Page images
PDF
EPUB

178. Marquardt, R. R.

174.

175.

176.

177.

178.

179.

Scientific Classification of Trust Department Personnel. Personnel. 7: 77–87. November 1930. Discusses and describes the point rating system used by the First Union Trust and Savings Bank in evaluating salaried jobs. Includes definition and point range for each factor.

Mayhew, R. D.
Job Evaluation by Block Ranking.
Modern Management. 7: 1: 13–16. January 1947.

Points out some of the basic principles involved in a job evaluation program. Describes a method of job evaluation consisting of picturing jobs graphically in relation to other jobs. Considers eight basic factors, each of which can be divided into two variable sub-factors. The degrees of one variable are shown as the horizonal scale; of the other, as the vertical scale. Recommends either a cents-per-hour distribution of factors or a range of points.

Mills, N. G., et al.

Point Plan for Rating Jobs: Westinghouse Electric and Manufactur

ing Co.

Factory Management. 98: 12: 61–68. December 1940.

Describes a point plan designed to permit rating factory jobs according to skills, effort and working conditions. Advocated as simple to apply and flexible enough to fit any plant's job-grading needs. Includes point values for the factors, and a conversion chart to facilitate translating point values to job grades. The factors are defined and illustrated.

Mills, N. G.
Problems in Job Evaluation.

In “For National Unity—Better Industrial Relations,” Proceed-
ings of the Silver Bay Industrial Conference, Twenty-fourth Year,
Industrial Service, National Council of the YMCA’s. New York.
1941. pp. 100–107.

A description of the system and procedures followed in applying the point

rating job evaluation plan used at the Sharon Works of Westinghouse Elec

tric and Manufacturing Company.

Murphy, M. J. and Smyth, R. C.
Job Evaluation by the Point Plan.
Factory Management. 104: 6: 137–148. June 1946.

Describes the point-plan method of job evaluation, and suggests, on the basis of a survey of company practice, that 8 to 12 factors be used. Presents an illustrative plan and reviews in step-by-step fashion its development and application. Covers the preparation of job descriptions in detail, and offers a variety of suggestions in connection with installing the plan.

National Industrial Conference Board. A Plan for Rating Factory and Office Jobs. The Board. Supplement to “The Conference Board Management Record.” New York. 1944, 8 pp. Presents with brief discussion the point rating plans of job evaluation developed and used by the Norton Company for wage earners' and salaried jobs. Includes numerous charts and tables and descriptions of the six key jobs for each of the two parts of the evaluation program.

National Metal Trades Association. Industrial Relations Policies and Procedures, Bulletin No. 3: Part I– Wage and Salary Administration; Part II—Job Rating; Part IV—Putting Job Rating to Work. The Association. Chicago, Ill. November 1940; January 1941; February 1942. 4 pp.; 11 pp.; 12 pp. Discusses the basic fundamentals in a sound wage and salary payment policy and how such a policy should be administered. Describes how job rating should be done, what it is, the necessity for proper wage differentials between jobs; and presents the Association point rating system in detail with charts and forms. Suggests and explains the procedures to be followed in conducting an effective job rating survey and how the results may be applied. (See also Nos. 125, 126, 134, 181, 182, 196, and 261.)

180.

181.

182.

183.

184.

185.

186.

187.

Raker, C. F. and Fox, R. M. No Hit or Miss in This Job-Rating Plan; American Box Board Company. Factory Management. 96: 6: 58–59. June 1938. Describes a six factor point-rating plan. Each factor is rated on a scale of eight gradations, from “none” to “exceptional,” and each gradation is further subdivided into “A,” “B,” and “C” levels.

Redway, A. S.
Job Rating Avoids Rate Inequalities.
Factory Management. 99: 8: 131–133. August 1941.

Describes the application of the NMTA point-rating plan, modified slightly
to meet local requirements, to 1,500 hourly rated jobs. Advantages over
previous rate setting methods are said to include elimination of favoritism,
improvement of morale, and better comparability of rates with those of other
plants. (See also Nos. 125, 126, 134, 179, 182, 196, and 261.)

Redway, A. S.
Putting Job Rating To Work.
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Executives Service Bulletin.
New York. July 1940. pp. 1–2, 4.
Describes the adaptation of the NMTA job rating plan to the needs of the
Farrel-Birmingham Company. (See also Nos. 125, 126, 134, 179, 181, 196,
and 261.)

Reisinger, E. J.
Job Evaluation in the Maintenance Department.
Mill and Factory. 38: 1: 98–104. January 1946.

Presents a point-rating plan for maintenance jobs. Specific ratings, for a
variety of factors, are given for eight typical maintenance occupations in-
cluding machinist, electrician, pipefitter, sheet metal worker, carpenter,
painter, millwright, and welder. Some of these jobs are broken down into
three levels: group leader, worker, and helper.

Resseger, H.
Job Analysis and Classification of Operations.
Personnel. 11: 114–117. New York. May 1935.
Describes briefly the point rating system of work evaluation used in the
B. F. Goodrich Company for zoning and rating factory operations. Covers
the analysis of functions in terms of ten factors. Summarizes the three main
steps in evaluating work and translating the evaluations into wages.

