Hay Manual

4
th
Edition Hay Operating Manual 2011 1

Table of Contents
HayGroup .......................................................................................... 2
Hay Guide Chart Profile Method ................................................. 4
CHAPTER 1: Know-How ................................................................... 12
The Three Elements Comprising Know How .................................... 14
J ob-Specific Knowledge ................................................................... 14
Integrating Know-How ...................................................................... 21
Human Relations Skills .................................................................... 24
CHAPTER 2: Probl em Sol ving ......................................................... 27
The Two Elements of Problem Solving ............................................. 28
Context ............................................................................................. 28
Thinking Challenge ........................................................................... 31
CHAPTER 3: Accountabili ty ............................................................ 34
The Three Elements of Accountability .............................................. 35
Freedom To Act/Empowerment ........................................................ 35
Magnitude ......................................................................................... 38
Job Impact ......................................................................................... 40
CHAPTER 4: Special Conditions ..................................................... 42
CHAPTER 5: FINE TUNING .............................................................. 43
Job Profiles ....................................................................................... 43
Sore-Thumbing ................................................................................. 48
Hay Rating At-A-Glance .................................................................... 49
CHAPTER 6: Preparing the Presentation ....................................... 50
HAY PRESENTATION OUTLINE ........................................................... 50
HAY Presentation Outline Worksheet ............................................... 51
HAY Presenter Check List ................................................................ 53
HAY EVALUATION WORKSHEET FOR RATERS .................................... 54
CHAPTER 7: Qual ity Assurance ..................................................... 55
Indicators of a Good Hay Rater ........................................................ 59
Hay Rater Training and Development Standards ............................. 61
CHAPTER 8: Hay Ratings and Compensation ............................... 62
CHAPTER 9: Trend Lines and Conversion Charts ........................ 64

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The Hay Advisory Team offers special thanks to Cindy Lukas
for her dedication and her thoughtful work that has been the
foundation for this manual. The Hay Advisory Team also
offers special thanks to Wayne Veum (Chief Classification
Analyst-retired); J ohn Kuderka (Hay rater and Hay historian
emeritus); Sue Wickham (Admin); and others who have
reviewed past editions of this manual to ensure its accuracy
and usability.

2010 Hay Advisory Team:
Darlene Hueser (MMB) co-chair
Faith Zwemke (MMB) co-chair
Gwen Aubineau (MnSCU)
Wanda Barrett (MnSCU)
Brent Boyd (Merit System)
J anice Cano (DEED)
Cathy Fah (DOC)
Russ Havir (Agriculture)
Loretta Mattson (Lottery)
Richard Morey (MnDOT)
Laura Sengil (DHS)
Diane Rademacher (DEED)

4
th

HayGroup

Hay is not an acronym. HayGroupis an international
organizational and human resources consulting firm with more
than 2,000 employees that was founded in 1943 by Edward N.
Ned Hay. Hay is considered to be a pioneer in the human
resources community, particularly with regard to the
compensation issue of measuring jobs.

He started E.N. Hay and Associates while he was the head of
personnel for the First Pennsylvania Bank of Philadelphia
while in his early fifties and at the height of World War II.
During the war, Ned Hay also served as Deputy Administrator
of the Office of Price Administration. At that time, the War
Labor Board imposed pay controls that could be lifted only if a
company could show through a sound job evaluation method
that a particular jobs content put it into a higher control
range. This, combined with a major contract with General
Foods in 1945 to study 450 management jobs planted the
seed for what would become the Hay Guide Chart Profile
Method of job evaluation.

Ned Hay died unexpectedly in 1958 at the age of 67, but his
company continued to evolve both geographically and with
respect to its offerings. HayGroupnow emphasizes three
broad areas:

Organizational Clarity
Employee surveys, strategy alignment, accountability
assessment, organization analysis and design, role clarity
Employee Capability
Assessment and selection, executive coaching, leadership
development, team development, talent management
People Commitment
Compensation information, employee benefits, executive pay,
job evaluation, performance management, reward programs,
total remuneration

Still headquartered in its birthplace Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania HayGrouphas offices in 43 countries around
the world:
Argentina Finland Malaysia South Africa
Australia France Mexico South Korea
Austria Germany
New
Zealand Spain
Belgium Greece Netherlands Sweden
Brazil Hungary Norway Switzerland
Canada India Peru Thailand
Chile Indonesia Poland Turkey
China Ireland Portugal
United Arab
Emirates
Columbia Israel Russia
United
Kingdom
Costa Rica Italy Singapore United States
Czech
Republic J apan
Slovak
Republic Venezuela

4
th
The State of Minnesota has had a long-term relationship with
HayGrouprelated to job evaluation. Consistent with the
belief that jobs with comparable levels of work should be
compensated similarly, the State needed an organized,
standardized system for comparing the complexity levels of
very different types of jobs. HayGroupprovided such a
system. Their website at www.haygroup.com states: It might
be a merger or acquisition, new organization design, changing
roles, or simply an outdated job measurement plan.
Regardless of the reason, organizations need a sound and
straightforward method to measure and value work on an
ongoing basis, one that effectively reflects their specific
organizational culture and values. HayGroupis the worlds
leading authority on job evaluation and work measurement
and has helped thousands of organizations around the world.

In addition to in-depth consulting expertise, Hay offers an array
of work measurement and analysis tools to help meet a broad
range of organization needs. These include our:

Hay Guide Chart-Profile Method the most widely-
used and recognized method of job evaluation in the
world
Comparison/Questionnaire Methods streamlined
alternatives to our more in-depth Guide Chart approach
Integrated Models customized approaches to suit a
clients unique human resources management needs.

WHY HAY?
Organized, systematic job ranking system
Assigns point values to job components
Widely used - both public and private sector
Useful for large classification studies.
Helps determine appropriate level of a position
within a class series.
Used when necessary to create new classes.

4
th
Hay Guide Chart Profile Method

What is the Hay Guide Chart Profile Method and where
did it come from?

The Hay Guide Chart Profile Method of job evaluation was
developed in the early 1950s by HayGroupand is used by
more than 7,000 profit and nonprofit organizations in many
different countries. It is the most widely used job evaluation
method in the United States, in companies such as Honeywell,
Pillsbury and General Mills and in state governments such as
Arizona, Connecticut, New J ersey, Oregon and New Mexico.

The State of Minnesota has used the Hay system of job
evaluation since the 1970s, when HayGroupconsultants
evaluated managerial positions for the State of Minnesota. In
the mid 1970s, $400,000 was allocated to the Department of
Finance for a Public Employment Study. Part of the study
involved evaluating the States classification (and secondarily,
compensation) system. At that point, classification and
compensation decisions primarily relied on the job audit and
salary survey processes we use today by comparing
positions to each other and to class specifications, with
consideration given to how similar jobs were paid outside of
state government. The Department of Personnels
Classification and Compensation Division provided leadership
for the resulting broad class clarification project, which
involved reviewing position descriptions and class
specifications, interviewing about 1000 State employees
across the state, and establishing class clarification files. J ohn
Kuderka was the Classification and Compensation Divisions
lead for this project.

After much of the initial class clarification work was completed,
the Departments of Finance and Personnel agreed to use
some of the funding to contract with HayGroupto train State
employees to become Hay raters. State agencies nominated
employees to attend Hay training and to serve on three seven
member committees to evaluate many of the States multiple-
person classes under the guidance of HayGroupconsultants.
Some of the initial Hay raters were Human Resources
professionals, but many were not. Bettie Lee and Al Bunnett
were facilitators for two of the committees. Each committee
emphasized a specialty area and used the class clarification
information to understand the jobs in order to evaluate them.
Presenters werent part of the process as they are today. This
was a very time-consuming, labor-intensive effort.

When this large group of Hay ratings was completed, the three
committees disbanded and the pool of trained State Hay raters
began to expand. Later, when pay equity was raised as an
issue in the 1980s during the Perpich administration, the State
of Minnesota was already using the Hay Guide Chart Profile
Method to compare very different types of jobs.

The States customized Hay Guide Profile Charts were
revised in 1995, to ensure that they remained up-to-date as
the States needs changed. One aspect, Magnitude, is
reviewed annually and revised according to the Accountability
Magnitude Index (AMI) provided by HayGroup. The
Consumer Price Index, as interpreted by HayGroup, is the
primary source for calculating adjustments to the
Accountability Magnitude Index. For example, the current 7.0
AMI (as of Oct 2009) is a multiplier applied to the baseline of
1967 dollars; therefore, $100 1967 dollars are now equal to
$700 2009 dollars. 1967 dollars were used as the baseline
because HayGroupdid a major update of the 1950s Hay
Guide Charts that year.

4
th
The Hay job evaluation system has been used by the State of
Minnesota to evaluate most state job classes, including the
Governors and positions in the Supreme Court. Although the
Guide Charts have been updated over the years, there havent
been major changes; its been more a matter of fine-tuning
than full-scale revisions.
The Hay Method of Job Evaluation Adds Value by:

1. Low Administrative Costs. The most expensive
investment, the initial installation, training and quality
assurance, have been paid. The Hay Advisory Team
and other experienced raters now provide training and
quality assurance.
2. A Strong Future Orientation. The Hay Method is used
to measure new jobs or redesigned jobs within new
organizational structures and serves as a useful
consulting tool to guide state managers as they continue
to strive to do more with less. During Fiscal Years 2000
thru 2010 a total of 677 jobs were evaluated by 335
rating committees resulting in 212 new classes, and the
conformation of ratings and levels for exiting classes.
3. A Large Data Base of Evaluations to Guide Current
and Future Class and Compensation Decisions.
Since Fiscal Year 2001, State of Minnesota Hay ratings
have been listed on MMBs web site. Current rosters of
evaluations, with complete ratings, are available on the
MMB extranet. As of the end of Fiscal Year 2010 the
roster contains Hay ratings for 92% of the active classes.
4. A Solid Track Record of Successful Application of
the Hay Method of Evaluation Statewide. The State of
Minnesotas application of the Hay Method has received
statewide recognition and use. At the local level,
Minnesota State job evaluations have provided
representative job evaluations for benchmark job classes
to guide local units of government and school districts as
they conduct their review of jobs for pay equity. State of
Minnesota Hay ratings are the foundation/basis for the
State J ob Match System available on the internet to over
1500 local units of government.

4
th

How does Hay Guide Chart Profile Method work

People: Manager, supervisor and employee and/or
personnel representative.
Hay Facilitator
Hay Raters

Process: Manager, supervisor and employee and/or
personnel representative verbally explain the position
description and other written documentation to the Hay
Committee. The Hay Raters use their understanding of
the position and their knowledge of the Hay guide chart
to assign a Hay rating to the position.

Product: The Hay Facilitator interprets the Hay
rating by assigning the position to a current class
or by recommending a new classification,
including salary range, to the State's
Compensation Manager, Labor Relations
Representative and Chief Classification Analyst.

A committee rating process is used to help ensure a broad
perspective and statewide consistency. Committees are made
up of three or five professionals from State of Minnesota
agencies and Minnesota Management and Budget (MMB). All
Hay raters meet training standards established by MMB
consistent with HayGroupexpectations and participate in
advanced training seminars.

Written materials about each position being rated are provided
to Hay committee members so they can prepare before a
scheduled Hay rating session. Documentation typically
includes a memo outlining the need for the Hay rating, an
organizational chart, a position description, and anything else
that might help the raters understand each position. Subject
matter experts provide an overview of each positions role and
responsibilities to the Hay raters at a scheduled Hay rating
session, along with information about the positions
requirements related to Know-How, Problem Solving and
Accountability. Examples are usually helpful.
After the presenters leave the Hay committee begins the rating
process. [See Chapter 6 for information on preparing a
presentation.]
When are positions Hay-rated?

Positions are Hay-rated when one or more situations occur:

A new position is established for which there is no readily discernable existing class comparison.

The appropriate level of a position within a class series cannot be determined or there is significant dispute about
the level of a position.

The class hasnt been reviewed for many years and the concept of the class has changed significantly over time.

A position has been identified as a benchmark position to which others are compared for use in a class study or
class clarification project.

4
th
Good Hay Rating Requires...

Skilled (trained and experienced) raters and
an accurate understanding of the position,
through
current, complete position description
background memo
organizational chart
presentation

Hay raters look at three major aspects when evaluating a job:
Know-How, Problem Solving and Accountability. They
consider a positions role and responsibilities, and the KSAs
(knowledge, skills and abilities), problem solving and
accountability required to satisfactorily perform the work
involved. Hay ratings are typically based on when the position
is considered to be fully functioning, rather than what
employees know at hire.

The raters look at each of these three basic factors separately,
and assign points from the Hay Guide Charts that represent
their weight in the job. Every job that is evaluated receives the
same treatment. This makes it possible to compare jobs that
are very different and place them where they appropriately fit
within the States classification and compensation systems.

