"objective" evaluation of work is impossible

The effective amount of the wages / salaries is the economic importance of each activity for the individual firm and its relative rarity is based on the labor market. For all the disagreements over methods of job evaluation experts - but

the basics are internationally recognized. They are:

No one can say how much reward any work at any time "fairness" is worth,
No one can "prove" that wage levels for various activities in this or that relative relationship to each other would have.

So there is no way to prove factual, objectively and scientifically, that a stenographer in 1970 in Munich, in the sense of a just determination of salaries between 800 and 1200, - DM has to make, an engineer, depending on power 1500, - to 2000, - DM.

There are no more objective reference points that would say that a construction worker in 1500, - DM must make monthly, if a degree in economics at the same time, 1300, - DM earned.

If you look at this basic situation lead in mind, one might despair of the job evaluation at all.

However, in business, practice has yet to answer the question just how different the various activities and work performance should be rewarded, especially what steps are to be elected at the multitude of different jobs.

Source: "Goossens Personnel Manager's Guide," page 351

Many job evaluation methods and procedures in the past and today are pseudo science!

The absolute level of our own salary plays a less important role , but it is the relative distance to the "others" , which us very often demotivate . The relative distances to the colleagues and managers. Collective group distances as well as the distances to the so called "over tariff staff" and Top-Managers, the other divisions,the other competitive companies, etc. Rich and poor drift more and more apart. Top-Managers' salaries are lifted up as never before. The "inner termination" of disgruntled employees can be expensive for these Top-Managers. Such top performers are easy to hire for competitors.

The existing salary structures are not perceived or regarded as "fair"

Young talents are increasingly opting deliberately for companies which are fair in terms of salary calculation , verification and lockup or development. Unfortunately, there are still far too few companies that accepted " remuneration principles " and distribution systems develop and publish in order to use them as an integral part of their employer branding.

wage and salary structure


e.g. historical growth = unbalanced


Unwillingness to take responsibility

Shrinkage of the initiative and interest in the company

Overstaffing with a trend towards the formation of too many
organizational units

To high average age of officers

Difficulties in recruiting and retaining capable young staff

Envy, jealousy and disorder communication and
Organizational policies

Excessive competition among cliques

Persistent criticism of the management


e.g. participative analytical job evaluation and
market-oriented wages and salaries = balanced


Closer cooperation among senior executives

Clear delineation of the organization with little cross-functions

High degree of interest in the company

Willingness, if necessary, without interruption to work

No cliques and destructively critical attitude

Qualified young professionals choose the company to be hired

Low turnover in senior staff, particularly among younger workers

The desire to further their education to prepare for greater responsibility to take on more responsibility with zeal and ability

PS. The first wage rates were regulated by an ancient king Hammurabi (reign 1792 - 1750 B.C.)