Ministers' Deputies / Rapporteur Groups

GR-AB
Rapporteur Group on Administrative and Budgetary Questions

GR-AB(2008)5  19 February 2008[1]

————————————————

Job Classification

Secretariat memorandum prepared by the Directorate General of Administration and Logistics

Item to be considered by the GR-AB at its meeting on 11 March 2008

————————————————

Introduction

1.         Definition and purpose of job classification

1.1        Job classification is a human resources tool for organising jobs and levels of responsibility, grouping together similar or comparable jobs according to the functions to be performed and related skills, knowledge or experience required to discharge these functions. It creates a hierarchy based on the level of responsibility and tasks assigned and ensures consistency between the actual duties and responsibilities of a post and its grade. Consequently, it ensures consistency between the grades of posts across organisations. Finally, by contributing to sound posts’ management, classification management is critical to the proper and responsible use of limited financial and human resources.

1.2        Job classification is based on an analytical job evaluation performed fairly, consistently and objectively by means of a job classification method applied systematically to all jobs in an organisation. It is carried out regardless of the quality of performance of the post-holder and creates a ground for proper career paths based on competency management.

2.         Job classification at the Council of Europe

2.1        As other international organisations, the Council of Europe is steadily changing, either through comprehensive changes in mission, scope or responsibilities or by evolution. Over time, such developments reflect in the assignment of new or different duties and responsibilities to existing posts which must be properly assessed if internal coherence between posts and internal equity between post-holders are to be ensured.

2.2        The first job classification project carried out at the Council of Europe dates back to 1976^[2]. The
ad-hoc sectoral regradings decided since then, led to distortions.

2.3        Job classification was introduced at the Council of Europe following the Organisation’s Second Summit and the Report of the ‘Committee of Wise Persons’ which led to several initiatives aiming at increasing the efficiency of the Council of Europe’s Secretariat. The administration modernisation programme included the reform of human resources policy which led, in parallel to other key initiatives, to the launching of the job classification project in 2004.

2.4        This project pursued the following objectives:

- to take stock of the organisational changes reflected in employment evolution outside and within the Council of Europe;

- to introduce a job classification system ensuring coherence and fairness in job grades across different parts of the Organisation;

- to create a tool which enables and ensures efficient posts’ management;

- to create a basis for proper career paths based on competency management.

The Council of Europe’s job classification methodology

To take into account its organisational specificities, the Council of Europe adopted a tailor-made job classification methodology comprising the following:

3.         Reference Jobs

3.1        Reference Jobs are generic descriptions of typical jobs describing the key characteristics of a job in terms of mission (purpose of the job, reason for its existence), key activities (major duties and responsibilities) and key competencies (required knowledge, skills, attitudes and values). The key competencies on which this exercise is based were previously identified by the Council of Europe and are listed in the competency inventory^[3]. This guide on competencies identifies and describes the knowledge, skills, attitudes, values and behaviour required for Council of Europe staff members. Reference Jobs can either apply directly or be used as benchmark.

3.2        Between April and August 2004, an internal project team^[4] developed, in close collaboration with external consultants in the field of job classification, Reference Jobs corresponding to most posts in the Council of Europe. This process involved the consultation of  45 senior managers and 138 staff members. 

3.3        The 61 Reference Jobs developed by the Council of Europe are divided into 12 job families
(e.g. Management, Programme Officers, Assistants). They cover all grade categories (Administrators, Assistants, Technicians) and over 90% of posts in the Council of Europe. The few posts which do not match a reference job or cannot be assessed in comparison to one, are evaluated by direct application of the classification method.

4.         Analytical Weighting Method

4.1        The Council of Europe’s analytical weighting method combines the main job classification methodologies (Hay, Orba).

4.2        The analytical weighting method was developed in close collaboration with external consultants specialised in the field of job classification. It is based on a set of evaluation criteria reflecting the requirements typical to a whole range of jobs existing at the Council of Europe, defined, weighted and validated through an internal consultation process.

4.3        The Council of Europe method comprises the following evaluation criteria:

- accountability (20%). This criteria is related to the kind of key activities performed in the job and their impact, consequences or effect on end results. It takes account of the kind and complexity of key activities depending on whether they relate to day to day work tasks and on their level (operational, organisational, tactical or strategic);

- people management (15%) is related to number of staff and includes day to day supervision of staff or hierarchical management of human resources;

- autonomy (15%).This criteria measures the problem solving skills required to fulfil the job responsibilities, the requirements for analytical skills to diagnose problems and understand complex situations and the judgement skills to formulate solutions and decide on actions to undertake;

- communication (10%) is related to the skills needed to communicate, establish and maintain relationships and to gain the cooperation or commitment of others. It also measures the skills required to exchange information and to advise or negotiate with others;

- languages (5%) refers to language requirements;

- knowledge and experience (25%). This criterion refers to the theoretical and practical knowledge required to fulfil the job responsibilities.  It includes the educational level expected or the corresponding level of knowledge gained by a formal qualification, through practical experience or by in-job- training;

- frequency to keep know-how up to date (5%) takes into account the induction period required to master the work cycle and to understand policies, procedures, practices and/or to use specific work tools or methods required to perform the job;

- conditions of work (including work context and work content) (5%) relate to the demands arising from inevitably adverse contextual conditions and hazards due to a specific job which are unavoidable even under the strictest health and safety controls or ergonomic adjustments. Work context involves availability such as work on stand-by, personal risks such as frequent official journeys, working in risk zones. Work content takes into account issues such as mental pressure, accuracy and concentration and/or dexterity.

