This second article in the three-part series focuses on the structural missteps that cause the most damage: lack of differentiation between levels, inappropriate inclusion of ad hoc duties, and misconceptions around job titles and volume of work.
1. Writing profiles in isolation
When profiles are written without input from professionals that have proper job profiling knowledge, as well as the line managers, the result is often three layers of roles that all sound the same.
Poor example: In many organisations, three different roles—such as manager, senior manager, and head of department (HOD)—may all include the exact same sentence in their job profiles: “Develops and implements departmental strategies, policies and procedures.”
To avoid this, the profiles should reflect the correct level of input and accountability:
- HOD: "Oversees development and approves departmental strategies, policies and procedures."
- Senior manager: "Develops departmental strategies, policies and procedures for approval and drives implementation."
- Manager: "Provides input into the development of operational strategies and supports implementation."
This differentiation reflects actual levels of responsibility and is critical for accurate evaluation or organisational levels. Despite different reporting lines or organisational levels, the same verbs are mistakenly used repeatedly, making it impossible to distinguish:
- Scope of authority
- Complexity of decisions
- Level of accountability vs responsibility
- Degree of strategic vs operational involvement
2. Ad hoc responsibilities don't belong in job profiles
A profile should reflect the core purpose and recurring outputs of a role — not ad hoc or temporary tasks.
Poor example: "Safety representative duties included in (for example) an accountant’s profile."
The general rule of thumb is, if it won’t be expected of the next person to be hired in the role, it does not belong in the profile. It blurs the role's scope and may falsely inflate the perceived level of responsibility.
If someone regularly holds a secondary responsibility, it should be addressed through compensation, not smuggled into the primary profile. This means that the job grade and profile should remain the same, but the compensation connected to the job grade should be at a higher percentile.
This is where the concept of ‘grade the job vs pay the person’ often gets confused, and this leads to people being profiled and graded instead of the job.
3. Job titles and volume of work are NOT evaluation criteria
Job evaluation is based on the complexity of the role, not its name or how busy the incumbent is.
3.1 Volume of work does NOT influence the job grade
Example: A cleaner responsible for one boardroom is graded A2. A year later, they clean two boardrooms as the company doubled in size. Work hours are now double what they were initially.
But:
- The complexity of the job remains the same
- The types of decisions made remain the same
- The tools and methods used remain the same
- The impact of the decisions made on the company remain the same
Therefore, the profile and the grade should remain A2, but the salary connected to the A2 grade can now be moved to a higher percentile within that payscale, because of the increase in hours of work. Again, the concept of ‘grade the job vs pay the person’ should be followed.
3.2 Fancy titles do NOT influence the job grade
A common mistake in job profiling is inflating job titles in an attempt to boost perceived seniority or morale.
Example: Renaming a receptionist role to "executive of first impressions" may sound impressive, but it does not change the actual complexity, responsibility, or decision-making authority of the role. If we evaluated jobs based on title, the role might misleadingly appear to warrant a higher grade.
Job evaluation is deliberately title-agnostic. It looks at the substance of the role, not the semantics. Titles are often shaped by organisational culture or branding, but they are not indicators of job size.
Final word
Misprofiled levels, inclusion of ad hoc tasks, and inflated titles undermine the objectivity of job evaluation and create ripple effects throughout the HR value chain. From distorted pay equity to flawed organisational design and career pathing, the consequences are both structural and cultural.
Getting profiling right means more than filling in a template—it means understanding the rules, interrogating assumptions, and aligning outputs with actual role expectations.
If you’re unsure whether your profiles reflect true job content, it’s time to seek expert support.
