Re: Job Decriptions and Salary Justification

[George Hayhoe <GFHayhoe -at- AOL -dot- COM>]

From what I've observed of corporate human resources organizations, Doug
Ingram's experience is an increasingly common one. My former employer
commissioned two such industry salary surveys by human resource consultants
in the six years I was with them. The point was to determine whether the
company was compensating employees too much, too little, or just right for
the jobs they performed. The surveys didn't cause me any problem; in fact,
the first time around, I got a couple of very nice raises because they
thought I was undercompensated for my work.

Doug's problem is that according to the survey, he is being highly
compensated for the tasks they think he performs, a fact which has put him in
the top quartile for his job classification and which will mean that
essentially he won't get raises unless he gets promoted or reclassified.

One possible cause of the problem is that he is the only technical
communicator in his small company. In this kind of survey, job descriptions
are often "smooshed" together for comparison purposes. His may have been
combined with those of administrative personnel (secretaries, administrative
assistants, etc.) because the consultants didn't see any other category to
put him in. Or it may be that the questionnaires on which the consultants
based their analysis did not accurately reflect the true complexity of the
tasks Doug performs. (Unfortunately, this happens with some regularity
because employees don't always realize how the questionnaires will be used
and thus don't take them seriously.)

To solve his problem, Doug needs to get his position reclassified. He must
insure that his classification is based on the real work that he performs and
that his new classification reflects the wide range and complex nature of
those tasks.

--George Hayhoe (GFHayhoe -at- aol -dot- com)