CALIBRATING THE FINAL RESULTS OF THE HAY SYSTEM OF JOB EVALUATION USING URGENCY, SERIOUSNESS, AND GROWTH (USG) ANALYSIS IN INDONESIA

ARTICLE INFO Introduction/ Main Objectives: The research argues that the job evaluation process may not reflect a sense of justice, that is, in most cases, the decisions of the board of directors (BOD) appear to be biased. Background Problems: Lack of transparency and unfairness in job evaluations may create disharmony in the workplace. Novelty: The researchers used the Urgency, Seriousness, and Growth (USG) analysis to find the root cause of employees’ dissatisfaction because of unfairness in the final job size, which may impact the wages. The researchers were also required to be familiar and have experience with the Hay System. Research Methods: To adjust the job size and to promote fairness, the Hay System needs to be strengthened with the USG analysis. This study uses a qualitative approach and requires a more in-depth analysis to obtain the best results. Findings/ Results: The job evaluation only refers to the Hay System. The job analysis, benchmark, and survey are not used as a reference or to interview the managers. If the Hay system is solely used, the final result of the job evaluation can be biased;. therefore, it is necessary to get a second opinion to create a sense of fairness. One of the tools to calibrate the final result of job evaluation is the USG analysis. Conclusion: USG analysis is to provide a second opinion and can also strengthen the job size analysis with the job reference level. Article information: Received on 29 October 2020. Received in revised version 10 December 2021. Received in revised version 27 December 2021. Accepted on 29 December 2021


INTRODUCTION
Building a healthy organizational structure requires a well-functioning job evaluation system. Without a job evaluation, improving the company's performance may not be feasible, and the employees may have a stagnant career path.
A job evaluation can create fairness in compensation and benefit systems and improve career path. The job evaluation will reflect the value of a job and can indirectly contribute to the company's growth. In addition, one position may get a higher reward than other positions by implementing the principle of equal pay for equal work. Job evaluation is a systematic approach to determining the relative value of different jobs in an organization (Kahya, 2018) based on equal pay for work of equal value (Simatupang, & Kartikasari, 2017).
The job evaluation could be designed to maintain a salary structure by comparing the relative similarities and differences in content and job value. As a result, the management could provide compensation, benefits and rewards and ensure fairness for all employees. Otherwise, the employee motivation will decrease, particularly with performance-based pay, a compensation scheme which may not be interesting unless it is seen as equitable internally and competitive externally. The employees are therefore more likely to leave the organization (Tangthong, 2014). For that reason, the researchers will try to find what is necessary to calibrate the result of the job evaluation.
The purpose of this study: Job evaluation is necessary to establish organizational structures and a remuneration scheme, and may impact productivity. If not accompanied by a salary that matches their responsibilities, the heavy responsibility for the work the employees undertake may cause employee dissatisfaction. Therefore, to reduce the dissatisfaction, the employees receive compensation for their burdens, responsibilities and other external factors that may influence compensation. Job evaluation is one way to solve the gap (Sukwadi, 2014). Previous research from (Janssen & Van Yperen, 2004;Ali EL-Hajji, 2013;Secapramana et al., 2019); it can be concluded that if the job evaluation process is carried out fairly, it will have an impact on satisfaction and lead to motivation to produce better performance. Furthermore, employees expect appropriate compensation from the company for their work to meet their daily needs (Sukwadi, 2014;. According to Hay Group (2017), job evaluation is not only about maintaining internal equity and consistency in the compensation program, but also facilitates organizational clarity, builds talent and capability, and enables employee engagement via culture and rewards. It is a critical management tool, is extremely useful in ensuring an organization's proper integration of strategy, culture, structure, process, people, and reward. It also determines a systematic comparison between jobs to assess their relative worth with the purpose of establishing a rational pay structure. Furthermore, the purpose of job evaluation is to achieve and maintain an equitable distribution of basic wages and/or salaries according to the level of the position. The resulting job size value will become a benchmark for similar companies in determining the position value by market analysis related to compensation & benefits ( Figure 1).
The stages of evaluating positions in an organization according to Choudhary and Singh (2016) are as follow Figure 2. Based on the diagram above, the process of job evaluation requires serious management. The job evaluation will impact the salary adjustments and the career path of the employees in the organization. By implementing a job evaluation approach that is easy to understand and systematic is important for communicating or explaining the requirements for career growth in the organization. According to Michael Armstrong (2006) and Chaneta (2014a), job evaluation is a systematic method or process, as opposed to an approach that is random or nonsystematic. As a result, the job evaluation system has become more intuitive. This is intended to provide a basis for the design and operation of a logical and equitable grade and pay structure and for managing relativities within that structure (Chaneta, 2014b). Table 1 summarizes the job evaluation process, (Choudhary & Singh, 2016) in particular what job evaluation is and what it is not.
During an interview with HR Department, the committees mostly used the Hay Guide Chart and did not use other references, such as the result of job analysis based on the job description and organization structure or benchmark. It seems that they already know the business process of the company. We initially planned to interview the managerial level, but because of the COVID-19 pandemic, we created a questionnaire using Google Forms. Management has divided the organization into core business and non-core business. The impact is the final result of job evaluation or job size for the core business is one step different from the non-core-business. This illustration of the JE Result shows the gap between the core business and non-core business.  Based on the diagram, the compensation scheme and benefits and the job size of job evaluation will impact in the wages scheme, in which there is a quite a wide difference in the salary. The research will analyze the gap of JE Result by calibrating with USG analysis, one of the tools to find the root cause of … and to solve the problem more easily. The outputs of the job evaluation are to determine the individual payment level and the impact on employee career changes due to the results of the job evaluation.

