Human Resources

Grading Review - Guide for Verifiers

To explain HERA and what is expected of those verifying evidence of job requirements

This information is based on a document © ECC Ltd August 2002.  

What is HERA?

HERA is a tool used to analyse jobs found in Higher Education. The methodology was adopted by Durham University in 2006 to provide a fair and consistent system for the allocation of grades to jobs. The Durham graded pay structure was developed through the use of HERA and continues to be underpinned by it.

HERA produces a total points score to assess the relative value of the jobs in a consistent and equitable manner. This score can be used to assign jobs to appropriate grades or bands in a salary structure. It is made up of 14 elements which reflect the values of higher education and the aspects of jobs seen as the most important. Each element has a series of questions which draw out evidence of what is required by job holders.

HERA was developed by a consortium of universities and colleges of higher education for use in the sector to analyse all jobs and occupational groups. Its strength lies in the fact that it is sector-specific and its development was based on field research and well-accepted methods with a high degree of involvement from staff and their representatives.

The tool helps with the analysis of job requirements; not an individual's performance.

How does HERA work?

Evidence of role requirements is obtained from job holders, either individually or in groups. The evidence is recorded by a trained HERA Role Analyst using the questionnaire as a structure.

The questionnaire and evidence

The questionnaire is made up of 50 questions which seek evidence of activities or responsibilities undertaken by job holders. These should be those performed in typical circumstances and situations, not rare or extreme cases. They should be required of the job holder, not those undertaken from personal interest.

Some of the elements make allowance for occasional requirements. It is clearly stated where this is the case. This provision has been made as it is known that some job holders are expected to perform certain duties, for example, only at specific times of the year. However, "one offs" carried out some years previously should not be included unless it is certain that the job holder will be required to repeat that activity.

Some job holders may have duties additional to the requirements of the job for which they may or may not receive extra payment, for example being a First Aider. Often these are agreed on a personal basis and are over and above normal job requirements. Activities of this nature should be excluded.

Some staff hold what might be described as multiple roles, for example a senior lecturer who is also expected to spend one day a week as a staff development officer. The activities carried out in both jobs are part of the overall requirements and are performed on a regular, on-going basis. In cases such as this, the analysis should be based on all aspects of the job.

Verification process

The evidence provided by the job holder needs to be verified by someone who knows the job well and is authorised to do so. At Durham, the verifier is the Head of Department and counter-verification is provided by the Head of Division. The verifier is asked to confirm the completeness of coverage and accuracy of the evidence given. Careful scrutiny of the role requirements is essential in order that the University can motivate staff, ensure fair pay and help control the University's wage bill.

The record will not include every single activity or task undertaken. Its purpose is to provide typical and significant examples that represent the job. Quality is more important than quantity.

The verification of role requirements is important for several reasons and the person asked to verify the evidence should be aware of the significance of their contribution.

Job holders may

  • omit a critical aspect of their job
  • diminish their involvement or level of responsibility
  • fail to understand the significance of a task they perform
  • represent the level and extent of their responsibilities weakly
  • exaggerate their involvement
  • represent responsibilities out of context
  • claim responsibility for activities they do not undertake

However, if no evidence is offered against a particular question, the verifier should not feel obliged to find it. Not relevant or not required can be legitimate responses, reflecting the true situation.

Bias

There is also the potential for unjustifiable bias. This can be due to the way in which the role holder views their position and status in the institution. Research has shown convincingly that roles most frequently occupied by women and members of minority ethnic groups are valued less than those typically occupied by white males.

Examples of this can include:

  • A technician refusing to accept his contribution to students' learning even though the activities described clearly fall within the definition of Teaching and Learning Support
  • A secretary failing to give examples of planning the work of her boss on a longer term basis because "she is only a secretary"
  • A night porter not recognising the important contribution she makes to students' well being
  • A manager claiming sole responsibility for the team's decision making

Those acting as verifiers need to be aware of the dangers of gender and racial stereotyping and ensure that the evidence used is accurate and representative of the job requirements.

There is no place for personal prejudice or assumptions in an analytical and systematic examination.

Disability

It should be remembered that it is the job that is being analysed; not the job holder.

However, it is possible that agreement may have been reached with an individual to adjust the scope and level of their responsibilities to accommodate their disability. Therefore the evidence used to analyse the role should be taken in the light of any such agreement. The verifier may wish to seek advice from the HR Department.

Performance

The analysis is of job requirements; not an individual's performance. It is understood that the requirements of the job should be built on the presumption that the job holder is trained and capable to perform the job to the standard required, unless the job is one occupied by a novice or trainee and this is made explicit.

Difference of view

If the verifier does not agree with the evidence provided, it is important that differences are reconciled if at all possible before the Role Analyst within HR scores the job.

These differences should be matters of fact:

i.e.

  • evidence included that should not be included
  • evidence omitted that should be included
  • evidence placed under the wrong element
  • evidence placed at the wrong level

It is strongly recommended that the verifier discusses any differences with the job holder and seeks to clarify them.

The changes to the evidence record should clearly show which areas of difference have been agreed and log any areas where it has not been possible to reconcile the view of the job holder and that of the verifier.

The Role Analyst will do all that is reasonable to resolve differences of view before they score the job.

Appeals

Research shows that if job holders feel that they have been treated fairly and have been given full opportunity to state their view early in the process, the chances of them feeling aggrieved are reduced. To this end, verifiers are encouraged to take the time to deal properly and fully with any disagreement when they are first asked to verify the evidence.

Those handling appeals will also be trained and properly briefed so they understand HERA, their role in hearing the appeal and the sources of unjustifiable discrimination.

The part the verifier can play in reducing appeals by making sure the evidence is complete in coverage and as representative as possible from the outset cannot be over-emphasised.  Note: Durham University's Grading Review Policy states that grounds for appeal are limited to procedural grounds (section 5.1).