"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 know, that

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, the 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-sciences!


No one can rate every job in an organization without capturing it completely descriptively and qualitatively and without knowing the market in which they operate. This is only possible with the help of all employees. Top down and bottom up. Both.

The absolute level of our salary plays a less important role, but it is the relative distance to the "others", which is very often demotivating. 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 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 the 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


A 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.)