MODELS OF EVALUATION SYSTEMS AND PAY STRUCTURES FOR SPECIAL OCCUPATIONS • Attorneys • Health Occupations Scientists and Engineers in Research and Development Teachers Protective Occupations developed by Job Evaluation and Pay Review Task Force U.S. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION Washington, D. C. 20415 SPECIAL OCCUPATIONS EVALUATION SYSTEMS and PAY STRUCTURES Introduction Certain occupational categories require special treatment to assure an equitable alignment of positions and competitive pay structures. The Task Force has identified the following categories as requiring individual systems: Attorneys Health Occupations (Doctors, Dentists and Nurses) • Scientists and Engineers in Research and Development Teachers • Protective Occupations • Foreign Service The systems for these groups involve either Personal Competence Ranking or job evaluation, or a combination of both. Individual salary structures are provided for each of the Special Occupations Evaluation Systems (SOES). Most of the positions covered by SOES are nonsupervisory in nature; however, the Attorneys and Health Occupations (doctors, dentists and nurses) categories include some supervisory positions. The following describes the approach taken with respect to each of the Special Occupations Evaluation Systems: The Personal Competence Ranking method is specifically designed to cover occupations where one or more of the following criteria exist in varying degrees and, hence, the occupations are treated individually: 1. The agency management has a need for maximum freedom of mobility of its 3. readily translated into personal competency gradations because of the influence upon the positions by their occupants, and this influence is difficult to determine through factfinding, job audit, or other conventional methods. Further, this concept of progression through attainment of increased competence rather than change in duties is typical for these occupations in the private sector. The occupation is a "closed" system which requires exclusive specialized training, which cannot be entered without such training, and to which a person's entire career is devoted. On an exceptional basis, lateral entry at any level may be permitted to one whose competency has been judged by a Professional Standards Board to be appropriate for such entry. The Personal Competence Ranking concept is that people (making up varying intellectual levels, capabilities, strengths and weaknesses) can be arranged in a sequence of competency levels in terms of: knowledge or skill possessed, capacity to assume responsibility, competence to perform, creativity, initiative, etc. The Personal Competence Ranking approach carries with it an identification of people by competency level in a sequential order and an assurance of retention of competency level of identification in the sequential order (regardless of duties and responsibilities assigned) until a Professional Standards Board, in a specific occupation, determines a change is appropriate--either upward or downward--in the individual's place in the sequential order. Compensation is within a salary range established for each competency This concept also will carry with it the incumbent's understanding and acceptance (in exchange for the above) that he will work where and at what is directed by management. level. The definitions of sequential levels (concurred in by the Commission), and the progress of an individual through them, ultimately would be determined by agency Professional Standards Boards. These Boards would be responsible for determining: 1. 2. 3. The eligibility and salary for initial employment at any level. The eligibility for promotion from one level to another. Advancement within a pay range. 4. Final selection for initial employment (from those certified as eligible at each level by the Board). The Personal Competence Ranking levels in each of the models which follow are identified for each occupation by alphabetic designations, i.e., A, B, C, D, or E--with A as the highest level. For position management control purposes, positions in these occupations should be evaluated under APTES. The job evaluation levels so determined should be uniformly applied by agencies and subject to review by the Civil Service Commission. It is recognized that to force total correlation of evaluation skill level with personal competence rank would destroy the concept of the latter. It is a management responsibility to insure as close a linkage as practical in keeping with the agency mission. Job Evaluation Combined with Personal Competence Ranking The concepts described above with respect to Personal Competence Ranking are also applicable to the subsystems using a combined Job Evaluation and Personal Competence Ranking approach. However, under these subsystems, the job is first evaluated to an appropriate skill level. (Either four or five skill levels are defined in the particular subsystem.) A pay range is provided for each skill level, and the individual's specific rate is set within the pay range on the basis of Personal Competence Ranking. Job Evaluation Alone An individual subsystem is designed for nonsupervisory positions in the Protective Dual Ladder Concept The dual ladder concept can be thought of in terms of two parallel ladders of progression above the journeyman level. The left ladder will derive from the organizational hierarchy of the agency, as it is determined and authorized by agency management, using SAMES or the Federal Executive Service (FES) as the governing method. The right ladder will derive from the evaluation of each employee by a Professional Standards Board--those best qualified to appraise his position in his profession. Under this concept, therefore, an individual in one of the special occupations can achieve a level of earnings, depending upon his competency, up to the existing salary ceiling-either under SOES or under FES. Also, supervisors of individuals in the special occupations may be graded and draw salaries up to the salary ceiling. The determination that has to be made is whether the individual's pay is based on his contribution in terms of competency as a specialist or in terms of his contribution as a supervisor within an organizational hierarchy. The fact that one may possess high professional competency, and thus be eligible for high earnings, may not necessarily be relevant when the individual is slotted in an organizational hierarchy for supervisory purposes. However, when an individual attains a competency status and earnings level and moves under the dual ladder concept into a managerial position, he should be paid no less than what he has already achieved. This is the true meaning of the dual ladder concept, i.e., that a man can rise to the top in earnings based solely on competency and when he moves across to a managerial position he suffers no earnings loss. His counterpart who works up a supervisory ladder and transfers over on the dual ladder concept to a specialist type job has the same protection at the time of transfer. Pay Each of the Special occupations, whether under a Job Evaluation approach, Personal Competence Ranking, or a combination of both, will have individual salary structures. This is different from the salary structures for APTES and COMOT where one pay structure would be used to encompass all of the occupations within each of the systems. Foreign Service No model is provided for the Foreign Service occupations which would be retained in their present format, with the exceptions noted in VOLUME I for evaluation under APTES, SAMES, SOES or COMOT, and the application of APTES, SAMES, SOES, COMOT or FES pay structures as indicated. |