Executive (EX) Group Job Evaluation Standard 2022

Job Evaluation Fundamentals

Overview of the Evaluation Process

Practical, Technical, Specialized Know-How

There are three important concepts to grasp in order to apply this sub-factor scale correctly. These concepts are as follows and are covered on the pages that follow:

• Equivalency of depth and breadth
• The Know-How required to manage specialist positions
• Equivalency of work experience and formal education

EX Group positions fall in the range of F to G for Practical, Technical, Specialized Know-How. An EX-Group position is unlikely to be below F, as this applies to positions requiring a seasoned professional having command of their subject area. Similarly, EX Group positions are unlikely to be above G as this would suggest a global authority on a complex domain.

Note: A modifier (pull-up or pull-down) can be used on the Practical, Technical, Specialized Know-How sub-factor.

The following provides some additional guidance on this sub-factor for EX Group work:

The depth and breadth of Practical, Technical, Specialized Know-How is measured on the vertical axis of the Chart.

Planning, Organizing and Integrating Know-How

EX Group positions must know how to do such things as plan, organize, motivate, co-ordinate internally and externally, direct, develop, control, evaluate or check the results of others' work. These skills are required in directing activities, such as those inherent with daily operational activities (line management); or through consultative activities, such as those inherent with directing policy development; or both (as in positions which direct secondary business activities that support the business). The following key concept should be considered when evaluating this sub-factor:

Note: A modifier (pull-up or pull-down) can be applied to the Planning, Organizing Know-How sub-factor.

The selection of a reasonable degree for this sub-factor is based on the collective weight of the above indicators and should not be driven by the highest or lowest indicator. Benchmark jobs are to be referenced to validate the evaluation. The chart below provides guidance on how to assess and measure Planning, Organizing, and Integrating (POI).

The requirement for Planning, Organizing and Integrating Know-How is measured on the horizontal axis of the Guide Chart.

Communicating and Influencing

This final Know-How sub-factor measures the degree to which establishing and maintaining effective interpersonal relationships is central to the position achieving its end results.

The requirement for using communicating and influencing skills on the job is represented by three possible levels. For most executive positions, because of their size and/or nature, the achievement of objectives hinges on the establishment and maintenance of effective interpersonal relations.

In assessing each executive position, evaluators must weigh a variety of considerations in making their judgements, such as:

• The degree to which leadership and engagement of others are both integral to achieving results and highly complex or difficult in nature.
• The importance of service to clients and client contact (both internal and external) as integral elements of the job.
• The nature of the client relationship(s).

There are three levels of Communicating and Influencing:

Level 1 Common courtesy must be employed, and appropriate working relationships established and maintained with subordinates, colleagues, and superiors to accomplish the position’s objectives. However, there is no significant need to influence others in carrying out assignments. Interaction with others is generally for the purpose of a straightforward information exchange or seeking instruction or clarification. This degree of Communicating and Influencing skills is not consistent with EX Group work and should not be used at these levels.

Level 2 In dealing with subordinates, colleagues, and superiors, and in the course of some contact with clients inside and/or outside government, it is necessary to establish and maintain the kind of relationships that will facilitate the acceptance and utilization of the position’s conclusions, recommendations, and advice. In order to achieve desired results, positions must interact regularly with subordinates, colleagues and superiors and have some contact with clients. The nature of these contacts is such that tact and diplomacy beyond the demands of normal courtesy are required. This degree of Communicating and Influencing skills is extremely unlikely for EX Group work.

Level 3 Successful achievement of the position’s program delivery and/or service and/or advisory objectives hinges on the establishment and maintenance of appropriate interpersonal relationships in dealings with subordinates, colleagues, and superiors and in ensuring the provision of service through substantive contact with clients inside or outside government. Skills of persuasiveness or assertiveness as well as empathy and sensitivity to the other person's point of view are essential to ensuring the delivery of service. This involves understanding the other's point of view, determining whether a behavioral change is warranted and, most importantly, causing such a change to occur through the exercise of interpersonal skills.

