The challenges of writing good job descriptions

by Sandrine Bardot 2 Comments

Ah, the good old job descriptions ! We all have a love-hate relationship with
them, especially when it comes to writing them.

The organisation can basically go down two roads : external or internal. This
will most often be a choice dictated by a combination of budget /accessibility
(or not) of funds and the time available for the project.

I believe however, that the specific risks associated with each type of writer
should also be considered.

A consultant writes your job descriptions

When the company goes external and asks for consultants to write its job
descriptions, the rationale is often based on the consultant’s experience in
writing  JDs. The consultant understands the nuances of what and how to
write to make the description easy to understand and relevant to  the next
step, which is job evaluation.

The major hurdle in that case is that the consultant doesn’t know the
company enough, its jargon, the subtleties and real specificities of the
organisation. And, as I’ve seen it happen quite a few times, the so-called
experience from the consultant may turn out to be limited, at least in terms
of knowledge of the industry. That means that some important aspects of the
job may be misunderstood or their relevance incorrectly appreciated.

Also, the large consulting firms tend to assign the job of writing JDs to their
junior staff, and sometimes these young consultants don’t even investigate
about the business of the organisation. So, when they come to interview the
employees and managers in order to gather the information necessary for the
write-up, they end up upsetting managers because they ask very basic
questions – and the managers feel they are wasting time. As a result, the
whole process may lose a good chunk of its credibility in the organisation.
Alternatively, you may want to consider assigning the task of writing the
job descriptions in-house.
This decision comes with its own set of risks though.

There are 2 main possibilities : either the employee writes his/her job
description, or the manager does it. In either case, they both know the
company, its culture, and the industry well.

However, they are often not very well-versed in the subtleties (intricacies) of

writing job descriptions, using the right words to convey the exact duties and
responsibilities expected from the job.

Both the employee and the manager may be tempted to think of the current
job holder when they write the job description, instead of describing the role
irrespective of who fills it. This could impact fundamental areas of the JD
such as the education needed, the kind of experience required and for how
long (industry, specific previous positions etc), and the kind of results
expected from the role.

Beyond this risk of thinking about the person not the job itself, employee and
manager also sport their own potential bias when writing job descriptions.

The employee could amplify the real impact of the position on the

organisation, or on the opposite, downplay it – it would basically depend on
the perceived self-value of the employee. The other main risk depends on how
“strategically” the employee thinks: does he/she focus on describing tasks, or
outcomes?

Tasks mean that the job description will be very factual in terms of the daily
activities, but at the same time it will change quickly (for example when
technology evolves or reporting lines change). (Disadvantage of describing
jobs in terms of tasks (activities) the assumption is that the daily activities will
remain very factual and yet not (activities can change owing to technological
evolution or changes in reporting lines)
However, a job description based on outcomes (outputs) will be valid for
on longer time, and, just as importantly, it can’t be referenced by an employee
saying: “I won’t do this, because it’s not written in my job description!”

The manager on the other hand may not really know the details of the
activities of the role of the team member. This is especially more likely if the
one writing the job description is not the direct supervisor of the employee,
but someone higher up in the organisation such as the department head.

This situation may lead to an over- or under-estimation of the complexities of

the job. Some areas of responsibility may be emphasized or lessened, resulting
in a less accurate job description.

So, what to do, you ask ? Who should write the job descriptions ?

Mitigating the risks of the job description process

None of the 3 approaches seems to work perfectly, as the consultant, the
employee and the manager each are vulnerable to some risk of inaccuracy
when they write job descriptions.

Well, while we can never fully cancel these dangers, one of the best ways to
reduce them is to implement a committee to review and approve the job
descriptions before they are all compiled and become official and
binding.???

This is not a very “sexy” solution, but in truth, such a committee, if done at
the appropriate level (ie its members truly represent the organisation, not only
top management), will ensure that any potential bias in the job descriptions
can be removed, and the sometimes political games of influence are
neutralised as much as possible.

This extra step also ensures relative buy-in on the outcomes of the job

descriptions project, enabling you to use these JDs later on for all sorts of
purposes such as recruitment, participating to compensation surveys,
establishing your company grading structure, identifying competencies and
designing mandatory training plans across whole sections of the company if
needed.

Do we need job descriptions ?

by Sandrine Bardot 2 Comments

I am often asked : “Do we need job descriptions ?”

A lot of managers ask for them. Of course, these managers very rarely think of
doing it themselves and writing down the description, maybe even with the
input of the employees who hold those roles !

Why do these managers expect HR to write these down ? Because, put simply,
writing a JD in the most widely accepted format is a chore.

In the GCC, companies with job descriptions will often follow a format very
close to that established by Hay Group. You will cover main tasks and
responsibilitites, and the attributes and skills required to deliver the job. This
includes reporting lines, financial impact, number of people managed,
principal expectations from the role, level of education and industry required,
competencies etc. Gee ! That is a lot of information.

So the managers want the job descriptions but consider it is “an HR job” to
deliver them, and try to act as if they shouldn’t be involved in the process.

