Dear Editor,
I refer to the letter from my friend and professional colleague, Mr E B John, in the 23rd March issue of Stabroek News titled: ‘There is a case for the most comprehensive job evaluation ever conducted in this country…’ vis-à-vis the CoI into the Public Service of Guyana. Without wishing in any way to deny the value and potential impact of an appropriate job evaluation exercise, I feel obliged to advise readers that there are indeed significant limitations, potential disappointments and perhaps dangerous/costly outcomes from the introduction and application/misapplication of this human resource management system.
My caution comes from years of international and local experience including the most recent exposure I have had through my work in the Commission of Inquiry into GuySuCo. The report of this CoI is already in the public domain so I have no hesitation in quoting from it with particular reference to the job evaluation done in GuySuCo, as large an employer as the public service in Guyana. I quote from pages 29-31 of the report:
“Job Evaluation is a process used by organizations universally to establish the relativities among different jobs in the organizations. It establishes relativities among jobs not job holders. Jobs with similar differentials are placed in bands which are distinguished by different salary scales. (Relativities among employees focus on the differential performance of the jobs by various employees within the same bands; typically these differentials are recognized by merit increases and reflected in differential individual salaries among employees within the same bands.)
“Job evaluation is not scientific; it is merely a consistent systematic process of classifying jobs. The systemic, objective classification of jobs helps to answer questions about the relative worth or pay differentials among different jobs; in other words, why is a watchman paid more (or less) than say a watch repairman; why is a porter paid less (or more) than a painter; why is a mechanic paid more (or less) than a machine operator; what are the differentials between a chauffeur and charge-hand or tractor operator that justify their differential pay scales? Why are clerks and sugar boilers and process foremen in different pay scales?
“There are different methods of job evaluation ranging from the simpler whole-job Ranking method, the Factor Comparison method, the Classification and Broad banding methods to the more complex and less popular Hay method and the even more complex and less known Decision Band method among a series of other ‘copy-righted’ methods. The choice of one or other method is often a judgment call based on considerations of familiarity, simplicity and acceptability on the part of those concerned with or affected by the exercises.
“Comments on the Job Evaluation done:
(d) GAWU Category: The choice of the complex, less popular, Hay methodology as opposed to the more popular, simpler, easy-to-understand and more relevant other methodologies, is highly questionable. The primary rationale for doing job evaluation is to establish easily understood, fair, defensible and consistent internal relativities among jobs within the organization i.e. their relative ranking within the particular organization.
The Hay method focuses on external relativities and is highly dependent on market surveys. Given the very small size of the Guyana employers’ market which in itself inhibits the sharing of data because of doubtful anonymity, the validity of the financial extrapolations implicit in the Hay method undermines its effectiveness for Guyana. This critique of the inappropriateness of the Hay methodology for Guyana is substantiated by the facts in the GuySuCo (Job Evaluation) report which clearly state that of the nine (9) comparator companies selected for the market survey only five (5) responded: namely Guyana Water Inc., (GWI), Guyana Power and Light (GPL), Guyana National Engineering Corporation (GNIC), John Fernandes Limited (JFL) and Demerara Distillers Limited (DDL). With the lone exception of DDL, the other four comparators who participated in the survey can hardly be considered valid comparators from the point of view of their size, ownership and nature of operation. Worse still is the probability that exceptionally high salary levels in corporations like GPL can unduly skew the ‘market mean’ that was used to determine the midpoint and range of the salary scales for the seven (7) Bands in the GuySuCo salary structure.
“Additionally, the choice of 32 Benchmarks is also highly questionable. A benchmark in the job evaluation context is a strong, easily recognizable, representative sample of a larger group of jobs. Of the 32 Benchmarks chosen, 30 were in one of the three chosen bargaining unit categories namely the Non Clerical (daily/weekly rated) while only one was selected for each of the other two categories namely Clerical and Junior Supervisory. It is difficult to comprehend the exceptionally strong bias in favour of the Non Clerical category and the insignificance accorded to the other two categories. These alone raise serious questions about the integrity and validity of the job evaluation results.
“(e) NAACIE category
The observations and effects of the deficiencies and inappropriateness described for the GAWU category are equally relevant for the NAACIE category.
“Above all the criticism of the Job Evaluation exercises done, the astronomical and unjustifiable cost implications reflect a serious mismatch between the process and results which is an unpardonable repercussion at a time when GuySuCo can ill afford such mis-steps. Job evaluation is intended to correct anomalies in relativities between various jobs and not the pricing of jobs. On reflection therefore it appears that there is sufficient justification to do a comprehensive revision of the extant Job Evaluation processes and results.”
Therefore, to the extent that comparability between GuySuCo and the Guyana Public Service is valid (and I daresay it is), I respectfully advise that caution be exercised in raising too much expectation from any intended job evaluation exercise. Furthermore, a line must be drawn between job relativities and salary levels which depend on other processes and influences.
Yours faithfully,
Nowrang Persaud
