sh.sePublications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
An evaluation of the weighting method in a gender-neutral job evaluation tool recommended by the International Labor Office (ILO)
Södertörn University, School of Social Sciences, Economics.
2015 (English)Report (Other academic)
Abstract [en]

Gender-neutral job evaluation has become a key method for confirming the presence of value discrimination when accounting for job-related factors such as required skills, responsibility levels, effort and working conditions, and for correcting for a gender-biased pay setting. However, this extensive use of gender-neutral job evaluation tools makes it important to examine the validity of these tools.

The purpose of this report is to evaluate the validity of a weighting method stated in a gender-neutral job evaluation tool that is recommended by the International Labor Office (ILO). The purpose of the ILO tool is to function as a general and worldwide guideline for gender-neutral job evaluations. The evaluation starts from the basic validity requirement that a weighting method has to be based on a correct interpretation of the weights in additive value models, which are used as “measures” of the value of jobs. The conclusion of the evaluation is that the ILO weighting method does not fulfill this basic validity requirement. The conclusion is reached in the following way:

First, I show that the meaning of the weights in additive value models is to determine so-called compensatory relations between job-related factors, which have an important impact on the results of job evaluations.

Second, by analyzing the weighting instructions in the ILO tool, I find that this weighting method is based on so-called direct rating of the relative importance of the job-related factors.

Third, I show that direct rating is based on an incorrect interpretation of the weights. Thus, users of the ILO tool will probably misinterpret the consequences of their weighting decisions. This, in turn, might give rise to a biased weighting, i.e. a weighting that the users would reject when they come to know the correct meaning of the weights.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Huddinge: Södertörns högskola , 2015. , 29 p.
Series
PESO Research Reports, 3
Keyword [en]
Job evaluation, additive value model, direct rating, biased weighting, compensatory weighting
National Category
Economics
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:sh:diva-27732OAI: oai:DiVA.org:sh-27732DiVA: diva2:822140
Available from: 2015-06-16 Created: 2015-06-16 Last updated: 2016-01-11Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

An evaluation of the weighting method in a gender-neutral job evaluation tool recommended by the International Labor Office (ILO)(369 kB)299 downloads
File information
File name FULLTEXT01.pdfFile size 369 kBChecksum SHA-512
20b55180853f5b22fdadb539816b9facf85649ac0f755f8a2bebf5f044d986cad3939a555f657755dc63791110f669547e3aa75d660ba880e76bd50ff8dd6193
Type fulltextMimetype application/pdf

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Blomskog, Stig
By organisation
Economics
Economics

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar
Total: 299 downloads
The number of downloads is the sum of all downloads of full texts. It may include eg previous versions that are now no longer available

Total: 192 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf