Job Evaluation ROI Latest

H E A LT H W E A LT H CAREER
GLOBAL JOB EVALUATION

RETURN ON INVESTMENT SURVEY
RESULTS REPORT
TA B L E O F C O N T E N T S
SURVEY RESULTS 4
BUSINESS CHALLENGES 5
RETURN ON INVESTMENT 10
POLICIES AND PRACTICES 24
WHAT IS THE FUTURE OF JOB EVALUATION? 33
DEMOGRAPHICS 35
REGIONAL BREAKOUT 36
INDUSTRY BREAKOUT 37
COMPANY SIZE BREAKOUT 38
PARTICIPATING ORGANISATIONS 39
ABOUT THE REPORT 46
ABOUT THE DATA 47
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 48
CONTACTS 49
ABOUT MERCER 50
© 2016 MERCER LLC. JOB EVALUATION RETURN ON INVESTMENT SURVEY RESULTS REPORT 2
INTRODUCTION
Job evaluation has historically played a role for many companies aligning jobs across
businesses and geographies and supporting consistent rewards and talent management
programmes. As the work environment evolves, employers face the challenge of offering
increased flexibility in the workplace and more individualised programmes while maintaining a
solid baseline of job information and data from which to make informed business and talent
decisions.
Mercer developed the Job Evaluation Return on Investment Snapshot Survey to examine the
relevance of job evaluation in today’s environment and to ask Human Resource professionals’
opinions on the future. Survey questions were developed around several topics including
business challenges, return on investment, and policies and practices.
In total, 569 HR professionals from 56 countries participated in the survey. Results are
provided from a global perspective and further segmented into five geographic regions: Asia,
Middle East and Africa; Europe; Latin America; North America; and Pacific.
We hope you find this information both useful and insightful.
SURVEY RESULTS
BUSINESS CHALLENGES
AREAS IN WHICH ORGANISATIONS DERIVE THE

MOST VALUE ADD THROUGH JOB EVALUATION
Globally, salary benchmarking was the top ranked value add area. It was ranked first in four
out of five regions.
Respondents viewed internal comparability of jobs as the second highest value add area,
while organisation alignment was a very close third.
Overall, the rewards and alignment areas received a greater number of responses than the
talent strategy areas, (i.e., career path development, succession planning and training and
development). However, the application of job evaluation results to support talent strategy
areas is becoming more critical in the changing job environment.
Across all participants, job evaluation added value in these top three areas:
Salary Internal Comparability Organisational

Benchmarking of Jobs Alignment
57% 43% 43%

N = 418
SALARY INTERNAL COMPENSATION

BENCHMARKING COMPARABILITY MANAGEMENT
OF JOBS ORGANISATIONAL
Comparing Enabling more
ALIGNMENT
organisation’s Aligning jobs streamlined
jobs to external GRADING PROCESS within the Aligning management of
salary market Developing a organisation businesses and/ pay and rewards
data, based on a process for based on level of or geographies programmes
job’s overall set placing jobs into responsibility based on
of responsibilities appropriate levels organisation
and corresponding complexity and PAY EQUITY
pay ranges job evaluation Enabling the
results assessment of
pay amongst
jobs of similar
responsibility
level
Notes: Definitions are provided for the top value add areas across the regions. The following were included in the survey, but were not ranked
as top value add areas: clarity of jobs; consistent global career path development; succession planning; training and development; cost
control.
AREAS IN WHICH ORGANISATIONS DERIVE THE MOST
VALUE ADD THROUGH JOB EVALUATION
REGIONAL PERSPECTIVE
ASIA, MIDDLE EAST, AND AFRICA EUROPE

Salary Grading Internal Salary Internal Compensation
Benchmarking Process Comparability Benchmarking Comparability Management
of Jobs of Jobs
60% 48% 43% 73% 64% 55%

N = 159 N = 22
LATIN AMERICA NORTH AMERICA

Salary Organisational Compensation Salary Internal Grading
Benchmarking Alignment Management Benchmarking Comparability Process
of Jobs
53% 51% 48% 59% 57% 49%

N = 134 N = 76
PACIFIC
Internal Pay Equity Salary
Comparability Benchmarking
of Jobs
88% 50% 38%

N=8
Notes: Definitions are provided on the previous page for the top value add areas across the regions. The following were included in the
survey but were not ranked as top value add areas: clarity of jobs; consistent global career path development; succession planning;
training and development; cost control.
GREATEST CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTING
JOB EVALUATION
Participating companies experienced challenges in the following areas:
Change Management — Gaining buy-in from leadership and managers on the value of
a consistent methodology and evaluation results; managing the introduction of a job
evaluation methodology into the organisation; and communication and education to
leaders, managers and employees.
Job Evaluation Process — Developing a consistent approach for evaluating jobs across the
organisation, engaging the required resources, and determining the time commitment. Also
included is the collection of required job information to conduct an evaluation and avoiding
the evaluation of a person versus a position.
Alignment — Managers’ understanding of jobs with local and global responsibilities and
similar jobs in different locations and applying the methodology consistently across the
organisation.
As participants described how they overcame the challenges, the themes of training,
increased communication, and defining a clear job evaluation process and governance model
were prevalent.
When facing these challenges, it is important for organisations to consider the following
activities:
Involve leaders to gain sponsorship,
Create a communication/education plan,
Define the process and establish a governance model,
Train required resources,
Gather appropriate job information,
Calibrate results to ensure alignment across the organisation.
JOB EVALUATION
Ways in which participating organisations overcame the stated challenges include:
CHANGE PROCESS ALIGNMENT

•• Gain leadership and •• Establish a consistent •• Alignment of
manager buy-in to evaluation process managers on similar
the value of the with appropriate jobs in different
methodology governance businesses and/or
•• Facilitate culture •• Identify key geographies
change associated with participants in the •• Alignment on jobs
the evaluation approach evaluation process with local versus
and inspire confidence •• Set expectations for global responsibilities
in the job evaluation timing of the process •• Alignment of
process and results evaluation process
•• Determine the process
•• Provide broader for collecting required across the
communication/ job information organisation
education on alignment •• Ensure evaluation
of the job evaluation •• Reinforce the
evaluation of the job results are
methodology and consistent across the
organisation objectives versus the incumbent
organisation
•• Train HR Business •• Maintain ongoing
Partners and managers alignment through
on their role and regular calibration
responsibility in the across the
evaluation process organisation
•• Educate managers
on evaluation results
and impact to the
organisation and
employees
JOB EVALUATION
LOCAL PERSPECTIVE
Participants noted the following challenges:
“Explaining the process of job evaluation/grading and why these changes are
being made. Some difficulty faced with managers not always being able to
rate based on the position, rather than the incumbent. Overcame challenges
Hong Kong by repeated education/sitting with managers while doing evaluations/grading
to ensure objectivity.”
“Biggest challenge is to clarify the difference between job evaluation and

performance evaluation and to move from a culture where the reward is
based on the person, to a culture where reward is based on the position
Italy
and the person.”
“Defining a clear process identifying the relevant actors and who would be
accountable for each stage of the Job Evaluation Process (i.e., Creating
Mexico the Job Description, Evaluating, Communicating results, etc.)”
“Hiring manager buy-in has been the most challenging aspect of the job
evaluation process. We are still in the process of working on this, and are
using transparency of process, training, and the introduction of a job family
Canada
framework to show the value of the evaluation methodology.”
“The challenge was to ensure equity and fairness when looking at similar
roles in different locations and with different managers. The manager
needed to be on the same page so that all roles make sense for internal
Australia relativities. This was overcome by consultation throughout the process with
key management.”
RETURN ON INVESTMENT
IMPLEMENTATION OF JOB EVALUATION PROVIDES

A RETURN ON INVESTMENT (ROI)
The majority of respondents (57%) either strongly agree or agree that there is a return on
investment when implementing a job evaluation methodology.
Approximately 39% of participating organisations are neutral, while only 4% disagree.
There was a great deal of consistency in responses across the five regions with the
exception of the Europe region where there tended to be more “strongly agree” responses
than the other regions.
GLOBAL
1% 3% 39% 36% 21%
Strongly Neither agree Strongly

Disagree Agree
disagree nor disagree agree
N = 557
Note: Includes data from Mercer’s Maximising the Value of Job Evaluation report (2015).
IMPLEMENTATION OF JOB EVALUATION PROVIDES A
RETURN ON INVESTMENT (ROI)
ASIA, MIDDLE EAST, 2% 4% 42% 44% 7%

AND AFRICA
N = 163 Strongly Disagree Neither agree Agree Strongly
EUROPE 1% 6% 30% 5% 58%

N = 152
Strongly Disagree Neither agree Agree Strongly
LATIN AMERICA 1% 3% 41% 48% 6%

N = 139
NORTH AMERICA 1% 0% 46% 46% 8%

N = 79
PACIFIC 0% 0% 56% 44% 0%

N=9
PERIOD OF TIME TO REALISE A RETURN ON
INVESTMENT (ROI) AFTER IMPLEMENTING A JOB
EVALUATION METHODOLOGY
Approximately half (53%) of the respondents realised a ROI within a period of one to three
years after implementing a job evaluation methodology.
Just over 30% of respondents reported that it took up to one year to realise their
organisation’s ROI.
For 4%, the period was five or more years.
When setting expectations for a return on investment, it is important to consider the
implementation objectives along with the organisation’s culture and anticipated level of
change management required.
ASIA, MIDDLE
LATIN NORTH
GLOBAL EAST, AND EUROPE PACIFIC
AMERICA AMERICA
AFRICA
< 6 months 7% 7% 5% 9% 10% 33%
6 months
to < 1 year 24% 27% 16% 24% 33% 33%
1 year
to < 3 years 53% 50% 59% 47% 55% 33%
3 years
to < 5 years 12% 13% 17% 12% 3% 0%
5 years
or more 4% 3% 3% 8% 0% 0%
JOB EVALUATION CAN HELP TO MAKE RELIABLE
COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS DECISIONS
Overall, 92% of respondents (472 out of 519) either strongly agree or agree that job
evaluation supports reliable compensation and benefits decisions.
Only 5% are neutral, and 4% disagree.
A slight outlier is the AMEA region with only 84% agreement. A possible explanation may be
the tendency to pay for position at certain levels in the region. In this case, job evaluation
may not be the only consideration when grading and setting the pay level for a position.
GLOBAL
4% 0% 5% 57% 35%
Strongly Neither agree Strongly

Disagree Agree
N = 519
JOB EVALUATION CAN HELP TO MAKE RELIABLE
COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS DECISIONS
ASIA, MIDDLE EAST, 5% 1% 10% 65% 19%

AND AFRICA
N = 141 Strongly Disagree Neither agree Agree Strongly
EUROPE 3% 0% 3% 59% 35%

N = 151

N = 131
NORTH AMERICA 7% 0% 3% 49% 42%

N = 72
PACIFIC 0% 0% 0% 67% 33%

N=6
JOB EVALUATION IMPLEMENTATION CREATES
DAY-TO-DAY IMPROVEMENTS IN THE WAY
ORGANISATIONS DO BUSINESS
Implementing a consistent job evaluation methodology can lead to many day-to-day

improvements for Human Resources professionals and the businesses they support. Clear and
consistent methodologies provide a common language with which to discuss job attributes
and facilitate the alignment of roles and responsibilities across business segments and
geographies.
Respondents noted the following as key areas for day-to-day improvement after implementing
a job evaluation methodology:
COMMUNICATION INTERNAL EQUITY CONSISTENCY

•• Provides common •• Consistent leveling •• Standard approach
language for of jobs within the and methodology
discussing jobs organisation and •• Consistent job
across the sub-organisations framework supports
organisation •• Recognition of performance
•• Helps manage scope differences in differentiation
expectations job responsibility •• Aligned roles and
for changes in •• Foundation for responsibilities
responsibility compensation across business
•• Articulates job administration and segments and
hierarchy and pay equity analysis geographies
levels across the •• Defined
organisation organisational
•• Enables informed job hierarchy and career
EFFICIENCY paths
grading and results
discussions with •• Saves time when •• Results support
managers grading a job and more consistent
determining pay decision making,
level workforce planning
CLARITY
•• Facilitates and analytics
•• Defined process for streamlined
evaluating jobs compensation
•• Defined process for decision making
grading jobs •• Enables faster
•• Defined roles and internal equity
responsibilities analysis
•• Link to external •• Enables quick
market data assessment of
•• View of organisation changes in job
structure to scope and impact on
facilitate career job level
discussions
JOB EVALUATION IMPLEMENTATION CREATES
DAY-TO-DAY IMPROVEMENTS IN THE WAY
ORGANISATIONS DO BUSINESS
LOCAL PERSPECTIVE
Participants noted the following improvements:
“Helps to manage expectations with business on change in responsibility

within departments. Helps in managing structural reorganisation and
reevaluation of roles. Manage grade expectations in a more scientific
Singapore
manner.”
“Job evaluation methodology provides clear rational to quickly spot

inconsistencies in terms of internal equity (relative value of jobs) and
allows us to provide structured answers to HR/Management & employee
questioning. Job evaluation is the backbone of our grading framework. It
Switzerland
provides rules & guidance allowing us to quickly slot a job in a grade and
apply fair compensation.”
“We are able to build organizational hierarchy, career paths and have
a consistent understanding of roles and requirements in around 30
Poland countries in EMEA.”
“Job evaluation ensures there is pay equity by aligning jobs based on level.”
United
States
“Shorten the time needed to grade a new job and easier for talent
acquisition to target the right pool. Have guidelines to refer to for
China promotions.”
IMPLEMENTING JOB EVALUATION HAS CHANGED
THE AMOUNT OF TIME SPENT ON INDIVIDUAL
GRADING REQUESTS
After implementing a job evaluation methodology, 55% of respondents completed job
grading requests in less than five days, compared to 31% of respondents reporting a less
than five days turnaround before implementation.
Overall, 88% of respondents saved time or maintained their current time requirement. Only
11% reported requiring additional time after implementing a job evaluation methodology.
In all but one region, the percentage of companies requiring less than three days to
process a grading request more than doubled after implementing a job evaluation
methodology. In North America, the percentage of companies showed the highest increase
from 9% to 34%.
GLOBAL
BEFORE IMPLEMENTING JOB EVALUATION AFTER IMPLEMENTING JOB EVALUATION
Less than
12% 3 days 31%
3 days to
19% < 5 days 24%
1 week to
29% < 2 weeks 22%
2 weeks to
15% < 3 weeks 10%
3 weeks to
8% < 4 weeks 4%
4 weeks or
16% more 9%
GRADING REQUESTS
ASIA, MIDDLE EAST, AND AFRICA
Less than
12% 3 days 27%
3 days to
15% < 5 days 22%
1 week to
28% < 2 weeks 22%
2 weeks to
19% < 3 weeks 8%
3 weeks to
8% < 4 weeks 6%
4 weeks or
19% more 15%
EUROPE
Less than
16% 3 days 39%
3 days to
20% < 5 days 24%
1 week to
25% < 2 weeks 15%
2 weeks to
13% < 3 weeks 11%
3 weeks to
9% < 4 weeks 4%
4 weeks or
17% more 7%
GRADING REQUESTS
LATIN AMERICA
Less than
10% 3 days 25%
3 days to
21% < 5 days 25%
1 week to
33% < 2 weeks 25%
2 weeks to
15% < 3 weeks 13%
3 weeks to
8% < 4 weeks 3%
4 weeks or
14% more 9%
NORTH AMERICA
Less than
9% 3 days 34%
3 days to
28% < 5 days 27%
1 week to
33% < 2 weeks 28%
2 weeks to
13% < 3 weeks 7%
3 weeks to
3% < 4 weeks 3%
4 weeks or
14% more 2%
GRADING REQUESTS
PACIFIC
Less than
60% 3 days
80%
3 days to
0% < 5 days
20%
1 week to
40% < 2 weeks
0%
2 weeks to
0% < 3 weeks
0%
3 weeks to
0% < 4 weeks
0%
4 weeks or
0% more
0%
PARTICIPANTS REALISED TOTAL JOB GRADING
PROCESS COST SAVINGS WITH JOB EVALUATION
Globally, 54% of respondents agree that an established job evaluation methodology can
facilitate cost savings in the job grading process. A defined job evaluation methodology and
process will often help mitigate the over-grading of jobs across the organisation. It will also
provide a clear definition of roles and responsibilities, which can lead to fewer required
resources involved in the process.
81% of European respondents reported total process cost savings after implementing a
job evaluation methodology.
Of the 233 participants that achieved cost savings after implementing job evaluation, over
one quarter achieved cost savings of 5% or more.
% OF RESPONDENTS WHO AGREE
ASIA, MIDDLE
LATIN NORTH
AMERICA AMERICA
AFRICA
54% 41% 81% 40% 53% 50%
N = 435 N = 128 N = 116 N = 121 N = 53 N=4
AMOUNT OF ANNUAL SAVINGS

