Job Match is a pretty complicated affair when it comes to identifying the correct job family, discipline code, career level, nature of role (IC/Manager) and aligning the employees to the right job family. The complication doesn't arise because it is an esoteric or a specialized skill. It arises because of the subjectivity and requirement for interpretation. The impact is that if one HR / C&B manager is doing the job evaluation/match and another does the JE/Match for the same set, the difference in the result might leave you surprised. There would be a difference of 30-40% job matches or may be more.
Does this mean then that the method is not reliable?
Over the years, after working on several Global Grading System/ Job Evaluation methodologies, experience has taught me to look at Job Matches in three steps, which i have self-termed below for ease of expression:
1. "Weighted" Match: There is a Job Family for say Finance or HR or Sales and further categorization. Let us take a case of a sales manager. The sales model for the manager might be predominantly channel sales, with a little bit of direct sales to named accounts. So 80:20 ratio for channel (indirect) sales: Direct Sales.
The job family dictionary wouldn't have a role as a mix of both. Since the weight for the role is more towards indirect sales, we will match it in indirect sales category within sales job family.
For some positions it might be a 100% match, but that is a rare phenomenon in today's work culture. For instance, a Compensation & Benefits Manager handling statutory compliance or HRIS portfolio is quite common. In such a case the focus should be to see where the key focus of the role lies.
2. "Close" Match: Let's take an example of a payroll role. In Towers Watson GGS, payroll is shown under Finance Job Family. It should ideally be under HR Job family and that is what several companies follow. Payroll is about employees' salary and emolument payments. It is a strictly confidential area and since it is related to people placement, fitment and people cost, it should be under HR and not Finance. Even within HR, not everyone has access to this data. The Head-HR and C&B Manager would.
Now imagine the requirement to do a job match for a payroll person in the HR team. In such a case, since we cannot place payroll in Finance Job Family, you will have to find something within the HR Job Family. Depending on the nature of activities, you look for the closest match and decide to place it under, say, "HR Operations".
3. "Range" Match: Suppose, both the above situations aren't possible...i.e neither there is a direct job match nor a close match, then what is the line of approach?
We will then see what is the nature of the activities under the role and what is the purpose of the exercise. If the purpose is to do a compensation survey and get a compensation range data for all positions, then after understanding the role, i will look for a similar role in maybe a different "general" function and place it over there.
Suppose in a Freight Forwarding industry, we are looking at the role of a Carrier booking associate. The role essential would be to ensure slotting of space for goods in carriers + dispute resolution. If say there is no direct match or a close match, we will then look at a general function like Operations and see if it can be slotted in a role of similar complexity. As a validity check, we can also see the range of the alternate role and basis market compensation sense of the original role, we can see if it would fit it.
These three steps would ensure that the purpose of the exercise is met.
