Grading and job evaluation
A job description should provide a concise overview of duties and a clear understanding of expectations to effectively support recruitment, retention and personal development.
The following information aims to support managers with developing roles and writing or amending job descriptions.
What is the HERA framework and why do we use this at Oxford Brookes?
The HERA framework provides an evaluation methodology that ensures equal pay for work of equal value.
It provides a consistent framework that enables fair internal comparison, and the ranking of roles according to levels of responsibility in order to identify appropriate pay.
The framework contains 14 competencies, 50 questions, and acknowledges a breadth of professions from Academic roles through to Professional Services specialisms such as Finance and Estates.
HERA acknowledges permanent role requirements and responsibility.
Colleague performance therefore is recognised via other means:
If there are temporary changes to duties or responsibility, an acting up allowances/honorariums may be provided if these changes are not sufficiently acknowledged by the current grade and pay.
Please contact your aligned People Manager for further information. (A dedicated webpage is currently being developed).
How can the HERA framework competencies help managers to create or review roles?
The framework competencies and questions provide commonly encountered responsibilities across a range of professions.
These questions therefore offer a strong starting point in identifying duties and writing effective job descriptions.
The HERA Competencies guidance document details some of these considerations, and offers suggestions on areas that could be considered, for example problem solving or analysis and research.
We therefore advise that managers use this as a starting point when reviewing or creating roles.
How do I capture duties and responsibilities successfully within a job description?
All roles at Oxford Brookes should hold an up to date job description that details the required duties and responsibilities.
A quality job description not only supports a successful recruitment campaign. It also ensures a clear understanding of role requirements, objectives, and can help develop colleagues to progress their career at Oxford Brookes in the longer term.
We therefore encourage managers to access our Job Description Writing Guidance, which provides useful information on what to include, and how to write duties, as well as a person specification.
Please also use the Oxford Brookes Job Description Template to ensure consistency.
Our Job Title Guidance provides further information on the titles typically associated with each grade.
Utilising existing job descriptions to create or amend roles is also recommended. This will help to ensure that the general role requirements for each grade are successfully captured and detailed consistently across the University.
Please note: Line Managers are responsible for ensuring that job descriptions are up to date and for contacting the aligned People Manager if there are changes to duties. This will enable us to ensure fair remuneration based on the work completed.
Do I need to reflect the language and terminology used by the HERA framework within the job description?
Roles are evaluated using the information provided by the job description and the concrete examples gathered via the HERA interview.
Using a certain level of terminology will help to ensure that role requirements are clearly communicated, however will only be acknowledged within scoring if there is evidence to substantiate this level of responsibility.
For example: if a role is collaborating strategically, there needs to be evidence that the role is required to input into strategy or lead a strategic objective.
Brief definitions of the key terminology are provided within the HERA Language Guidance.
Equality, Diversity and Inclusion considerations
The language used within a job description, person specification and job advert plays a crucial role in whether or not a candidate chooses to apply for a vacancy.
Gender
Consideration therefore should be given to the inadvertent use of “subtly gender coded” language, which may deter a specific gender from applying.
If a description contains a large quantity of masculine words, this could lead to a reduction of female applicants. Masculine words include ‘ambitious’ ‘confident’ or ‘capable.’
The use of a gender decoder is therefore recommended to ensure that a job description and job advert appeals to everyone. The decoder will scan a description, provide a summary of the language used and highlight if it is, for example, too masculine.
Experience Quantified by Periods of Time
Using a time period to quantify experience can also be discriminatory to certain age groups, for example requesting “ten years marketing experience” may discriminate against younger individuals. It is also important to note that the length of experience does not guarantee a good skill set or behaviour.
Disability
All assessments throughout the recruitment and selection process are subject to reasonable adjustments and candidates with impairments must be allowed to undertake an assessment in a suitable alternative manner.
As a disability confident employer, we are committed to interviewing all candidates who have declared a disability and meet the essential criteria.
Following these guidelines will enable a job description to effectively promote our equality and diversity values, as well as encourage a wider, more diverse talent pool of candidates to apply for roles at the University.
How do I identify indicative grading and remuneration?
Job evaluation processes will identify the appropriate grading for the role to ensure pay parity. This may differ from the indicative grade provided by line managers.
Profiles will be published shortly to support managers with identifying the typical responsibilities and duties associated with each grade.