2% 2%
8% 6%
13% 17%
10%
13% 29% 46%

12%
19% 50%
20%
40%
30% 35%
20%
36%
50%
33% 32% 31% 27% 11%

4%
4%
GLOBAL ASIA, MIDDLE EUROPE LATIN NORTH PACIFIC
EAST, AND AMERICA AMERICA
AFRICA
N = 233 N = 53 N = 94 N = 48 N = 28 N=2
Less than 3% 3% to < 5% 5% to < 10% 10% to < 20% Greater than 20%
COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS SAVINGS ON
AVERAGE PER YEAR WITH JOB EVALUATION
For eight out of 10 respondents, effective job evaluation helped achieve cost savings in
compensation and benefits at their organisation.
69% were able to save between 1% and 5% of costs when designing pay packages using
job evaluation results as the foundation for decisions.
Globally, 15% of respondents achieved cost savings of more than 5%, with the Asia, Middle
East, and Africa region being the highest at 22% of respondents from the region.
% ACHEIVING SAVINGS
ASIA, MIDDLE
LATIN NORTH
AMERICA AMERICA
AFRICA
81% 79% 84% 83% 69% 0%
N = 278 N = 68 N = 117 N = 59 N = 26 N=1
ANNUAL SAVINGS AMOUNT
5% or more 15%
3% to < 5% 23%
2% to < 3% 24%
GLOBAL 1% to < 2% 22%
0% to < 1% 16%
COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS SAVINGS ON
AVERAGE PER YEAR WITH JOB EVALUATION
5% or more 22%
3% to < 5% 28%
2% to < 3% 26%
ASIA, MIDDLE 1% to < 2% 13%

EAST, AND
AFRICA 0% to < 1% 11%
5% or more 10%
3% to < 5% 16%
2% to < 3% 20%
EUROPE 1% to < 2% 28%
0% to < 1% 26%
5% or more 18%
3% to < 5% 29%
2% to < 3% 31%
LATIN AMERICA 1% to < 2% 16%
0% to < 1% 6%
5% or more 6%
3% to < 5% 33%
2% to < 3% 28%
NORTH 1% to < 2% 28%

AMERICA
0% to < 1% 6%
POLICIES AND PRACTICES
WHO IS EVALUATED: JOB LEVELS INCLUDED IN JOB

EVALUATION ASSESSMENT
Globally, jobs at the Management and Professional levels show the highest prevalence
for being evaluated (95% and 92%, respectively) followed by the Executive and
Para-professional levels.
Approximately one-third of respondents do not evaluate employees at the
Para-professional level.
Notable exceptions at the regional level are North America, where approximately
75% of Executive level jobs are evaluated, and Latin America where just over half of
Para-professional jobs are evaluated. The reliance on market data in North America may be
a driver of the lower number of evaluations at the Executive level, while the prevalence of
labour unions covering jobs at the Para-professional level, especially in Latin America, may
contribute to the resulting low percentage.
57% (245) of the respondents evaluate jobs for all levels within the organisation.
GLOBAL
83% 95% 92% 68%
Executives Management Professionals Para-

professionals
N = 427
WHO IS EVALUATED: JOB LEVELS INCLUDED IN JOB
EVALUATION ASSESSMENT
PARA-
EXECUTIVES MANAGEMENT PROFESSIONALS
PROFESSIONALS
ASIA,
MIDDLE EAST, 79% 97% 91% 70%
AND AFRICA
N = 161
EUROPE
N = 21
100% 95% 95% 76%
LATIN
AMERICA 91% 94% 89% 53%
N = 139
NORTH
AMERICA 76% 95% 96% 88%
N = 78
PACIFIC
89% 100% 100% 78%
N=9
TRANSPARENCY OF JOB EVALUATION PROCESS:
COMMUNICATION PRACTICES
Over 70% of survey respondents provide information on their job evaluation methodology
to Management, Human Resources and the Compensation team, with approximately
25% of respondents including Professional and Para-professional level employees in the
communication.
Similar results are found when assessing the communication of grades resulting from job
evaluation. However, the number of organisations communicating grades to all employees
increases to 36%.
Full evaluation results are communicated to the Human Resources and Compensation
teams at 73% of the organisations while fewer organisations (56%) include Management.
Only 8% of respondents communicate full evaluation results to all employees.
Asia, Middle
East, and
America
America
Europe
Pacific
Global
Africa
North
Latin
COMP TEAM
HUMAN RESOURCES
MANAGEMENT
METHODOLOGY ALL EMPLOYEES
UNIONS & REPS
COMP TEAM
HUMAN RESOURCES
MANAGEMENT
GRADES ALL EMPLOYEES
UNIONS & REPS
COMP TEAM
HUMAN RESOURCES
MANAGEMENT
FULL EVALUATION
RESULTS ALL EMPLOYEES
UNIONS & REPS
< 50% 50-65% 66-85% > 85%
RESPONSIBILITY FOR CONDUCTING JOB
EVALUATIONS
Globally, Compensation professionals are the most common job evaluation specialists
followed by Human Resources professionals.
In the AMEA region, the percentage of Compensation and Human Resources professionals
is equally split.
Only 15% of respondents indicated that a job evaluation center of excellence is responsible
for the process, even though this is often viewed as a best practice in job evaluation
governance.
JOB EVALUATION CENTER OF EXCELLENCE 15%
COMPENSATION FUNCTION 65%
HUMAN RESOURCES 40%
GLOBAL ORGANISATIONAL DEVELOPMENT FUNCTION 8%
OTHER 11%
N = 372
HUMAN RESOURCES 55%

ASIA,
MIDDLE ORGANISATIONAL DEVELOPMENT FUNCTION 14%
EAST, AND
AFRICA OTHER 15%
N = 133
RESPONSIBILITY FOR CONDUCTING
JOB EVALUATIONS
HUMAN RESOURCES 33%
EUROPE ORGANISATIONAL DEVELOPMENT FUNCTION 0%
OTHER 5%
N = 21
HUMAN RESOURCES 37%
LATIN ORGANISATIONAL DEVELOPMENT FUNCTION 6%

