Evaluating the jobs in the clinic
To start the job evaluation using the pair comparison method, they used Tool 4 and Tool 4 – Supporting Excel (small and medium-sized organisations) as guides. They systematically compared each job role or group against all others. For every pair, the more demanding role was given a score of 1 and the less demanding a score of 0. This continued until all job role combinations had been reviewed, ensuring that every job in the clinic was covered.
The initial results were as follows.
| Clinical Director | Doctors | Nurses | Managers (office / HR) | Assistant nurses | Medical technicians | Admin and reception staff | Support staff | Score | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Job 1 | Job 2 | Job 3 | Job 4 | Job 5 | Job 6 | Job 7 | Job 8 | |||
| Job 1 | Clinical Director | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 7 | |
| Job 2 | Doctors | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 6 | |
| Job 3 | Nurses | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4 | |
| Job 4 | Managers (office/HR) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 3 | |
| Job 5 | Assistant nurses | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 3 | |
| Job 6 | Medical technicians | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4 | |
| Job 7 | Admin and reception staff | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | |
| Job 8 | Support staff | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
The job evaluation committee noticed that, while the clinical director stood out clearly at the top, followed by doctors, a cluster emerged at the mid-level. Nurses and medical technicians each scored 4 points, despite their different contributions (e.g. clinical judgment and patient care compared to technical diagnostics and specialised testing). The job evaluation and classification revealed that both carried comparable levels of skills and demand when assessed across the four criteria (skills, responsibility, effort and working conditions).
Just below, another cluster formed at 3 points, bringing together managers (office/HR) and assistant nurses. Their responsibilities are very different, ranging from organisational oversight to hands-on patient care. However, the systematic evaluation showed that each role carried comparable levels of complexity and demand.
Admin and reception staff scored 1 point. Their handling of confidential data, insurance claims and patient coordination was recognised as valuable, though the evaluation reflected their more limited scope of independent decision-making compared to the roles above them.
Finally, support staff were ranked at 0 points, though the job evaluation and classification emphasised their essential role in hygiene and infection control. While not as complex in scope, their work was deemed critical to the safe functioning of the clinic.
The results of the job evaluation and classification captured a more nuanced picture of the organisation, showing overlapping responsibilities and different types of demands that needed to be reflected fairly in the new pay structure.
The final results, organised by Anna and Peter, with the support of Katrin (the HR manager), were as follows.
| Job role | Score |
|---|---|
| Clinical director | 7 |
| Doctors | 6 |
| Nurses | 4 |
| Medical technicians | 4 |
| Managers (office manager / HR officer) | 3 |
| Assistant nurses | 3 |
| Admin and Reception workers | 1 |
| Support workers | 0 |