CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION 1 2. EQUALITY 1. - Part-time posts 1 - Equality proofing JESP scores 1 3. CABINET OFFICE ROLE 1 4. TRADE UNION ROLE 2

Transcription

1 JESP Job Evaluation for Senior Posts Good Practice Guide March 2008

2

3 CONTENTS Page 1. INTRODUCTION 1 2. EQUALITY 1 - Part-time posts 1 - Equality proofing JESP scores 1 3. CABINET OFFICE ROLE 1 4. TRADE UNION ROLE 2 5. SCS PAY BANDS & JESP RANGES 2 6. THE JESP PROCESS 2 7. TIMING 3 8. POSTHOLDER/LINE MANAGER ROLE 3 9. QUESTIONNAIRES INTERVIEWING POSTHOLDERS 4 - Preparation 4 - The interview JOB DESCRIPTIONS EVALUATION PANELS SCORING 9 - Duplication of credit APPEALS/REPRESENTATIONS FUTURE ASSURANCE 10 Annex Sample Job Analysis Questionnaire A

4

5 1. INTRODUCTION This guide is intended to supplement the JESP Handbook. The main purpose of JESP is to provide a fair and consistent approach to arriving at SCS pay banding decisions. This guidance is intended to help JESP users in achieving this. It draws on the experiences of the Cabinet Office and Departments. It is not a prescriptive document, but should be of assistance to personnel involved in the various aspects of the JESP process. 2. EQUALITY Care has been taken in the design of JESP to avoid bias. However it must be emphasised that the proper application of JESP is crucial to ensuring equal treatment. Departments are therefore reminded to avoid introducing bias on grounds of gender, race, disability, sexual orientation, age or working patterns (e.g. part-time) when applying JESP. Job evaluation has attracted specific attention as a direct result of the Equal Value amendment to the Equal Pay Act. This is mainly because analytical job evaluation is recognised as a sound basis on which to determine work of equal value and therefore provides a means to ensure that equal pay issues are addressed. Part-time posts Analysis has shown that there is nothing inherent in the JESP methodology to disadvantage part-time posts. Previous JESP data scrutiny has shown that, on average, these posts have scored slightly less than their full time counterparts. It is therefore recommended that organisations pay close attention to the design of part-time posts. Equality proofing of JESP scores Although Departments are responsible for ensuring that their JESP scores are free from bias, the Cabinet Office will periodically request data for cross- Whitehall equality proofing analysis. 3. CABINET OFFICE ROLE The Cabinet Office maintains the JESP system and helps to ensure consistency of application and includes where appropriate: training people in its use working with departments to quality assure their evaluations and participate in JESP scoring panels working with departments to build a robust case for payband 3 roles and reporting to the Senior leadership Committee (SLC) undertaking JESP interviews and making recommendations for Permanent Secretary roles regularly reviewing the methodology 1

6 promoting good practice providing assurance, support, advice and guidance 4. TRADE UNION ROLE Departments are encouraged to consider the role of their trade unions in the JESP process. Some Departments have, for example, successfully included trade union representatives on their JESP scoring panels. We recommend that trade unions should at least be notified of planned JESP reviews. 5. SCS PAY BANDS & JESP RANGES The current SCS pay bands are underpinned by JESP points ranges as follows: Pay band 1 JESP 7-12 Pay band 1A (if used) JESP (nominally) Pay band 2 JESP Pay band 3 JESP When making all pay banding decisions it is important that the scope and responsibilities of the job are clear. This process should start from the best available description of the job. 6. THE JESP PROCESS There will be jobs that will, without doubt, fall comfortably within a pay band and, therefore, the level of assurance provided by a single JESP score is not required for example: new recruits to existing jobs; grading/pay banding checks as a part of cyclical reviews, etc.). You may decide in such circumstances that it is not necessary to follow the full JESP methodology for example, by evaluating directly from: an agreed questionnaire; an agreed JESP proforma; personal responsibility agreements/job specifications; and by making reference to benchmarked posts with existing JESP scores. In considering whether to follow the full process or a simplified one, you should bear in mind that the full methodology should be used when: a new post is created and the pay band is not obvious an existing post changes significantly, raising doubt about the pay band internal restructuring has significantly altered the organisation around the post posts are on the cusp of SCS pay bands posts are on the SCS/non SCS boundary a pay banding decision is disputed. 2