The Hay system is designed to rank positions within the
context of all statewide positions, from the Governor and the
Supreme Court on down, not just within the context of one
State agency. A single number is assigned to each factor
consistent with the positions role and responsibilities.
Available options are listed on the charts. The numbers
increase at a rounded 15% rate, which is based on the
scientific concept of just noticeable difference. [see Guide
Chart Tip]

After the Hay committee members use their Hay Guide Charts
to independently evaluate a position, they must reach a group
consensus. Hay committee members are asked to share their
individual ratings with the group, which are put on a white
board or flip chart. The raters discuss their ratings, including
any differences among them, and arrive at a group Hay rating
with which everyone can agree. Sometimes additional
information is needed before committee members can agree;
the group discussion may be the first indication that raters are
making different assumptions about the position that need to
be clarified. The points are totaled for each factor. The
committee facilitator documents the final Hay rating and
submits it to MMB

4
th

4
th

What are the possible outcomes of Hay rating?

Typical reasons for rating a job
Level determination within existing classes (e.g.
affirmation ratings, reallocations)
New class
Salary range review/re-assignment (often occurs jointly
with Level)
Other (e.g. previously unrated class, new benchmark for
a current class.)

Even though the intent was to rate the position because of one
of four reasons listed in the chart above the rating may not
support the action that prompted the rating.

For example. The supervisor believed that the job in question
had changed over time and should be at a higher level of Hay
points and compensation. After a rating session the raters
determined that the current class rating was appropriate. In
this case the outcome was: No Change (see Decision Codes
below).

HAY Quality Assurance Summary Decision Codes
NC =No Change
REC =Reallocation to an existing class
ENC =Establish new class list proposed class title
RCR =Revised class rating for salary range reassignment
TC =Title Change
TBD =Final outcome to be determined

However there may be other factors, e.g. turnover, ability to
hire qualified candidates, internal equity, that may impact an
agencys decision to pursue a salary range reassignment
based on the recent Hay rating. If this is a single incumbent
class the rating could also represent the class rating and a
revised class rating date. [see CHAPTER 8: Hay Ratings
and Compensation]

The following chart provides samples of possible rating
outcomes.

4
th

R
e
a
s
o
n

Sample outcomes:

N
e
w

r
a
t
i
n
g

N
o

c
h
a
n
g
e

i
n

r
a
t
i
n
g

A
s
s
i
g
n

t
o

e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g

c
l
a
s
s
*

C
r
e
a
t
e

n
e
w

c
l
a
s
s

S
a
l
a
r
y

r
a
n
g
e

R
e
-
a
s
s
i
g
n
m
e
n
t

H
a
y

Q
u
a
l
i
t
y

A
s
s
u
r
a
n
c
e

S
u
m
m
a
r
y

C
l
a
s
s

r
a
t
i
n
g
?

I
f

y
e
s

L
e
v
e
l

Is level of position(s) unclear or in
dispute? If yes, confer with MMB
before proceeding.
X X
* Movement to a new class generally requires a
one step or more change in Know How points.
X Chg
X X
Chg
date
Is this a class that the agency has
determined to use Hay evaluation
for reallocation? If yes, proceed
with rating.
X X
* Movement to a new class generally requires a
one step or more change in Know How points.
X NA
X X NA
N
e
w

No existing class was identified as
a fit . Confer with MMB before
proceeding.
X X Request a new class and recommend comp level X new
X X Use an existing class lieu of creating a new class. X
No
Chg
S
a
l
a
r
y

Salary range review/re-assignment
(often occurs jointly with Level)
Confer with MMB before
proceeding.
X X Recommend and request a new comp level. X Chg
X X X
No
Chg
O
t
h
e
r
Previously unrated class, X Usually no change in comp level X new
New benchmark for a current
class.)
X X X May or may not request a new comp X Chg

4
th
How does the Hay rating relate to classification and
compensation decisions?

The Hay method evaluates all positions against the same
factors. This makes it possible to compare jobs that are very
different and place them where they appropriately fit within the
States classification and compensation systems. A positions
Know-How points and overall Hay rating are used as guides in
determining where the job fits in the States classification
structure and provide a framework for determining the
appropriate compensation range. This relationship is
discussed further in the Hay Ratings and Compensation and
Trend Lines and Conversion Charts sections at the end of
the manual.

Can anyone have a copy of the Hay Guide Profile
Charts?

Copies of the Hay Guide Profile Charts are typically only
given to trained Hay raters or Hay raters in training. The
customized charts used by the State of Minnesota are the
copyrighted property of HayGroup. The State of Minnesotas
Hay Guide Profile Charts cannot be sold or in any other way
distributed to other private or public organizations because this
violates copyright laws and other contractual agreements
between the State of Minnesota and HayGroup.

GUIDE CHART TIP
Step Differences

The Hay Guide Charts use the concept of Just
Noticeable Differences to reflect that people perceive
relative, not absolute, differences. This is incorporated into
the unique Hay numbering patterns used in the three Hay
Guide Charts. This concept provides a systematic
guideline to assess the relationships among jobs the
relative distances between jobs, span of control, size of
accountability, career progression opportunity and chains
of command, etc

Source: 2005 HayGroupWorking Paper, Hay Job
Evaluation Foundations and Applications

.
On the Hay Scale, 15% changes are steps to identify
just-noticeable differences

. This conforms to a general
principle of psychometric scaling derived from Webers
Law: In comparing objects, we perceive not the absolute
difference between them, but the ratio of this difference to
the magnitude of the two objects compared. The extent of
difference required in order to be noticeable tends to be a
specific constant percentage. A job evaluation committee,
when comparing two similar jobs on any single factor, has
to perceive at least a 15% difference in order to come to a
group agreement that J ob A is larger than J ob B.

4
th

Know-How is the body of knowledge,
skills and abilities an employee needs
to be successful in a particular job.
The most important factor in Hay
evaluation is Know how. It defines
the boundaries within which the action
will take place.

It is made up of three parts:

Depth and Breadth of Job-
Specific Knowledge (aka
Technical and Specialized Know-
How and J ob-Specific
Knowledge).
Integrating Know-How (aka
Managerial Breadth or Know-
How).
Human Relations Skills (aka
Human Relations Know-How).

Hay raters assign a number to the
total Know-How for a job, which
involves separate choices for each of
these three elements and an overall
assessment. As an example, Know-
How is expressed in a report as EI2
200 (depth and breath level E,
integrating know-how level I, human
relations skills level 2 at 200 Know-
How points).

I. Activity
.
E.
Basic
Specialized.
200
Human
Relations 2
I. Activity
.
E.
Basic
Specialized.
200
Human
Relations 2

C
H
A
P
T
E
R

1
:

K
n
o
w
-
H
o
w

4
th
According to the Know-How Guide Chart, Know-How is the
total of every kind of skill and knowledge, however acquired,
needed to conduct, and to be prepared for, functions that are
reasonably expected within the role.

Know-How considers both the scope and depth of a position.
A job may require some knowledge about a lot of things, or a
lot of knowledge of fewer things. The overall Know-How rating
reflects a combination of scope and depth. This allows for the
comparison and weighing of the total Know-How content of
different jobs in terms of How much knowledge about how
many things?

Know-How is the most heavily weighted portion of the overall
job evaluation. [SEE FIGURE 1] In fact, the levels in a
classification structure are primarily determined by the
progression of Know-How levels. In the continuum
established by the Hay system, jobs that are more easily
learned are ranked near the lower end of the scale. As jobs
require more involved and diverse practices and principles,
abstract knowledge, mastery of scientific techniques, greater
human relations skills and/or significant managerial skills, they
are given progressively higher scores.

F i g u r e 1 :
J o b F a c t o r s ( H a y S y s t e m )
A p p r o x i m a t e % o f T o t a l P o i n t s
20%
20%
10%
50%
Problem
Solving
Accountabilty
Spec Cond
Know How

Know-How: 50% - 60%
Depth and breadth of skill and knowledge required to do the job

Problem Solving: 20%
Original thinking required. Analyzing, reasoning, creating

Accountability: 20%
Supervisory and monetary responsibilities, consequences of
actions

Speci al Conditions: 0% - 10%
Unpleasant circumstances, physical effort, environment,
hazards, sensory stimulation

4
th

The Three Elements Comprising Know How:

J ob-Specific Knowledge

J ob-Specific Knowledge includes the depth and breadth of
knowledge required to be successful in a job. It includes the
positions requirements for knowledge and skills related to
practices, procedures, specialized techniques, and
professional or scientific disciplines. It also includes basic and
job-specific supervisory and managerial KSAs, when
appropriate.

This aspect of Know-How does NOT make distinctions among
differently-sized managerial jobs or include human relations
skills. However, because all three parts of a KH rating
combine to reflect a jobs total KH requirement, the number of
total points vary a lot within each technical/specialized KH
level (that is, L and A H).

It is important to remember that this element measures
the requirements of the position, not the qualifications of
an incumbent.
.

The levels of J ob Specific Knowledge on the Hay Charts are:

Practical Procedures Group
# of Job
Classes as
of Jan 2011
L Limited Job-Specific Knowledge 1
A Primary 6
B Elementary Vocational 42
Specialized Techniques Group
# of Job
Classes as
of Jan 2011
C Vocational 160
D Advanced Vocational 351
E Basic Specialized 545
Learned Disciplines Group
# of Job
Classes as
of Jan 2011
F Seasoned Professional 496
G Specialized Mastery 40
H Professional Mastery 2

4
th
Practical Procedures Group
NOTE: Examples in blue italics differentiate among level s expected roles re: knowing what to do
Complexity
levels

Indicators

Characteri stics of work Exampl es Fine-tuning

L.
Limited

(added
in 1995)
Educatio
n likel y
needed
1
st
to 6
th
grade
Does the simpl e tasks s/he is
told to do with ongoing work
direction
Basic instructions/very simple
routines
Work is very simple, short cycle
in nature, and typically involves
manual effort
Supported Employment
Worker is the only job class
in this category.

Employees in this job
class are expected to
have an ongoing job
coach employed by a
rehabilitation organization
as a condition of
employment.
TOTAL
time to
learn
Hours to days
Skill
level
Unskilled

A.
Primary
Educatio
n likel y
needed
Literacy; simple
arithmetic; 6
th
to 9
th

grade
Does simpl e tasks s/he i s
told to do without an ongoing
job coach
Ability to understand simple oral
and written instructions and
perform simple tasks is required
May apply basic skills in
arithmetic, reading and writing
Typically same daily routine

Leaning
back
AI1 50
AI2 57
TOTAL
time to
learn
Several days to 1
month
NR Nursery Field Worker
Solid in the
box
AI1 57
AI2 66
Skill
level
Unskilled
Student Worker Clerical
Student Wkr -Custodial/
Maintenance
Leaning
forward
AI1 66
AI2 66

B.
Elementary
Vocational
Educatio
n likel y
needed
9
th
to 12
th
grade
Does more involved, but still
standardized, work s/he i s
instructed to do after basic
on-the-job training
Learns on the job
Slightly more complex
standardized routines
Production and service jobs at
this level require skills in
operating uncomplicated
machinery and may include
apprentice levels of craft
positions.
Food Service Worker
Leaning
back
BI1 66
BI2 76
TOTAL
time to
learn
2 to 6 months
General Maint Worker
Office Specialist
Security Guard
Human Services Tech
Solid in the
box
BI1 76
BI2 87
Skill
level
Unskilled to semi-
skilled; apprentice
Building Services Lead
Work Therapy Technician
Leaning
forward
BI1 87
BI2 100
.

4
th
Specialized Techniques Group
Complexity
levels

Indicators


C.
Vocational

The median
and mode
Know-How
points at this
level are
115.