Prior to identifying a suggested grade, managers should also consider:
How does this post align with the team and wider directorate/Faculty structure?
Where do roles with a comparative level of responsibility sit on the pay scale?
Further information on job evaluation can be accessed via the evaluating roles at Oxford Brookes webpage.
Providing colleagues at Oxford Brookes University with equal and fair pay is at the centre of our job evaluation policy and processes.
The following information not only aims to support managers with job evaluation process, it also offers further insight into why these processes are important, and the role of the HERA framework.
What is the HERA framework and why do we use this at Oxford Brookes?
The Higher Education Role Analysis (HERA) framework is an evaluation methodology that ensures equal pay for work of equal value.
It provides us with a consistent framework that enables fair internal comparison in order to identify appropriate pay.
The framework contains 14 competencies, 50 questions and acknowledges a breadth of professions from Academic roles through to Professional Service specialisms such as Finance and Estates.
HERA acknowledges permanent role requirements and responsibility.
Colleague performance therefore is recognised via other means:
If there are temporary changes to duties or responsibility, an acting up allowances/honorariums may be provided if these changes are not sufficiently acknowledged by the current grade and pay.
Please contact your aligned People Manager for further information. (A dedicated webpage is currently being developed).
What are the benefits of the job evaluation process?
A key objective of job evaluation is to ensure pay parity across the University, and that colleagues are fairly paid for the work completed.
Job evaluation process and frameworks can also:
- support managers to shape quality roles that meet the needs of their team and the wider University
- ensure that the pay engages the right candidates to apply for a role
- enable effective succession planning and career progression
- encourage retention as staff are being paid fairly and transparently.
It is therefore important that all of our roles are subject to the appropriate process.
A member of my team is due to leave and I need to recruit a new post, what do I do next?
The first step is to ensure that the role has a good quality job description that provides a concise overview of duties and responsibilities. This may involve amending an existing description or developing a new one if the post is new to Oxford Brookes.
Please refer to our job description writing webpage for a step by step guide on how to develop a description that will support both the evaluation process and a successful recruitment campaign. Your People Manager will also be able to support you with shaping a job description.
Once the job description is finalised, please refer to the job evaluation process guide for next steps.
If a role changes permanently and significantly, and there is an individual in post who is not due to leave the University, the Grading Review process will instead be applied.
Submitting information to the People Directorate
Please complete the HERA request form and attach the relevant documentation.
A member of the People Manager team will then review your request and will aim to respond within 3 working days of receipt. They will contact you to either confirm a grade outcome via job matching or to provide next steps if a full HERA evaluation is required.
Job matching
Job matching is the first step in the job evaluation process and acknowledges that roles across the University hold consistent responsibilities.
An experienced Role Analyst will review job descriptions and:
- compare new and existing roles or amendments to duties
- assess the correlation between duties and responsibilities
- make evidence based judgements as to similarity.
If a sufficient level of similarity is evidenced, the grade of the existing role can be applied or ‘matched’.
To ensure quality and parity, matching is subject to certain criteria:
- matching does not apply to Grading Review requests or Senior/SS roles
- a grade match can only be established between two posts of the same grade
- comparator roles must have had a recent HERA evaluation.
Amendments to job descriptions and role responsibilities may also result in a grade match where duties have not changed significantly.
Once reviewed, managers will be notified whether a grade match can be applied or whether a HERA evaluation is required.
HERA evaluation and evidence collection
If a grade match is not applicable, a Role Analyst will then evaluate the role using the HERA framework.
All scoring and grade outcomes are based identified based on the evidence provided within the job description.
To ensure we fully understand role requirements and that roles are robustly graded, Role Analysts will contact Line Managers to gather further evidence. We are unable to acknowledge 'potential' duties within scoring.
To help managers to prepare for any additional questions, we advise reading the HERA competencies guidance, which provides a brief overview of the questions asked by the HERA framework.
Once all of the necessary evidence has been gathered, the role will be evaluated and we will aim to provide an outcome within 5 working days.
Once a grade outcome has been confirmed, the role can progress to recruitment.
Please note: All roles must undergo the necessary job evaluation process prior to progressing to recruitment.
The HERA panel
There are times where a HERA panel review may be required to support a robust outcome and ensure parity.
Managers may wish to request a HERA panel review, following receipt of a grade outcome. This request will be reviewed by the Reward and Progression Partner and the role reviewed at the next panel meeting as appropriate.