I support two main reasons why the organisation should have job
descriptions
If your company runs a formal, point-system job evaluation scheme, then these long
and detailed job descriptions are needed in order to grade the jobs. It means
you will require job descriptions for about 80% of all the roles in your
organisation, the “reference” ones (positions with many job holders” and
“unique” ones (positions that don’t relate to other jobs in the organisation.
The second, weaker argument is for recruitment purposes. When you are trying to
fill an open position, you need to have a clear understanding of the kind of
profile required for use by both the recruiting team and the candidates if you
post the job on your intranet, the career section of your website, on job boards,
or if you assign the recruitment process to an agency. In that case, job
descriptions come in handy.

However, my strong belief is that in many cases, we can do without the

traditional job descriptions.
Managers and HRBPs often tell me : “But Sandrine, how am I supposed to
manage my team if they don’t have a job description to let them know what is required
of them ? We need JDs to make it clear to them and so that they will do what I
tell them !”

My initial reaction is simple : “What ???”. I am always shocked when I hear

that a manager needs a job description in order to get his team to work and
understand what they are doing.

You speak to them. Your role as a manager is actually to sit with your team
members and let them know what you expect from them. Explain how your
team is structured and why you created it that way. Clarify the areas where
different members are supposed to work together, and in that case, who is
responsible for what. Reassign workload if needed during periods of higher
activity. If an employee struggles at the idea of an activity because they fear
failure, explain to them how this ties to their development, what they will
learn, and how you the manager will support them in performing this
activity, either through training, your attention, some extra resources or  any
other thing required.

I have managed teams as large as 13 direct reports with activities ranging

from PRO to senior executives to HRIS to senior Compensation & Benefits
experts and none of them had a formal job description. Yet, everyone knew
what they needed to do, who to turn to incase of problem, and no-one ever
refused to do a job “because it’s not written in (my) job description”.
This last sentence is one which drives me crazy as it denotes, more than
anything else, either a totally disengaged employee, or one who struggles
with workload already and can’t take more. None of these 2 conditions
actually have to do with the fact of having a job description or not.

Setting expectations is not done through a JD. It is done through time spent
with the team, collectively and individually. It is done through constructive
feedback shared with the employees. It is done through praise and
recognition when the employee learns something new or delivers above
expectations.

… Which leads me to performance management. HRBPs have reported to

them that often, line managers tell them that they don’t know what kind of
objectives to set to their team members, because they don’t have job
descriptions.

Again, to me, this is not a valid argument.

A job description describes tasks and duties of the role. It is timeless in the
sense that, if the environment of the job does not change too much, then the
job description remains the same. Job descriptions are timeless in the sense
that, if the environment does not change too much, then the job descriptions
remains the same.

Performance Management however relies on setting specific goals for that

year. It will often tie into project work or special activities that are more in
focus at that point in time. The job description therefore does not contain the
objectives of the year.

Even for roles that are quite standardised such as cashier or call-centre
support or lower-skill staff jobs, you will use metrics to evaluate the
performance of the employee. Those metrics tie into the role of the employees
of course, but as a manager, even without a JD system, you would still look
for the KPIs to assess how your team is performing. And on what are you
measured by your boss at the end of the year? Use this, not the job
descriptions, as the basis for setting objectives if you don’t have projects
assigned to them.

Now, as far as recruitment is concerned, as I said above, having a job

description can help in launching the process. But honestly, most of the time,
only a part of the content of the job description is really used: the outcomes (a
few sentences describing the expectations around the role) and the required
profile from an education, experience and skills standpoint.

The rest is usually described verbally at a later stage to the candidates once
they qualify for the recruitment process. Either the position is a relatively
standard one, for example, nurse, or it is not, in which case the live
conversation between the hiring manager and the candidate will clarify things
better than a piece of paper.

Therefore a formal job description is not always needed for recruitment

purposes.

So I rest my case. Except for organisations that need to cling to a classic, point-
factor system of job evaluation, I don’t believe that companies nowadays
require to implement the conventional system of long, heavy, detail- and task-
oriented traditional job descriptions. That is not to say that all organisations
can survive without any system at all. I am convinced that there are
alternatives – but that will be a topic for another post   !

In the mean time, please let me know what your thoughts are? Do you agree
that in most cases, we don’t need the long, traditional job descriptions we
have grown accustomed to expecting? Or on the contrary, do you believe
these are still relevant and why? Feel free to express your views in the
comments section!

Liked what you read? Then please share it on Facebook, LinkedIn or Twtter and make
your contacts benefit from it too!
A methodology to define which roles qualify as
“Executive”
by Sandrine Bardot Leave a Comment

In today’s Reader Question, a while ago, one of my former colleagues reached

out as he was about to embark on a new project : “I’ve moved on to a
technology company from manufacturing and enjoying the challenge. Just
curious if you have an example of criteria for defining Director or VP roles
within any of the organizations you have supported? We find ourselves
growing and the old approach to assigning titles had no criteria.”

Now that is an interesting question ! I’ve never seen any formal or rigid
criteria to define Executives but here is what we did in my previous
companies.

First of all, establish the “proper” grades for each role based on the job
grading methodology of choice within the organisation (Hay, Towers
Watson, Mercer, Birches etc).

