See Attached
PLEASE RESPONSE TO THE 2 DISCUSSIONS BELOW, REGARDING CAST STUDY ATTACHED. A TURNITIN.COM ASSIGNMENT.
** 2TA**
What are some of the advantages and disadvantages of the simple ranking, alternate ranking, and point method job evaluation techniques?
The simple ranking method for job evaluation has several advantages. It is easy and quick to implement, requiring minimal data and administrative resources. Additionally, it provides a straightforward comparison between job roles. However, this method also has disadvantages. Since it depends on personal judgment, it is subjective and prone to bias (Gerhart & Rynes, 2003). Furthermore, it needs more specific criteria for ranking, making it easier to justify decisions. Lastly, it needs to account for the complexity and nuances of job duties.
The Alternate Ranking Method helps reduce evaluation bias by compelling raters to concentrate on the highest and lowest positions first (Milkovich et al., 2014). This method remains relatively simple and quick to implement. However, it is subjective and does not consider the specific content of each job, similar to the simple ranking method. Additionally, it may not be suitable for larger organizations with numerous complex roles.
The Point Method has several advantages. It provides an objective and systematic approach, offering a detailed analysis of job duties. Assigning numerical values to compensable factors like skills, responsibilities, and effort ensures a consistent and defensible job hierarchy. Additionally, it is more transparent and can be better justified to employees and management.
However, there are also some disadvantages to consider. Implementing the Point Method can be time-consuming as it requires significant data collection. It is a complex method requiring training and expertise to develop and administer. Lastly, the point method may be perceived as bureaucratic or rigid in organizations that need more flexibility (Katz et al., 2007).
What problems may occur by following Robert’s approach?
Robert’s approach has some potential problems that we should consider. First, ask Marco to conduct the ranking on his risks influencing the rankings through personal bias. Involving multiple raters would help minimize bias and increase the accuracy and fairness of the evaluation (Milkovich et al., 2014). Secondly, the simple ranking method may need to provide the detailed information necessary to create a consistent and equitable compensation structure. The point method, albeit more time-consuming, would ensure a more thorough evaluation of job roles. Moreover, assigning Marco additional tasks, such as completing the company’s affirmative action plan, while reducing the time allotted for job evaluations could lead to rushed work and decreased accuracy. Both tasks require careful consideration and effort, and compressing the timeline increases the risk of errors and oversight.
What do you recommend Marco do first? Why?
Marco needs to prioritize the affirmative action plan, which is already overdue and a legal obligation. This will help ensure compliance and avoid potential penalties. Additionally, Marco could advocate for a balanced approach by proposing a compromise to Robert. For example, he could suggest using the alternate ranking method, which is quicker than the point method but more thorough than simple ranking. This would balance the need for speed and accuracy. Marco should also stress the importance of involving multiple raters in the job evaluation process to reduce subjectivity and bias, providing a more well-rounded assessment of the job roles. If time is a significant constraint, Marco could recommend bringing in additional resources or delegating tasks to ensure the job evaluation and the affirmative action plan are completed efficiently without sacrificing quality. By following these recommendations, Marco can better manage the workload while ensuring that the job evaluation process and the affirmative action plan meet the necessary standards of accuracy and compliance.
References
Gerhart, B., & Rynes, S. L. (2003). Compensation: Theory, evidence, and strategic implications.
Katz, H. C., Kochan, T. A., & Colvin, A. J. S. (2007). An Introduction to Collective Bargaining
and Industrial Relations. McGraw-Hill.
Milkovich, G. T., Newman, J. M., & Gerhart, B. (2014). Compensation. McGraw-Hill Education.
***DJ 1***
6-6. What are some of the advantages and disadvantages of the simple ranking, alternate ranking, and point method job evaluation techniques?
Simple Method: This is a straightforward approach that can be used quickly; it ranks your classes and their features. Martocchio stated that it quickly ranked jobs from the highest to the lowest by their overall impression of value, no need for complex evaluation. * It is especially helpful to small associations or those on a shoestring budget. But as simple as it is, it is likewise that much vulnerable. Without a granular criterion, the entire process can be very subjective which translates into possible biases or favoritism. According to Martocchio (2019), simple ranking, “Has Weaknesses Personal Biases: Since it Suffers without specific List Guidelines Depends on Presented the subjective There are Instructions for #1 Interpretation Open to place as relative Figure 5–2 (p. 153). A related approach falls short of capturing the complex or level of responsibility associated with a job.