7 When applying the full JESP process, defining the scope and responsibilities of a job is normally achieved by: completion of a job analysis questionnaire by the postholder; interview of the postholder carried out by an analyst; the analyst drafting a job description; the postholder and line manager commenting on the job description; the analyst incorporating any agreed amendments into the job description; the postholder and line manager agreeing the job description; the job description being considered by a scoring panel who discuss the job collectively and agree an outcome. 7. TIMING Approaches to JESP exercises will vary and inevitably will be dependant on: the numbers of jobs to be evaluated; the available resources and the process that is followed. It is important to allow sufficient time for: the issue and return of questionnaires arranging and conducting the interview writing the job description quality assuring the job description getting the job description agreed by the postholder and line manager incorporating agreed changes identifying the availability of panel members and fixing a date considering how and when postholders are informed of the outcome. 8. POSTHOLDER / LINE MANAGER ROLE Both have a key role to play in the JESP process. It is important that the questionnaire (particularly when scoring direct from it) is completed by the postholder and agreed by the line manager. Similarly, a completed job description should be agreed by both parties. This approach will help to ensure that the job is fairly and accurately reflected. It will reduce the need for further discussions to clear up misunderstandings and the number of decisions that are appealed. It is important that their respective roles are conveyed clearly before the start of the process. Many organisations send out information packs to members of the Senior Civil Service and some supplement these with awareness sessions. An effective Communication Strategy will secure co-operation and contribute significantly to the smooth running of the project. Further information on the role of the postholder can be found in the Interviewing Postholders Section. 3

8 9. QUESTIONNAIRES A sample questionnaire is contained at Annex A. It has been designed to complement the JESP process and capture the information that will help to score the job. As covered earlier, some organisations score directly from questionnaires while others use the questionnaire as the framework for the interview before completing a job description. Organisations are of course free to use this questionnaire as it stands, tailor it to meet their own needs or devise a new one. In the interests of quality assurance and sharing good practice, it would be helpful if Departments/Agencies could provide the Cabinet Office with copies of redesigned questionnaires. 10. INTERVIEWING POSTHOLDERS Preparation The organisation will need to decide how many people should conduct each interview. Experienced interviewers often operate individually, less experienced ones may prefer to work in pairs. If the latter approach is preferred the normal convention is to have one person in the lead, with the other person taking notes and having an opportunity to ask questions at the end of each section. Normally the person in support will complete the job description. The interviewer(s) will normally have a completed questionnaire, but occasionally may have to undertake the interview without one, e.g. an outline job description has been completed or the postholder has preferred not to complete a questionnaire. Although more difficult and often more time consuming the experienced interviewer should still be able to achieve the desired outcome. Completion of the questionnaire in advance will result in a quicker interview and may make agreement of the description easier. Encourage it if you can. The interview During the introduction the interviewer should confirm: the anticipated length of the interview (1 1½ hours); the end product (e.g. a job description 3-4 sides in length that will capture the essence of the job and sent to the postholder to agree; that the key to a successful interview is to establish the postholder s specific input; the structure of the interview normally following the sequence of the questionnaire; any questions that the postholder may have. Experience shows that common questions from the postholder include: 4

9 will being a policy/delivery/project manager disadvantage me? how will the end result impact on my pay? how is loading assessed? what happens if my job changes in the near future? who will be on the scoring panel? won t the way the job is done affect the score? Disseminating briefing to SCS members in advance will help to reduce the numbers of questions. Whenever possible open questions should be used during the interview. The structure will be up to the interviewer but care should be exercised to ensure the interview flows and progresses naturally from one area to another. Many of the questions will be apparent from the questionnaire (e.g. gaps, further information needed, lack of clarity, postholder s input etc.). A suggested order, including some rationale and content, is as follows: Overall job purpose Provides a general overview and aids the interviewer s understanding of the job. Normally limited to 3-5 minutes. Context and Current Issues Sets the scene for the work and starts to explore the interrelationships within the organisation. It will help the interviewer understand how the post fits into the wider issues. It is also important to encourage the postholder to discuss issues of current concern and their input to the process. Ideally 4-5 examples should be used. This section often forms the meat of the interview and examples of Judgement and Influencing come to the fore. Resources Covers financial resources (type of expenditure) controlled and influenced. The postholder s role in monitoring, flexibilities available, directness of input and role in the resource bidding process should all be identified. Other areas to explore (not exclusively financial) could include; accountability, carrying the can, where the buck stops, who is the last word regarding advice and input to the achievement of delivering goals/targets. Managing People The following needs to be established: - number and types (professional, specialist, technical, admin); - levels of staff (grades/pay bands); - changes taking place - increases, decreases, uncertainties, particular difficulties etc; - location of staff; 5