Basically a top manager would be someone leading a major function in the

organisation and reporting to the CEO or COO. So maybe the head of
Facilities Management would not be a Director/VP if he would report to HR
or Finance.

Usually a large population to manage, a strategic function to lead in support

roles (even if headcount may be lower than in operational roles), and the
role/job responsability being focused on setting the direction for that
function also were taken into account.

This pretty much defines your top management. There usually was a formal
panel to vet which roles were to be considered as Executives, and then any
addition would be approved by the Board.
In many cases the Executive definition stops there. But the company may be
large or quite complex.

Then it is a question of the organisation deciding how “deep” down it wants

to go in order to define Executive/VP/Directors roles. One level below top
management ? Two levels ? You can check the headcount statistics. You
should see a natural “tightening” in numbers of people in certain grades,
which can be a good indicator of potential “VP-worthy” level. Of course there
are exceptions, for example the Personal Assistants of top management are
scarce and direct reports to top management, but definitely not Director
material…

Finally we would check with our compensation provider to see which roles

they consider as “Executives” or not. They usually also have quite good
feedback and benchmarking information on titles especially if they are
industry-related. For example a VP in Microsoft was really one of the top
positions in the company, while in banking, a lot of people are VPs.

Implementation sometimes presents its own set of challenges, especially if

you find yourself “downgrading” certain roles.

So we would also look into having a “business title” (the external one for the
business card) and one or two “internal titles”. The simplest internal title is a
somewhat coordinated title that sometimes also reflects a job grade eg all
“managers” are grade 5, all “senior managers” are grade 4 etc… while the full
“official” internal title defines the actual role help by the person.

And in some cases we had a “personal title” as well, linked to a “personal

grade”. This one was usually a way to manage legacy after a re-grading
exercise, where some people may have been in a grade higher than the one
that they should normally be for the role. Instead of demoting them we would
red circle them, let them keep grade, salary and benefits, and when they
moved on to another role, replace them by someone in the “right” grade
which then did not need a “personal grade” as this was equal to their actual
job grade.
How about in your companies  ? Which criteria, if any, were used to define
Executives ? Please share your experience in the comments section !

Enjoyed this post ? Why don’t you subscribe by email to make sure you
receive my articles 3 times per week ?

Why the big pay gap between managers on the

same grade ?
by Sandrine Bardot Leave a Comment

In my career in Compensation & Benefits, I have often heard this question or a

variation upon it : I see managers getting twice the pay of other managers
from the same group and same job grade… Why is this, and how can you
explain it ?

This is a fair question on the differences in salaries for people in the same
grade and salary range.

First, if your company has created salary ranges (ie banding jobs together,
doing the market research and designing a range of salaries considered
acceptable for each band), and if these 2 managers both sit within the salary
range, then you don’t have a fundamental flaw with respect to your official
company policy. What may be the problem is a salary range which is too wide
because it can range from simple to double.

Usually at the manager level, the salary range will be wider than at junior
staff level. Why ? Because after years of work, your individual profile matters
more than when you are a young graduate or in your first years of working.
Your experience, the kind of industries you worked in, the projects you
participated in, your managerial capability, even your personality and soft
skills, will make a big difference in how much you are valued by your
organisation at the time of hire.
Also, your tenure in the company and proven past performance (resulting in
larger salary increases and bonuses if you are a consistent high performer)
will have a cumulative influence on your salary and I sure hope that, all other
things being equal, a great performer should receive a higher pay than an
average performer.

It could also be that one of the 2 managers is in the wrong band. Maybe the
one with the lower salary should be in a lower band. Or maybe the one with
the higher salay is ready to move on to bigger responsaibilities and be
promoted to the next grade up.

In any case, without knowing the specifics of each case, and without a proper
internal and external equity analysis performed by your C&B manager, you
can’t know for sure if this salary difference can be explained by logical factors.

And, let’s be honest. In all countries and all companies, you will also see some
examples of some people being underpaid or others being overpaid for no
apparent or logical reason…  Not always will you be able to explain
differences of salaries based on experience, profile, past performance, tenure
and readiness for promotion.

Enjoyed this post ? Why don’t you subscribe by email to make sure you receive my
articles 3 times per week ?

From job evaluation to salary scales – the basics

by Sandrine Bardot 2 Comments

One of my readers Naim asked me about how job grading and salary scales /
salary ranges are linked so I will cover the steps leading to the design of the
salary structure in an organisation.

“Banding” or “job grading”  is done in order to enable comparison of roles

across departments and functions within and outside the organisation.
Basically each job is described and assessed using the same criteria. The
criteria vary depending on the approach you use, but usually revolve around
a combination of factors such as the education and experience required, size
of the team and budget managed etc as well as more descriptive factors such
as the influence of the role or its impact on the organisation, the complexity or
scope of the required decision-making etc.

One of the most important points to remember is that the job is evaluated,

not the job holder. So whoever holds the role does not (should not) influence
the result of the job evaluation.