4.4        The analytical weighting method’s application results in a point value, which can then be matched with a grade in a conversion table.

The job classification project at the Council of Europe

5.         The job classification general survey

5.1        Between December 2004 and March 2005, a job classification survey was conducted on the permanent posts included in the Establishment Table.  To perform this analysis, 116 managers were consulted on the applicability of one (or more) reference job(s) (without grade) to each of the posts in their Administrative Entities. Subsequently, the main reference job applying to the post - and the relevant grade - was attributed to the post.

5.2        The classification survey concluded with the following results:

- over 90 % of all permanent posts were covered by 61 reference jobs. The grade of specific posts not covered by the reference jobs was determined through the application of the analytical method;

- 74% of the posts were correctly classified;

- 26% of the posts were not classified at the right grade:

§   15% were over classified;

§   11% were under classified.

5.3        Having regard to the conclusions of the survey and in order to correct the misclassifications, the Secretary General upgraded, in November 2006, 171 posts in accordance with Article 2 of the Regulations on the Table of Posts (Appendix III of the Staff Regulations).  He also took the following decisions:

- the grade of posts recommended for downgrading would be examined as and when the posts become vacant;

- the grade of any vacant post shall be systematically assessed;

- post-holders or responsible managers could introduce at all times a request for the revision of the grade of their post.

6.         Requests for revision of the grade of posts

6.1        Following the above decisions taken by the Secretary General, 325 staff members have transmitted to DHR a request to review the grade of their posts. These requests concerned:

- requests for upgrading posts confirmed at their grade;

- requests for further upgrading of posts which had already been upgraded;

- requests to re-examine the grade of posts recommended for downgrading;

- requests for change of reference job.

6.2        The requests likely to lead to the upgrading of a post have been treated as a priority by the DHR. The requests for review is analysed according to the following procedure:

- separate assessment by both the DHR’s classification officer and the classification external consultant;

- assessment by the Ad Hoc Review Board (AHRB)^[5] which formulates a recommendation to the Secretary General on the grade of posts under consideration;

- the Joint Committee examines and transmits the Ad Hoc Review Board’s recommendations to the Secretary General;

- having considered these recommendations, the Secretary General takes a final decision on the grade of the post.

Results

7.         The tables below show the total breakdown of posts upgraded and downgraded by grade and by category of grade. They include all regradings decided by the Secretary General (initial decisions and decisions taken after consideration by the Ad Hoc Review Board and then the Secretary General of 299 requests for revision) and by the Committee of Ministers (concerning A6 and A7 posts).

UPGRADINGS BY GRADE

DOWNGRADINGS BY GRADE

CHANGES OF CATEGORY

8.         Financial implications

8.1        The method adopted by the Secretary General for implementing the results of the classification project; i.e. immediate upgrading of occupied posts (when recommended by the survey) and possible – if confirmed by new analysis – downgrading of posts only when they become vacant entailed two types of consequences.

8.2        First, and in the absence of compensatory measures, the regrading of posts would lead to additional staff costs in the first few years, which would be compensated only in the medium-term by downgrading of posts when they become vacant. Second, the commitment of the Secretary General to make the exercise budgetary neutral in the short-term led to the adoption of compensatory measures.

8.3        The theoretical annual cost of the reclassification project as implemented so far would be in the order of €600 000. However, the fact that posts have been upgraded, and that it is now possible to explicitly require of all relevant post holders the exercise of the tasks allocated to the upgraded posts, together with the associated motivation resulting from the upgrading of the post holders, meant that it has been possible to reduce the use of short-term temporary reinforcements for a variety of tasks.  Thus, for 2007 and 2008, when there would be a theoretical cost of implementing the results of the project, ad hoc measures have been taken to ensure budgetary neutrality by reducing the amount of appropriations available for short-term (less than 6 months) reinforcements. These ad-hoc measures will continue to be applied as required.

9.         Evaluation of results

9.1        The job classification project has no doubt contributed to the coherence and consistency of posts across the Council of Europe by establishing clear categories of job families.

9.2        It has also largely contributed to correct the mismatch between the duties and the grade of an important number of posts. The above tables show that the larger part of posts misclassified were at the B level and that most upgradings (78.6%) concerned posts in this category.

9.3        The introduction of a systematic job classification at the Council of Europe has also resulted in the definition of clear grade structures in different parts of the Organisation.

9.4        Furthermore, job classification enables an efficient management of posts based on the work content and the required competencies to perform that work and has contributed to creating a basis for proper career paths based on competency management.