Gathering the information
With support from Katrin Vogel, the clinic’s HR manager, Anna and Peter gathered job information using Tool 2 and Tool 4 as guides. They reviewed existing materials, such as job ads, duty rosters, contracts, patient-care protocols and payroll records.
They noticed that both receptionists and administrative officers are involved in frontline coordination, handling confidential records and liaising with patients or external partners, despite having somewhat different daily tasks. They decided to group these roles together to ensure consistency while still capturing the shared core responsibilities of these posts. This grouping also made the process more manageable.
They also looked into gender representation across the roles, as they started to fill in Tool 4 – Supporting Excel (small and medium-sized organisations).
The committee observed that the topmost leadership role at Riverside Health Clinic (clinical director) is held by a woman, but they noted that this an exception rather than the rule. Most nursing, assistant nursing, administrative and receptionist roles are women-dominated, while technical positions are men-dominated, suggesting that women are concentrated in patient care and administrative functions, while men are more present in technical and diagnostic roles. Among doctors, there is a mix.
The job evaluation committee noted that particular attention would be needed when comparing roles such as assistant nurse and medical technician to avoid repeating gender biases that have historically undervalued women’s work.
| Job / job group | N | Women (n) | Men (n) | Women-dominated? |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Clinical director | 1 |
1 |
X |
|
| Doctors | 6 |
2 |
4 |
|
| Nurses | 7 |
6 |
1 |
X |
| Assistant nurses | 5 |
5 |
X |
|
| Managers (office/HR) | 2 |
1 |
1 |
|
| Medical technicians | 5 |
1 |
4 |
|
| Admin and reception staff | 4 |
3 |
1 |
X |
| Support workers (cleaners, porters) | 4 | 2 |
2 |
Every worker filled in the employee questionnaire to capture new insights.
With such a small workforce, Anna and Peter also held short conversations with one worker representing each job role. These conversations revealed important details about job content and showed examples of undervalued skills or demands.
For example, Lisa, an assistant nurse, explained how a typical day would include lifting patients – particularly those who are immobile, to prepare them for procedures or to reposition or transfer them (e.g. from bed to wheelchair) – preparing medication trays and supporting nurses during procedures.
Next, Anna and Peter reviewed the factor and subfactor plan together with the input they had received from employees. They discussed what each factor meant in the clinic’s context.
For example, Anna and Peter’s initial perception was that admin and reception jobs did not have any specific knowledge requirements. However, considering the input from the questionnaires and interviews, the job evaluation committee acknowledged that both front desk workers and administrative officers needed to understand medical terminology, insurance rules and patient confidentiality.
Another realisation happened upon reviewing the ‘psychosocial and emotional effort’ subfactor. The job evaluation committee agreed that nurses were exposed not only to frequent emotionally charged situations but also to constant and highly stressful circumstances, such as end-of-life care and managing distressed families, which is often not considered when assessing the demands of nursing work.
These conversations shifted the committee’s understanding of several jobs. Once all the information gathered was revised and a consensus had been reached between Anna and Peter about the requirements and demands of each job, they used the job profile template to summarise the information. Then, they shared them with workers for validation before moving to the pair comparison.