What is job evaluation?
Job evaluation answers the question: “how much is a specific position worth in a given organization”, or more simply: how much should the person performing that work earn, based on the value they bring to the company. It clearly separates the position and scope of duties from the person, in the sense of a specific employee (by name), focusing on competencies or working conditions. Job evaluation is, in fact, an answer to the question of what is important in the organization and how much we want to pay for it. We are moving away from a mentality of paying for holding a position towards paying for the individual elements that make up the job evaluation. The fact that a person speaks 5 foreign languages or has worked for a given company for 20 years does not mean that these 5 languages and experience have the same value for every employer.
The aim of implementing the directive is to ensure pay transparency and equality. It is precisely transparent job evaluation, based on the same criteria for every position, that is intended to ensure clear and transparent pay rules.
Four basic evaluation criteria
The directive requires job evaluation to be based on at least 4 criteria, such as: skills, effort, responsibility, and working conditions. An organization can, of course, expand the list with additional criteria and sub-criteria, depending on the complexity of the work. However, it must include those specified in the directive, and any additional criteria and sub-criteria must be gender-neutral. In practice, this means that competencies generally considered female should not be overlooked. For example, competencies such as emotional effort, conflict resolution skills, and similar ones (more frequently attributed to women) should not be overlooked in favor of analytical skills more frequently associated with men.
In addition, the job evaluation system used by a given organization should cover all positions. Such an approach helps compare requirements (competencies) with pay and create a coherent pay system based on the value of work.
Job evaluation methods
Current regulations do not dictate which method an employer should use to determine the value of individual positions, but they do provide clear guidelines that limit the choices. The directive provides guidelines, describes the minimum requirements for the scope of job classification (the 4 criteria described above), but leaves freedom in choosing the methodology. Additionally, to assist employers, the European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE) has prepared tools that they can use. Current job descriptions are not enough. Regardless of the number of employees, a process is needed to determine the relative value of work.
Pairwise comparison as a simplified evaluation method (Tool 4)
In the European Commission and EIGE toolkit, pairwise comparison (Tool 4) is described as a simplified approach for small and medium-sized organizations that allows them to compare the relative value of positions and rank them. Positions are compared in pairs according to the criteria in the factor and sub-factor plan—skills, responsibility, effort, and working conditions—and the more demanding one in a given pair receives a point. After comparing all pairs, the total number of points determines the position's place in the ranking, which can then be linked to pay grades. The toolkit notes that the method relies heavily on the evaluator's judgment, so the evaluation committee should ensure that unconscious gender bias does not influence its decisions. The requirements of the position must be evaluated, regardless of how well a specific person performs them.
Analytical-point method
The analytical-point method involves evaluating each position separately according to factors and sub-factors, which are assigned levels and points, and the total number of points determines the position's value and its place in the hierarchy. The factors are the criteria from the directive—skills, effort, responsibility, and working conditions—which allows the result for each position to be justified separately for each criterion. The European Commission and EIGE toolkit recommends this method (Tool 5) for medium and large organizations with diverse roles and describes it as providing the strongest protection against gender bias. The Polish MRPiPS and CIOP-PIB guide (version 1.0 from November 2025, preliminary) considers analytical methods to be the most appropriate, while emphasizing that the point method is just one example and that the approach remains flexible.
When working with a client, I always use the analytical method. It is transparent and universal. When an organization grows and creates new positions, applying it does not require developing a new methodology or specialized competencies. A well-designed Excel sheet created once is enough.
Which evaluation method should you choose?
Although neither the directive nor the draft law imposes a single solution, for organizations employing more than 50 people, I always recommend the analytical-point method.
Company size and the EU toolkit method
The guide prepared by EIGE divides organizations into 3 groups. The first consists of those that employ fewer than 10 employees. The guide for the second group describes how to ensure pay transparency when employing between 10 and 249 employees. The last group consists of large enterprises and organizations.
In addition to useful tools, the website also offers additional guides that are useful in the process of comparing the value of work.
What does the Polish MRPiPS guide say?
In addition to the materials available on EU websites, the Ministry of Family, Labour and Social Policy also provides a range of materials for employers. Emphasizing transparent criteria for evaluating work, the Polish guidelines clearly state that summary methods (i.e., those that compare positions without breaking them down into criteria) may not be sufficient. They also recommend the analytical-point method as more appropriate and provide examples of job evaluation when using it.
Is market benchmarking a form of job evaluation?
Given that job evaluation criteria are determined based on the organization, market benchmarking seems unsuitable for implementing the requirements of the directive. This method of comparing positions is based on external factors, namely market pay, rather than the value of positions within the organization (or rather, the value of the competencies required for a given position).
How to conduct job evaluation?
The job evaluation process is carried out in stages. When working with my clients, we always start with a diagnostic stage, checking the current situation: whether there is an up-to-date position hierarchy, job descriptions containing the required competencies and scope of responsibility, regulations, procedures, ordinances, and other documents that affect the assessment of the value of positions.
The job evaluation process step by step
We only begin the job evaluation process once we have finally confirmed which positions exist in the company and what the requirements for them are. Together with employee representatives, we build a matrix of criteria and sub-criteria with assigned levels. Take the “physical effort” criterion as an example. We can grade it in various ways, from a simple division into low, moderate, and high to more complex solutions that combine physical effort with risk. By assigning a specific weight (or point) to each criterion and sub-criterion, and doing the same with the levels, we obtain a matrix.
The next step is to assign the appropriate requirement from the matrix to each position. If the organization uses only four criteria for evaluation, each position must have a specified level of complexity for each of them. In this way, it also receives a score based on the sum of the values from the matrix.
Evaluation result and pay comparison
After assigning a score from the competency matrix to each position, we can easily relate it to the pay scale and thus to the pay level for a given position. The analytical-point method gives the organization and its employees a very high level of transparency in shaping pay policy. The primary aim of the directive is to eliminate inequalities caused by gender discrimination. In my opinion, the added value comes from the comparability of positions. It will be clear to every employee what competencies they must have in their position and what they must do to advance. A pay increase for so-called “seniority” ceases to be justified, because competencies are what matter to the employer.
What are the most common mistakes and challenges in job evaluation?
The most common mistake when working on job evaluation is starting the evaluation without a verified position structure. It is like building a house without foundations. Job evaluation only makes sense when we have clearly defined positions, their descriptions, and their scope of duties—that is, when we know what competencies are required.
Once we have dealt with potential mistakes, it is time to address the challenges. And these are related to the human factor, namely negotiations with trade unions or employee representatives. The larger and less mature the working group, the greater the risk, unfortunately, that everyone “will pull” in their own direction, meaning they will fight for the highest weight for their own strongest competency.
Summary: how to choose a job evaluation method?
Directive 2023/970 leaves the choice of job evaluation method to the employer and requires evaluation based on four criteria: skills, effort, responsibility, and working conditions. The European Commission and EIGE toolkit recommends pairwise comparison for smaller organizations and the analytical-point method for organizations with diverse roles, which the Polish MRPiPS guide identifies as an example of analytical methods considered most appropriate. Market benchmarking answers the question of what the market pays, so in this sense it does not replace the assessment of a position's value within the organization itself. The evaluation result, namely the position's score, allows it to be related to the pay scale and enables the comparison of pay for positions of the same value. In our practice, the whole process begins with organizing the position structure, because without it, there is nothing on which to build the criteria matrix.
If you want to carry out this process in your organization, we can guide you through it: from diagnosing the position structure, through the criteria matrix, to scoring and the pay scale. See what our job evaluation and description service looks like. If you prefer to do it yourself, our workshops will prepare your team to work with their own matrix.
