How to get the pay structure right

By Memory Nguwi | 6h ago

It is a way of ranking roles according to how much they contribute to the business. The result is a set of job grades where roles with similar value are placed together.

I HAVE worked with many organisations over the years to help them evaluate jobs and build pay structures.

Done well, this work creates fairness, motivates employees, and allows companies to compete for talent. But despite its importance, I have seen far too many of these projects go wrong.

The sad part is that most of the mistakes are avoidable — and once made, they are hard and expensive to fix. That is why I am writing this piece: to highlight where things usually fall apart and, more importantly, how to get it right from the start.

What is job evaluation?

Let us begin with the basics. Job evaluation is a process that helps an organisation figure out which jobs are more valuable than others — not based on the person doing the job, but on the job itself.

It is a way of ranking roles according to how much they contribute to the business. The result is a set of job grades where roles with similar value are placed together.

Once you have grouped jobs into grades, you use that information to build a pay structure — a framework that tells you how much to pay for each grade based on what is fair inside your company and what the market is paying outside.

This may sound simple. In theory, it is. But in the real world, many things go wrong — and when they do, the whole effort unravels. Let us look at the most common reasons why.

Keep Reading

It all starts with the job description

If there is one thing that causes more job evaluation headaches than anything else, it is poor job descriptions. This is where everything begins — and if you start with weak or inaccurate inputs, you will end up with flawed results.

The problem is that many job descriptions are either exaggerated or too modest. Some employees try to make their roles sound bigger than they really are, hoping for a higher grade.

Others understate their duties because they do not want to seem like they are boasting — or they do not know how to describe what they do. Neither approach helps.

Even worse, managers often do not take the time to review the job descriptions their teams submit properly. Some rush through them. Others pass them to junior staff. But when the job grading results come out, and they do not like what they see, they are quick to protest.

The truth is that over 70% of job evaluation issues stem from weak job descriptions. That is why I tell my clients to spend most of their time — sometimes up to 80% — just getting this part right. It is that important.

Good intentions, bad outcomes

Another trap organisations fall into is using internal grading committees to do the job evaluation.

On paper, this looks like a smart move. It saves money and creates ownership. But in practice, it often leads to bias — even when committee members try to be fair.

Why? Because it is hard to separate the job from the person doing it — especially if you know the individual. If a committee member knows someone is hardworking, educated, or popular, they may grade the job higher than it deserves.

And if someone is not well-liked or seen as underperforming, their role may be undervalued.

This is not about bad people — it is about human nature.

That is why I strongly recommend involving an external expert. Someone from outside the organisation brings a fresh perspective and no personal baggage.

They are focused on the role, not the politics. That neutrality is what protects the process and makes the outcomes credible.

No way to appeal?

People care about how their jobs are valued — and they deserve to be heard if they feel something is not right. But in many organisations, there is no formal way to appeal job evaluation results. This creates frustration and breeds mistrust.

A fair appeals process does not mean letting people complain endlessly. It means having clear rules: What can be appealed? Who hears the appeal? What kind of evidence is needed?

Without structure, appeals become messy and emotional.

However, when done right, an appeals process gives people confidence that the system is fair, even if they do not always agree with the outcome.

Too soon

One of the biggest mistakes I see is rushing to build the pay structure before finalising the job evaluation results. This is like trying to hang curtains before you have finished building the walls.

If people are still questioning the grades, and you have already set salaries based on those grades, you are asking for trouble. Disputes will follow, and employees will start to distrust the entire process.

Always make sure the job evaluation results are agreed upon before moving to the pay structure phase. Without that agreement, you are building on shaky ground.

Skipping

Strangely, some organisations go through the trouble of evaluating jobs — and then stop there.

They do not build or update their pay structures. As a result, nothing changes. The effort becomes an academic exercise, and employees start asking: “What was the point?”

A job evaluation without a pay structure is like diagnosing a problem and refusing to treat it.

Pay structures are how you turn job values into fair and competitive salaries.

They bring consistency, transparency, and confidence into your compensation system. If you don’t follow through, you miss the biggest benefit of all — linking what people do to what they earn in a way that makes sense to everyone.

How to get it right

The good news is, all of these mistakes can be avoided. You just need the right approach.

Start by investing time in strong, accurate, and honest job descriptions. Involve both job holders and line managers in a serious way. Do not cut corners here — this is your foundation.

Bring in external help when it is time to evaluate the jobs. A neutral expert can help you avoid internal politics and keep the focus where it belongs: On the job, not the person.

Put a clear and fair appeals process in place.

Make sure employees know they can raise concerns — and that their concerns will be treated seriously, within set boundaries.

Only design your pay structure after your evaluation results are finalised and widely accepted. Do not jump ahead. Trust takes time to build — and you only get one shot to do this properly.

Finally, do not treat job evaluation as an end in itself. Use it to build or refresh your pay structure. That is how you make the process real, useful, and lasting.

A strategic tool, not just an HR task

Job evaluation and pay structure design are not just HR projects — they are strategic tools.

When done right, they create fairness, transparency, and long-term value. They help you keep the right people, pay them fairly, and avoid internal conflict.

If your organisation is thinking about going down this path, stop and plan first. Do not rush.

Do not do it just to tick a box. And most importantly, do not let politics, shortcuts, or poor preparation ruin what could be a powerful tool for building trust and performance.

Get it right — and your organisation will feel the benefits for years to come.

Nguwi is an occupational psychologist, data scientist, speaker and managing consultant at Industrial Psychology Consultants. — +263 24 248 1 946-48/ 2290 0276, cell number +263 772 356 361 or e-mail: [email protected] or visit ipcconsultants.com.