The Communicating and Influencing Know-How sub-factor is measured, along with Planning, Organizing and Integrating Know-How, on the Guide Chart's horizontal axis.

Note: A modifier (pull-up or pull-down) cannot be applied to the Communicating and Influencing sub-factor.

Combining the Know-How Elements

To this point, three independent assessments regarding Know-How have been made – one for each sub-factor. For example:

The total weight of Know-How is derived from the combination of the three sub-factors. The values assigned to the sub-factors will lead the evaluator to a cell on the chart. This cell will contain three numbers, representing three step values.

Example 1 - Text version

• 350
• 400
• 460

The final decision about which of these numbers to choose to represent the job's total Know-How requirement will be based on the degree of confidence in the validity of the cell selected. Normally, a solid fit on all three sub-factors would lead you to select the middle number in the cell (e.g., for FII3, 400).  If you believe one of the sub-factors might be approaching another degree definition, you can “pull-up” (+) the evaluation by choosing the upper value in the cell or “pull-down” (-) to the lower value. When contemplating the use of such modifiers, evaluators should always consider the relative strength of the position as compared to Benchmark ratings, regarding the sub-factor being evaluated.

Example 2 - Text version

• 350
• 400
• 460

Regardless of the number chosen, you should record any shadings in your evaluation (i.e., any “pulls” up or down). You can do this by using a + or – beside the sub-factor(s) as a modifier. For the example above, F+ II 3, illustrates a pull-up on the Practical, Technical, Specialized Know-How (degree F) resulting in the high value (e.g., 460). Should there be two modifiers in the same direction, for example F+II+3, the result would remain the highest value (e.g., 460). Where there are two opposing modifiers, for example F+II-3, these modifiers would cancel each other, resulting in a middle value (e.g., 400 points).

Double Check - Checking the Step Relationships of a Know-How Evaluation Relative to its Superior

There are some guidelines that can assist you in making/validating your judgments. It is important to bear in mind that these are not hard-and-fast rules. They should not be used as a substitute for thorough analysis of the job and interpretation of the Guide Charts.

As a rule, when you are considering a hierarchy of jobs in a job family, technical ladder or reporting structure, the number of steps in the Know-How score can give some insight into the vertical structure of the hierarchy:

No difference
e.g., 608 to 608

When a supervisor and subordinate are evaluated at the same Know-How level it means that the reporting relationship is administrative only. The supervisor will not be managing or evaluating the content of the subordinate’s work, only whether it was delivered on time / on budget. Such situations are extremely rare.

One-step difference
e.g., 460 to 528

A one-step difference between a supervisor and subordinate position generally indicates a point of compression in the structure, giving reason to question the need for the number of organizational layers found. These situations can be found where the superior is responsible for a portfolio of areas (e.g., Assistant Deputy Minister, Corporate Services) and the subordinates have the subject-matter expertise (e.g., Director General, IM/IT). In this type of organizational design, the superior would be responsible for bringing the organizational requirements to the subordinate and assessing whether a proposed solution satisfies the requirements (the “what”) but would not assess the methodology of the solution (the “how”).  

Two-step difference
e.g., 460 to 608

This is the typical or logical relationship/vertical distance in a reporting sequence, where the positions operate in the same or related domains. The supervisor provides subject-matter guidance.

Three-step difference
e.g., 460 to 700

Three steps between levels are characteristic of reporting relationships in organizations with relatively homogenous/ well-defined work. These situations also support a broad span of control as the superior does not need to spend a lot of time with each subordinate. It is often found when the subordinates deliver the services in the short-term and the superior focusses on the medium to long-term evolution of the services and the organization.

Four-step difference
e.g., 460 to 800

This represents a very significant difference, perhaps suggesting that a level may be missing in the organizational structure. Care should be taken to ensure that it is not the result of an evaluation error.