In the end, a number of points or a category is assigned to each job. This is

called job evaluation. In the GCC, the main methodologies used are those of
the big consultancies, led by Hay, Mercer (called IPE) and Towers Watson –
but there are other methods and you could even design your own grading
approach, based on criteria that are specific to your organisation.

Banding, or grading, or ranges, is when you group all jobs that you consider
to be of similar “value”, for example all jobs with points 100 to 115 are
grouped together in band A.

This grouping is useful for internal comparisons in your organisation,

making sure that if you are analysing jobs across units, these associations are
based on relevant information. So you are ensuring that the jobs in R&D are
not “over-graded” compared to those of Marketing for example.

The grouping can also be useful when you want to create the range of
acceptable salaries within your company. You will have the results of the job
evaluation and a job description which allows you to participate to a
compensation survey so that you can compare how much you pay with
respect to the market.

You can use the Hay or another evaluation methodology and participate in
surveys from as many providers as you wish. Most of the large providers
have “correspondance tables” between their own points/grades and the other
large providers. This allows them and their clients to not be bound to only one
source of compensation information, and ensures that some specialist
providers can thrive. For example, McLagan are specialised in providing
compensation data and services catered exclusively to the financial services
community around the world. Birches Groupprovide compensation services
for emerging countries and have their own unique methodology which allows
comparisions in difficult to reach markets.

You can then compile this information and create what you consider to be the
acceptable range of salary for these jobs with relative similar “weight”.

There is no common methodology that is used by the majority of companies

in the world to create salary ranges. If you participate in only one survey and
it has the kind of companies in it that you want to compare to, and you are
using their job evaluation methodology, it is very easy to take the value they
provide for market compensation at each grade, and use that for founding
your salary ranges. What you gain in terms of ease of use though, you lose in
terms of customisation and uniqueness of your organisation. Many companies
in the Middle East use that approach as compensation practices are not
always very sophisticated yet in the region – and so they may end up with the
same salary ranges. Maybe one day I will write a post on different approaches
to the creation of salary ranges.

The step of creating salary scales is not mandatory. For example in start-ups
or small companies with a lot of individual, unique jobs, you may want to
stop at the step of participating to the survey and getting the results. Then you
will use the results independently and individually for each job. This is called
market pricing. In that case, you don’t need to create salary ranges or bands
because you don’t have many employees and your structure is very flexible.

Now tell me, which job evaluation approach do you use and how do you go
about creating the salary ranges in your organisation ? What are the pros and
cons ?
New hires vs employees : 3 salary situations and
how to handle them
by Sandrine Bardot Leave a Comment

Imagine the scene : you are sitting at your desk, happily going along your
normal HR activities, when an employee (let’s call him John) enters your
office and expresses some concern over his compensation. More specifically,
he says, he knows that some of his former colleagues at his previous
employer, “who were earning the exact same salary as me 2 years ago” when
he joined your company, are now being offered jobs in other departments to
join your company at 15 or 20% higher than his own salary, for the same
grade. John is looking for you to consider this alleged internal equity issue
and proceed to a readjustment of his own package, in the name of
fairness. So what do you do ?

Well obviously the first step to take is to conduct your investigation

and gather as much data as possible.

 About your employee : his current grade and salary, pay evolution
since hired, performance ratings, as well as his resume to check his
previous role.
 About your current internal equity : salaries of other employees in the
same grade as John, and in similar roles if the population can be narrowed
down and still make sense. For example, if John is grade 17 and works in
Marketing, check all employees in grade 17 (average / minimum
/maximum actual current salaries, count of employees, average tenure).
This grade 17 may have people from Finance, Marketing, HR, and other
 departments. So perform the same analysis a second time, with only the
Marketing employees in grade 17 to get an even more targeted view of
internal pay distribution.
 About the candidate : let’s call him Emad. Check Emad’s current salary
and job title, and the package offered to him. How much of salary
differential, if any, are you offering to him compared to his current
employer ? And what is the difference with John’s current package ?What
is the current market rate for the job ? Are you offering Emad more, less or
at-market compensation as per today’s market ?
Once you have all this information, you have a much clearer view of the
situation and you can therefore understand whether John’s claims have some
ground, and whether you should take action or not.

Here are 3 of the most probable situations you may be facing.

I’ll first make the assumption that John is paid appropriately compared to

your pay philosophy, and in line with others internally.

 Case 1 : Emad will be offered a similar package. So the claim is based

on incorrect information. Inform John about it and don’t comment more
than that.
 Case 2 : Emad is offered a higher package yet still in line with your
pay philosophy. During these past 2 years, Emad had an internal
promotion (you know because his title and responsabilities, as per his
resume, are higher than John’s were 2 years ago). He also worked on
projects that are fully aligned with your current skills requirements,
including having some skills that no-one possesses internally yet.  Explain
to John that Emad had a different career evolution at the previous
employer, and that, like any other organisation, you have to take into
account the existing profile and compensation of candidates, as well as
your own pay policy, budget etc when offering a job. Also have
a conversation on the concept of pay fairness and equity – it is not the
same as equality. Especially when you work in a white-collar
environment, you have salary ranges because individual performance,
 experience, skills etc influence how much each person gets. Yet within the
range, this is what your company considers acceptable.
These two cases are based on the assumption that John is paid in line with
your internal compensation approach. Let’s now consider that John may be
paid significantly less than most others in the same grade.