10 - examples of the types of issues that the staff bring to the postholder; - postholder s input to the Managing People process. Organisation Time A chart will normally have been provided. As a minimum this should show 1 level above, others at the same level and 1 level below. The interviewer needs to establish the types of issues that the postholder refers up the line and explore the lateral links. The approximate % breakdown of the jobholder s activities needs to be agreed with the postholder. This should typically be broken down into 3-5 component parts. It is not always easy to establish this information. It is important to persist as it helps place the job in context, and safeguards against scoring at the extremes. The time breakdown can be quite persuasive during scoring discussions. Objectives These are normally appended to the questionnaire. The interviewer will need to establish if any are shared objectives. Job Contribution Issues to explore include: - types of decisions taken; - key respects in which the job contributes to the work of the area; - work that is part of a personal caseload; - impact of decisions taken by the postholder; - the typical input (if extreme quote frequency) of the postholder; - try to get about 5 examples of job contribution. Note: Much of this information will have been gathered under Context and Current Issues. Influencing This is looking at the requirement to get results through others, outside the postholder s command. The interviewer will need to identify the postholder s: - involvement in corporate decision taking; - working relationships with others in the organisation; - links with Ministers, other government departments and the private sector. 6

11 Abilities The interviewer needs to examine the postholder s role in respect of negotiation, persuasion and representation. How contentious the issues are, how captive and established the audience is and the postholder s specific role, if operating as part of a departmental team, all need to be explored. Again it is anticipated that most of this information will have been gathered under Current Issues. These are the key abilities required to do the job effectively, including the need for any professional qualifications. If the latter applies the interviewer will need to establish the type of qualification, the linked experience, the frequency and the depth of application. At the end of the interview the postholder should be given the opportunity to comment on any aspects of the job not covered and the interviewer should conclude by explaining the next phase. 11. JOB DESCRIPTIONS To ensure that analysts produce consistent job descriptions, many departments have introduced Quality Assurance checks at the draft job description stage. Although this approach is resource intensive and time consuming, a high level of consistency is achieved. The normal convention is to follow the headings in the questionnaire. There is no right length for a job description, although most organisations can produce a fully comprehensive one contained in 3-4 sides of A4. Some points to consider: information should be factual avoid using emotive language avoid using jargon aim to capture the essence of the job job descriptions should contain sufficient examples especially in the areas of Judgement and Influencing avoid paraphrasing the JESP handbook Most organisations allow half a day to a day to complete a job description. A number of organisations have produced notes following interviews, rather than a full job description. The information is contained within 1-2 sides and is recorded under the JESP factor headings. In these cases a score for each factor and total score is provided by the interviewer for the scoring panel to consider. The questionnaire is also made available to the panel and the author may be in attendance to answer any factual questions. 7

12 12. EVALUATION PANELS Most evaluation panels, comprising between 3 and 5 people, are chaired at HR Director level. The members tend to be senior to the posts being evaluated and will often include a member from the Cabinet Office. It is recommended that someone from the line management chain is also in attendance. It is important that panel members undertake some form of calibration/training prior to scoring. The Cabinet Office can provide this by giving members a brief overview of the scoring conventions and the opportunity to score posts from the central job bank which have an agreed score. Jobs should be scored from the best available information about the job. This is normally in the form of an agreed job description or a completed questionnaire. It is important that in both cases the document should be agreed by the postholder and the line manager. Where agreed job descriptions are used it is recommended that this is the only piece of information available to the panel. This ensures that a consistent approach is maintained. The job description should contain sufficient information to enable the post to be scored with confidence. In the case of questionnaires, it is inevitable that they will be of varying standards - e.g. some people are more adept at explaining their jobs, some undersell themselves while others oversell themselves, some devote a day to filling in the questionnaire, others an hour. Inconsistencies will be a feature. It is therefore recommended that a member of the postholder s line management chain is part of the panel and is therefore available to provide additional information if required. In terms of scoring, some panel members are given the information before the panel to read and provide a provisional score, while others will receive the information at the panel meeting. The former approach can save time on the day. In some instances the analyst interviewing the postholder and producing the job description will provide proposed outcomes for the panel. It is then up to the panel to ratify or change the proposal. We recommend that to save time on the day the agreed evidence and proposals are put to the panel in advance of the meeting. The convention is for individual panel members to read the job description/questionnaire and produce a proposed score/points range/pay band broken down into factors. This forms the basis for discussion amongst the panel members who then reach agreed conclusions. Rotation of the lead in the discussion process is recommended. Where jobs of varying quality are to be assessed on the same day it can be helpful to start with the more senior posts which can provide useful benchmarks. 8