AMERICA
OTHER 8%
N = 130
HUMAN RESOURCES 19%
NORTH ORGANISATIONAL DEVELOPMENT FUNCTION 1%

AMERICA
OTHER 12%
N = 74
HUMAN RESOURCES 67%
ORGANISATIONAL DEVELOPMENT FUNCTION 0%

PACIFIC
OTHER 0%
N=6
CENTRALISED OR DECENTRALISED JOB
EVALUATION PROCESS
Two-thirds of respondents indicate that their job evaluation process is centralised with the
corporate entity being responsible for evaluation outcomes. North America was the highest
with 77% of responses indicating centralised evaluations.
Approximately 21% of respondents indicated their process was decentralised, or
administered at the local office level, while just under 10% reported a combination of
centralised and decentralised.
Organisations using a combination approach indicated that evaluations are completed
locally and approved by corporate, or the responsibility is split between local and corporate
based on job level.
GLOBAL
67% 21% 9% 1% 2%
Centralised Decentralised Centralised & Regional Other

(Corporate) (Local Office) Decentralised
N = 373
CENTRALISED OR DECENTRALISED JOB
EVALUATION PROCESS
ASIA, MIDDLE EAST, 60% 27% 10% 1% 2%

AND AFRICA
N = 134 Centralised Decentralised Centralised & Regional Other
EUROPE 62% 10% 19% 10% 0%

N = 21

N = 129
NORTH AMERICA 77% 12% 11% 0% 0%

N = 75
PACIFIC 67% 33% 0% 0% 0%

N=6
REASONS FOR INDIVIDUAL JOB EVALUATION
REQUESTS
The most common evaluation reasons (70% or more) are Manager/Supervisor request and
change in management/reorganisation.
About one-third of respondents indicate that they have an established schedule for the
review process.
Respondents also indicated that other reasons for job evaluation requests include job
vacancies, new job creation and changes in job responsibilities.
GLOBAL
Manager Request Scheduled Reorganisation EE Request Other
70% 32% 74% 13% 11%

N = 371
REASONS FOR INDIVIDUAL JOB EVALUATION
REQUESTS
ASIA, MIDDLE EAST, AND AFRICA

Manager
Scheduled Reorganisation EE Request Other
Request
66% 36% 75% 11% 10%

N = 134
EUROPE
Manager
Request
71% 14% 86% 19% 14%

N = 21
LATIN AMERICA
Manager
Request
67% 40% 76% 15% 5%

N = 128
NORTH AMERICA
Manager Reorganisation
Scheduled EE Request Other
Request
85% 20% 64% 12% 18%

N = 74
PACIFIC
Manager
Request
67% 0% 100% 0% 33%

N=6
W H AT I S T H E F U T U R E O F
J O B E VA L U AT I O N ?
The majority of responses stated that there will continue to be a place for job evaluation in
organisations in the future. Respondents noted that job evaluation methodologies need to
evolve along with the work environment and approaches need to be simplified. Key themes
centered on the need for greater flexibility, stronger alignment of results with strategic
applications (such as organisation design and talent management) and a greater role in
compensation management.
STRATEGIC COMPENSATION
FLEXIBILITY
APPLICATIONS MANAGEMENT
•• Respond to changes
•• Business alignment •• Greater involvement
in the business,
•• Career pathing in all areas of
market, jobs and
compensation
skills •• Organisational management,
•• Assist with assessment and including:
personalisation and development
−− Competitive salary
the Individual Value •• Succession planning assessment
Proposition
•• Strategic decision −− Incentive
•• Be a dynamic system making management
(vs. static)
−− Fair pay
•• Provide structures
and framework −− Enhance relevance
to accommodate between job size
hybrid jobs, bands and pay
and job families −− Tie compensation
•• Increase decisions to
empowerment of business strategy
managers in the
process
•• Facilitate
competency models
WHAT IS THE FUTURE OF JOB EVALUATION?
LOCAL PERSPECTIVE
Participants noted the following future possibilities:
“In the next 10 years, I believe job evaluation will gain more importance due
to severe competition in market, and accordingly the need for accurate job
Egypt value, grade and compensation will increase.”
“Move towards job levelling where the discussion will focus more around
broader career frameworks and allowing for more flexible remuneration
Denmark instead of single-step progression and expected promotional increases.”
“I think companies are heading to a flexible structure, based on projects,

totally different from this “fixed” structure by areas that we have nowadays.
The job evaluation will be a very important tool to map the real “size” of a
Brazil
position within an organisation.”
“I see the future of job evaluations moving outside of the compensation

department and having a process in place where sites are able to grade/
slot functions. I see us focusing on empowering our managers so that the
The U.S. organisation doesn’t need to rely solely on Compensation to look at every
job.”
“Simplified methodology and further automation through technology.”

Australia
DEMOGR APHIC S
REGION AL BRE AKOU T
30%
28% 26%
ASIA, MIDDLE EAST, EUROPE LATIN AMERICA

& AFRICA
2%
15%
NORTH AMERICA PACIFIC
N = 550
INDU STRY BRE AKOU T
6% 4% 15%
Banking and Chemicals

Consumer Goods
Financial Services
6% 9% 2%
Energy High-Tech Insurance/Reinsurence
7% 3% 1%
Life Sciences Logistics Mining and Metals
19% 6% 5%
Other Manufacturing Other Retail and Wholesale

Nonmanufacturing
9% 7% N = 504
Services (Nonfinancial) Transportation

Equipment
C O M PA N Y S I Z E B R E A K O U T
REVENUE
17% 12% 12% 16% 44%
Less than 100 100 million 250 million 500 million 1 billion or
million USD < 250 million USD < 500 million USD < 1 billion USD more USD
N = 469
HEADCOUNT
27% 26%
15%
12%
7% 7%
6%
Less than 1,000 5,000 10,000 25,000 50,000 More than