 Case 3 : Emad is offered 15% more than John, and is in line with the
market and your internal team. Your main issue here is John.  You have to
consider two things :
1 – Why is John paid less than his peers ? Is it because of poor performance ?
Was he hired at a lower salary than his peers because two years ago, the crisis
was impacting salaries down and no-one was hired since ? Or on the contrary,
was he the only one hired 2 years ago, and peers joined after him while there
was a talent shortage on the market and therefore they were all hired at
higher pay than he was ? Is he the only one with 2 years on the job while the
others have 5/6 years average on the job ?
2 – Do you want to do something about it ? And if so, when ?  Will you act
immediately or wait to give John an adjustment increase at the next salary
review cycle ?

As a conclusion, once you have gathered your internal and external facts,

and made a decision about whether you will change John’s salary or not,
you should always come back to your employee with an explanation about
the situation (while protecting the privacy of Emad – because you don’t know
if Emad really spoke with John) and the rationale for your decision. Always
protect the privacy of Emad – because you don’t know if Emad really spoke
with John. And never ever  tell John the package you pay/offer to Emad. You
have to respect pay confidentiality, but this does not prevent you from having
a conversation on the principles of pay though….

Related posts :

The best order in which to apply salary increases in any organisation

7 steps to compensation programme design – the basics

The best order in which to apply salary increases

in any organisation
by Sandrine Bardot 2 Comments

Salary review time is approaching fast and so today I wanted to write about 
the order in which we apply salary increases. Does it matter ? Or is it totally
irrelevant to what you are trying to achieve when going through your internal
and external equity reviews ?

First, let’s have a look at the different types of basic pay increases that you
may find in quite a number of companies in the UAE and GCC.

 The merit increase : this one is related to the individual. Usually his or her
performance rating is taken into account, sometimes also their comparatio
(position in the internal salary range for their job) or market ratio (how
much the person is paid compared to market).
 The Cost of Living increase. This one may also be called general increase,
or collective increase. It applies to all employees irrespective of their
performance rating or their current salary. Usually this increase is driven
by inflation or CPI (Consumer Price Index) increase, and it is supposed to
somewhat cushion, well… the increase in cost of living.
 The adjustment increase, also sometimes called “special increase” : this
increase may be applied to some specific people or categories of
population, in order to “adjust” their compensation to a special situation.
For example, a whole group of your employees may be paid below the
current market rate. This can happen if you recruited most of them at the
same time and then did not add significant numbers of people to the pool
– thus sometimes falling behind especially if your past increases were
more conservative than the general market. Then, an adjustment increase
 may be a solution as it impacts only employees that need it, and not your
entire employee population.
 The promotion increase : well, this increase is pretty much self-
explanatory. You grant it to employees who get promoted.
Now, let’s take a look at the philosophy impacting the order in which they are
applied to your employees’ basic pay.

You should always go from the most general to the most individual and
rare increase.

The logic is simple : at each step, you make a decision whether to apply that
increase or not, and even, for some of them, which amount to apply. Given
that the amount may be based on where the employee will stand as a result of
the previous increases, then it makes sense to start with the collective, generic
ones and work you way up through the more specific or singular ones.

So you start with the Cost of Living increase, which applies to all employees
except maybe the newest of new hires (because they have not been exposed to
inflation yet since they are new).

Then you move on to the merit increase, as this one also applies, although with
varying percentages, to all employees. Exceptions will be the poor performers
obviously, and the newest of new hires as they have not spent enough time
yet for their performance to be evaluated and rewarded properly. (Plus, they
have just been hired so are supposed to be the closest to the current market
rate).

Only a  minority of employees should be promoted each year, so the promotion

increase related to their new, higher position is the next one to come in line.
Depending on your company philosophy, the promotion increase percentage
may be the same for all employees promoted, or it may be based on a budget
approach with a guided range of “acceptable” increase, or it may even be a
different percentage based on job family or grade/job level, or any
combination of the above.
And finally, you may or may not consider paying an adjustment increase. This one
could apply for newly promoted employees if the regular promotion increase
did not bring them to the minimum of the salary range for new grade, or
whichever comparatio you deem appropriate. Or it may apply to a group of
employees which your latest compensation survey results showed are lagging
behind market, and you don’t want to have retention issues with. Or it may
apply to a group of sales support functions that were previously eligible to a
sales-related incentive and are now moving into the general population
incentive scheme (so their fixed/variable pay ratio needs to be adjusted over
time). Or it may simply be some individuals that require special attention.
Having performed all the previous increases on them, means that your
adjustment increase relates to their new pay and job and is therefore as
appropriate as possible.

So in short, in order to be logical and send the right message to your

employees, apply increases always from the most generic ones to the most
individualised ones : cost of living, then merit, then potential promotion, and
finally adjustment. And if you don’t want those efforts to go unnoticed, don’t
forget to communicate at least the principles behind how you manage salary
reviews in your organisation !