13 At the end of the scoring process all total and factor scores should be compared to ensure that the approach and output has been fair and consistent. The ranking produced should reflect the importance of the posts to the organisation. During the process it is helpful for someone to undertake a secretarial function and make notes of all discussion points. These can be very helpful in dealing with appeals/representations. 13. SCORING At all times it is the post that should be scored and not the person. The performance of the individual and their perceived abilities are irrelevant. When considering factor scores it is the input that is assessed e.g. for Management of People it would be the post s input to the management of people process. Postholders often talk about what we do; the key is to establish what the postholder s contribution is. The percentage breakdown of how the postholder spends their time can be quite informative. Care has been taken to provide meaningful level descriptors but they may not fit every post that is analysed. Experience has demonstrated that without some form of calibration training there is a tendency for many panel members to score rather generously. During the scoring process it is recommended that attention is paid to the text on the left hand page of the handbook that relates to each of the factors. It is important for organisations to get their internal relativities right. The Cabinet Office can provide calibration training and advise on Whitehall relativities. Duplication of credit It is important that those undertaking JESP scoring are aware of the dangers of duplication of credit under more than one factor or to more than one post please make reference to the left hand guidance in the handbook. The most vulnerable areas include: Professional Competence a score in this area has the potential to impact on both the Judgement and Influencing factors. If the postholder draws on professional know-how or professional clout to form judgements or influence people the score under these factors should be reduced where postholders have indirect responsibility for someone else s staff, credit if appropriate should be given under Influencing not Managing People and Influencing corporate decision taking or contributions to Influencing. Full credit should not be given to each individual involved in the process. It is important to assess the individual s specific input; 9

14 shared accountability or budgetary responsibility. Again credit should be given to the postholder s specific input credit to postholders for the numbers of staff under Managing People factor and credit given for the associated running costs under Accountability. What responsibility does the postholder have for spending money? 14. APPEALS/REPRESENTATIONS Arrangements for dealing with disputes should be robust, transparent and accessible. It is for each organisation to decide how to approach this. Many departments have incorporated JESP appeals into existing grievance procedures, others have introduced new systems. Whatever procedures are introduced postholders must be made fully aware of the options available to them. 15. FUTURE ASSURANCE In many cases the characteristics and the related job weight of posts will change over a period of time. Departments will therefore need to plan further JESP exercises to reflect any changes and to assure themselves that the current JESP score/range is correct. Departments are best placed to decide on the appropriate time-scale. In addition new jobs will be created and other jobs will change significantly. These will need to be reviewed and departments will need to have systems in place to cater for these eventualities. 10

15 ANNEX A STAFF IN CONFIDENCE JOB ANALYSIS QUESTIONNAIRE NAME: JOB TITLE: BUILDING AND ROOM: TELEPHONE NO: GRADE: 1. OVERALL JOB PURPOSE In a sentence or two, explain why your job exists. 2. RESOURCES Quantify the financial resources controlled or influenced by your job, and (briefly) the directness of your impact. 3. MANAGEMENT OF PEOPLE The number and variety of job types of people managed, their deployment and your job contribution for management responsibilities.

16 4. CONTEXT AND CURRENT ISSUES Briefly, set the scene for your work including how it fits into wider developments and some of the issues of current concern to you (and your role in dealing with those issues). 5. ORGANISATION Draw a chart showing your job, those reporting to you, the job you report to and the others that report to that post. 6. TIME To give a flavour of how you spend your time, list the main activities that account for your time and, roughly, the time used. If there is no sensible pattern over time then an indication of major blocks of activity may be more helpful. % %

17 7. OBJECTIVES Please attach a copy of your latest Personal Responsibility Plan. If you do not have a current Plan, please list the main objectives of your job. 8. JOB CONTRIBUTION The key respects in which your job contributes to the work in your area, particular work you must do personally, the types of situation you have to apply judgement to, the extent you are held accountable for results, and the impact of decisions which you are involved in. This may be best completed by using a few illustrations. 9. INFLUENCING The requirements to get results through others outside the line command. This may include negotiation, persuasion, representation and/or co-ordination within the Civil Service and beyond.

18 10. ABILITIES The key abilities required to do your job effectively, including any qualifications, and the extent that you have to personally give an input (rather than managing others who are the experts ). 11. FURTHER INFORMATION Any particular comments which you consider would be helpful, including in particular: the effect of expected changes in the area of business over the next two years; the coherence of the present responsibilities; the impact of expected changes in the management of finance and manpower. Signature of Jobholder: Date:.

19