Thinking Environment

Thinking environment is concerned with the freedom to think and/or the degree of guidance available in approaching problems.  It is measured by the presence and/or absence of assistance or constraints affecting how problems are addressed. Thinking may be limited by precedents, people, and service-wide, department-wide, or functional goals, policies, objectives, procedures, instructions, or practices. In general:

• Goals, policies, standards, and objectives provide help by describing the “why” of an issue and establish boundaries.
• Procedures detail the steps necessary to follow through on a policy (how, where, when, and by whom).
• Instructions and practices outline the specific procedures or steps.

The degree to which help is available to job holders varies. For example: help from functional specialists and superiors may be less readily available to managers in geographically remote or organizationally isolated areas, or operations that run 24/7. The degree to which help is available is evaluated along the vertical axis of the chart. There are no hard-and-fast rules. However, here are some guidelines:

• At the D level, what must be done is often defined and how things must be done is defined, with options to be selected. This is a less likely option for EX Group work.
• At the E level, the what is clearly stated, but the how is determined by the incumbent’s own judgement and experience.
• At F levels, thinking is more broadly about what must be done. Naturally, how things are to be done is also not clearly defined.
• At the G level thinking is more about why things should be done. What must be done is generally less defined, and how things must be done is not defined at all.
• At the H level thinking is constrained only by general laws of nature, science, public morality, etc. and is about setting the strategic direction for the entire Government. The question is “Where should we be going?” H is extremely unlikely for EX Group work as these roles in the public service respond to the direction of the elected Government.

Note: Only a “pull-up” (+) to a higher Thinking Environment can be applied (not a “pull-down”).

The key concept to remember when evaluating the Thinking Environment is as follows:

Thinking Challenge

Thinking Challenge, the second sub-factor of Problem Solving, is concerned with the degree of novelty or original thought required to resolve problems. It assesses the complexity of the problem and the extent to which its solution lies within previous practices. The complexity of the problem faced depends on how clear cut the solution is. The more complex it becomes, the more the job holder must select from experience and adapt previous solutions to similar problems: “Is there a right or wrong answer?” “Is the solution clear cut or does it require more judgement?”.

Here are some guidelines:

Roles at degree 3 encounter differing situations where there is a need to search for the appropriate solution: “Which of these possible answers is the most appropriate given the situation?”.

At degree 4, roles encounter new / unique / ambiguous situations, requiring adaptive thinking; this includes the search for new and better ways of doing things and even challenging "is this the right question". This degree is most likely for EX Group work.

At degree 5, situations encountered are uncharted or novel – both inside and outside the organization - and require the development of new concepts or imaginative solutions for which there are no precedents. 

Note: Only a “pull-up” ( + ) to a higher Thinking Challenge can be applied (not a “pull-down”).

The levels of Thinking Challenge appear across the top of the Problem Solving chart.

Combining the Problem Solving Sub-Factors

The result of making independent judgements for each of the two Problem Solving sub-factors is that the evaluation falls within a cell that contains two percentage step values.

Example 3 - Text version

• 50%
• 57%

Two percentage step values: your choice of which specific Problem Solving percentage to use to represent the job's total Problem Solving requirements will be a judgment, based on your analysis of the strength or weakness of the job's fit in relation to the Guide Chart definitions of the two sub-factors and comparison to relevant benchmarks at the percentage levels.

Generally, a solid fit in relation to the definitions should result in choosing the lower (standard) number in the cell. A “pull” to a higher Thinking Environment and/or Thinking Challenge would change the choice to the higher percentage. A pull-down modifier cannot be applied to this factor.

Example 4 - Text version

• F4: 50% solid fit choice
• F+4, F4+, F+4+: 57% “pull” to G Thinking Environment and/or 5 Thinking Challenge

To determine Problem Solving points, you can use the chart illustrating the most likely combinations of Problem Solving and Know-How points (second page). Simply locate the Problem Solving percentage in the left or right columns and the Know-How points along the top or bottom. The resulting Problem Solving points are found at the intersection.