7 steps to compensation programme design – the

basics
by Sandrine Bardot Leave a Comment

I am often asked how to go about a new plan design, or a total revamp of an

existing one. How should one approach it ? Is there a methodology ?

In my mind there are 7 basic steps to take in order to design a good plan in
Compensation & Benefits. They apply whether you are designing a retention
scheme, reviewing a sales incentive plan, or are planning a new pension
offering.

1 – Understand the background

You have to sit not only with the party requesting the new plan from you, but
with all stakeholders. What is working currently ? What are their favorite
parts of the existing plan ? What do they want to achieve ? What would they
like to change or improve, add or remove ?

For example in the case of a sales incentive , maybe top management has
asked you to review the current scheme to make sure your company is not
over-spending. So the aim of management is clear : ensure good return on the
cost of the programme. But the sales population will have its own view on
what’s working or not. Marketing may want to take this opportunity to
expand the focus on a specific product line. Finance may want to ensure that
the sales population remains engaged until the customer has paid because
there are some chronic customer late payments.

So make sure to understand the interests and concerns of all stakeholders.

2 – Don’t work in silo

It is not enough to ask other stakeholders for a “state of the situation” before
you launch your project. You need to work with them all throughout the
whole project. Establish a working committee led by you, and comprising of
Finance, IT, representatives of management and maybe even representatives
of employees. This is a minimum, more people may get involved depending
on your company size, complexity and culture, as well as the nature of the
project. So for example, for a Sales Incentive you should have Sales and
Marketing represented as functions.

Having such a working committee has multiple advantages, the two most
important one being that your design will eventually reflect, at least, a
consensus on the interests and needs of all parties even if they may be
conflicting at times. This kind of approach also facilitates buy-in from the
organisation when the time comes to deploy and implement.

3 – The simpler, the better

Try to keep your design as simple as possible. You must always design with
the intention that an 8 year-old should be able to understand and explain the
scheme. The more rules, caveats, and exceptions you include, the more
complex it becomes.

For every new rule you add, you lose 50% of the interest and comprehension
of the audience. Remember that your plan should focus on the most
important objectives and cannot cover every single situation or desire from all
the stakeholders. So be strong and resist the urge to add multiple sub-
categories, conditions, accelerators, special payments, hurdles….

4 – Keep room for the unexpected

In complement to the previous rule, you have to give yourself some flexibility
and be prepared for the situations and exceptions that you may have to face.
You can’t anticipate everything ! So make sure that you have included a way
to manage exceptions.

This does not mean making your plan discretionary (ie results are decided
purely by management without any rules or provisions for calculations). This
takes away all the motivational impact intended by the plan. But you should
have a provision for cases of conflicts of interpretation, and unexpected
situations.

Try to keep it simple as well, and request as a first step that the manager and
employee should try to find a solution and inform or involve you/HR. But
sometimes that doesn’t work, or a situation has not been planned. For
example, a new product is launched in the middle of the year and this was not
anticipated in your sales incentive.

In that case, have a committee either make a decision as an exception, or

amend the rules if necessary. Save time and effort and make the committee
the same as the one that participated to the design of the scheme. This way
you won’t have to bring members up-to-speed on the intention and previous
decisions regarding the plan features.
5 – Think beyond plan design

Don’t forget to include operational aspects if your programme. Don’t just

design the incentive, make sure you put in place the processes and policies, as
well as the tools, required for a successful plan implementation. Establish who
is responsible for what (manager, employee, finance, HR, any other function).
Produce the forms needed, organise the workflow, prepare the templates,
think about the Delegation of Authority…

Imagine if you design a brand new employee referral scheme. But you don’t
prepare the form for employees to submit resumes, have not thought who will
track who submitted who and when, which candidate has been effectively
recruited, who informs payroll for the implementation…. Then your shiny
new program will either fail, or send you in a flurry of rushed activity once
the first candidate is submitted by one of your employees. Too much last
minute stress for anyone !

6 – Test and/or pilot

As a complement to the previous rule, you will be happy you took the time to
test your program, or piloted it in a small part of the company, before the Big
Launch. There are always things that go wrong, things that were forgotten,
ideas that seemed right but are in fact not adding value, or too long to process
or too complicated…

Finding out in the test or pilot phase gives you time to adjust your plan, and
have a fully functional product to launch to your full organisation.

7 – Communicate and educate

Finally, take the time to establish a full-fledged communication and education

plan. If you have a Corporate Communications team, now is the right time to
involve them as they will be able to support in fining the most effective ways
to reach your targeted employee audience.
 Always remember that you need multiple touch points, as well as reminders,
for a new incentive or compensation programme to be fully understood and
used in the organisation.

Set up, for yourself, a post-launch tracking mechanism. See which

communication methods worked best and worst, with which audience. Did
people ask for presentations at team meetings, while you had planned an all-
employee presentation in the main meeting room of your company ? Did
people actually watch the demo video that you so carefully prepared, or did
they ask for a paper version with screen shots ? You will then be able to
incorporate this feedback into the launch plan of your next compensation
scheme.