The follow on rank method is a little more organized and alternates the most highly right positions. This helps alleviate some of the bias, turning it into a less biased investment compare to a plain vanilla ranking. The alternate ranking method, as Martocchio (2019) explains, “Because the judge relies on the person comparing two jobs instead of ratings a job against a standard, this system reduced evaluation errors.” (p. 154). While still an improvement, it doesn’t apply to the job content and responsibilities providing a less valuable rating for a cross-section of jobs. Additionally, as the jobs start growing in numbers, the procedure becomes more time-taking and therefore it is not much feasible for large organizations.
Point method of job evaluation is the most precise and scientific method. It assigns a point value to each job based on compensable factors, like working conditions, skills required, or amount of responsibility given. This approach helps maintain fair compensation structures by making sure that job reviews are uniform and clear. The point method gives us a clear and defensible way to measure the value of individual jobs; Martocchio (2019) states this technique is empirical and quantifiable, which decreases bias in compensation decisions, providing more detail than other methods, as well as building overall better compensation performance measures. This method does take more time and more resources though This requires companies to also invest in training the evaluators and building compensable factors, which can get cumbersome for smaller organizations.
6-7. What problems may occur by following Robert’s approach?
Robert’s decision to use the simple ranking method and expedite the process poses several potential problems. First, the lack of precision and detail in the simple ranking method can result in an evaluation system that doesn’t adequately reflect the complexity or nuances of various jobs. According to Martocchio (2019), “Simplistic ranking systems can obscure significant differences between jobs, leading to unfair compensation outcomes” (p. 156). This may cause dissatisfaction among employees, especially those in more complex roles that are not adequately represented by such a simplistic system. Furthermore, by having Marco conduct the evaluations alone, Robert introduces the risk of subjectivity and bias. Without multiple raters, the evaluation process could become highly personalized, with Marco’s own perceptions skewing the results.
In addition, the rushed process increases legal and compliance risks. But the with-or-without-sex question is already behind schedule as part of an affirmative action plan, and noncompliance with equal employment opportunity laws may bring penalties or legal challenges. In using the term of Martocchio (2019), ensuring that job evaluations are done accurately and well-documented assures that fair pay practices support any legal issue (p. 160). This is ultimately a threat to employee morale and trust. When workers perceive the ranking to be unfair or favoritism is looking like a culprit of promotion rather than merit, it would fall into disengagement which further has chances of decreased productivity and lack of employee loyalty leading to higher turnover rates. If they think the evaluation process isn’t open and fair, it can erode trust in company leadership.
6-8. What do you recommend Marco do first? Why?
The worse aspects are the compliance issues, which is why McQueen should start by finishing the affirmative action plan. This item was past-due, and adherence to EEO regulations is non-negotiable. If a company fails to comply with the affirmative action rules, it can put them in considerable legal peril and hobble their image (Martocchio, 2019). In fact, if Marco tackles this matter now he ensures the company is not attracting legal sanctions and fulfills that obligation.
Once the affirmative action plan is complete, Marco should advocate for using the point method for job evaluations. Although Robert prefers the faster, simpler ranking method, Marco can explain that the point method will provide a more detailed and fair evaluation of job roles, leading to a more equitable pay structure. As Martocchio (2019) explains, “Investing in a thorough job evaluation process not only ensures compliance with pay equity laws but also helps foster a fair and motivating work environment” (p. 164). If time is a concern, Marco could propose conducting point evaluations for critical or higher-tier jobs first, while using simpler methods for less complex roles. This would strike a balance between meeting Robert’s desire for speed and ensuring a robust, fair evaluation process.
References:
Martocchio, J. J. (2019). Strategic compensation: A human resource management approach (10th ed.). Pearson.
Case 1: Job Evaluation at Smith Upholstery
Smith Upholstery has been in business since 1970. The company started out hand upholstering the seats for luxury automakers. It built a reputation of excellence. In recent years, however, many luxury automobile companies established in-house upholstering shops, leading to a reduction in business. The company’s founder, Robert Smith, anticipated these changes and actively sought contracts to upholster seats for the high-volume economy car market, using automated technology. Robert staffed the manufacturing line to oversee the operation of automated systems and troubleshoot problems that threatened to slow down the line.
Robert recognized that he needed help crafting job descriptions and job evaluation plans to help set pay rates. He hired Marco Colella following the completion of a master’s degree in human resources. Robert met Marco shortly after he began his first day of work. He reviewed priorities with Marco and Robert asked him to lead the job description and job evaluation projects. They agreed to meet at the end of the week to discuss a plan for getting this work done.
Marco met with managers to understand current staffing and job structures. Also, he discussed anticipated staffing needs. Marco used the information that he gathered and what he learned about job descriptions and job evaluation in his degree program to develop a proposal for completing this project. He crafted alternatives for conducting job evaluation, including