Double Check - Checking the Problem Solving Evaluation

Evaluators should take the time to review their Problem Solving evaluations. Since Problem Solving is the application of Know-How, experienced evaluators have found that the relationship between the two factors tends to fall into patterns. These patterns are shown by the shadings on the most likely, less likely, and unlikely combinations of Problem Solving and Know-How points on the chart. They will serve as a general guide for checking the Problem Solving evaluation:

• Normally, an evaluation should fall in the Most Likely areas.
• An evaluation can fall in the Less Likely areas if it can be rationalized.
• If an evaluation falls in the unlikely shaded areas, the evaluation of both the Know-How and the Problem Solving factors should be re-checked. It is possible that the body of knowledge the incumbent is expected to have is insufficient for thinking at the level indicated by the Problem Solving evaluation, or that too much knowledge is expected of the position given the degree to which it will be put to use, as indicated by the Problem Solving evaluation.

The following outlines the types of roles / work found at specific Problem Solving (PS) percentages:

Freedom to Act

By examining the nature and extent of the controls – or the lack of the controls – that surround the job, this sub-factor directly addresses the question of the job's freedom to take action or implement decisions.

The controls placed on the position's Freedom to Act can be supervisory or procedural or both. In assessing Freedom to Act we focus on the core responsibilities of the position. A key difference to keep in mind when considering Freedom to Act is:

Since controls tend to diminish as you rise in the organization, Freedom to Act increases with organizational rank. However, while it is true that no job can have as much Freedom to Act as its superior, the evaluator should be wary of automatic slotting according to organization level alone.

Note: Modifiers (“pull-up” or “pull-down”) can be applied to the Freedom to Act sub-factor.

Here are some broad guidelines that can help in assessing Freedom to Act:

• At the E level, positions are relatively free to decide, within approved plans, what the objectives or end results will be. Review of work is typically on an annual/quarterly basis. Roles at this level determine “how” and “when” objectives are to be achieved/completed (e.g., Director, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs).

  Roles reporting at the third hierarchical level may be at E+ where they are delivering activities / operations within a well-defined departmental framework (e.g., Director, Program Evaluation at degree E+). 

• At the F level, positions are relatively free to determine what the general end results are to be. Managerial direction received will be general in nature. Assessment of end results must be viewed over longer time spans (e.g., six months to a year or longer).

  Roles reporting at the third hierarchical level may be at F- when establishing how to implement government-wide frameworks within the departmental context (e.g., Director, Risk Management at degree F-).

  Positions at the second hierarchical level are typically at F or F+. (e.g. Regional Director, Health Services, Prairie Region at degree F, and BM 7-X-1 Director General, Centralized Operations at degree F+).

• At the G level, the “what” is communicated only in very general terms. Positions are subject to guidance rather than direction or control. Any job evaluated here is subject only to broad policy and strategic objectives. This is typically the level applied to Assistant Deputy Minister level roles (e.g., Assistant Deputy Minister, Infrastructure and Environment).

Area of Impact – Magnitude

This sub-factor of Accountability measures the size of the area affected by a position. While it does give an indication of the weight to be assigned to the position, it is the least influential and sensitive of the three sub-factors of Accountability used to determine the overall Accountability evaluation. The evaluation of the Area of Impact (magnitude) must always be considered with the Nature of Impact.

To support a common way of measuring the size or area impacted in the context of a job’s accountability, a common quantifiable means or proxy for representing the diverse units, functions and programs that could be affected by the job was needed. Dollars have proven to be the most widely applicable proxy for measuring the Area of impact (Magnitude) of Accountability. The Area of Impact (Magnitude) scale is the least influential because the change or increase in dollar value to generate a 15% difference in point score is a 233% change (e.g., a budget increase from 300M to 400M is a 33% increase in dollar value but does not change the Magnitude rating).

However, to make a logical, rational determination of the Area of impact (Magnitude), the evaluator must remember that dollars are simply a proxy, not an absolute measure.