Roth, E. L.
Practical Job Evaluation for the Small Foundry.
American Foundrymen's Association Transactions. 47: 925–934.
June 1940.
To obviate the effects of a “demand for a flat increase throughout a small
jobbing (foundry) plant,” raising the wage costs “way out of line,” the
author advocates evaluating every job in even the smallest foundry and set-
ting a “fair maximum and a fair minimum.” Advocates the use of the point-
rating plan devised by Merrill R. Lott (“Wage Scales and Job Evaluation,”
Ronald Press, 1926). Article includes detailed summary of that system.
(See also No. 47.)

Rothrock, A. F.
Job Evaluation and the Tannery.
Hide Leather Shoes. 112: 13: 14–15, 19. September 28, 1946.
A management consultant describes the installation of a job evaluation pro-
gram in a tannery, where a joint labor-management Job Evaluation Com-
mittee was utilized. Objectives, benefits and accomplishments in the tan-
nery are mentioned, and the actual installation procedure is covered briefly.

Rue, J. R.
Techniques of Salary Administration.
In “Sound Basis for Salary Standardization.” Office Management
Series No. 92. American Management Association. New York.
1940. pp. 10–17.
Outlines and describes briefly the six main steps in the plan of salary ad-
ministration used by the General Electric Company. (See also No. 119.)

188.

189.

190.

191.

192.

193.

194.

195.

196.

Schmidt, M. D.
Job Evaluation.

Part I: Basic Influences That Must Be Measured by Job Evaluation.
Mill & Factory. 39: 3: 101–104. September 1946.

Presents the fundamentals of job evaluation, treating such aspects as the

need for such a plan, the characteristics of an acceptable plan, the reasons

for wage differentials, job elements used for job evaluation factors, and

trends with respect to job evaluation structure.

Schmidt, M. D. Job Evaluation. Part II: The Establishing of Proper Weightings. Mill & Factory. 39: 4: 103–106. October 1946. Discusses the methods for determining the value to be given each factor, in a point-rating plan. Includes factor definitions and illustrative rankings of “key” jobs. Schmidt, M. D. Job Evaluation. Part III: The Weighting of Factors by Using Bench Mark Rankings. Mill & Factory. 39: 5: 104–108. November 1946. Continues the discussion of weighting factors, following through a typical example step-by-step. Illustrative tables and guide charts are included. Schmidt, M. D. Job Evaluation. Part IV: Conversion of Points to Money. Mill & Factory. 39: 6: 129–133. Décember 1946. Presents the conversion of job evaluation points into money, showing typical conversion curves and including a discussion of the relationship between the influences responsible for wage trends and the frames of reference used by job evaluation that these trends establish. Schmidt, M. D. Job Evaluation. Part V: A Case Study in the Development of a Job Evaluation Plan. Mill & Factory. 40: 1: 151–154. January 1947. The principles and techniques presented in the first four articles in this series are applied to the development and installation of a point-plan in a machine and forge company employing approximately 400 people in 179 jobs. The procedure is reviewed step-by-step in chronologieal order. Sharp, H. M. Tentative Job Evaluation Plan. Edison Elec. Inst. Bul. 12:106–108. April 1944. Discusses briefly the need for job evaluation as a basis for collective bargaining on wage issues. Outlines a point rating plan to be used for the evaluation of various classes of jobs in electric utility companies, up to and including the first line of supervision. Stigers, M. F. Rate The Job Right. Factory Management. 96: 1: 94, 154–158. January 1938. Describes the application of a point-rating plan employing 44 different factors. It is said to have been used to establish satisfactory base rates for an incentive plan. Tedford, J. M. Principles of Wage Determination By Analysis. 2nd Ed. Post-Record. Camas, Washington. 1944. 39 pp. Presents briefly the plan for wage determination used by the Pacific Coast Association of Pulp and Paper Manufacturers. Discusses job analysis principles, their relation to job evaluation, and the establishment of wage rates. Defines and illustrates the factors used in a point rating plan of job evaluation. Includes a glossary of terms. Uhlir, C. J. Wage and Salary Classification and Administration Under War Conditions. In “Proceedings of the Fourth Personnel Institute.” College of Commerce Conference Series No. C–19. College of Commerce and Administration, Bureau of Business Research. Ohio State Univer

sity. Columbus, Ohio. 1942. pp. 5–30. Describes and discusses the point rating method of job evaluation installed: in 363 plants by the National Metal Trades Association. Presents several of the rating factors used and illustrates with charts and graphs. Explains numerous specific problems and indicates how they were solvel. (See also Nos. 125, 126, 134, 179, 181, 182, 261.)

197. Weed, D. W.
Job Evaluation.

In “Job Evaluation—Annual Wage Plans.” Production Series No.
111. American Management Association. New York. 1938. pp.
3–15.

Describes the job evaluation procedures in use at the General Electric plant.

Includes diagrams showing the method of establishing point values for

various jobs. (See also No. 118.) .

