Hay Method
A proprietary point-factor job evaluation system developed by Edward N. Hay in the 1940s that measures three core factors (know-how, problem solving, and accountability) to determine the relative size and compensation level of any role in an organization.
- What Is the Hay Method?
- The Three Hay Factors Explained
- Hay Job Profiles: The Shape of a Role
- How a Hay Evaluation Works in Practice
- Hay Method vs Other Job Evaluation Systems
- Common Criticisms of the Hay Method
- Hay Method Usage Statistics [2026]
- When to Use (and Not Use) the Hay Method
- Frequently Asked Questions About the Hay Method
What Is the Hay Method?
Key Takeaways
- ✓The Hay Method is a point-factor job evaluation system that scores every role on three universal factors: know-how (what you need to know), problem solving (how you use what you know), and accountability (what results you're responsible for).
- ✓Developed by Edward N. Hay in 1943, it's now owned by Korn Ferry and used by over 8,000 organizations across 50+ countries, making it the most widely used proprietary job evaluation system in the world.
- ✓The method produces a numerical "Hay Points" score for each role. This score allows organizations to compare any two jobs, regardless of function, and determine which is "bigger" in organizational terms.
- ✓Unlike simpler ranking systems, the Hay Method breaks each factor into sub-dimensions with defined levels, creating consistent and legally defensible evaluations.
- ✓The Hay database contains millions of evaluated roles, allowing companies to benchmark their positions against industry peers for compensation planning.
The Hay Method is how organizations answer a deceptively difficult question: is this job bigger than that one? Not harder. Not busier. Bigger, in the sense of requiring more knowledge, more complex thinking, and greater impact on the organization. Edward Hay created the method in 1943 while working as a compensation consultant in Philadelphia. He observed that every job, regardless of industry or function, could be measured along three dimensions: what you need to know to do it, how you apply that knowledge to solve problems, and what you're held accountable for delivering. Those three factors became the foundation of a system that's now used by over 8,000 organizations worldwide. Korn Ferry acquired the Hay Group in 2015, and the method is now formally called the Korn Ferry Hay Method. But most practitioners still call it the Hay Method. The key insight is that these three factors are universal. You can use them to compare a CFO to a chief engineer, a marketing director to a plant manager. The functions are completely different, but the evaluation framework applies equally. That universality is why the system has lasted for 80+ years while other evaluation methods have come and gone.
The Three Hay Factors Explained
Every Hay evaluation scores a job on these three factors. Each factor has sub-dimensions with defined levels that evaluators use to assign points.
Know-how
Know-how measures the total knowledge, skills, and experience required to perform the job competently. It has three sub-dimensions. Technical/specialized knowledge covers the depth and breadth of functional expertise required. Management breadth covers how many different functions, processes, or disciplines the role must coordinate. Human relations skills covers the level of interpersonal skill needed, from basic courtesy to influencing senior stakeholders. Know-how is typically the largest contributor to total Hay Points, accounting for 40 to 60% of the total score for most roles.
Problem solving
Problem solving measures the thinking required by the job. Not how smart the person is, but how much original thinking the role demands. It has two sub-dimensions. Thinking environment describes the context: is the work routine and repetitive, or ambiguous and undefined? Thinking challenge describes the complexity of the problems: are solutions obvious, or do they require creative leaps? Here's what makes this factor counterintuitive: problem solving is scored as a percentage of know-how, not as independent points. The logic is that you can only solve problems within the scope of what you know. A role that requires deep know-how but routine problem solving (like a senior compliance officer applying established regulations) will have a lower problem-solving percentage than a role that requires creative application of knowledge (like a product strategist defining new market opportunities).
Accountability
Accountability measures the job's impact on end results. It has three sub-dimensions. Freedom to act describes how much oversight or constraint the role operates under, from detailed instructions to broad strategic guidance. Magnitude of impact captures the financial or organizational scope the role affects, measured in revenue, budget, or population served. Nature of impact describes whether the role has a direct or indirect effect on outcomes. A sales director who owns a $50 million quota has direct accountability for that revenue. A training manager whose programs contribute to sales effectiveness has indirect accountability. Direct accountability scores higher than indirect at the same magnitude level.
Hay Job Profiles: The Shape of a Role
One of the most useful outputs of a Hay evaluation isn't the total score. It's the profile, which shows the relative emphasis of each factor.
| Profile Type | Know-How vs Accountability | Typical Roles | Characteristic |
|---|---|---|---|
| Uphill (A profile) | Accountability > Know-How | Sales director, plant manager, P&L owner | Roles where results matter more than expertise. The person is judged primarily on what they deliver. |
| Flat (C profile) | Know-How = Accountability | Finance manager, HR business partner, project manager | Balanced roles where expertise and results contribute equally. |
| Downhill (P profile) | Know-How > Accountability | Research scientist, legal counsel, chief architect | Roles where deep expertise is the primary value. Results flow from knowledge, not from direct operational control. |
How a Hay Evaluation Works in Practice
Running a Hay evaluation requires trained evaluators and a structured process. Here's how it typically unfolds.