Education
likel y
needed

9
th
to 12
th
grade
Knows there are practi cal, job-
related instructions about what
to do and applies them

Brings knowledge from some other
training or experience
Guided by somewhat diversified
procedures and precedents
Although tasks are proceduralized
or involve following precedents,
employee decides on appropriate
procedure or precedent to follow
based on the situation
Typically require knowledge of
multiple procedures.
Office & Admin Spec
Leaning
back
CI1 87
Customer Svcs Spec Int CI2 100
Building Services Supv CI3 115
TOTAL
time to
learn
6 months to
2 years - technical
positions may require
one two years of post
high school education
in areas such as
nursing, civil
engineering, or office
and business
procedures.
General Repair Worker
Solid in the
box
CI1 100
Office & Admin Spec Sr
Personnel Aide
CI2 115
EDP Oper Technical Supv
Office Servs Supv 1
Security Supervisor
CI3 132

Skill level
Semi-skilled to journey-
level

Account Clerk Senior
Transportation Generalist
Leaning
forward
CI1 115
LPN 2 CI2 132
Building Svcs Manager CI3 152
4
th
Complexity
levels

Indicators

Characteri stics of work Exampl es
Fine-tuning

D.
Advanced
Vocational

The median
and mode
Know-How
points at
this level are
152.
Education
likel y
needed
9
th
to 12
th
grade
PLUS additional
specialized training,
on or off the job
Reads, understands and
applies significantl y diversified
practices from books recom-
mended by others about what to
do

Employee is likely to have
specialized training (which may
include a bachelors degree) but
experience can usually substitute
Upper level college coursework
that emphasizes theory is usually
not needed to do the work
Work focuses on using
substantially diversified procedures
and specialized standards, rather
than theory

Benefit Recovery Tech
Leaning
back
DI1 115
Buyer 1
Personnel Aide Senior
Transportation Gen Sr
DI2 132
Office Services Supv 2 DI3 152
TOTAL
time to
learn
2 to 4 years
Accounting Technician
Carpenter
Solid in the
box

DI1 132
Accounting Supv
Buyer 2
Information Tech Spec 1
Personnel Officer
State Programs Admin
DI2 152
Skill level

Skilled technical to
highly skilled trades;
paraprofessionals;
1
st
level professionals;
some 2
nd
level
professionals;
Administrative support
supervisors; skilled
trade supervisors;
supervisory positions
equal to 1
st
and 2
nd

level professionals; and
technical supervisors.
Offices Services Supv 3 DI3 175
Accntg Officer
Planner
Leaning
forward

DI1 152
Management Analyst 2 DI2 175
Building Maint Supv
EDP Oper Ctl/Shift Supv
DI3 200
4
th
Complexity
levels

Indicators


E.
Basic
Speci alized

The median
and mode
Know-How
points at
this level are
200.
Education
likel y
needed
Minimum of bachelors
or masters degree plus
professional
experience; or
equivalent exp is
required at hire

Understands the underlying
theory well enough to research
and recommend books that are
most likel y to help meet the
organizations more complex
needs
J ob requires and uses
Work typically involves a
specialized field of knowledge,
such as accounting, biology,
chemistry, engineering,
epidemiology, information
technology, management,
nursing (RN), organization
development, psychology, etc.
higher-level
college coursework or equivalent
theoretical or scientific preparation
J obs need to know more about
why, i.e., the underlying
principles involved
Advanced professionals are mid-E
to F
Local Govt Audit
Leaning
back

EI1 152
Planner Intermediate
State Prog Admin Inter
EI2 175
Accounting Supv Senior
Business Manager 1
EI3 200
Chemist 2
Research Analyst Inter
Solid in the
box
EI1 1 75
TOTAL
time to
learn

Accounting Officer Sr
Mgt Analyst 3
Pers Officer Principal
Planner Sr State
EI2 200
Personnel Director 1
Registered Nurse Admin-
Supv
EI3 230
Skill level
Some 2
nd
level and
many advanced
professionals,
supervisors &
managers
Pharmacist
Leaning
forward
EI1 200
Accounting Officer Principal
Engineer Senior
Personnel Representative
EI2 230
Personnel Director 2 EI3 264

As of J an 2010 the median and mode Know-How value for all 1640 rated state classifications is 200 points and there were 234 classes at
200 Know-How points. Ratings with 200 Know-How points occur in the Know-How levels of D Advanced Vocational and E Basic
Specialized.

4
th

LEARNED DISCIPLINES GROUP
Complexity
levels

Indicators

Characteri stics of work

Exampl es Fine-tuning

F.
Seasoned
Professional

The median
and mode
Know-How
points at
this level are
350 (medi an)
and
304 (mode.)
Education
likel y
needed

Evaluates, critiques,
edits and improves
books about what to do
based on advanced
professional expertise

Professional positions with
an F rating are
recognized experts within
their specialized field.
Many supervisory and
managerial positions are
also within F.

Responsible authority in a
learned discipline

I
in
managerial
breadth
Financial Reporting
Analy Supv
Research Scientist 2
Leaning
back

FI2 230

FI3 264
Architect 2
Personnel Services
Supv 1
State Prog Admin
Coordinator
Solid in
the box
FI2 264
TOTAL
time to
learn
Requires wide
exposure,
experience and
proficiency in
specialized fields
Accounting Manager
Personnel Services
Supv 2
FI3 304
Skill level
Licensed positions
within professions
such as law or
medicine are found
here and many
multi-functional
managers
Construction Project
Coord Princ
Medical Specialist 1
Leaning
forward
FI2 304
State Prog Admin
Manager Sr
FI3 350
II
in
manageria
l breadth

Leaning
back
FII2 304
Personnel Services
Manager
FII3 350

Solid in
the box
FII2 350
State Prog Admin
Manager Prin
FII3 400
Dir Governmental
Relations Unc Leaning
forward
FII2 400
Finance Services
Director
FII3 460

4
th

Complexity
levels

Indicators



G

The median
and mode
Know-How
points at
this level are
700 (medi an)
and
608 (mode.)
Education
likel y
needed
Senior specialists
in scientific or
learned disciplines
who are
authoritative in their
field and senior
managers with
substantial
knowledge about
the organization, its
mission and
objectives
Mastery of an
abstract discipline,
for example, at a
university
Respected author of
scientific or theory-based
books about what to do in
difficult situations, based
on deep and broad
knowledge of the field
II
in
managerial
breadth

Leaning
back
GII2 400
Exec Dir PERA
GII3 460

Solid in
the box
GII2 460
TOTAL
time to
learn
Functional experts (aka
gurus), whose substantial
experience and depth of
knowledge enable them to
write the book, and
determine functional policy
and practice
Commissioner-
Mediation Service
GII3 528
Skill level

Leaning
forward
GII2 528
GII3 608
III
in
manageria
l breadth

Leaning
back
GIII2 528
Commissioners of large
agencies are found here:
Commr-Admin GIV3 920
Commr- Educ GIV3 1056
Commr-MMB GV3 1216
Commr-Transp GV3 1400

Asst Commr Revenue
Deputy Commr Labor
& Industry GIII3 608

Solid in
the box
GIII2 608
Commr-Commerce
GIII3 700

Leaning
forward
GIII2 700
Commr-Agriculture
Commr-DEED
GIII3 800

Complexity
levels



H

Authoritative books are written about him or her

National leadership role and authoritative knowledge that is
recognized beyond the state of Minnesota
Likely to be selected for national panels and/or be quoted because
of their acknowledged leadership in complex scientific and/or
professional activities
VI
in
managerial
breadth
Governor HVI3 1840

Solid in
the box
HVI3 2112

Leaning
forward
HVI3 2432
4
th
Integrating Know-How (aka Managerial Breadth)

Integrating Know-How is one of the easiest parts of the total
Know-How rating and the 2
nd
element of a jobs Know-How
rating. It considers the need to integrate and manage
progressively more diverse functions and is used to rank
managerial breadth and scope, from similar to very different
functions. When required, basic and job-specific supervisory
and managerial KSAs are included in the J ob-Specific part of
a Know-How rating. This Know-How may be exercised
consultatively as well as executively, and involves the areas of
organizing, planning, executing, controlling, and evaluating.
The overall size of an organization (that is, the State of
Minnesota) directly influences the number of managerial
breadth categories, because organizational size often reflects
requirements for increased managerial complexity and
diversity. Columns II VI are used to reflect additional scale,
complexity, diversity, and size.

T. Task

I. Activity

II. Rel ated

III. Diverse
IV. Compre-
hensive
V. Very large
agency mgmt
VI. Total mgmt
of state
# of job classes 1 (<1%) 1631 (91%) 275 (15%) 43 (2%) 5 (<1%) 7 (<1%) 2 (<1%)

B.U./Plans

(added in
1995)
AFSCME
CMR
MAPE
MGEC
MLEA
MMA
MNA
MGR
SRSEA
MnSCU
all
all
all
all
all
99%
all
25%
all
all

MMA

MGR

<1%

71 %

MGR

3%

MGR

<1%

MGR

<1%

Governor

Chancellor of
MnSCU

Indicators
(see more detail
below)

Almost all individual
contributors and
supervisors are here; 25%
of the States managers
are, too

Emphasize doing the
worklighter on planning
and evaluation

Focus is on next 30 days
Typically
managers of
supervisors;
more homogen-
eous functions
than at III level

Do,but more
emphasis on
planning

3 12 month
focus
Integrates fields
with fundamentally
different
objectives

Example

:
Reconcile the
conflicting
interests of
several hundred
employees
1 3 year focus
Commissioners of large agencies are
found here:
Commr-Admin GIV3 920
Commr- Educ GIV3 1056
Commr-MMB GV3 1216
Commr-Transp GV3 1400

4
th
T
J obs usually focus on completing very simple, routine,
repetitive tasks rather than integrating those tasks into the
units workflow.
Task
Theres little need for the employee to coordinate work
efforts with others.
Work is structured in such a way that the tasks to be
completed are presented to the employee in the order in
which they are to be done.

I
The vast majority of positions throughout State
service are placed here.
Activity
Most individual contributors and most supervisors are
here; some managers are, too.
Professional, supervisory and managerial positions are
responsible for a singular function, e.g. Transit planning,
budget and accounting.

II
This rating is typically used for managerial positions; its
very rare for supervisors to have this rating.
Related
Positions typically manage functional activities and tasks
through subordinate supervisors.
Incumbents are expected to integrate or coordinate fairly
homogeneous activities and functions with similar
purposes, but which have competing needs and
interests.
The number and diversity of functions are increasingly
important; however, functions are still fairly similar in
nature.
The emphasis is on organizational planning and diverse
programs integration, rather than doing.

III
Positions are responsible for integrating several
unrelated functions
Diverse
Managers characteristically face diverse objectives and
goals and competing needs for resources.
There are few supervisory classes with this rating (see
next chart)
Broad-scale organizational planning and control assume
greater importance.
Examples
o Assistant Commissioners in medium to large-sized
agencies
o Deputy Commissioners in medium to large-sized
agencies
o Commissioners of small to medium-sized agencies

IV
Positions typically have overall management for a large
state agency or a broad array of functions in a very
large agency.
Comprehensive
Examples:
o Deputy Commissioners of large agencies
o Commissioners of medium-sized agencies
with broad impact

V
Positions typically have overall leadership of one of
the largest and most complex state agencies.
Very Large Agency Management
Examples: Commissioners of large agencies and
medium-sized agencies with broad impact (e.g.,
Corrections, Finance, Health, Human Services, Natural
Resources, Public Safety, Transportation)

VI

Total Management of the State
Examples: Governor, Chancellor of MnSCU

4
th

Integrating
Know-How T. Task
I.
Activity
II.
Related
III.
Diverse
Depth and Breath
of Job Specific
Knowledge 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3
L. Limited
A. Primary
B/ Elementary
Vocational

C. Vocational
D. Advanced
Vocational

E. Basic
Specialized

F. Seasoned
Professional

TIP: Why are there shaded areas on the Hay Guide
Charts?

Shaded areas serve as a boundary or guide for raters. For
example, a position with a C Vocational J ob Specific
Knowledge rating would not have a II Related Integrating
rating.

Distribution of State Classes by Know-How Points
[technical, integrating and human relations]

4
th

Human Relations Skills
This is the 3
rd
element of a jobs Know-How rating: the active, practicing interpersonal skills typically required for productive working
relationships and to work with, or through, others inside and/or outside of the organization to get work accomplished. It assumes that
EVERY State job requires a foundation of (1) Basic Human Relations Skills and some jobs require additional skills on a regular basis.
To be effective, an employee must typically be proficient at the highest level of Human Relations Skill regularly required for the job.
1. Basic 2. Important 3. Critical
# classes
193 (12%) 715 (43%) 745 (45%)

Description
General effectiveness that is ordinary
for everyday life is a basic work
consideration. Tact and courtesy are
required, including conduct of
relationships in which information is
requested and provided.
Alternative or combined skills in
understanding, teaming with,
collaborating with, and/or influencing
other people are important and specific
considerations to cause action or
understanding by others.
Alternative and combined skills in
developing, collaborating with,
persuading, motivating and leading
other people are essential and
overriding considerations.

Indicators
Tactful, with common courtesy
Factual exchange of information
Failure to exercise this level of skill will
make waves, cause problems, and
eventually interfere with effective job
performance
J ob-Specific Know-How is relatively
MORE important than Human
Relations Know-How
Regularly interact with others and
interactions often require understanding
of and sensitivity to others points of view
and assertiveness to influence outcomes
May involve collaboration
Employees who assign, monitor and
review others work usually need at least
this level of human relations skill
EQUAL in importance to Human
Relations Know-How
Able to persuade, motivate, lead and
accomplish work goals through others
Negotiate, sell, supervise, and
manage outcomes
Strong interpersonal skills are the key
to success in these jobs usually
supervisory or managerial
Characterized by constant, daily
interaction with others
LESS important than Human Relations
Know-How

Exampl es
Automotive Mechanic
Baker
Carpenter
Customer Services Specialist
Delivery Van Driver
Food Service Worker
General Maintenance Worker
Office and Admin Spec and Int
Parks Worker
Zoo Life Support Operator
Most professional level positions
Community Liaison Rep
Food Inspector 1
Labor Investigator
Employee Development Spec
Personnel Officer
Recreation Therapist

Most supervisors and managers
Labor Relations Rep Sr and Principal
Lottery Sales Manager
Management Analyst Supv 3
Mediator
State Program Admin Mgr

4
th
Human Relations Know-How Q&A

Lessons learned from Hay Group consultant, Al Bunnett, as
part of the 2008 Quality Assurance review. The 2008 QA
review included several established non-supervisory classes
with a 3 in Human Relations Know-How.

Q Is the following an accurate description of the
standards the State should be using to determine a
"3" in Human Relations?
A "3" in Human Relations is appropriate for supervisory
classes using the Public Employees Labor Relations Act
(PELRA) as a guide for decision making?

A Mostly yes if the job exists for the purpose of
supervising its staff. (see next question)

Q What are typical supervisory situations that would argue
for a "2" rather than a "3" in Human Relations?

A But when the staff size is small and well-educated (we
often use bench scientific subordinates as an example),
consider using "2. In this example the supervision
element of the job is usually subordinate to some personal
technical/professional contribution. So as a supervisor the
job might be kind of ordinary, but the incumbent might be
judged a superior performer based on her super technical
contribution. HR skills are "2" in such a case.

Q A "3" is also appropriate for positions/classifications in
State government responsible for changing behavior, e.g.
selling products, services or ideas. In this context, changing
behavior has a very narrow definition and relies on
understanding how an employer measures successful
performance. Changing behavior is so essential to the
classification/position that there's a direct correlation between
performance and salary and/or continued employment.
Typically, a percent of total salary is awarded as a sales
commission based on successful sales/changes in behavior.
In some positions, program/salary dollars increase or
decrease based directly on an incumbent's performance
which ultimately effects employment or layoff.

A This describes sales-type situations well and the use
of "3" would be typical in most situations for individual
contributors.

Q What are the guidelines for using a "3" vs a "2" in Human
Relations when subordinate staff are unclassified or non-
state employees, e.g. Student Workers, inmates,
contractors?

A For Inmates and student workers "2" should be
sufficient for the supervisor. In this situation, the State
does not expect to invest much in changing behavior. A
German incentive plan is in place. (Do as instructed or
you will be fired. You are easily replaced.) Supervising
contractors might be more troublesome since they are
sometimes more difficult to replace. But in general, I lean
toward "2" since the contractor usually want to please the
employer, their behavioral vector is to conform to the
supervisor's wishes. Good references and perhaps a
follow-on contract create incentives for the contractor not
to stress the motivational skills of the supervisor.

In general, where the job must maintain longer term
relationships (years, not weeks) with the subordinate, "3" is a
better choice.

4
th

COMBINING THE THREE PARTS OF KNOW-HOW
NOTE: This table is laid out similarly to the Know-How chart used by Hay raters, for ease in use.

(2) Integrating/manageri al breadth

(1)
Technical/
specialized

T.
Task

I. Activity

II. Rel ated

III.
Diverse

IV.
Compre-
hensive
V. Very
large
agency
mgmt
VI. Total
mgmt of
the state
(3) Human
relations 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3

Practical
procedures

L. Limited

<1%

NO!

NO!

NO!

NO!

NO!

A. Primary

<1%
B. El ementary
Vocational

2% 1%

Speci alized
techniques

C. Vocational

4% 4% 2%
D. Advanced
Vocational
MAYBE
4% 13% 4%
E. Basic
Speci alized

NO!
2% 21% 10% <1% 1% MAYBE

Learned
disciplines
F. Seasoned
Professional 4% 12% <1% 12% 2% MAYBE
G. Speci alized
Mastery <1% <1% 1% 1% <1% <1% MAYBE <1%
H. Professional
Mastery <1%

4
th

Problem Solving is the original self-
starting thinking required by the job
for analyzing, evaluating, creating,
reasoning, arriving at and making
conclusions.

Problem Solving measures the
intensity of the mental process that
uses Know-How to: (1) identify, (2)
define, and (3) resolve problems. It is
a percentage of Know-How,
reflecting the fact that you think
with what you know.

This is true of even the most creative
work. Ideas are put together from
something already there. The raw
material of any thinking is knowledge
of facts, principles and means.

Problem Solving includes two
dimensions:

Context (aka Thinking
Environment)
Thinking Challenge

In the example on the right, Problem
Solving is expressed as E3 (33%)
(Context level E, Thinking Challenge
level 3 at 33% of the Know-How
points).

Context
E. Clearly Defined
Thinking Challenge
3. Interpretive
33%
Context
E. Clearly Defined
Thinking Challenge
3. Interpretive
33%

C
H
A
P
T
E
R

2
:

P
r
o
b
l
e
m

S
o
l
v
i
n
g

4
th
The Two Elements of Problem Solving:

Context

Context includes the influences or environment that limit or
guide decision-making such as rules, instructions, procedures,
standards, policies, principles from fields of science and
academic disciplines.

Positions are guided by organizational, departmental or
functional goals, policies, objectives, practices or
circumscribed by procedures and instructions. In general,
policies describe the what of a subject matter, procedures
detail the steps needed to follow through on a policy (i.e., how,
where, when, by whom) and instructions outline the specific
aspects of how to perform the tasks, such as the operation of
a machine or how to select the appropriate letters to use in
particular situations.

HayGroupcautions against the mechanical application of
organization echelons to determine levels. However, each job
is expected to resolve problems to meet its specific
accountabilities within an organizational framework or context.

TIP: Since Problem Solving is always a percentage of the
Know-How rating, the letter chosen for Context will generally be
at the same level or one letter lower than the Job-Specific
Know-How letter chosen for a position. For example, if the Hay
raters choose E for Job-Specific Know-How, the Context for the
position would typically be E or D; the Context rating would
never be F or G.

A

Strict Routine
As of 7/10, there were 7 active job classes with this
rating.
Positions are guided by simple rules and detailed
instructions.
Instructions or orders, usually given orally, usually
specify in detail the sequence and timing of the tasks to
be undertaken with little or no latitude for the employee
to consider alternative procedures.

B

Routine
As of 7/10, there were approx. 80 active job classes with
this rating.
Positions are guided by established routines and
standing instructions.
Instructions usually provide the latitude to consider
variations in the sequence of procedures based on
situations encountered within the work setting.

C

Semi-routine
As of 7/10, there were approx. 270 active job classes
with this rating. Examples include Aides, skilled
administrative support positions, skilled trades,
technicians and some first level supervisors.
Positions are guided by somewhat diversified
procedures and precedents.
While assigned tasks follow procedures, latitude is
permitted because of changing work circumstances.
Incumbents determine the most appropriate procedure
or precedent to follow.

4
th

D

Standardized
with this rating. The Problem Solving point mode at this
level is 50 points, the median is 57 points. Examples
include:
o Entry level professionals
o Most secondary professionals
o Some third level professionals
o Some first level supervisors
Positions are guided by substantially diversified business
or academic procedures and specialized standards.
Changing priorities or differing situations encountered in
the work environment allow the employee latitude to
consider which among many procedures should be
followed in what sequence to achieve the required job
results.

E

Clearly Defined
with this rating. Examples include:
o Advanced professionals
o Professional supervisors
o Some managers, directors and executive
directors
Positions are guided by policies and principles rather
than procedures.
Incumbents determine how best to accomplish goals or
resolve work challenges
Many higher level professional, supervisory and lower
and mid level managerial classes are rated at this level.

PROBLEM SOLVING EXAMPLES

D - Standardized Information Tech Spec 1 and 2
Forensic Scientist 1
Personnel Officer
Pers Officer Sr and Princ
Pollution Control Spec and Int
Psychologist
Registered Nurse/Sr/Princ
Registered Nurse Supervisor
State Patrol Trooper
State Programs Admin and Int
Warehouse Examiner Supv
E Clearly Defined Dentist
Engineer Admin and Princ
Finance Specialist 1, 2 and 3
Forensic Scientist 2 and 3
Hydrologist 4
Hydrologist 5
Information Tech Spec 3, 4, 5
Personnel Director 1 and 2
Personnel Representative
Planner Principal State
Psychologist 2 and 3
RN Advanced Practitioner
Safety Investigator 3 and 4
State Prog Admin Supv Sr and Princ
Systems Analysis Unit Supv

4
th
F

Broadly Defined
rating.
Positions are guided by broadly defined policies and
specific objectives.
Incumbents determine what needs to be done in
applying broad policies, in establishing a plan of action,
and in determining the priorities and processes needed
to achieve the objective.

G

Generally Defined
rating.
Positions are guided by general policies and goals
based on broad public policies.
These positions determine the organizations (i.e., the
State of Minnesotas) functional direction; the goal is
specified in only very general terms, such as increase in
international operations or enter new markets.

H

Abstractly Defined
Positions are guided by the general laws of nature
and/or science, within a framework of business
philosophy and cultural standards.
The Governor is the only position in State government
with this rating. The Governor determines the strategic
direction of State government, consistent with its charter,
and the requirements for the organizations survival and
continuity.

PROBLEM SOLVING EXAMPLES

F Broadly Defined Assistant Commissioner DOC
Assistant State Negotiator
Commissioner Human Rights
Demographer State
Deputy Commissioner Health
Exec Dir Animal Health Bd
Exec Dir PERA
Health Care Program Mgr Sr
Personnel Director 3 and 4
State Patrol Chief
G Generally Defined Commissioner Administration
Commissioner Agriculture
Commissioner DHS
Exec Dir Investment Board
H Abstractly Defined Governor

4
th
Hay Guide Chart
Profile Method:
a 3-level Thinking
Challenge process

Like the process that
turns loose
vegetation into rolls
of hay, the Hay
method of job
evaluation takes
relevant pieces of
information about a
job; subjects them to
an organized,
standardized
process; and results
in consistent ratings
that can be used for a
variety of purposes.
Thinking Challenge

Thinking Challenge includes the
nature of the problems
encountered and the mental
processes used to resolve the
problems. The scale ranges
from simple problems to very
complex issues, with the
premise that simple issues recur
regularly in the same form and
after awhile are resolved by rote
or instinct, but very difficult
issues require substantial
thinking and deliberation. The
types of situations encountered
and the processes involved in
identifying, defining or resolving
related problems are
considered. Thinking Challenge
reflects the degree of difficulty in
finding improvements and
adapting to changes.

1

Repetitive
rating.
This level has been compared to a true/false test
situation, with very limited options from which to choose.
Employees are expected to resolve identical situations
by making simple choices among a limited number of
learned things.
KSAs are applied directly to the job, with little need to
exercise independent judgment.
Each situation is nearly the same as the prior one and
employees make correct decisions through simple
choices, e.g., sorting operations.

2

Patterned
with this rating, many of them AFSCME positions.
This level has been compared to a multiple-choice test
situation with a finite number of choices, but more varied
than true/false.
Employees resolve similar situations by discriminating
between choices of learned things that generally follow a
well-defined pattern.
These jobs are confronted with multiple-choice
situations, but have learned which choice is most
appropriate for each situation through prior exposure or
experience.

4
th

3

Interpretive
(about 60%) with this rating. Examples include:
o More complex AFSCME positions
o Most professionals and supervisors
o Some managers
o Some directors and executive directors
This level has been compared to an essay test situation,
where more independent thought and creativity is
involved.
Employees resolve differing situations requiring a search
for solutions or new applications within the area of
learned things.
Experience is needed to know the options and make
sound judgments.
Employees need to be aware of and interpret choices;
theyre expected to have dealt with similar, but not
always identical, situations before.
These jobs are confronted with problems that fall in the
cracks and resolve them by reading between the lines.
Solutions result from comparing problem elements to
reference points within ones own experience and then
using ones judgment to match the appropriate prior
decision.

4

Adaptive
o Some advanced professionals
o Higher level supervisors
o Most managers
o Some assistant directors
o Most directors
o Commissioners, Deputy Commissioners,
Assistant Commissioners
Positions are expected to resolve variable situations
requiring analytical, interpretive, evaluative and/or
constructive thinking.
Situations are often more hypothetical, with the need to
develop alternatives.
Positions deal with situations that are largely new.
Employees adapt trends or programs that are known in
the U.S. to specific circumstances
The situation to be resolved includes circumstances,
facts and issues that are different than those that have
been encountered in the past.
The employee has to consider various possible courses
of action and ponder their consequences before taking
or recommending further steps.

4
th

5

Uncharted
As of 7/10, there was 1 active job class with this rating:
Chancellor MnSCU.
Positions are expected to resolve novel or nonrecurring
path finding situations requiring the development of new
concepts and imaginative approaches.
These positions are confronted with the unknown, in
situations with little or no precedents.
The employee must originate new concepts or
approaches without guidance from others.
Deliberations are often necessarily time-consuming.

J ob analysts choose between two percentages for each
combination of Context and Thinking Challenge (low and high)
to fine-tune the rating. For example, a D3 combination could
be assigned D3 (29%) for 50 points or D3 (33%) for 57 points.

