Setting up the job evaluation and classification process
The HR director, Sarah Davies, set up a five-member, gender-balanced job evaluation committee. Each member was chosen to reflect different parts of the company.
| Job role / Name | Responsibility in the job evaluation committee |
|---|---|
| HR director (Chair): Sarah Davies | Provide project oversight and method adherence |
| Senior chef: Antonio Rossi | Represent kitchen operations, skill levels and physical demands |
| Service workers supervisor: Elena Petrov | Offer insights into customer interaction, communication skills and variable shift demands |
| Event coordinator: Mark Jenkins | Contribute knowledge on project management, problem-solving and client relationship aspects |
| Trade union representative: Maria Sousa | Ensure worker representation and a fair, transparent process |
The HR team used the project outline template (Tool 1) to design a six-month plan. Their goals were to:
- Comply with pay transparency rules within six months
- Create a clear grading structure across more than 15 job types
- Base pay on the value of the job, not the gender of the worker
- Cut any gender pay gaps by at least 10 % within 18 months
The timeline for the process was:
- Month 1 – preparation, including forming the job evaluation committee and beginning communication and planning
- Months 2 and 3 – gathering job information, through questionnaires and interviews
- Months 4 and 5 – job evaluation and classification, including assembling job profiles, scoring jobs and reviewing
- Month 6 – implementation, including enacting new pay structure and policies and engaging in follow-up communication
To get everyone on board, the company launched the project with a clear communication campaign. Workers received an email explaining the purpose of the job evaluation and classification, posters were put up in break rooms with QR codes linking to more information and suggestion boxes were placed in the offices to collect feedback.
At the same time, the job evaluation committee worked to build a shared understanding of the process. They spent an afternoon reviewing the factor and subfactor plan, using real company examples to ensure that everyone interpreted the levels consistently.
For example, they discussed what the ‘problem-solving skills’ subfactor could mean for their organisation:
- Level 2 – standard problems (e.g. an ingredient running out unexpectedly)
- Level 4 – complex, non-standard problems (e.g. redesigning a menu on the fly due to a significant ingredient supply chain disruption)
During annual equality training sessions, this effort to build a common understanding was extended to the workforce. They used the exercises in Tool 0 on gender biases for group discussions. Workers were asked to think about different jobs and recognise tasks and skills often overlooked or invisible.