The Area of Impact (Magnitude) continuum on the Guide Chart has seven degrees, from Very Small to Largest. These headings provide a rough idea of the appropriate Magnitude for the subject position. References to the appropriate Benchmarks will help refine this initial determination. In this way, evaluators can arrive at a reasonable determination of the Area of Impact (Magnitude) and avoid jumping immediately to a premature consideration of budget dollars.

Evaluators should use the following process for applying the proxy to establish the appropriate Area of Impact (Magnitude):

• Determine and describe (in words) what part(s) and/or function(s) of the organization the job affects and the nature of the job’s effect on each of them.
• Once the part(s) and/or function(s) most appropriate to the job have been identified, think about the relative size of the part(s) or function(s) under consideration and describe these in words (Found in Dimensions section of the job description, or obtain this information through supporting documents.).
• Once these relationships have been articulated, verify them and the “size” selected for the job against the dimensions of the Benchmark positions.

Use of the Accountability Magnitude Index to Adjust for Inflation

Unfortunately, the value of money does not remain constant over time. To compensate for this change, the dollar values used as proxies for the Area of Impact (Magnitude), reflected in the Benchmarks have been converted into constant dollars to ensure a continuous alignment with the monetary amounts identified in the Guide charts.

Therefore, to make comparisons between a subject job's proxy dollars (which are expressed in current dollars) and the constant dollars in the Benchmarks, it is necessary to convert the current dollars into constant dollars. The Accountability Magnitude Index (AMI) provides the factor used for this purpose. To convert a current dollar value into constant dollars, divide the current dollar value by the approved AMI.

The AMI is adjusted periodically by Korn Ferry to reflect the value of Canadian currency on a global stage. This adjustment is reviewed annually and periodically adopted by the Office of the Chief Human Resources Officer (OCHRO) in the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat for application in evaluating EX Group jobs. Any AMI adjustments to be used in the Core Public Administration for EX Group job evaluation are announced by the OCHRO. The AMIs from financial year 1980/81 to the publication date of this guidance are as follows:

“Pass-Through Dollars”

Many positions may appear to have a very large Magnitude, but the dollars being used are “Pass-Through Dollars” where little or no value is added to the position (transfer payments to individuals or other jurisdictions under social programs which are controlled largely by legislation, regulation or formula fall into this category). An example would be Canada Pension Plan payments. The key to handling Pass-Through Dollars is as follows:

Nature of Impact on end-results

The Nature of Impact measures the directness of the position's effect on end results. The evaluation of the Nature of Impact must always be considered with the Area of Impact (Magnitude). The Nature of Impact levels are as follows:

I - Indirect: The position provides information or other supportive services for use by others. Activities are noticeably removed from final decision and end results. The position's contribution is modified by or merged with other support before the end result stage. For example: 

Director, Financial Accounting, accountable for the processing, accounting, and reporting of departmental financial transactions. The role provides financial transaction support services; however, it is noticeably removed from the end results achieved by the departmental budget, having an indirect influence on the overall departmental budget.

The use of + or – with an Indirect impact suggest that, for some jobs, the influence and contributions can be more closely tied to the end results, while for others, the link is more obscure.

C - Contributory: The position provides interpretative, advisory, or facilitating services for use by others or by a team in taking action. The position's advice and counsel are influential and closely related to actions or decisions made by others. The position’s contribution significantly influences decisions related to various units or programs. For example:

Director General, Integrity Risk Guidance, acts as the authority on risk management and integration, and provides advice and guidance to senior departmental officials to ensure the integrity of departmental policies, programs and service delivery strategies and frameworks. The position influences the design and delivery of departmental policies and programs, reflected as a contributory impact on the organization’s overall budget.

To the extent that Contributory pertains to only a portion of the investment represented by the Area of Impact (Magnitude), or the advice given relates more to remaining compliant with governing frameworks, a C- might apply. Conversely, if the advice is expected to materially impact the value delivered across the bulk of the investment represented, it might be a C+.