Once the Know-How rating and the Problem Solving
percentage for a position are agreed upon, Hay raters use the
Point Conversion Table included with the Hay Guide Charts to
determine the positions total number of Problem Solving
points. To use this table, choose the column that matches the
positions total number of Know-How points, look along the left
side of the table for the % youve chosen, then find the number
where these two intersect for the total Problem Solving points.
For example, a 33% Problem Solving for 200 Know-How
points results in 66 total Problem Solving points.

JOB COMPONENT PATTERNS
Know-How points to Problem Solving percentages
KH Problem Solving Percentages
PTS 66% 57% 50% 43% 38% 33% 29% 25% 22%
920 x
800 x x
700 x x
608 x x
528 x x
460 s x x
400 x x
350 x x x
304 x x
264 x x x
230 s x x
200 x x
175 x x s
152 s x x s
132 s x x
115 s x
X= Typical/Probable
S = Selectivel y
In any decision situation, the amount of relevant information
available is inversely proportional to the importance of the
decision. (Cooke's Law)--Paul Dickson, comp. (The Official
Rules)

4
th

Accountability does not mean being
responsible for getting ones own work
done. Rather, it reflects responsibility
for actions and their consequences and
the measured effect of the job on end
results for the organization.

It includes three factors:

Freedom to Act/Empowerment
(i.e., freedom to act on
decisions);
Magnitude (i.e., size of budget
and magnitude of influence);
and
J ob Impact (i.e., the way in
which actions affect end results
in the agency).

You will see Accountability expressed
as D2C 76 (D level Freedom to Act, 2
level magnitude, and C level J ob Impact
for a total of 76 Accountability points).
These three factors measure the actual
effects of Know-How and Problem
Solving, and are considered together in
the way that makes the most sense
overall for each position.

D. Generall y
Regulated
2 Small
Magnitud
Contributory
76
D. Generall y
Regulated
2 Small
Magnitud
Contributory
76

C
H
A
P
T
E
R

3
:

A
c
c
o
u
n
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

4
th

The Three Elements of Accountability:

Freedom to Act/Empowerment

This aspect is officially titled Empowerment, but it is more
commonly known by its previous title, Freedom to Act. It
involves the degree of personal or procedural control or
guidance exercised over the position. For example, what
constraints are put on an employee in this job? Are there set
procedures to follow or does the employee have broad
authority to carry out managements or the Governors
direction? How closely supervised is the position? What kinds
of decisions are made higher up in the organization?

L

Limited
rating: Service Worker and Supported Employment
Worker.
These jobs are subject to explicit instructions covering
simple tasks.
The nature of the tasks are totally confining; instructions
are exact and supervision is continuous.

A

Prescribed
rating.
These jobs are subject to prescribed instructions
covering assigned tasks and/or immediate supervision.
These jobs are given explicit instructions, orally or in
writing, that state the step-by-step sequence of tasks to
be completed to achieve a specific end result. No
deviation is permitted without first seeking permission.

TIP: A positions Freedom to Act rating is
typically the same letter or one lower than the
Context choice for Problem Solving (i.e., a D in
Context would result in a D or C for Freedom to
Act). However, in some of the largest jobs,
Accountability is one letter higher (i.e., a G in
Thinking Context with an H in Freedom to Act).

B

Controlled
with this rating.
These positions are subject to instructions and
established work routines and/or close supervision.
Employees have minor latitude to rearrange the
sequence of completing various tasks or duties based on
changed work situations, workflow, etc.

C Standardized

with this rating.
These jobs are subject, wholly or in part, to standardized
practices and procedures, general work instructions
and/or supervision of progress and results.
These employees usually perform a greater variety of
tasks and duties and clearly understand, on a daily
basis, what results are expected by the supervisor.
Employees are not permitted to deviate from standard
practices and procedures, but may be permitted to set
their own priorities, subject to the supervisors approval.

4
th
D

Generally Regulated
o Some entry level professionals
o Most second level professionals
o Some first level supervisors
These jobs are subject, wholly or in part, to practices
and procedures covered by precedents or well-defined
policy and/or supervisory review.
These employees are permitted to determine their own
priorities and may deviate from established procedures
and practices as long as the end results meet standards
of acceptability (e.g., quality, volume, timeliness, etc.).
Supervision over work activities is usually indirect and
review of work results usually occurs after the fact.

E

Directed
o High level professionals
o Many supervisors
o Managers and directors
This option was previously called Reviewed.
These positions, by their nature or size, are subject to
broad practice and procedures covered by functional
precedents and policies and/or achievement of a
circumscribed operational activity and/or managerial
direction.
These positions, most often managers of functional
areas or very senior individual contributors, generally
have the independence needed to achieve operational
goals, provided that activities are consistent with
approved operating plans and objectives and functional
policies and precedents.
The management direction given these employees
establishes expected results.
These positions determine how and when the results will
be achieved.

F

Oriented Direction
rating (e.g. Assistant Commissioners, Commissioner,
Deputy Commissioner, Executive Directors).
These positions, by their nature or size, are broadly
subject to functional policies and goals and/or general
managerial direction.
Employees usually report to the managers of major
operating areas in the agency or are the organizations
top management and are permitted wide discretion,
provided that activities are consistent with operating
policies and precedents within that function.
Actions that will impact other functional or operating
areas usually require approval before they may be
implemented.
Commissioners are subject only to guidance from the
Governors Office.

G

Guided
rating.
These positions are subject only to broad policy and
general management guidance.
Employees establish functional policy as the
Commissioners and some Deputy Commissioners of
State agencies.

4
th
This is a major decision-making level in a State agency,
which determines the results to be achieved within that
agency.
Commissioners are subject only to guidance from the
Governors office.

H

Strategic Guidance
rating: Commissioner of DHS, Commissioner of DOT
and Chancellor MnSCU.
These positions are characterized by a comprehensive
and controlling effect on the largest State of Minnesota
agencies and on the people of the state.
Positions are subject only to guidance from the
Governors office.

I

Governor/Chief J ustice

4
th
Magnitude

This is the portion of the total organization encompassed by
the positions primary purpose. Its most typically indicated by
the general dollar size of the area(s) most directly affected by
the job, i.e., the resources over which the position has control
or influence. Hay raters consider a variety of issues. For
example, what sort of budget does the employee in this
position control? Does this figure include mostly salaries?
How are others involved in deciding how the money is spent?
If there isnt any budget, what kind of influence does the
employee have over what goes on in the agency?

TIP: The operational budget numbers change as
the Accountability Magnitude Index (AMI)
changes. The current AMI is 7.0 (Oct 2009). This
means that each of the dollar amounts on the
Magnitude portion of the Accountability Guide Chart
is adjusted in accordance with the current AMI by
multiplying each number by 7.0

1. Very small or indeterminate (under $700,000)

2. Small ($700,000 - $14 million)

3. Medium ($14 million - $140 million)

4. Large ($140 million - $1.4 billion)

5. Very Large ($1.4 billion - $14 billion)

6. (Over $14 billion)

1

Very Small or Indeterminate
As of 7/10, there were approx. 990 (about 56%) active
job classes with this rating.
The magnitude is a very small or indeterminate portion
of the Agency mission.
Operational budget influenced is under $700,000.
Most State jobs are 1 limited or indeterminate
because either the $ amount controlled is under
$700,000 OR others have a significant effect on the
decisions made.

2

Small
with this rating.
The magnitude is a small portion of the State or Agency
mission.
Operational budget influenced is $700,000 to
$14,000,000 ($14 million).
Most State jobs that arent placed in 1 above are found
here, either because the $ amount clearly controlled falls
in this area OR a positions role is very broad and
contributes to a much larger amount, although others
also have a significant effect on the decisions made.

3

Medium
with this rating.
The magnitude is a medium portion of the State or
Agency mission.
Operational budget influenced is $14,000,000 ($14
million) to $140,000,000 ($140 million).

4
th
4

Large
As of 7/10, there were approx. 80 active job classes with
this rating.
The magnitude is a large portion of the State or major
Agency mission.
Operational budget influenced is $140,000,000 ($140
million) to $1,400,000,000 ($1.4 billion).

5

Very Large
rating.
The magnitude is a very large portion of the States
mission.
Operational budget influenced is $1,400,000,000 ($1.4
billion) to $14,000,000,000 ($14 billion).

6

Whole State
rating: Commissioner of Education, Commissioner of
Minnesota Management and Budget, and Executive
Director Investment Board.
Operational budget influenced is more than
$14,000,000,000 ($14 billion).

4
th
Job Impact

A positions J ob Impact is considered to be indirect (indirect or
contributory) or direct and measurable (shared or primary). It
involves the way in which the positions actions affect end
results in the agency. For example, how does the employee
influence the business of the agency directly or indirectly?
Does the employee provide advisory or interpretive services
for others to use in making decisions? Is the job an
information-recording one? Does it provide a necessary
service with a relatively small effect on the business of the
agency? Contributory and primary are, by far, the most
frequently used options. The Hay raters often must determine
whether the position is primary over a smaller or indeterminate
amount or contributory over a larger amount. To make this
decision, they consider the positions primary function in the
organization and reflect that organizational role through the
rating.

I

Indirect
with this rating.
This option was previously called Remote.
Positions provide informational, recording or incidental
services for use by others related to some important end
result.
J ob activity may be complex, but the effect on the overall
organization is relatively minor.
Employees typically collect or process information or
data for other positions with more direct impact on the
organization.
Employees perform tasks with little recognition of the
use to which the end results will be put or what they
influence.
This J ob Impact option is the least direct of the four
available options.

C

Contributory
(About 58%) with this rating.
Positions provide interpretive, advisory or facilitating
services for use by others in taking action.
This type of J ob Impact is appropriate where jobs are
accountable for providing significant advice and
counsel in addition to information and/or analysis, and
when decisions are likely to be made by virtue of that
counsel.
Such impacts are commonly found in staff or support
functions that significantly influence decisions.
For example, a product manager may provide
recommendations that, when acted upon, materially
influence sales revenues; a labor relations specialist
makes recommendations that contribute to union
settlements of a given magnitude.
Positions are generally supportive in nature.
Positions role is to provide advice, counsel or
recommendations to assist decision-makers and/or
action takers.
This J ob Impact option is more direct than the Indirect
option.

4
th
S

Shared
rating, including the Governors position.
Positions participate with peers within or outside the
organizational unit to make decisions and take actions
jointly; a basic rule is that sharing cannot exist vertically
in an organization it can only exist among peers.
Shared impacts can exist between peer jobs and/or
functions, and suggest a degree of partnership in or
joint accountability for the results.
This option is rarely used; its for equal partnership
situations such as the Governors shared decision-
making with the Legislature or in self-directed work
teams.
Responsibility and accountability are shared equally with
others.
For example, there may be shared accountability
between engineering and manufacturing functions for a
successful product.
A committee where each member has an equal vote is
an example of shared accountability.
This J ob Impact option is more direct than Contributory
because these positions share direct accountability fairly
equally. However, since it is shared, these positions
have lower J ob Impact than a position that is considered
to be Primary.

P

Primary
with this rating.
Positions are directly accountable for making decisions
and taking actions, directly or through subordinate
positions, which determine and control the results.
Line management positions are generally considered to
be controlling their own operating areas.
These positions control the J ob Impact on end results,
where any shared accountability with others is
secondary.
Such impacts are commonly found in operations and
managerial positions that have line accountability for
key end result areas, whether theyre large or small.
For example, a supervisor may be primarily
accountable for the production or output (value added)
of a unit within the context of available resources (e.g.,
human resources and controllable expenses); whereas
the Minncor Vice-President of Operations may have a
primary impact upon the total value added in the
manufacture of products or upon costs of goods
manufactured.
The key is that the job exists to have the controlling
influence on certain end results of a given magnitude,
and that accountability is not shared with others, i.e.,
the buck stops here.
This is the most direct J ob Impact option.

There are also fine-tuning decisions to be made in
Accountability, with several options available for each rating
combination. For example, C1P can be assigned 57 points,
66 points or 76 points.

4
th

A fourth factor, special conditions, is
used when appropriate for certain
jobs where physical effort, noxious
physical conditions, physical hazards
and/or sensory attention demands are
significant elements. Prior to 1995,
when the sensory attention demands
aspect was added, this section was
called Working Conditions. These
points are typically not applied to
professional level positions for two
reasons:

Professional positions are less
likely to spend as much of their
time in conditions that
emphasize physical effort,
noxious physical conditions,
physical hazards, or sustained
sensory attention demands.

Even if the professional positions
do experience some of these
conditions, the effect of Special
Conditions points on the overall
Hay rating becomes increasingly
negligible as the Know-How,
Problem Solving and
Accountability point values
become higher.

Special Conditions points have much more of an effect on
AFSCME-type positions, where the overall number of points
are typically lower than those of professionals, supervisors and
managers.

To read existing Hay ratings that include Special Conditions
points, it helps to know the following codes. Each of the four
elements is assigned 0 10 points for relevant situations.

