily to her situation.
Full Answer Section
I pass out copies of the receptionist job description.)
"Okay, let's look at the receptionist job description. As you can see, it outlines the key responsibilities: greeting visitors, managing the switchboard, handling incoming and outgoing mail, basic clerical tasks, and so on. These are the criteria we used to assign it to Pay Grade 4. Now, let's discuss if this description accurately reflects the job's requirements and if the current pay grade is appropriate based on the job itself."
(Turning to the group, including Rebecca if she were present):
"As I mentioned earlier, it's crucial to evaluate the job, not the person. Rebecca, your performance has been exemplary, and we all appreciate your dedication and the positive image you project for the company. However, job evaluation focuses on the inherent value of the position within the organization, irrespective of who occupies it. This ensures fairness and consistency across all roles. If we evaluated based on individual performance, we’d be comparing apples and oranges. One receptionist might be outstanding, while another might be just meeting expectations. The job itself, however, has a fixed set of responsibilities and requirements that we need to evaluate."
(Addressing the question about maximum pay rates):
"Personally, I believe there should be a maximum pay range for every job. This provides structure and equity within the compensation system. While exceptional performance deserves recognition, exceeding the maximum pay range for a specific role can create inconsistencies and potentially devalue other positions within the company. It's important to have a system that's both fair and sustainable. Instead of exceeding the range, we should recognize outstanding performance through other means, like bonuses, promotions, or increased responsibilities."
(Addressing the question about salary increases for employees at the top of their pay range):
"Reaching the top of the pay range doesn't mean career growth stops. There are several avenues for salary increases and professional development. Here are some examples, and Rebecca, these could definitely apply to you:
- Job Enrichment: We could look at expanding the receptionist role to include additional responsibilities that add value to the company. Perhaps Rebecca could take on some administrative tasks, train new employees, or manage special projects. This would justify a re-evaluation of the job and potentially a higher pay grade.
- Promotion: If opportunities arise, Rebecca could apply for higher-level positions within the company. Her experience and skills make her a strong candidate for advancement.
- Performance-Based Bonuses: We could implement a bonus system that rewards exceptional performance, even for those at the top of their pay range. This allows us to recognize and reward outstanding contributions without disrupting the pay structure.
- Professional Development: The company could invest in Rebecca's professional development through training programs or workshops. This not only benefits Rebecca but also enhances her value to the company.
These are just a few examples. The key is to focus on recognizing and rewarding exceptional performance in ways that are both fair and consistent with company policy. We want to ensure that employees like Rebecca, who consistently go above and beyond, feel valued and appreciated."
Sample Answer
"Good morning, everyone. Thanks for making time for this meeting. As you know, we're here to review several job evaluations, and I appreciate your input. Before we dive in, I want to briefly reiterate the purpose of our committee. We're here to ensure fair and consistent job evaluations across the company, based on the responsibilities and requirements of the position itself, not the individual holding it."
(Peter interrupts: “I suggest we start with Rebecca.” Margo nods.)
"I understand your desire to discuss Rebecca's situation, and we will. However, I want to follow our established process. We evaluate the job first, and then consider the individual's performance separately. This ensures objectivity and avoids potential biases. Let's stick to the agenda and discuss the jobs in the order they were initially presented. We’ll get to the receptionist position, I promise."