S - Shared: The position is jointly accountable with others for taking action and exercising a controlling Impact on end results. Positions with this type of Impact have noticeably more direct control over actions than positions evaluated at the Contributory level, but do not have total control over all the variables in determining the end result(s).

A basic rule is that Shared Impact does not exist vertically in an organization (e.g., between superior and subordinate). Shared Impact can exist between peer jobs within the same organization or with a position or positions from outside the organizational unit or outside of the Federal Government. Shared Impact suggests a degree of partnership in, or joint accountability for, the total result. In this way it differs from Contributory Impact, where the position is only accountable for an input to the end result. For example:

The departmental Project Manager could be considered to have a Shared Impact on all design and construction activities carried out by Public Services and Procurement Canada in the construction of a major facility.

The use of + or – with a Shared impact suggest “we are all equal, but some are more impactful than others”. It is a relative assessment of the impact of the different players on a file or issue where they are part of the decision-making team.

P - Primary: The position has controlling Impact on end results, and the accountability of others is subordinate or advisory. Such an Impact is commonly found in managerial positions which have line accountability for key end result areas, be they large or small. For example:

The Director of a research unit may have Primary Impact upon the research activities done by all sections of the unit. A subordinate Manager within the unit may be accountable for the research activities in a section of the unit. Both positions could be evaluated at the Primary level, but the Area of Impact (the size of the unit or function or activity) would vary.

Note: There are no + or - modifiers for this impact.

Choosing the Correct Area of Impact (Magnitude) and Nature of Impact Combination

An evaluation score may differ depending on the combination of Area and Nature of Impact used. It is likely that an Executive role can be evaluated with more than one reasonable combination. For example:

• A function head (e.g., a Director General of Human Resources) may be seen to have a Contributory Impact on the investment in the workforce of the Department (e.g., Departmental salary budget) or a Primary Impact on the operations of the Human Resources Branch (e.g., Branch Salary and O&M budget).
• A Director General, Procurement may be seen to have a Primary Impact on the effective operation of the branch (e.g., Branch Salary and O&M budget), or an impact on the value of the goods and services being procured for the organization where the nature of that Impact may vary from Indirect to Shared depending on the influence that procurement has on obtaining the optimum return on investment on the money spent.

Evaluators are encouraged to identify the different possible combinations for the position being evaluated before selecting which might be more suitable. Very often the point totals available in the alternative slots for the possible combinations of Area and Nature of Impact will be the same; in such cases it is advisable to select the combination that best expresses the core purpose of the role. Where they are not the same, it is advisable to use the higher score to properly reflect the full job size.

The key is to find the combination of Area and Nature of Impact that results in the highest legitimate evaluation. This is because it is vital to get the fullest, most complete measure of the position for these two sub-factors as to properly reflect the job size. The table on the following pages provides some guidelines for evaluating certain types of expenditures when these are used as the proxy.

Examples of Impact for Various Dimensions

Combining the Accountability Sub-Factors

The result of evaluating the three sub-factors is that the evaluation falls within a cell with three possible point values, each representing one step up in size.

Example 5 - Text version

• Low: 350
• Medium: 400
• High: 460

The number chosen from the cell will depend upon your assessment of the relative strength of the job's fit to sub-factor definitions. However, unlike the sub-factors of Know-How and Problem Solving (which have a more or less equal weight in determining the factor's score), in the case of Accountability, the fit of the Freedom to Act sub-factor is the most important one to consider. As such, it is possible for the evaluator to place more weight on the Freedom to Act rating as compared to the other sub-factor ratings when deciding on the point score.

Double-Check: Checking the Complete Evaluation

Short profiles

An easy and convenient way of looking at the type of job and the balance between the criteria is to look just at the relationship between the Problem Solving score (the thinking element of the job) and the Accountability score (the results element of the job).

The short profile is determined by contrasting the Accountability score with the Problem Solving score and determining the number of step differences between the two (if any). Thus:

• When the Accountability score is larger there is an A profile
• When the Problem Solving score is larger there is a P profile
• And when the two scores are the same, we have a ‘level profile known as L

An action-oriented job is primarily oriented toward generating end results. Problem Solving takes a secondary position in these roles. Therefore, the points given to Accountability will be higher than those for Problem Solving. This is known as an A Profile.

