Job grading

Skills - Knowledge and abilities that are required from the job holder to fulfil a specific function. This includes professional competences (e.g. technical knowledge, expertise, and capabilities) as well as personal and social competences (e.g. ability to work in a team, communication)

Responsibilities - The degree of decision-making authority and influence on processes, resources or other employees associated with a particular role. Responsibility also includes the obligation to take responsibility for the results of a team's actions.

Effort - The physical and mental demands associated with performing the work. These include physical exertion, time pressure, emotional demands and cognitive stress caused by task complexity.

Working conditions - The environmental factors under which an activity is carried out, such as workplace safety, temperature, noise pollution, working hours and flexibility. Ergonomic factors and technical equipment also fall under this term.

Any other factors, if applicable - This category summarises additional aspects that may be important in the evaluation of jobs in an organisation but do not fit into the standard categories.

Management bias. Traditional systems systematically grade management roles higher than specialist roles with equivalent demands - making equal-value specialist career paths structurally impossible.

Outdated factors. Criteria such as physical strength, revenue responsibility, or headcount under management reflect a world of work that no longer describes most organisations.

Numeric opacity. Point tables without verbal descriptions are hard to interpret and easy to manipulate. The result is consultant dependency and low employee trust.

Grade drift. When factor descriptions are vague, evaluators - consciously or not - align results with existing assumptions about a role’s worth. The system confirms hierarchy rather than measuring it.

Poor fit for modern structures. Flat, agile, and knowledge-intensive organisations cannot be fairly evaluated by systems built for command-and-control hierarchies.

Verbal, not numeric. Clear level descriptions replace point tables. Every evaluator - HR, manager, employee, works council - can read and understand the result. There is no black box.

Career-path neutral. Specialist, project management, and people management roles are evaluated with the same rigour, on the same grade map. A senior expert and a senior manager at the same grade carry equivalent job weight - by design, not by exception.

Fully documented. Every evaluation produces an auditable record: which factors were assessed, at which level, and why. This is the foundation for pay equity analysis, pay transparency reporting, and internal governance.

Independently operable. The system is designed to be run by HR professionals without external consultants. Implementation, calibration, and ongoing maintenance stay in-house.

Scalable. One consistent methodology works across job levels, business units, countries, and industries - producing results that are comparable across the entire organisation.