Understanding Job Evaluation
Some experts express similar views about job evaluation as a compensation review process to determine the value of job size brought to the organization (Jiang et al., 2009;Armstrong, 2011;Muga, 2014). On the other hand, implementing JE will help in job placements, elimination of overlap jobs, setting the proper employees, establishing organizational structures, establishing remuneration schemes, industrial relations, people development programs, and improving productivity (Abraham, 2016;Deborah, 2000;Muga, 2014). According to John , the main purpose of conducting JE is to support the organization to utilize the available employees to achieve its strategic goals. If the companies are not conducting JE seriously, they may not get the benefit from the quality output, innovations, higher productivity to the market, and client needs. This in fact is related to what we will explore, that is calibrating the final value of the job size using the USG analysis, which can provide a second opinion to ensure fairness. According to Secapramana et al. (2019), job fairness is an important factor that determines job satisfaction. Furthermore, when employees perceive decisions as fair, it will have an impact on satisfaction, increase a sense of acceptance and motivate them to produce better work performance (Janssen & Van Yperen, 2004;EL-Hajji, 2015). The output of the job evaluation is how many points they get and how many acceptable points can give a sense of fairness, which is described as follows   The question is why problems often arise when the final score causes injustice and are unacceptable while in general the job evaluation process only used the Hay Guide Chart, and not other resources, such as benchmark data, job analysis, job description, and organizational structure. Based on Choudhary's and Singh's view, job evaluation is a systematic and orderly process to determine the value of a job size (2016). In other words, the main purpose of JE is to determine the relative value of different jobs in an organization to serve as the basis for developing fairness of salary structure and career development in the organization. It is in line with the aim of job evaluation which is to provide bases for rational and equitable wage and salary structure by systematically describing and analyzing jobs and evaluating and defining levels of the job demands in basic functional terms (Chaneta, 2014). This is intended to determine a basis for the design of the grading system or banding and salary structure.

Understanding Hay System Methodology
This part will provide a glimpse of the Hay System. According to Ali EL-Hajji (2013), the Hay System was built and focused on three primary factors defined as 'know-how,' 'problem solving,' and 'accountability factors .' These factors are described as definition, design, and job characteristics and specificities, and are designed specifically to meet the requirements (Armstrong & Stephens, 2005;EL-Hajji, 2015). The meaning of each factor in the Hay Guide Chart is as follows Figure 5.