A thinking job exists to apply Know-How in the analysis, investigation, and identification of situations. The Problem Solving points will be greater than those for Accountability. This is known as a P Profile.

A balanced or level job is one in which the Accountability and Problem Solving points are the same. The position will be staff-oriented and have responsibility for managerial or supervisory functions. This is known as a L Profile.

While there are no fixed rules, particular types of jobs do tend to have predictable profiles.

P Profiles

P4, P3 Problem Solving points exceed Accountability points by four or three steps, respectively. Jobs with these profiles will tend to be concerned with performing basic or pure research, with little orientation to, or regard for, development aspects. P4 Jobs will rarely be found outside a university and would therefore be very unlikely for EX Group work.

P2, P1 Problem Solving points exceed Accountability points by two steps or one step, respectively. Applied research or policy development jobs will tend to have these profiles. These profiles are less likely for Executives positions as they are typically accountable for results.

L Profiles

L Problem Solving points equal Accountability points. Jobs with these profiles will tend to involve providing advisory or analytical services in staff functions or supervisory positions such as financial analysts or heads of functional specialties.

A Profiles

A1 Accountability points exceed Problem Solving points by one step. Jobs with A1 profiles are often hybrid jobs with significant people management responsibilities (such as human resources managers), line management positions, or jobs which receive a significant degree of direction from functional units, such as project managers or regional directors of administrative services.

A2 These profiles are found in line management jobs which have a clear and well-defined responsibility for achieving results, such as regional director for operations.

A3, A4 Examples of this profile are unusual but can occur where the Accountability for results is very large and immediate, but the Problem Solving or Know-How content of the job is relatively low.

Profiling allows the validity of evaluations to be checked against typical job profiles. Discrepancies, if found, may indicate an incorrect evaluation. However, they might also indicate an inappropriately structured job. Therefore, it is important to avoid letting profiles drive the evaluation process. EX Group positions are most commonly found within P1, L, A1 and A2 job profiles.

Process for Selecting Suitable Benchmarks

Organization Check

A crucial test of the validity of the evaluation is whether it fits with the evaluations for other positions in the unit. This means that when you isolate each factor, the step differences between the subject job and the supervisor, peer and subordinate positions for each factor all make sense.

A common evaluation error is over-emphasizing the differences between peer positions and under-emphasizing the differences between superior and subordinate. Note, however, that there are no rules for determining the proper relationship between levels in an organization. Each case must be assessed on its own.

For example: the chart on the table below shows four organizational structures with very different superior/subordinate relationships. In each case, the step differences between the factors for the two levels change. However, these examples should not be taken as hard and fast rules. They simply serve to demonstrate:

• a variety of superior/subordinate relationships that can make sense
• the importance of looking at the reality of the actual departmental structure when testing the validity of a new evaluation

In the final analysis, as throughout the evaluation process, informed common sense should be the tool for making and checking all judgments.

Organization Check – Validity of Evaluation			Likely Step Differences
Designation	Unit Diagram	Common Characteristics	Know How	Problem Solving (%)	Accountability
“Normal” Superior/Subordinate Relationship		Reasonable span of control Clear channels of communication Balance between subordinates Management delegation	2	1	3
Lean Staff		Broad span of control Communication processes fuzzy Imbalance between subordinate positions Management and decision-making centralized	3	1 or 2	3 to 5
Missing Level		Large span of control Communication of tasks only Large differentials in subordinate position Management and decision-making highly centralized	4	2	5 to 7
One-over-one (Not typically supported in the Executive Group)		One subordinate Superior and subordinate function as a team Usually a temporary “grooming” position for subordinate prior to taking over the top position Appropriate where criticality of top job dictates (i.e., CEO) or where there is a need for a split between external focus and internal focus	1	1	2