When you have to revamp or design a compensation scheme, always follow

these 7 steps : understand the expectations of all the parties involved, don’t
work in silo, keep your plan simple, set rules to manage the unexpected,
prepare tools and processes as well as your programme design, test or pilot
your new scheme, and have complete communication and training plan.
These tips will help you produce the most adapted compensation plan for
your organisation.

Step 2 - Preparing a Position Description

How to write a Position Description

Compose a draft position description that:

 describes the job - not the person in it
 describes what the job is - not what it was, will be next year, might be or ought to be
 specifies the whole job
 makes no explicit or implicit reference to the sex of the position holder.
The position description contains various components including:

Job Purpose: a concise statement that makes clear the overall and broad objective of the job
and avoids detail

 Duties: the major responsibilities and roles required of the position

 Statistics: measurable statistics such as budgets, volume of work, value of assets
controlled and number of staff
 Reporting Relationships: supervisor's position and positions reporting to the jobholder
 Principal Accountabilities: all the expected key outputs - end results of the job - not
duties or activities (ie. the what - not the "how")
 Grouping Accountabilities: accountabilities are the main areas of things that get
done.  Group these accountabilities together. For example, 'staff management' activities such as
train staff, delegate, appraise staff
 Number of Accountabilities: usually 4 to 8 statements but fewer in lower level jobs
 Minimum Education Required: educational level or name of qualification, either
essential or desirable, required for the job
 Selection Criteria: the basis upon which applicants will be assessed. Includes
qualifications, experience, and skills that are essential for competent performance in the job.
Review the position description and have someone knowledgeable about the job review the
description.   Revise as appropriate.
 
Have somebody unfamiliar with the job review the description for clarity. Revise as appropriate.
 
Finalise the position description, obtain the necessary approval and submit to Human
Resources for evaluation and processing.

How To Write A Concise Job Description: 5 Simple Steps

The job description is a critical document for every position. A good job description
performs a number of important functions:

 It describes the skills and competencies that are needed to perform the role
 It defines where the job fits within the overall company hierarchy

 It is used as the basis for the employment contract

 It is a valuable performance management tool.

This article outlines how to write a job description that is clear, concise and accurately
defines the role – in 5 simple steps.

1. Job title
The first fundamental element of the job description is the job title. A good job title will
have the following qualities:

 It accurately reflects the nature of the job and the duties being performed
 It reflects its ranking order with other jobs in the company

 It does not exaggerate the importance of the role

 It is free of gender or age implications

 It is generic enough that it can be compared to similar jobs in the industry for the
purposes of equity in pay and conditions

 It is self-explanatory for recruitment purposes (in most online job searches, the
job title is the main keyword searched).

An example of a good job title is ‘Parking Inspector’. An example of a bad job title for the
same position would be ‘Council Enforcement Officer’. This title gives you no indication
of what is being enforced. In this case, the word ‘parking’ would be a mandatory
requirement in the job title.

2. Duties
The job description should contain a list of the duties and responsibilities associated
with the role, along with the amount of time expected to be dedicated to each task. This
should be represented as a percentage (i.e. filing 20%, data entry 40% etc).

Descriptions of duties should be no more than two or three sentences in length and
should be outcome-based, containing an action, an object and a purpose (eg ‘compiles
monthly reports to allow monitoring of the department’s budget’).

The list of duties and responsibilities will vary in length, but as a rule, should be as short
as possible, otherwise the document becomes an operational manual rather than a job
description.
Roles in smaller companies (eg office manager) may have more tasks associated with
them, due to their ‘all rounder’ nature, but you should still aim to keep your list to around
fifteen tasks and preferably less.

3. Skills and competencies

Skills and competencies should be listed separately from each other, as they are two
quite separate things. Skills are activities the candidate can perform based on what
they have learned in the past, or from qualifications they have obtained. Competencies
are the traits or attributes you expect the candidate to display in the role.

An example of a skill is the ability to give effective presentations. It is a skill that can be
learned through study and practice. An example of a competency, on the other hand, is
strong communication, which is an innate characteristic displayed by a person.

The modern trend towards competency-based job descriptions means extra weight is
given to behavioural competencies such as leadership, teamwork, flexibility,
communication and initiative.

4. Relationships
It is important to include reporting lines and working relationships in your job description.
Reporting lines clarify the responsibilities of the position by showing who the candidate
reports to and who reports to them. This is important, not only in relation to compliance
issues, but also to give the candidate an insight into the hierarchical structure of the
organisation and how their position fits into it.

Working relationships are the people and departments the position requires the
candidate to work closely with. It is a good idea to give an indication of the size of such
departments and the extent of interaction.
An organisational chart is a good way to represent relationships in a job description,
with vertical lines between boxes demonstrating reporting lines and horizontal lines
showing working relationships.

5. Salary
Rather than assigning a particular salary to the position, work out a salary range to
include in the job description that is competitive with similar positions in other
organisations and allows for variations in education and experience. Obviously, this
would need to be updated from time to time, in line with changing pay scales.

