Provide training on the Hay Group methodology's three universal evaluation factors: Know-How (the sum of knowledge, skills, and experience required to perform the job competently), Problem Solving (the thinking required to analyse, evaluate, and arrive at conclusions), and Accountability (the answerability for actions and their consequences, including the magnitude of impact). These three factors, developed by Edward N. Hay in the 1950s, remain the most widely used job evaluation methodology globally.

Form a cross-functional evaluation committee of 5–8 members representing key business functions, HR, and ideally a certified Hay Group facilitator. Define the committee's terms of reference, decision-making process (consensus-based is standard), quorum requirements, and frequency of meetings. Committee members should be senior enough to understand role content across the organization.

Secure access to the official Korn Ferry Hay Guide Charts — the proprietary number tables that assign point values to each sub-factor level. These charts are available through a Korn Ferry consulting engagement or licensing agreement. If using a modified approach, develop equivalent point tables calibrated to the organization, but note that only official Hay Guide Charts produce results comparable to the global Hay database.

Determine which roles will be evaluated — all roles, a subset of benchmark roles, or only roles affected by a reorganization. For initial implementations, evaluate 40–60 benchmark roles spanning all functions and levels to establish the framework, then evaluate remaining roles by slotting against these benchmarks.

Gather up-to-date job descriptions, organization charts, and role profiles for all roles to be evaluated. Where job descriptions are outdated or absent, conduct structured interviews or questionnaires with role holders and their managers. The evaluation assesses the role as designed, not the individual incumbent's performance — this distinction must be emphasised throughout.

Evaluate the range and depth of specialised knowledge needed for the role using the Hay Guide Chart's knowledge dimension. This ranges from basic vocational skills through advanced professional expertise to mastery of a complex discipline. Consider both formal qualifications and practical experience requirements, evaluating the role's demands rather than the incumbent's credentials.

Assess the management Know-How dimension: the requirement to integrate, coordinate, and manage diverse functions, activities, or organizational units. This ranges from roles requiring only task execution to those requiring integration across an entire enterprise. A role managing multiple functions with conflicting priorities scores higher than one overseeing a single specialised team.

Evaluate the interpersonal skill demands on the three-level Hay scale: Basic (courtesy and normal workplace interactions), Important (understanding and influencing individuals), or Critical (motivating teams, negotiating at senior levels, or resolving complex interpersonal situations). Select the level that reflects the role's core requirements, not occasional demands.

Combine the three sub-factor evaluations (technical knowledge, managerial breadth, and human relations) to read the total Know-How point score from the Hay Guide Chart. The chart provides specific point values at the intersection of these three dimensions. Record the rationale for each sub-factor selection to support consistency and future reference.

Cross-check Know-How scores across roles that should be similar (e.g. all department heads, all senior engineers) to ensure the evaluations are internally consistent. If two roles with similar knowledge demands receive very different scores, revisit the evaluation to identify and resolve the discrepancy.

Evaluate the degree to which the role's problem-solving occurs within defined frameworks. The Hay method uses an eight-level scale from Strict Routine (highly prescribed procedures with minimal variation) through Broadly Defined (strategic roles where the role holder must define the framework itself). Consider the level of policy guidance, precedent, and supervision that shape the role's thinking environment.

Assess the nature of the mental processes required: from simple pattern recognition and application of known solutions through to novel, abstract thinking where the role must create entirely new concepts, strategies, or approaches. Consider the typical problems the role addresses, not the most or least complex occasional challenges.

In the Hay methodology, Problem Solving is expressed as a percentage of Know-How rather than an absolute point value. This reflects the principle that problem-solving is the application of knowledge — a role cannot have problem-solving demands that exceed its knowledge base. Read the percentage from the Hay Problem Solving Guide Chart and multiply by the Know-How score to derive the Problem Solving points.

Verify that Problem Solving scores align logically with the organization's hierarchy — more senior and strategic roles should generally score higher on both thinking environment and thinking challenge. Flag any inversions (where a reporting role scores higher than its manager) for committee discussion and resolution.

Evaluate how much latitude the role has to take action without approval. The Hay scale ranges from Prescribed (detailed instructions govern all actions) through Strategically Guided (the role operates within broad organizational policy and must determine its own approach). Consider the level of supervision, approval requirements, and the extent to which the role holder can commit organizational resources.

Assess the size of the area most clearly affected by the role, typically expressed in financial terms (revenue, budget, cost base). The Hay Guide Chart uses a logarithmic scale reflecting that impact increases in order-of-magnitude steps. A role impacting a £1M cost centre is evaluated differently from one impacting a £100M revenue stream.

Classify the role's impact on the Hay four-level scale: Remote (informational or recording services), Contributory (interpretive, advisory, or facilitating services), Shared (participating with others in achieving outcomes), or Primary (direct control over end results). A sales director with P&L responsibility has Primary impact; an HR business partner has Contributory or Shared impact on the same outcomes.

Combine the freedom to act, magnitude, and nature of impact evaluations to read the Accountability point score from the Hay Guide Chart. Accountability often constitutes 40–50% of total Hay points for senior roles and 25–35% for operational roles, reflecting the increasing decision-making weight at higher organizational levels.

Analyse the 'profile' of each role (the relationship between Accountability and Know-How + Problem Solving). Roles where Accountability exceeds the sum of Know-How and Problem Solving have an 'A-heavy' profile, typical of general management roles. Roles where the sum of Know-How and Problem Solving exceeds Accountability have a 'KH-heavy' profile, typical of specialist and advisory roles. Verify that profiles match organizational expectations for each role type.

Create a grade structure by grouping roles into bands based on their total Hay point scores. Define point ranges for each grade, ensuring consistent intervals (typically 15–20% point increments between grades). Align each grade with a salary range derived from market benchmarking. The combination of Hay points and market data produces an internally equitable and externally competitive pay structure.

Explain the evaluation outcomes by role family and level, focusing on how the Hay method ensures internal equity. Avoid sharing specific point scores, which can create unhelpful comparisons — instead, communicate the grade assignment and its rationale. Hold information sessions where employees can ask questions about the methodology and how their role was evaluated.

Define the trigger points for re-evaluation: creation of a new role, significant restructuring of an existing role (more than 20% change in accountabilities), or organizational redesign. Specify who can request an evaluation, the turnaround time, and whether the committee convenes for each request or reviews in monthly batches.

Re-evaluate the original benchmark roles every 3–5 years to ensure scores reflect the current reality of those roles. Organizational evolution, technology changes, and market shifts can alter role content significantly over time. Use this recalibration to check for grade drift and update the structure as needed.

As committee members rotate out, train replacements through a combination of Hay methodology workshops, observation of live evaluations, and practice exercises using historical role profiles. Maintaining a pool of certified evaluators ensures the organization is not dependent on a single consultant or a small group of internal experts.

Store Hay evaluation data (point scores, factor breakdowns, grade assignments, evaluation dates) in the HRIS to enable reporting, analytics, and integration with compensation, succession planning, and organizational design processes. This data asset supports workforce planning, organizational restructuring, and M&A due diligence.