P =Physical Effort
E =Environment
H =Hazards
S =Sensory Attention (added in 1995)

C
H
A
P
T
E
R

4
:

S
p
e
c
i
a
l

C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s

4
th

JOB PROFILES

The jobs size and profile serve as
starting points for many job evaluation
applications. Job size is determined by
the total of the factor point values for
Know-How, Problem Solving and
Accountability, and reflects the jobs
relative value to the organization. The
relative proportions of Know-How,
Problem Solving and Accountability that
make up the job determine its profile
(see Figure 2). The job profile concept
provides a better understanding of how
jobs fit into organizations.

The balance between Accountability
and Problem Solving reflects the extent
to which the job is primarily concerned
with achieving results or is focused on
research and analysis.

The balance among Accountability,
Know-How, and Problem Solving
reflects the level and type of work in an
organization. For example, entry-level
positions typically focus on Know-How.
Accountability focus grows through
career development into jobs that
impact the organization more broadly
through application of acquired
experience and problem-solving
capability.

Figure 2:
Proportions of Accountability, Know-How,
and Problem Solving

Commissioner: Profile: KH-PS-AC
Large Agency 37-25-38
KH
37%
PS
25%
AC
38%

Commissioner: Profile: KH-PS-AC
Small Agency 43-25-32

KH
43%
PS
25%
AC
32%

Office and Admin Spec Profile: KH-PS-AC
74-12-14
KH
74%
PS
12%
AC
14%

S In entry-level jobs, Know-How may account for 70% of job
content, while at the CEO level Know-How may only be
30% of job content (even though, of course, it is significantly
more important than Know-How for an entry-level position).

C
H
A
P
T
E
R

5
:

F
i
n
e

T
u
n
i
n
g

4
th

Short Profiles
There are Short Profiles that describe the relationship of the
point factor values for a single position or classification.

In some positions, Accountability is higher than Problem
Solving. These positions have an Up profile. This means
that deadlines and end results are more important to
successful job performance than analysis and research. As
the gap between Problem Solving and Accountability
increases (greater Accountability), deadlines and end results
take on greater significance. Usually, jobs of this nature are
supervisors and managers.

Up profiles are written at the end of a Hay rating as +1, +2, +3,
etc. (EI2 230 E3(38) 87 E2C 100 =417 +1)

In some positions, Problem Solving and Accountability are
equal. In these positions, analysis and the search for answers
to difficult work issues is as important as deadlines. These
jobs are called Level. Level profiles include positions such
as Research Analyst, Planner, and Auditor.

Level profiles are written at the end of a Hay rating as =.
(EI2 200 E3(33) 66 D1C 66 =332 =)

In some positions, Problem Solving is greater than
Accountability. In these positions, analysis and the search for
answers is greater than deadlines and end results. These
positions are called Down jobs. Down profiles are often
found among positions responsible for scientific research. The
States Research Scientist classification illustrates this
concept.

Down profiles are written at the end of a Hay rating as -1, -2, -
3, etc. (FI2 264 E4(43) 115 E2C 100 =479 -1)

Written Verbal Interpretation
+4 Up 4
Accountability is four steps higher
than Problem Solving
+3 Up 3
Accountability is three steps higher
+2 Up 2
Accountability is two steps higher
+1 Up 1
Accountability is one step higher than
Problem Solving
= Level
Accountability and Problem Solving
are equal
- 1 Down 1
Accountability is one step lower than
Problem Solving
- 2 Down 2
Accountability is two steps lower than
Problem Solving
- 3 Down 3
Accountability is three steps lower
- 4 Down 4
Accountability is three steps lower

4
th
Guide to Hay Evaluation Profiles
Based on Problem Solving %, Know-How Points and total points.
PS Short Know-How Points
% Profile 115 132 152 175 200 230 264 304 350 400 460 528 608 700
25 = 173 198 228 261
25 +1 177 203 233 268
29 -1 177 203 233 268 307 353
29 = 181 208 238 275 314 362
29 +1 186 213 245 282 323 372
33 -1 186 213 245 282 323 372
33 = 191 218 252 289 332 382 438
29 +2 191 220 252 291 333 383 440
33 +1 298 342 393 451
38 -1 298 342 393 451 519 597
38 = 307 352 404 464 534 614
33 +2 308 353 406 466 536 617
43 -2 353 406 466 536 617 707 812
38 +1 363 417 479 551 634 727 835
43 -1 417 479 551 634 727 835
43 = 430 494 568 654 750 860
38 +2 432 496 571 657 752 865
50 -2 432 496 571 657 752 865 992 1142
43 +1 511 588 677 775 890 1022 1176
50 -1 511 588 677 775 890 1022 1176
50 = 528 608 700 800 920 1056 1216
43 +2 531 611 702 805 924 162 1222
57 -2 611 702 805 924 1062 1222
50 +1 725 830 954 1096 1262 1450
57 -1 725 830 954 1096 1262 1450
57 = 750 860 988 1136 1308 1500
50 +2 755 864 994 1142 1312 1510
66 -2 864 994 1142 1312 1510
57 +1 894 1028 1182 1358 1560
57 +2 934 1074 1232 1418 1628
66 +2 1768
= total points of common evaluations

4
th

Long Profiles

The Long Profile describes the relationship of the three Hay
factors for a single position as well as the vertical relationships
of positions within an organization.

Long Profiles break down the three factors into percentages.
Long Profiles can be determined from the Hay charts under
the section titled: Characteristic Hay Profiles.

The Hay rating FI2 264 E4(43) 115 E2C 100 =479 has a
long form profile of: 55-24-21. Translated, this means that
55% of this position is Know-How, 24% of this position is
Problem Solving and 21% of this position is Accountability.
Long Profiles also give raters valuable organizational
information. Typically, when analyzing the vertical
relationships of positions within an organization, positions at
higher levels have greater Accountability. This permits raters
to use the Long Profile to determine a ratings accuracy. For
example, a managerial position with the above profile
supervising employees with a profile of (55-21-24 with 24% of
the subordinates profile in Accountability) is probably
incorrect. Raters then use this information for further analysis.

Long Profile Short
Classification KH% PS% AC% Profile
Student Worker
Clerical 79 8 13 +3
Food Service
Worker 76 9 15 +3
Office Specialist 76 10 14 +2
Microfilmer 72 12 16 +2
Account Clerk 70 13 17 +2
Personnel Aide 68 15 17 +1
Office Services
Supervisor 1 63 16 21 +2
Accounting
Officer 64 18 18 level =
Management
Analyst 3 60 20 20 level =
Planning
Director State 53 20 27 +2
Financial
Services
Director 52 22 26 +1
Chief Information
Officer 46 23 31 +2
Asst
Commissioner
Economic
Security 43 25 32 +2
Commissioner
Transportation 38 24 38 +3
Governor 32 27 41 +3

4
th

These long profiles illustrate that as positions become more
complex, the emphases on problem solving and accountability
become greater and the emphasis on Know-How is
correspondingly decreased. For example, the Governors
Problem Solving is high 41%. This reflects the Governors
significant responsibility for results and the organizational
reality that the Governor must often rely on others Know-How
and Problem Solving due to the scope of the job.

The Personnel professional series class examples below all
have level profiles, which mean that the positions roles in
Problem Solving and Accountability are considered equal or
balanced. Their short profiles would be identical. However,
their long profiles reflect the increasing emphases on Problem
Solving and Accountability as the job requirements become
more complex:

Classification
Long profile Short
profile KH% PS% AC%
Personnel Officer 64 18 18 =
Personnel Officer Sr 60 20 20 =
Personnel Officer Princ 60 20 20 =
Personnel Rep 56 22 22 =

The Characteristic Hay Profiles table on the reverse side of
the Accountability Guide Chart provides a straightforward way
to identify a positions long profile. Columns A4, A3, A2, A1
and LEVEL are used for most State of Minnesota Hay ratings.
In these situations, Accountability is higher than Problem
Solving (A1 4) or equal to Problem Solving (level). Because
the State has very few down jobs, where Problem Solving is
higher than Accountability, the P1, P2, P3 and P4 columns are
rarely used.

Long profile information can also be found in the annual Hay
Evaluation lists provided by MMB that contain the current
Hay ratings State of Minnesota job classes. These numbers
are sometimes slightly different than the percentages on the
Characteristic Hay Profile table. The table provided in the
Hay Guide Charts is the official document, but the additional
columns on the Hay Evaluation lists are provided for Hay
raters use in the Sore-Thumbing process described below.

4
th
Sore-Thumbing

Sore-Thumbing is primarily used during a class study or
quality assurance review, after multiple positions in an
organization have been Hay-rated and before the ratings are
finalized. In this process, the job evaluations are put in order
from high to low and reviewed in relation to each other. This
process is called sore thumbing because the raters check the
ratings to see if any aspects of the ratings stick out like a sore
thumb. If irregularities or discrepancies are discovered during
this process, the raters discuss the rating(s) in question and
decide whether any changes are needed before the ratings
are considered final. This is an example. Does anything
stand out?

Class
Know-
How
(KH)
Problem
Solving
(PS)

Account-
ability
(AC)
Total
Points
&
short
profile
Personnel
Dir 3 FII3 400 F4(50) 200 F3C 200 800 =
Personnel
Services
Manager FII3 350 E4(43) 152 E4C 175 677+1
Personnel
Program
Manager FI3 304 E4(43) 132 E3C 152 588 +1
Personnel
Dir 2 EI3 264 E3(38) 100 E2C 115 479 +1
Personnel
Rep EI2 230 E3(38) 87 D2C 87 404 =
Personnel
Officer Princ EI2 200 D3(33) 66 D1C 66 332 =
Personnel
Officer Sr DI2 175 D3(33) 57 D1C 57 289 =
Personnel
Officer DI2 152 D3(29) 43 C1C 43 238 =
Personnel
Aide Sr DI2 132 C3(25) 33 C1C 33 198 =
Personnel
Aide CI2 115 C2(22) 25 C1I 29 169 +1

4
th
Hay Ratings At-A-Glance

Non-Managerial*
Between 600-100 Total Hay Points

Job Specific Know-How and
Integrating Know-How
Alpha notation;
Know
-How
points
Typical
Problem
Solving
Total
Hay
Points
(rounded)
Seasoned Professional FI
304 38% 570
264
230
38%
33%
480
390
Basic Specialized EI
200
175
33%
29%
330
280
Advanced Vocational DI
152
132
29%
25%
240
200
Vocational CI 115 22% 170
100 19% 140
Elementary Vocational BI 87 16% 120
76 14% 100
Primary AI
66 12% <99 Limited LI
*At least 85% of all state employees are in job classes with total Hay
points between 600-100

Managerial
Between 1400-480 Total Hay Points**

Job Specific Know-How and
Integrating Know-How
Alpha notation;
Know
-How
points
Typical
Problem
Solving
Total
Hay
Points
(rounded)
Specialized Mastery GIII
608 57% 1400
Seasoned Professional FIII
528 50% 1150
460 50% 950
Seasoned Professional

FII
400 43% 800
350 43% 680
Seasoned Professional FI
304 38% 570
264 38% 480
** Representative Managerial ratings from Executive Directors of
Boards to Assistant Department Commissioners

4
th

Hay Committees look at three key
elements when they rate a position:
Know-How, Problem-Solving and
Accountability. An effective Hay
presentation communicates essential job
information in each of these areas in a
clear and concise manner (most sessions
are scheduled for an hour, the suggest
time for the presentation is 15 minutes).

The facilitator should work with the
presenters prior to the Hay session to
assure that the presentation covers the
most relevant material in the time
provided. A rehearsal is recommended
for the best results. [See Hay Presenter
Checklist below]
.
Its helpful to give the Hay Committee a
copy of the presentation so they can refer
back to the information as they conduct
their evaluations.

The following outlines are provided as
guides. The raters may also find these
outlines useful in when following along at
the presentation to be sure all the area
are covered.

PRESENTATION OUTLINE
A brief explanation of the services or products the position
provides.
Know-How
A brief description of the functions the position manages.
List of employees manage and their job classifications (this
is supported by the org chart).
Critical technical and/or specialized knowledge required by
the position.
The positions role in planning and prioritizing work and the
work performed by subordinates.
Unique factors affecting the position such as customers
served; geographic area the position affects, special
characteristics of the programs or services the position
provide to others, political/social influences.
Specialized equipment routinely used.
If applicable, the positions role in dealing with the media,
general public, other governmental jurisdictions,
consultants, community groups, contractors, committees
and related organizations.

Problem-Solving

The easiest way to communicate problem
solving is to provide examples of complex problems routinely
solved in this job and how the incumbent must go about
solving these problems. Two or three examples are usually
sufficient. Describe the problem, who was involved, the
positions role in its resolution.
Provide separate annual totals for salaries, equipment,
contracts and related activities. Explain the positions role
and discretion in developing and managing that budget.
Accountability
If the position doesnt have a budget, explain how this
positions services/products help the agency achieve its
mission?
C
H
A
P
T
E
R

6
:

P
r
e
p
a
r
i
n
g

t
h
e

P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n

4
th
Key decisions routinely made in the performance of the
positions job duties.
Federal, state and local regulations and laws and special
procedures that affect the way job duties are performed.
Describe other constraints on the position such as
administrative review, laws, regulations, procedures and
technology.