Preparation
Before the evaluation session, collect updated job descriptions for every role being evaluated. The descriptions need to cover key duties, decision-making authority, reporting relationships, budget or revenue responsibility, and required qualifications. Korn Ferry recommends a standardized "role profile" format. Most evaluation sessions also use a questionnaire completed by the job holder and their manager to capture details that job descriptions miss.
The evaluation session
A trained facilitator leads a committee of 3 to 5 evaluators through each role. For each factor and sub-dimension, the committee reviews the role information and selects the appropriate level from the Hay Guide Charts (proprietary scoring tables with defined levels). Discussion and debate are expected. The facilitator's job is to ensure consistency across roles and prevent bias. A typical session evaluates 8 to 12 roles per day.
Scoring and calibration
After assigning levels, the committee calculates the total Hay Points. The facilitator then checks for internal consistency: does the hierarchy of scores match the organization's understanding of role seniority? If a middle manager scores higher than a director, something needs revisiting. Calibration sessions may compare results across functions to ensure cross-functional equity. The final output is a scored inventory of all evaluated roles.
Hay Method vs Other Job Evaluation Systems
The Hay Method isn't the only option. Here's how it compares to other commonly used systems.
| Feature | Hay Method (Korn Ferry) | Mercer IPE | Willis Towers Watson GGS | Custom Point-Factor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Developer | Edward Hay (1943), now Korn Ferry | Mercer | Willis Towers Watson | Organization-specific |
| Core factors | Know-how, Problem Solving, Accountability | Impact, Communication, Innovation, Knowledge | Contribution, Knowledge, Business Conditions | Varies (typically 4-8 factors) |
| Global database | Yes (8,000+ organizations) | Yes (large global database) | Yes (extensive global data) | No |
| Best for | Large, complex organizations wanting universal comparisons | Global companies needing flexible, modern framework | Organizations wanting simplicity with rigor | Companies wanting full control over factors and weights |
| Cost | High (licensing + consulting) | High (licensing + consulting) | Medium-High | Low (but requires internal expertise) |
| Complexity | High (requires certified evaluators) | Medium-High | Medium | Varies |
Common Criticisms of the Hay Method
Despite its longevity, the Hay Method isn't without critics. Understanding the limitations helps you decide whether it's right for your organization.
It's slow and expensive
A full Hay evaluation for a 500-role organization can take 3 to 6 months and cost $100,000+ in consulting fees. For fast-growing startups or companies that restructure frequently, the evaluation results may be outdated by the time the project is finished. Korn Ferry has introduced streamlined versions, but the core methodology still requires trained evaluators and multi-hour committee sessions.
It favors traditional hierarchies
The accountability factor rewards roles with large budgets, direct reports, and P&L responsibility. This can undervalue roles that create enormous impact through influence, innovation, or specialized expertise but don't manage people or budgets. In flat organizations where a senior engineer can be more valuable than a mid-level manager, the Hay Method may not capture that reality accurately.
Proprietary black box
The Hay Guide Charts are proprietary. You can't see the exact math behind the scoring without a Korn Ferry license. This lack of transparency makes some organizations uncomfortable, particularly those facing pay equity litigation where they need to explain every aspect of their evaluation methodology to a court.
Hay Method Usage Statistics [2026]
Data on adoption and usage of the Hay Method globally.
When to Use (and Not Use) the Hay Method
The Hay Method isn't right for every organization. Here's a practical guide.
- Use it if: You have 500+ employees, multiple job families, and need a globally consistent evaluation framework that connects to one of the world's largest compensation databases.
- Use it if: You're in a regulated industry where pay equity compliance requires a defensible, well-documented evaluation methodology.
- Use it if: You operate in 10+ countries and need to compare roles across geographies using a single standard.
- Don't use it if: You have fewer than 200 employees. The overhead isn't justified. A simpler point-factor or market-pricing approach will work fine.
- Don't use it if: Your organization is flat and fast-changing. By the time you finish the evaluation, the roles may have shifted. Market pricing with spot checks for internal equity might be a better fit.
- Don't use it if: You can't afford the licensing and consulting fees. A custom point-factor system, designed internally with input from compensation professionals, can produce similar results at lower cost.
Frequently Asked Questions
Do I need Korn Ferry certification to use the Hay Method?
How long does a Hay evaluation take per job?
Can the Hay Method evaluate non-traditional roles like gig workers?
What's the difference between Hay Points and salary?
Is the Hay Method biased against certain types of work?
Written by Adithyan RK