The HERA panel may also choose to review roles where there are complexities, for example in relation to scoring.
Please note that the HERA panel reviews the technical application of scoring, rather than submissions of new or further evidence of responsibility.
The panel also completes quality checks on both matching and evaluation work to ensure the provision of robust outcomes that provide parity across the University.
What happens if the grade outcome differs from the indicative grading?
Although the HERA grade outcome may differ from the indicative grading provided by line managers, it is important to ensure that we are remunerating staff across the business in a fair and consistent manner. The evaluated grade therefore will be applied to the post.
If you have any queries about the outcome, please contact the Role Analyst who evaluated the role. They will be able to provide you with further feedback as to how duties align with the HERA framework.
A re-evaluation of the role is not applicable within the 12 month period following the evaluation outcome. This is to allow enough time for the role and any changes to responsibility to become fully embedded within the team.
HERA scores and grades
The HERA score acknowledges a breadth of responsibility for each grade. The table below provides a breakdown of the boundaries for each grade.
| Grade | HERA score |
|---|---|
| 4 | 180 to 194 |
| 5 | 195 to 220 |
| 6 | 221 to 247 |
| 7 | 248 to 309 |
| 8 | 310 to 384 |
| 9 | 385 to 429 |
| 10 | 430 to 474 |
| 11 | 475 - 523 |
| 12 | 524 and above |
Useful information
If you have any queries about the job evaluation process or would like further support, please contact the People Manager for your area.
The job evaluation process chart also provides an overview of each step.
What is a Grading Review?
Grading reviews may be requested when permanent and significant changes have been or will be made to an individual’s current role.
If you would like to request a review of grading for a member of your team, please complete the HERA request form.
If you are a team member who would like to request a review of your grade, please discuss this with your line manager.
We encourage a collaborative approach to grading review submissions.
It is expected that a large majority of grading review requests will be submitted by line managers.
If a consensus can not be reached, we will gather evidence from both parties in order to identify role requirements and provide a fair outcome.
How is the grading of a role reviewed?
The changes to duties and responsibilities will be reviewed and if significant, the Grading Review process will be applied.
To ensure parity, an experienced Role Analyst will evaluate the role against the HERA framework.
All scoring and grade outcomes are based on evidence of duties and responsibilities. This in part is provided by the job description.
To ensure we fully understand role requirements, a Role Analyst (a member of the People Manager team) will review the job description and be in touch to gather further evidence.
To help managers to prepare, please see our HERA competencies guidance, which provides an overview of the questions asked by the HERA framework.
Once all of the necessary evidence has been gathered, the role will be evaluated and an outcome provided within 5 working days.
What happens if there is a change to grading?
The necessary changes to pay and the new grade will be formally confirmed in writing.
Changes to grading will normally commence from the date the job description is submitted to the People Directorate for review.
The HERA Panel
There are times where a HERA panel review may be required to support a robust outcome and ensure parity.
Managers may wish to request a HERA panel review, following receipt of a grade outcome. This request will be reviewed by the Reward and Progression Partner and the role reviewed at the next available panel meeting.
The HERA panel may also choose to review roles where there are complexities, for example in relation to scoring.
Please note that the HERA panel reviews the technical application of scoring, rather than submissions of new or further evidence of responsibility.
The panel also completes quality checks on both matching and evaluation work to ensure the provision of robust outcomes that provide parity across the University.
Can I appeal the grade outcome provided by the HERA panel?
A line manager or team member may submit a request in writing for a Grading Review outcome to be reviewed by the appeals panel.
This must be addressed to the Reward and Progression Partner and sent to payandreward@brookes.ac.uk within 10 working days of the HERA panel grade outcome. Please ensure that you detail why an appeal is being requested.
Colleagues must also discuss this request with their line manager, if they are completing an individual submission.
The appeals panel consists of two fully trained evaluation experts, one nominated by Unison or UCU and the other, by the People Directorate.
The appeal hearing will be held within 3 months of receiving the formal written request to appeal the outcome. The date of the panel will be communicated as soon as possible to both the line manager and team member.
The appellant will also need to provide a written statement that details the competencies and scoring that they wish to appeal.
This requirement may be adjusted to ensure that all staff are able to access the appeals process.
Please note that the HERA appeal panel reviews the technical application of scoring, rather than submissions of new or further evidence of responsibility.