198. Weed, D. W. Job Evaluation by Point Ratings. American Machinist. 83: 285–287. 1939. Citing disadvantages and shortcomings of the grading or classification method of job evaluation, the author suggests the alternative of a pointrating system. Suggests that “the compensable characteristics are: mentality, skill, responsibility, mental application, physical application, and working conditions.” Describes method of factor weighting and wage rate determination. See also: References Nos. 14, 35, 36, 37, 44, 61, 62, 66, 68, 69, 82, 91, 103, 107, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 261, 278, 282, 286, 288, 289, 290, 291.

B. Factor Comparison Plans

199. Benge, E. J.
Gauging the Job's Worth.

Industrial Relations. 8: 65–69, 117–120, 177–180. February,
March, April 1932.

Describes in detail the operation of the factor comparison method of job

evaluation. Covers procedures to be followed in preparing job specifications,

setting up factor comparison Scales and selecting key jobs for them, and

applying the scales to evaluate the rest of the jobs in the plant. Illustrative

forms, tables, and job comparison scales are included.

200. Benge, E. J. Job Evaluation in a Paper Plant. Personnel J. 19: 42–48. June 1940. Describes the installation of a factor comparison job evaluation plan in a mid-west paper novelty company. Results claimed for the project are enumerated.

201. Benge, E. J. Job Evaluation for Salaried Employees. Paper Industry. 26: 306–307. June 1944. Describes briefly the experiences of one paper making concern in devising and installing a factor comparison method of job evaluation for office workers, supervisors, master mechanics, and similar salary-paid jobs. Covers job analysis, job specifications, five rating factors, application of the findings, and benefits obtained.

202. Burk, S. L. H. Fair Pay for Salaried Employees. Factory Management. 99: 8: 133–137, 258—260. August 1941. Describes the application, in the Atlantic Refining Company of Philadelphia, of the factor comparison job evaluation technique used on hourly rated jobs, to salaried jobs up to the assistant division chief level. Twenty salaried jobs were rated to serve as key positions in a yardstick for evaluating all Salaried jobs. Non-clerical jobs covered only. (See also Nos. 139, 144, 145, 160, 166.) 203. Burk, S. L. H. Pricing the Wage or Salary Scale. Advanced Management. 6: 86–90. 1941. Discusses the detailed market survey, job analyses, and the factor comparison system of job evaluation as “the scientific approach designed to

204.

205.

207.

208.

209.

210.

211.

212.

arrive at a systematic method for determining wage and salary rates and differentials.” -

Frick, T. C. and Russell, S. W. Job Evaluation as Applied to the Petroleum Industry. Oil and Gas J. 42: 30: 39–45, 98. December 2, 1943. Describes the background on which the factor comparison job evaluation plan and various modifications of it are based, and the objectives and operation of the system. Illustrated with job specifications and salary scales, based on experience in the petroleum industry.

Hay, E. N. Arranging the Right Pay. Personnel J. 17: 364–370. April 1939. A description of the factor comparison method of job evaluation, as it was applied in a bank and trust company to cover 600 different jobs with salaries under $5000 a year. Advantages and extended uses of the plan are cited.

. Hay, E. N.

Characteristics of Factor Comparison Job Evaluation. Personnel. 22: 370–375. May 1946. The author undertakes a critical comparison of factor comparison job evaluation with point systems. He claims many advantages for the former, and declares that the precision of the point plans is largely illusory.

Hay, E. N.
Establishing Factor Scales.
Personnel. 23: 115–124. September 1946.
Describes four methods for setting up the five key scales for the factor
Comparison method of job evaluation. Indicates the drawbacks and ad-
vantages of each method.

Hay, E. N.
Payroll Administration.
In “Compensation Problems and Training Techniques Today.” Per-
sonnel Series No. 24. American Management Association. New
York. 1936, pp. 6–15.
Describes the experience of the Pennsylvania Company in setting up a sys-
tematic program for payroll administration. Includes comments by Messrs.
Bass, Dooley, Farwell, and Burk on problems in their respective companies.

Hay, E. N.
Planning for Fair Salaries and Wages.
Personnel J. 18: 141–150. October 1939.
The factor comparison plan of job evaluation is described and advocated
as the one best designed to ensure equitable pay for employees.

Hay, E. N. Successful Job Evaluation Plan. Burroughs Clearing House. 28: 20–22, 45–48. August 1944. Describes how job evaluation works out in practice in the Pennsylvania Company, which adopted the factor-comparison method in 1938. Discusses briefly the development, installation, and operation of the plan. Mentions problems connected with selling it to employees.

Hay, E. N. Training the Evaluation Committee in Factor Comparison Job Evaluation. Personnel. 23: 46–56. July 1946. Advocates careful training to develop a high degree of agreement among evaluators. Advises having members of the evaluation committee perform practice rankings and weighings on each factor before actually rating the key jobs.

Kirby, W. J. and Westburgh, E. M.

A Job Evaluation Plan That Works.

Personnel. 20: 344–356. 1944.

The authors critcize evaluation techniques that are limited in application. They present an “all-inclusive” plan combining what they believe to be the best features of the factor comparison method and the point system, using a new selection of basic factors. The application of this method to jobs ranging from unskilled to executive levels in one industry is described.

« PreviousContinue »