1,000 < 5,000 < 10,000 < 25,000 < 50,000 < 100,000 100,000
N = 498
PA R T I C I PA T I N G O R G A N I S A T I O N S
3M Allnex
3M China Alstom Portugal
3M Japan Limited American Express
A+E Television Networks, LLC American University
AB Mauri India Pvt Ltd Amway
AB Mauri Phils., Inc Anima Investimentos
Abbott Ansell (Thailand) Limited
Abbott Laboratories de Mexico S.A. de C.V. APL Agencies (Thailand) Ltd
Abertis Autopistas España APL Cambodia Co., Ltd
Abunayyan Holding Co. APM Terminals India Pvt. Ltd
AceTech Services APT Management Services (APA Group)
Addax Petroleum Cameroon ARAUCO
adidas Group Arca Continental
adidas Services Limited Archroma Chemicals (China) Ltd.
Aeromexico Arcor
AET Tankers Argon Critical Care Systems Singapore Pte Ltd
Afton Chemical Trading (Beijing) Co., Ltd. Aspen Labs
AGC Automotive (Thailand) Co.,Ltd. ASSA Compañia de Seguros
Aggreko Associated Bank
Aide Astrazeneca
AIG Seguros AT&S
AIPSO AT&T
Air Liquide Ghana Atlas Copco AB
Air Liquide Wuxi Industrial Gases Co. Ltd. Atlas Copco Mexicana
Air Products Asia Private Limited Autoliv Indonesia, PT
Aki Seat Operation SA de CV Autozone de Mexico
Akzo Nobel Paints (M) Sdn Bhd Avon Cosméticos
Al Ahram Beverages Company Avon Cosmetics
Alcon Axa Assistance
Alcon Scientific Service Axion Energy
Alelo Axis Communications
Alexion Pharmaceuticals Bachoco
Aljazirah Banco CBSS
ALK Abello Banco Galicia y Buenos Aires S.A.
PARTICIPATING ORGANISATIONS
Banco Intermedium SA BTG Pactual
Banco Popular Bul
Bancolombia Bunge
Barclays Bank Portugal Cablevision
Barclays Bank Zambia Plc Caixa Economica Federal
BASF Asia-Pacific Service Centre Sdn Bhd Cambodia Brewery Limited
Baylor-Uganda Cambro Manufacturing
BBVA Bancomer Camso Loadstar Pvt Ltd
BDR Thermea Cardif Brasil
Beca CareerBuilder
Beiersdorf Near East Carlson Wagonlit Travel
Bekaert Management (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. Carmeuse
Belcorp Cartão BRB
Bergerat Monnoyeur Algerie Caterpillar, Inc.
Bettcher Manufacturing Corporation Cecred
Biomerieux Mexico Celestica
Black & Veatch Ltd Centro Tecnico Herramental
BMW Cetelem
BMW Indonesia, PT CEVA Logistics
BMW South Africa CFAO Nigeria Plc
BNY Mellon CGG Group
Boa Vista SCPC CGI
Boehringer Ingelheim Chevron Lubricants Vietnam
Boeing Singapore Citi
Bombardier Aerospace M City & County of Denver
Borouge PTE LTD City Developments Ltd
BP Cleanaway
BP Berau Ltd Cleven
BP China Cmabia Health Solutions
BP Oil España, S.A.U. CNH Industrial
Bralirwa Ltd CNH Industrial NV - UK
Braskem Idesa CNSCS-BJ & HOLIP-BJ
Bridgestone CNSCS-HY
Brookfield Residential Cold Storage Singapore (1983) Pte Ltd
BRP Queretaro ConAgra Foods
BRP-Powertrain GmbH & Co KG Cong ty TNHH AB Mauri Viet Nam
BSW Continental Guadalajara Services Mexico SA de CV
CooperVision Eaton
Corporativa de Servicios Profesionales S.A. de C.V. Edcon
Costco EFC Uganda Limited
Covap EGS
CP Kelco Ek-chai Distribution System Co., Ltd.
CPA Global Elavon
Crown Melbourne Electrolux
Crown Resorts Elior
Dachser GmbH & Co. KG Emerson
Daimler Emerson Leroysomer China Inc.
Damco Emerson Process Management Asia Pacific Pte Ltd
Danfoss Energizer
Danfoss (Jiaxing) Co. Ltd Enics
Danfoss (Tian Jin) Ltd Equipo Automotriz Americana SA de CV
Danfoss EOOD Ernst & Young
Danfoss Plate Heat Exchanger (Hangzhou) Eutelsat
Danieli & C Officine Meccaniche SpA Evonik Industries US
Danone Farmaceutica Paraguaya
Decathlon Vietnam Federal Mogul Motorparts
Del Monte Philippines Inc. Federated Co-operatives Limited
DeLaval FedEx
Dell Inc. Femsa Servicios
Deutsche Post DHL Ferguson
Diageo First Advantage
Diaverum Flex-N-Gate
Diehl Stiftung & Co KG FLSmidth
DIMSA Fonterra Brands Vietnam
Dollar General Corporation Ford REC
Donaldson Far East Ltd Fossil Group, Inc
Donaldson Filtration Friedlandcampina Malaysia
Driscoll's G4S Secure Solutions Nigeria Limited
DS Services Gavi
DSB Gemological Institute of America
Dubai Investments PJSC GEMS Education
E.ON SE General Motors
East African Breweries International General Motors Portugal
Eastman Chemical Asia Pacific Pte Ltd General Motors South Africa
Georgetown University - Qatar Hero
Gerval Investimentos Hewlett Packard Enterprise
Gestamp Mexicana de Servicios Laborales SA de CV Hikma Pharmaceuticals
Oficina Regional Hill-Rom
GFI Hitachi Chemical
Giesecke y Devrient Hitachi Plant Technologies Ltd (Vietnam)
Glatfelter Hitachi Systems, Ltd.
GlaxoSmithKline Hitchiner SA de CV
GlaxoSmithKline (Cambodia) Co., Ltd Höganäs AB
Glintt HOLIP
Global CCS Institute Hollister Incorporated
GN Store Nord Honeywell
Grainger Mexico HOYA Surgical Optics
Great West Life HSBC
Grundfos Vietnam Hudson's Bay Company
Grupo CLH Huotraco International Limited
Grupo Cuprum ICL Mexico
Grupo Familia Ideal Clamp Products, Inc
Grupo Generali em Portugal Idemitsu Lube Techno Indonesia, PT
Grupo HZ Interpack Ienova
Grupo Kuo Illumina, Inc
Grupo Lala Imperial Brands
Grupo Promax Infineon Technologies (Wuxi) Co., Ltd.
GSL Intelligrated
GSW de Guanajuato S de RL de CV International SOS Assistance (HK) Ltd.
Guarani S/A Inteva Products
Hancock Holding Company IOT Infrastructures & Energy Services Ltd.
Hasbro Ipsen Pharma
HAVI Logistics Iron Mountain
Hawker Pacific Asia Itaú Unibanco
HDR, Inc. ITW Food Equipment Group-Hobart Corporation
Healthcare Insurance Reciprocal of Canada Jaguar Land Rover
Heineken International Japan Tobbacco International
Henkel Argentina SA Jardine Schindler Elevator Corporation
Henkel Mexicana S.A. de C.V. John Deere Brasil
Herbalife (China) Health Products Ltd. John Deere México
Herbalife EMEA Johnson Controls Automotive Ltd
Jose Cuervo Nestle
Joy Global Nestle Equatorial African Region Ltd
Kiekert AG Nestlé Portugal
Marsh Corretora de Seguros Ltda NetPay
Martinez Loriente SA New York University Abu Dhabi
Martinrea Estampados Nibco de Reynosa
Mary Kay (Malaysia) SDN BHD Nilfisk
MassMutual Nitto Denko de Mexico
MasterCard Solucoes de Pagamento Ltda NNIT A/S
MasterCard Worldwide Norsk Hydro Brasil
Mattel Norton Healthcare
Maxion Wheels Novartis Indonesia, PT
Mayo Clinic Novo Nordisk
Mead Johnson Nu Skin Enterprises
MercadoLibre Orora Limited
Mercedes-Benz (Thailand) Limited OSRAM
Mercedes-Benz Financial Services South Africa Owens Corning
Mercedes-Benz Indonesia Panalpina
Metsä Group Panasonic do Brasil Limitada, Sucursal Argentina
Mexichem Panduit
Milliken & Company Pantaleon
Molson Coors Brewing Company Parker Hannifin Africa
Momentive PB
Mondelez Pearson
Mosaic Co PennyMac
MTD Consumer Products Mexico Penspen
MTS PepsiCo
Multi Bintang Indonesia, PT Perrigo plc
Munchener de Venezuela Perseus Mining Ghana Limited
Mundipharma Pte Ltd Petrofac Mexico
Munters AB Pfizer (Thailand)
Nagase Vietnam Co., Ltd. Philip Morris
National Association of Home Builders Philips
National University of Singapore Piaggio & C. SpA
Nautilus, Inc. Plexus (Hanghzou) Co., Ltd
Navitas Limited PPG Coatings
Nemak PPG Comex
PPG Europe BV Servicios Corporativos CHEP
Prime Therapeutics SGS Angola
Procter & Gamble Shell
Productos Medix Siemens
Promotora Ambiental Siemens AG Branch Iraq
PSAV Singapore Oxygen Air Liquide Pte Ltd
PZ Cussons Indonesia SITA
Quant Maintenance Mexico S.A. Spartan Light Metal Products
Quifatex Springs Window Fashions de Mexico, S. de R.L. de C.V
Ravago Americas Standard Bank Namibia
Reon Energy Limited Stanley Black and Decker
Riopaila Castilla S.A. Staples
Robert Bosch State of Tennessee (Information Provided by the De-
Roche Diagnostics APAC partment of Human Resources)