In closing…
A good job description is much more than a laundry list of tasks and responsibilities. If
well written, it gives the reader a sense of the priorities involved. It not only provides a
clear picture of the position for potential candidates, but is also a useful tool for
measuring performance and a vital reference in the event of disputes or disciplinary
issues.

So, the more accurate you can make a job description upfront, the more useful it will
become in the future.

Job Purpose:
A concise statement that makes clear the overall and broad objective of the job and
avoids detail.

3.7 JOB DESCRIPTIONS

MMSPL makes every effort to create and maintain accurate job descriptions for
all positions with in the organization. Each description includes a job information
section, a job summary section( giving a general overview of the job’s purpose),
an essential duties and responsibilities section, a supervisory responsibilities
section, a qualification section( including education and / or experience, language
skill, mathematical skill, reasoning ability, and any certification required), a
physical demand section, and a work environment section.
 MMSPL maintains job descriptions to aid in orienting new member to their jobs,
identifying the requirements and each position, establishing hiring criteria, setting
standards for employee performance evaluations.

The [HUMAN RESOURCE DEPARTMENT] prepare job descriptions when new

positions are created. Existing job descriptions are also reviewed and revised in
order to ensure that they are up to date. Job descriptions may also be rewritten
periodically to reflect any changes in the position’s duties and responsibilities. All
employees will be expected to help ensure that their job descriptions are
accurate and current, reflecting the work being done.

Employee should remember that job descriptions do not necessarily cover every
task or duty that might be assigned, and that additional responsibilities may be
assigned as necessary.

Contact the [HUMAN RESOURCE DEPARTMENT] if you have any questions or

concerns about your job description

To perform well, employees need to know what is expected of them. The starting point is an
up-to-date job description that describes the essential functions, tasks, and responsibilities
of the job. It also outlines the general areas of knowledge and skills required of the employee an
employee to be successful in the job. 

Performance expectations go beyond the job description. When you think about high quality on-
the-job performance, you are really thinking about a range of expected job outcomes, such as

 What goods and services should the job produce?

 What impact should the work have on the organization?
 How do you expect the employee to act with clients, colleagues, and supervisors? 
 What are the organizational values the employee must demonstrate?
 What are the processes, methods, or means the employee is expected to use? 

In discussing performance expectations an employee should understand why the job exists,
where it fits in the organization, and how the job’s responsibilities link to organization and
department objectives. The range of performance expectations can be broad but can generally be
broken into two categories:

 Results (The goods and services produced by an employee often measured by objectives
or standards) (WHAT)
 Actions & Behaviors (The methods and means used to make a product and the behaviors
and values demonstrated during the process. Actions and Behaviors can be measured
through performance dimensions.) (HOW)
Performance expectations serve as a foundation for communicating about performance
throughout the year. They also serve as the basis for assessing employee performance. When you
and an employee set clear expectations about the results that must be achieved and the methods
or approaches needed to achieve them, you establish a path for success.

Expectations should always be set in accordance with UC policies and union contracts. For
additional information, please see:

Academic Personnel Policies: http://apo.chance.berkeley.edu/policy.html

Personnel Policies for Staff Members (including local and system-wide procedures):
http://hrweb.berkeley.edu/hrpolicy.htm

UC-Union Contracts: http://hrweb.berkeley.edu/hrlabor.htm

Defining Results

S.M.A.R.T. Performance Objectives and Standards

Performance objectives and standards are two of the most common methods to define expected
results. Both objectives and standards are most useful when, in addition to being written down
and verifiable, they are:

 Specific
 Measurable
 Attainable
 Relevant
 Timely

Specific – Objectives and standards should let employees know exactly which actions and results
they are expected to accomplish.

Measurable – Whenever possible, objectives and standards should be based on quantitative

measures such as direct counts, percentages, and ratios..

Attainable – The objective or standard should be achievable, but challenging, and attainable
using resources available.

Relevant – Individual goals, objectives and standards should be in alignment with those of the
unit and the department in support of the University’s mission.

Timely – Results should be delivered within a time period that meets the department and
organization’s needs.
Objectives and standards identify baselines for measuring performance results. From
performance objectives and standards, supervisors can provide specific feedback describing the
gap between expected and actual performance.
Objectives and Standards – Is it “OK” to Have Both?

It can be very useful to define both objectives and standards for a position, but it is not necessary.

Standards are directly linked to job-task completion.

Example: Ensure that all grant requests are written, reviewed, and submitted to the granting
agency/foundation by the required deadlines.

Objectives are broader in scope, go beyond day-to-day standards, and are clearly linked to
helping the organization or department meet its goals and objectives.
Example: Identify three new grant/funding sources by the end of FY 2006.

In some cases, you and the employee may find it better to set a series of standards with only a
few objectives, while in other situations it may make more sense to set objectives alone.

Third, performance management recognizes that in today’s globally competitive

environment, every employee’s competencies and efforts must focus on helping the
company achieve its strategic goals. The basic idea is that management and each worker
and work team should continuously monitor performance relative to goals, and
continuously improve results. Continuous improvement is a management philosophy. It
means continuously setting and meeting over higher quality cost delivery and availability
goals. Central to his philosophy is the idea that each employee and team must
continuously improve performance from one period to the next.