HAY PRESENTATION OUTLINE WORKSHEET
I.BACKGROUND
Briefly describe the nature of the work performed in your unit of the
agency.

II. KNOW HOW
a. MANAGERIAL SKILLS (Integrating Know-How)
Do you manage more than one functional area e.g. accounting
and food service? If so what areas?

b. TECHNICAL SKILLS (Depth and Breadth of Job-Specific
Knowledge)
Discuss any special technical knowledge and/or skills that you or
your subordinates need to know for successfully completing their
work assignments (e.g. required certifications or degrees,
specialty areas of knowledge, rules and laws, unique
processes/systems and/or products). How is this knowledge/skill
obtained?

c. HUMAN RELATIONS SKILLS
Elaborate on your supervisory responsibilities. Do you hire, fire,
resolve grievances, and assign work among work crews or
geographical areas, etc.? If you do not supervise what kind of
relationships do you have with your customers?

III. PROBLEM SOLVING
Provide two examples of difficult, but typical problems that you
face on your job (problems should be recurring, not one time
situations). What types of problems do you deal with? How are
problems solved?

4
th
IV. ACCOUNTABILITY
Provide the amount of your annual budget. Include your role in
developing the budget, allocating money for salaries and
materials.

a. FREEDOM TO ACT
What constraints limit your actions e.g. laws, policies,
supervisory approvals, etc.? What kind of direction do you
receive from your supervisor? What kinds of decisions are made
higher up?

b. IMPACT ON END RESULTS
What is the primary purpose of your job? Describe how your job
impacts the goals of the agency. What is your role in the agency
e.g. advisory/interpretive, leading/guiding?

.

4
th

HAY Presenter Checklist

A Dozen Tips

Each Hay session is a Moment of
Truth for the Hay job evaluation
process. All at one time and place,
customers (State Managers and
Supervisors), partners (Agency
personnel), and technical service
providers (Hay Raters) come together
to produce a quality Hay rating. This
checklist will aid HR in guiding the
presenter and toward a high quality,
efficient process and result.

Determine how well the presenter is prepared: Yes
1. The presenter can clearly explain the job, its place in the
organization, how the job has changed (if rating already exists) and
can provide documentation to support the changes.
No

____

____
2. The presentation incorporates the key elements of Hay: Know
How, Problem Solving, Accountability and Special Conditions,
especially related to changes.

____

____
3. The presenter has prepared a written outline and done a trial run
with the appropriate supervisor and/or facilitator of the Hay
session.

____

____
4. The presentation has been culled to weed out extraneous
content.
____ ____
5. The presentation has been timed and is not longer than about 15
minutes.
____ ____
6. The presenter understands the context and framework of the
position in relation to other classes that already have Hay ratings.

____

____
7. The presenter has been briefed on existing class possibilities. ____ ____
8. An anticipated timeline has been explained to the presenter as to
when the results of the Hay session may be available.

____

____
9. The presenter has been schooled as to how compensation may be
determined in terms of conversion tables, internal
relationships/equity and market conditions.

____

____
10. Visual materials are in order such as:
Position description
Org. chart with Hay ratings
PowerPoint or Handouts
Work Samples if appropriate

____
____
____
____

____
____
____
____
11. The presenter is aware that the Hay committee will ask questions
and possible questions have been anticipated.
____
____
12. The presenter is aware that he/she will not be present when the Hay
Committee actually discusses and comes to consensus about the
rating.

____

____

4
th
HAY EVALUATION WORKSHEET FOR RATERS

Initial Ratings
Know-how Problem solving Accountability Special
Slot Points Slot (%) Points Slot Points
Profile Conditions Total pts
Before presentation

( ) ___-___-___

( ) ___-___-___

( ) ___-___-___

After presentation

( ) ___-___-___

( ) ___-___-___

( ) ___-___-___

After committee discussion

( ) ___-___-___

( ) ___-___-___

Your final rating

( ) ___-___-___

Committee final rating

( ) ___-___-___

JOB TITLE EVALUATION RATIONALE/COMMENTS
KNOW-HOW

Clarification, additional data not covered in job description, etc.
PROBLEM SOLVING

ACCOUNTABILITY
Freedom/Empowerment

Impact/Magnitude

SPECIAL CONDITIONS

4
th

The three or five person committee
design, J ob Profiling and Sore-Thumbing
are three quality assurance elements
that are built into the Hay committee
rating process itself. After the Hay rating
committee finalizes the rating(s), the
facilitator documents the findings in a
standardized format provided by MMB
called the Hay Quality Assurance
Summary or 385 for the old form
number.

The 385 form is MMBs primary record
that a Hay rating has taken place. It is
used for many reasons including Quality
Assurance and as of 2003 also used to
document and track individual
participation on rating teams for the
annual Hay Certification. [
R
=required
fields]

An excerpt of the form is provided here.

NOTE: All ratings must be recorded on
the 385 form regardless of the outcome.
See Chapter __ for more discussion on
Outcomes.
Hay Quality Assurance Summary
Date(s) of Rating(s)
R
: Location:
R

Facilitator name
R
:
Title
Agency
R

Delegated to Agency
R
: Yes No

Quality Assurance Measure - Effectiveness: Number of Hay raters and
agencies (statewide perspective). Certified/provisional encourage raters to
be active? Presenters (Subject matter experts). HR involvement in the
process?

Hay Committee

(There must be at least 3 raters. Five rater teams are
recommended)
Name
R
Department
R

Rater 1
R

Rater 2
R

Rater 3
R

Rater 4

Rater 5

Observers
Observer 1:
(Please list name(s) & Department(s)of each observer)
Observer 2:
Observer 3:

Presenters
Presenter 1:
(Please list name(s) & title(s) of each presenter)

Presenter 2:
Presenter 3:
Presenter 4:

Quality Assurance Measures Efficiency, Effectiveness and Accuracy:
Number of Hay ratings completed by committee. #of Hay rating completed in
one session or rescheduled to another session. Results in use of an existing
class (managing the classification system)? Do the rating numbers add up? Is
the slotting based on the long and short profiles? Does the rating compare to
other rating in the same class series? [NOTE: Position ratings may differ from
POSITION(S) RATED/RESULT(S)
C
H
A
P
T
E
R

7
:

Q
u
a
l
i
t
y

A
s
s
u
r
a
n
c
e

4
th
the class rating. Under Classification Decision please list the class title and
class rating.] .
Position 1
Department
Current Class
Class Code
Incumbent (name), new or
vacant

Position Hay Rating points and profile
Rating (e.g. EI2 230, E3(33)
76. E1C 87)

Total points (e.g. 393+1)
Profile (e.g. 59-19-22)
Classification Decision Class Title/Class Rating
Decision code (see below)
Class Title
Class Hay Rating
Class Code
Bargaining Unit
SEMA4 Update Update the J ob Code record to reflect new
rating date: Y__ N__

Quality Assurance Measure - Documentation:
(Please check the appropriate boxes for documentation available regarding
this Hay Evaluation)
Position description(s)
R
:
:
sending electronically sending through interoffice mail

Organization Chart(s)
R
:

Memo explaining background/reason for determination(s)
R
:

Recommended Change in Classification Plan form (class establishment, title
change, salary range reassignments, etc. ):
MMB Representative is preparing

If a new class, is there a draft class specification attached?
Not available

Comments (Use this section to provide additional information regarding any of
the fields above):

Submitted
R
by: _____________________________-- Date
R
: ____________

Phone number: _______________________
Agency_______________________________

Decision Code
NC =No Change list class and class rating
REC =Reallocation to an existing class list class rating
ENC =Establish new class list proposed class title
RCR =Revised class rating for salary range reassignment list class
TC =Title Change list new title and class rating if different from the
position rating
TBD =Final outcome to be determined explain further in the comments
section.

4
th
Shortly after the facilitators documentation arrives on her/ his
desk, MMBs Chief Classification Analyst (CCA) provides the
first external quality assurance review of each rating. S/he
reviews the documentation of the Hay committees work and
compares the findings against his or her own knowledge of the
Hay Guide Chart Profile Method and the States classification
structure to ensure that each rating makes sense.

The Hay Advisory Team also reviews this documentation in an
internal quality assurance review. In 2010 the Hay Advisory
Team introduced the use of Quality Assurance Teams to
provide more up-to-date feedback to raters. Ratings were
reviewed to see if the raters met the guidelines set by the Hay
Advisory Team. A Hay Evaluation Internal Quality Review
Checklist was developed for this review process. The checklist
covered the following:
A. Documentation (includes the 385 form, background
information/explanation write-up, position description
and organizational chart, draft class specification if
required, and total points adding up correctly).
B. Effectiveness (includes subject matter experts as
presenters and the use of 5 member rating committees)
C. Efficiency (includes the Hay/Comp Level Decision form
and consultation with the MMB rep.)
D. Outcomes (includes a discussion of the outcome of
rating in the write-up)
E. Sore-thumbing (evaluates the components of the rating,
e.g. Know-How, Problem Solving, Accountability,
Special Conditions, and the Profile.

The 2010 Hay Quality Assurance Review was conducted by
teams of trained raters led by members of the Hay Advisory
Team. Each team was assigned a one or more ratings that
were conducted in FY 2008 and 2009. A total of 21 ratings
were reviewed. The teams determined that 19 ratings were
incomplete, e.g. some recommendations for improvement but
no rating changes. Only two ratings were identified as needing
corrections to the total rating points.

Theres also an ongoing quality assurance component external
to the State of Minnesota. Al Bunnett was the Personnel
Director of the Department of Public Safety in the 1970s, when
HayGroupbegan creating customized Hay Guide Charts for
the State of Minnesota. He was heavily involved in facilitating
the committee process for a team of seven State Hay raters
after the new charts were finalized in 1978, then became a
consultant for HayGroupshortly afterward. He has been the
States account representative ever since.

A certain number of the States Hay ratings undergo external
quality assurance inspections by trained consultants every two
years. MMBs Chief Classification Analyst compiles
documentation for the Hay consultants review. The ratings
have remained remarkably consistent over time.

There was a more extensive quality assurance review process
after minor modifications were made to the Hay Guide Charts in
1995. Al Bunnett and Dr. Ron Page, PhD, independent HR
consultant, reviewed most of the States Hay ratings in 1994,
1995 and 1996, to ensure that previous and new ratings would
remain consistent on a statewide basis with the updated Hay
Guide Charts. The revisions to the Hay Guide Charts were not
extensive; they reflected the State of Minnesotas
organizational growth and needs. For example, sensory
attention considerations were added to the Special Conditions
section in 1995, so this aspect needed to be applied to relevant
positions.

In 1998, the State of Minnesota considered whether it was
practical to invest in a computer-assisted job evaluation
process designed by HayGroupor a competitor, or to
continue using the paper Hay Guide Charts that had just been

4
th
updated in 1995. Dr. Ron Page was helpful during this process
because he had worked for both companies and was familiar
with their systems. The end result was that it was more cost-
effective to continue with the manual process that the State of
Minnesota still uses today.

Another external quality assurance review process occurred in
1999, when the Legislative Auditor performed a comprehensive
review of the State of Minnesotas compensation practices.
Since the Hay Guide Chart method is used to evaluate all State
jobs so a standard frame of reference can be used when
determining salaries, the Legislative Auditors Office thoroughly
reviewed the States job evaluation process. They told Chief
Classification Analyst, Wayne Veum at the end of the review
that they had never seen more thorough documentation in any
program they had ever evaluated and that they were
impressed!

A final quality assurance element involves the Hay rater
certification process. After his 1999 Quality Assurance
inspection, Dr. Ron Page recommended the establishment of
an internal State of Minnesota Advisory Committee to review
and revise the 1995 Training and Development Standards. In
fiscal year 2000, MMB delegated Hay Rater Training and
Development Standards to the resulting Hay Advisory Team, a
multi-agency team of volunteer Certified Hay Raters, which
continues to administer and update them. HayGroup
consultant and State of Minnesota account representative, Al
Bunnett, endorsed the new State of Minnesota State Hay Rater
Standards in fiscal year 2002.

4
th
Indicators of a Good Hay Rater

A good Hay rater is a skill ed job evaluator and an i nquisitive,
analytical and criti cal thinker with good communi cation and
collaboration skil ls, who i s objective, motivated, prepared, and
proud to be a rater.