Roche Myanmar Subterráneos de Buenos Aires
Rogers Corporation Sul América
Rotam Sun Chemical
Rotary Engineering Limited Swire Pacific Offshore Operations (Pte) Ltd
Rotoplas Sydney Water
Royal FrieslandCampina Sysmex Asia Pacific Pte Ltd
Sandvik China Holding Co., Ltd TAL Apparel
Sanofi IRQ Target
Santander Brasil Tata Communications
Santillana TE Connectivity
Savannah River Remediation Techint
SC Johnson TECMA Group
Scania Argentina Tecnofarma Group
Schlumberger Tecnoimagen
Schneider Electric Brasil Telefonica Argentina
SEBN-MA Telstra International
Seguros SURA (RSA) Teoury Co. Ltd
SEI Consulting Jakarta The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
Semperit AG Holding The Hershey Company
Sensata Technologies The Maschhoffs
Sephora Timken
Serasa Experian Total Uganda Limited
Servicios Administrativos Alog, SA de CV Toyota Boshoku Asia Co.,Ltd.
Trans-Northern Pipelines Inc
Travelex
Trugreen
UMASS Medical School
Uni-Charm Indonesia, PT
Unicred - Central sp
Unilever
Unilever Kenya Ltd
University of Manitoba
UPM
UPS
Vacon
Vale Canada Limited
Vattenfall AB
Velux A/S
Vodafone Portugal
Voith Industrial Services
Voith Paper Fabrics Ipoh Sdn Bhd
Volkswagen Serviços Ltda
Volvo Trucks & Buses Argentina SA
Weatherford
Wolters Kluwer
Xignux
Yanmar International Singapore Pte Ltd
Yazaki
ZTE Corporation
Zurich
ABOU T THE REPORT
A B O U T T H E D ATA
CONFIDENTIALITY
To ensure the confidentiality of all data, a minimum number of observations are required in
order for statistics to be displayed.
• Three organisations must report at least three observations for a variable in order for the
mean to be displayed.
EXCEPTIONS AND NOTES

• As more than one submission from the same organisation was accepted, the number of
responses might be higher than number of participants.
• In single-answer questions, the total may not equal 100% due to rounding.
• A dash [ — ] indicates insufficient data for analysis.
• Where questions from the 2015 Maximising the Value of Job Evaluation questionnaire were
repeated, applicable survey responses were included. New questions in the Global Job
Evaluation Return on Investment Survey included a small number of European participants
who received the questionnaire from their colleagues in the other regions.
• Questions with multiple answers will not add up to 100%.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We would like to acknowledge the contribution of our European Mercer colleagues who
published the Maximising the Value of Job Evaluation report in 2015. We truly appreciate the
solid foundation, robust data, invaluable experience and expert guidance they provided to our
effort to expand the survey globally.
C O N TA C T S
FOR MORE INFORMATION ON MERCER’S JOB

EVALUATION STUDY, PLEASE CONTACT OUR
CONTRIBUTORS:
Steven Guyer
Global Job Evaluation Solution Leader
Atlanta
steven.guyer@mercer.com
Elana Abernathy Wohrstein

Rewards Segment Program Manager
Chicago
elana.abernathy-wohrstein@mercer.com
Global Job Evaluation Return on Investment Survey Results Report is published by Mercer Talent Information Solutions’ Data Mining & Insights,
www.imercer.com/global. Copyright 2016. All Rights Reserved.
ABOUT MERCER
At Mercer, we make a difference in the lives of more than 110 million people every day by
advancing their health, wealth, and careers. We’re in the business of creating more secure and
rewarding futures for our clients and their employees — whether we’re designing affordable
health plans, assuring income for retirement, or aligning workers with workforce needs. Using
analysis and insights as catalysts for change, we anticipate and understand the individual
impact of business decisions, now and in the future. We see people’s current and future needs
through a lens of innovation, and our holistic view, specialized expertise, and deep analytical
rigor underpin each and every idea and solution we offer. For more than 70 years, we’ve
turned our insights into actions, enabling people around the globe to live, work, and retire well.
At Mercer, we say we Make Tomorrow, Today.
Mercer LLC and its separately incorporated operating entities around the world are part of
Marsh & McLennan Companies, a publicly held company (ticker symbol: MMC) listed on the New
York, Chicago, and London stock exchanges.
For further information, please contact
your local Mercer office or visit our website at:
www.imercer.com
Copyright 2016 Mercer LLC. All rights reserved.

Job Evaluation ROI Latest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Job Evaluation ROI Latest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

H E A LT H W E A LT H CAREER

GLOBAL JOB EVALUATION

We hope you find this information both useful and insightful.

AREAS IN WHICH ORGANISATIONS DERIVE THE

Salary Internal Comparability Organisational

57% 43% 43%

SALARY INTERNAL COMPENSATION

ASIA, MIDDLE EAST, AND AFRICA EUROPE

60% 48% 43% 73% 64% 55%

LATIN AMERICA NORTH AMERICA

53% 51% 48% 59% 57% 49%

88% 50% 38%

CHANGE PROCESS ALIGNMENT

“Biggest challenge is to clarify the difference between job evaluation and

IMPLEMENTATION OF JOB EVALUATION PROVIDES

1% 3% 39% 36% 21%

Strongly Neither agree Strongly

ASIA, MIDDLE EAST, 2% 4% 42% 44% 7%

EUROPE 1% 6% 30% 5% 58%

LATIN AMERICA 1% 3% 41% 48% 6%

NORTH AMERICA 1% 0% 46% 46% 8%

PACIFIC 0% 0% 56% 44% 0%

< 6 months 7% 7% 5% 9% 10% 33%

Strongly Neither agree Strongly

ASIA, MIDDLE EAST, 5% 1% 10% 65% 19%

EUROPE 3% 0% 3% 59% 35%

LATIN AMERICA 1% 0% 4% 47% 48%

NORTH AMERICA 7% 0% 3% 49% 42%

PACIFIC 0% 0% 0% 67% 33%

Implementing a consistent job evaluation methodology can lead to many day-to-day

COMMUNICATION INTERNAL EQUITY CONSISTENCY

“Helps to manage expectations with business on change in responsibility

“Job evaluation methodology provides clear rational to quickly spot

BEFORE IMPLEMENTING JOB EVALUATION AFTER IMPLEMENTING JOB EVALUATION

BEFORE IMPLEMENTING JOB EVALUATION AFTER IMPLEMENTING JOB EVALUATION

BEFORE IMPLEMENTING JOB EVALUATION AFTER IMPLEMENTING JOB EVALUATION

BEFORE IMPLEMENTING JOB EVALUATION AFTER IMPLEMENTING JOB EVALUATION

BEFORE IMPLEMENTING JOB EVALUATION AFTER IMPLEMENTING JOB EVALUATION

% OF RESPONDENTS WHO AGREE

54% 41% 81% 40% 53% 50%

N = 435 N = 128 N = 116 N = 121 N = 53 N=4

AMOUNT OF ANNUAL SAVINGS

13% 29% 46%

33% 32% 31% 27% 11%

81% 79% 84% 83% 69% 0%

N = 278 N = 68 N = 117 N = 59 N = 26 N=1

ANNUAL SAVINGS AMOUNT

GLOBAL 1% to < 2% 22%

ASIA, MIDDLE 1% to < 2% 13%

EUROPE 1% to < 2% 28%

LATIN AMERICA 1% to < 2% 16%

NORTH 1% to < 2% 28%

WHO IS EVALUATED: JOB LEVELS INCLUDED IN JOB

83% 95% 92% 68%

Executives Management Professionals Para-

< 50% 50-65% 66-85% > 85%

JOB EVALUATION CENTER OF EXCELLENCE 15%

COMPENSATION FUNCTION 65%

HUMAN RESOURCES 40%

GLOBAL ORGANISATIONAL DEVELOPMENT FUNCTION 8%

JOB EVALUATION CENTER OF EXCELLENCE 26%

COMPENSATION FUNCTION 54%

HUMAN RESOURCES 55%