Indicator
Skilled job evaluator
Understands the job audit process and how the Hay process can
be a valuable tool for doing audits
Performs job analysis/classification on a regular basis
Understands the States classification system, including in-depth
knowledge of one or more class series or group of classes
Understands the types of jobs being evaluated
Experienced auditing a wide variety of jobs and classes
Realizes the importance of evaluating jobs within their
organizational context; understanding the agency helps Hay
raters to avoid misperceptions and accurately slot positions in
that agency
Recognized for performing quality job audits in complex
situations at the agency level
Viewed as a knowledgeable, credible job evaluator by HR staff
and managers
Inquisitive learner
Inquisitive and willing to ask relevant (and sometimes difficult)
questions
Continuous, curious and agile learner
Open to arguments on why not and welcomes feedback
Listens well and comprehends presentations that can be long
and/or complicated to understand
Analytical
Practical, logical, analytical
Enjoys determining how a job fits within the larger organizational
context in relation to other jobs that have been Hay-rated;
comparing jobs that may be very different in overall size,
complexity and level; and ranking them within a class series and
classification system
Able to sort out the facts that relate to the different scales in the
Hay process (i.e., the formula that is applied to a position
description and verbal description of a position)
Looks beyond first impression (or solution) to make sure its
accurate (or the best solution)
Can identify potentially hidden problems (i.e., understands the
charts well and how to apply them)
Critical thinker
Comfortable with often ambiguous concepts and complexity
Able to effectively and efficiently combine analysis, wisdom,
experience and judgment in gray areas
Understands how people and organizations actually function
Somewhat of a big picture thinker to make judgments about
specific positions within the context of the total organization
Able to understand and accurately apply Hay rating concepts
and practices to real-life situations
Looks beyond the obvious while quickly grasping the forest and
the trees of a particular organizational situation
Can see through the fluff and focus on the most important
information
Balances the need to avoid assumptions while accepting the
reality of some uncertainty
Skilled communicator
Attentive and active listener
Shows understanding, courtesy, tact, empathy, concern, and
politeness during interactions
Articulate; asks relevant questions and explains the basis of
ones own job evaluations/Hay ratings
Comfortable meeting and communicating with senior managers
about complex organizational roles and relationships
Helps explain the why to less experienced job evaluators/Hay
raters
Willing to have good discussions with other Hay raters
(sometimes leaning towards debate)
Collaborative
Able to interact effectively with other Hay rating team
members and work towards a consensus rating; in other
words, demonstrate good human relations skills in a

4
th
committee setting
Interested in and able to work effectively as part of a team
Comfortable with a committee process that involves listening
to subject matter experts provide information about a jobs
role, responsibilities, and requirements; developing individual
ratings; and then working together to reach consensus on a
final rating
Able to represent ones own perspective and
Willing to stand up for own side of an issue (i.e., not back
down right away without a good reason), but not so stubborn
as to be unable to change ones mind
be a
collaborative team member
Objective
Separates people from their positions
Able to evaluate jobs as they stand without regard to current
job holders
Not pre-disposed to any particular outcome, with legitimate
reasons for ones own individual Hay rating
Willing to take and articulate unpopular stands, when
appropriate, with grace
Open-minded; able to set aside bias and look at all sides of
the situation
Has integrity
Motivated
Exhibits the willingness to learn
Has a genuine interest in the Hay process and what it
represents for the States classification system
Expressed interest in and has made efforts to become familiar
with the Hay job evaluation process, including the willingness
to attend training sessions
Has the desire to learn a systematic process for identifying
and analyzing information about work performed and to rank
jobs using charts and graphs by assigning alpha and numeric
values to job components based on specific factors
Interested in how the classification system is applied beyond
ones own agency
Willing to learn about classifications outside of ones own
agency
Continues to attend training to improve ones skills
Has the desire and ability to participate in Hay rating sessions
on a regular basis
Pursues opportunities to perform Hay ratings (practice does

make raters better)
Prepared
Willing and able to make Hay rating a priority and arrive
prepared for rating sessions (for example, read materials
ahead of time, set aside enough time to be at the entire
session, come prepared with thoughtful questions)
Willing and able to spend time reviewing written materials
(sometimes a large volume) in advance of a Hay session to
prepare for the rating process; willing to put own work aside to
do so
Reads all data ahead of time and does research on the
internet

Proud to be a Hay rater
Understands that Hay rating jobs for the State of Minnesota is
a privilege, not a right
Respects the statewide implications of being a Hay rater and
the importance of being a role model during Hay sessions
Understands the role of Hay rater in relation to other HR
systems
Agrees to the responsibilities involved, including helping to
document the sessions and completing 385 evaluation forms
in a timely basis

4
th
Hay Rater Training and Development
Standards

I. Certified (Fully)
A Hay Rater who has completed all required Basic,
Intermediate and Advanced Formal Hay Training and during
the most recent calendar year:
Has attended at least one Hay Topics Seminar/Workshop
(when offered) and
Completed any combination of two of the following Hay
rating experiences: Hay Rater, Hay Committee Facilitator,
or Quality Assurance Team.

II. Provisional (Partially Certified)
Intermediate and Advanced Formal Hay Training. However,
during the most recent calendar year met some, but not all, of
the training and experience requirements to be fully certified.

III. Inactive
Intermediate and Advanced Formal Hay Training. However,
during the most recent calendar year, did not meet any of the
training and experience requirements to be either fully or
partially certified. The Inactive Hay Raters name remains on
the List of Certified Hay Raters for the current year to provide
an opportunity for provisional or full certification.

IV. Non-Certified (No-Longer Certified)
Intermediate and Advanced Formal Hay Training but remained
Inactive during the most recent calendar year. A Non-certified
Hay Raters name is removed from the List of Certified Hay
Raters unless Reinstated.

V. Reinstated
A Non-Certified Hay Rater who has previously completed all
required Basic, Intermediate and Advanced Formal Hay
Training. The Non-Certified Hay Rater must request
reinstatement by the MN Hay Advisory Team understanding
that the Hay Rater intends to become a Provisionally or Fully
Certified Hay Rater.

4
th

Minnesota Statute 43A.18, Subd. 8
states that in preparing management
negotiating positions for compensation
and in establishing, recommending and
approving total compensation for any
position within the plans, the
Commissioner (of MMB) should assure
that:

(a) Compensation for positions in the
classified and the unclassified
service compare reasonably to
one another;

(b) Compensation for state positions
bears reasonably relationship to
compensation for similar positions
outside state service;

(c) Compensation for management
positions bears reasonable
relationship to compensation of
represented employees
managed;

(d) Compensation for positions within
the classified service bears
reasonable relationships among
related job classes and among
various levels within the same
occupation; and

(e) Compensations bear reasonable relationships to one
another within the meaning of this subdivision if
compensation for positions which require comparable
skill, effort, responsibility and working conditions is
comparable and if compensation for positions which
require differing skill, effort, responsibility and working
conditions is proportional to the skill, effort, responsibility
and working conditions required.

Internal consistency is extremely important to the States
system because four of the five points above speak directly to
the importance of internal equity. The State must now comply
with pay equity or the notion of equal worth for equal pay.

The State of Minnesotas compensation system must maintain
a reasonable level of consistency between and among its
various classes. The States compensation system is based on
the statutory requirement that the compensation of job classes
must bear reasonable relationship to one another, and the Hay
point system is one of the ways the State attempts to comply
with this requirement.

New classes are not automatically placed on the trend line.
There are five levels where a class may be placed, which is
commonly known as the trend line conversion. Salary
placement in one of these five levels is deemed appropriate
compensation for a particular class given its Hay points.

C
H
A
P
T
E
R

8
:

H
a
y

R
a
t
i
n
g
s

a
n
d

C
o
m
p
e
n
s
a
t
i
o
n

4
th

The trend line shows the relationship between Hay points and
compensation. Classes are assigned to a salary range within
the corridor. The corridor is a range of two ranges above to two
ranges below the trend line conversion. The goal is to assign a
class to one of the five salary ranges within the corridor. This
allows the employer to take into consideration other factors
affecting its decision, such as:

The actual Hay point conversion;
Past practice (e.g., 238 Hay points in MAPE are
generally assigned to range 5L); and
Where the class fits into the organization and within the
State, including classes above and below a rated class
(e.g., compression, some classes are paid more than the
Hay points are worth for example, Electricians).

The employer may consider the following additional factors for
determining the salary range assignment for a class:

Ability to recruit (e.g., how many vacancies, how long the
vacancies have remained unfilled, recruitment efforts,
pool of candidates, difficulties versus other classes);
Turnover rates (e.g., voluntary resignation rates for the
class, whether turnover is due to inadequate salaries or
other factors);
Market data (e.g., what other employers pay for similar
work in the industry, whether current employees have
received job offers from other employers to perform
similar work for higher pay, whether candidates have
turned down job offers due to salary); and
Salary ranges of related classes in State government.

On work to pay:
"The law of work does seem utterly unfair--but there it is,
and nothing can change it: the higher the pay in enjoyment
the worker gets out of it, the higher shall be his pay in cash,
also."
- Mark Twain, A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court

4
th

This information was prepared within MMB in
April 1990 and was updated in 2007 and
2010 for this manual.

What is a trend line?

A trend line is a measure of central
tendency like a mean, median or mode
and is the result of performing regression
analysis on sets of data pairs. It is also
a graphic illustration of the relationship
between two variables, in this case,
salaries and Hay ratings. The trend line
(or best fit line) demonstrates the ideal
compensation assignment for a given
number of Hay points when no other
salary assignment determinants are
considered.

How is the trend line used in salary
setting?

A trend line for male-dominated classes
is calculated during the preparation of
the biennial Pay Equity report. It is used
to identify female dominated-classes that
are relatively underpaid for their Hay
ratings.

It is used to determine the trend line
conversion for all existing rated classes.
The trend conversion is used in
considering requests for salary range
reassignments in bargaining of contracts
and preparation of compensation plans.
It is also a consideration in assigning
new classes to salary ranges.

A second trend line is calculated and is based on all classes
with four or more incumbents.

How are the salary conversion charts constructed?

The salary range maximum predicted by the trend line formula
rarely matches actual salary ranges. Theres additional work
that must be done to determine the actual salary range that is
the best fit. The calculations are performed to find best fit
for existing classes. The power regression formula that is
generated from using the salary ranges maxes and Hay ratings
of all classes with four or more incumbents is used to find the
actual range with the maximum closest to the predicted
maximum. The conversion chart is simply a user friendly tool to
determine the best fit for a class when Hay ratings are
considered.

Why doesnt a given Hay rating result in the same salary
range on different salary schedules?

Because salary schedules reflect differences in bargaining over
the years, no two schedules are the same. Since the goal is to
find the actual range that is the best fit for a given rating, that
best fit will be slightly different on each unique schedule.

When and why do the conversion charts change?

The trend line itself, described earlier, changes slightly at the
end of each even-numbered year, when the Pay Equity report
is produced for the Legislature. These changes are due to
changes in the States classification and compensation plan.
Classes may be created, abolished and assigned to different
salary ranges over the course of two years. Changes in the
trend line salary conversion charts have been minor.

C
H
A
P
T
E
R

9
:

T
r
e
n
d

L
i
n
e
s

a
n
d

C
o
n
v
e
r
s
i
o
n

C
h
a
r
t
s

4
th
Does the conversion chart dictate which salary range will be
used for a new class?

No. The trend line is one consideration and the natural starting
point once a Hay rating is agreed to for the class. Current
policy is that any class within two salary ranges of the
compensation code identified by the trend line conversion chart
is adequately compensated. This policy has been used to
determine whether female-dominated classes are underpaid for
purposes of the Pay Equity report. The same policy is used in
determining the salary range of a new class. Therefore, it is
possible to establish a new class as many as two ranges below
and as many as two ranges above the trend line conversions
compensation code.

What are some other factors that are considered when
assigning a new class to a salary range?

There may be labor market conditions that make it
impractical to compete for qualified candidates at the
compensation code represented by the trend line conversion
chart. In order for labor market conditions to be considered,
there must be some demonstrated inability to recruit similarly
qualified employees, a connection to other classes that have
been raised up due to labor market conditions, or some other
demonstrated basis for the exception. Speculation that
higher rates are needed is not sufficient.

Equity within state service is a consideration that may
override assignment to the compensation code represented
by the trend line conversion

. If existing classes with the
same or similar Hay ratings are typically at a compensation
code higher or lower than the trend line conversion
compensation code would indicate, it is normally more
appropriate to establish the new class at the same salary
level as the preponderance of existing classes.

Determinants in Assigning Compensation Levels

The State has long-used the Hay job evaluation system in
order to evaluate and rate a new or revised class. Although the
Hay rating is often used as the primary factor, and sometimes
only factor, in a compensation request, the fact is that a Hay
rating and subsequent trend line conversion is just one factor
in establishing the compensation level for a class. J ust as
importantly, and in some cases even more importantly, the
following additional factors also need to be considered:
Organizational structure and the relationship to other
classes within a division or agency
Relationships to other classifications in all state agencies
Effect on salary compression to subordinate, like, or
superior classes and relationship to the salary of the
agency head
Market factors including recruitment, availability of
applicants, wages paid by other employers; etc.
Workforce planning factors including anticipated
retirements, turnover, anticipated hiring, retention, critical
nature of positions
Assignment of class to the appropriate bargaining unit or
plan
Budget implications/Affordability
Timing

Hay Manual

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hay Manual

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hay Manual

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

4

You might also like