The Know-how Factor
The know-how factor is related to the aspects of skills, reflecting experiences and responsibility, and the ability to make decisions and to provide solutions when dealing with problems. Know-how factor has three dimensions:  Communicating and influencing skills  Practical /technical knowledge  Planning, organizing, and integrating (managerial) knowledge Each of these dimensions has its own characteristics.

The Problem-Solving Factor
The problem-solving refers to how management deal with and solve certain problems in certain environments. So, this factor is to challenge managers' ability to solve a problem. In solving the problem, know-how factor is used to assess the percentage weight of the problem. Problemsolving consists of:  Thinking environment (freedom to think)  Thinking challenge Each of these dimensions describes its characteristics.

The Accountability Factor
The level of responsibility of work performance. It will indicate the extent to which the decisions are made to achieve the goals and the effect of decisions referring to the organization. The Accountability Factor includes, among others;  Freedom to Act  Nature of Impact  Magnitude (Area of Impact) Each of these dimensions has its own characteristics.

How Evaluation Relates to Payment?
Based on the previous description of the final value of job size, job evaluation must have a sense of justice, otherwise it will have an impact on the assessments of salary and position level or band adjustments due to changes in the total point values obtained. The point value is determined by the total points of the three factors, which results from the job evaluation. The job evaluation itself can describe the salary range, band or level, etc. and different types of payment, such as internal and market, base salary plans, incentives, etc. The ranges are midpoint, maximum, and minimum and can be developed by comparing the point level and the salary level, which is illustrated in Figure 6.

Understanding Urgency, Seriousness, and Growth (USG) Method
The USG method is used to determine which problems should be prioritized from the many problems that arise. This is in line with the view that one of the techniques that can be used to solve problems is by using the USG matrix (Ariyanti et al., 2020). The USG matrix is a technique for prioritizing problems because some problems must be prioritized, solved and fixed. Ultimately, not all problems can be solved simultaneously (LAN, 2008), which is in agreement with the view that a method is needed to identify priority problem (Santoso, 2017;Gunawan, 2018). Setting problem priorities is an important part of the problem-solving process for two reasons. First, because of the limited resources available, it is therefore not possible to solve all problems. Second, because there is a relationship between one problem and another, it is not necessary to solve all problems. Therefore, effective decision-making can assess how much the decision can give more success than expected by the objectives (Chaniago, 2017). When using the USG matrix to determine a priority problem, three factors need to be considered (Santoso, 2017). The three factors are urgency, seriousness, and growth. Each of them has a main function to map the problem and solution. Urgency is a way to see how urgent the issue is, so it needs to be discussed and time should also be taken into account. The next factor is seriousness, which refers to the evaluation of possible consequences if the issue is not resolved immediately. It is important to understand that in the same condition, an issue that can cause other problems is more serious when compared with a stand-alone problem. The next at the growth stage is the issue is likely to become worse if left unsolved (Masiani, 2017;A. Riswanto, 2016;Ariyanti et al., 2020). The result of the USG matrix is then combined with the values of the three factors. Then they are sorted according to the number. At this stage USG will compile the order of priority problems or issues to be resolved (Ariyanti et al., 2020;Lembaga Administrasi Negara RI, 2008). The USG matrix provides a scale of judgment at each stage or step, ranges from 1 to 5. Issues that have the highest total score are priority issues to be resolved. The illustration is as follows: An example of a USG matrix with the order of priority of problem-solving is as follows: Notes on the description of the table: The Likert scale question uses a 5-point scale: (5) essential or critical; (4) high priority; (3) medium priority; (2) low priority; (1) not a priority. On Table 3, problem in C has the highest priority to be resolved.
In USG analysis, there are three factors to consider: the urgency of the problem, the seriousness of the problem, and the possibility that the problem increases if not handled properly. The following is the explanation of the three factors (Hanlon, n.d.): 1. The urgency which is seen from the availability of time can be mapped whether the problem is urgent or not resolved.
2. The level of seriousness of the problem is determined by analyzing the impact of the problem on work productivity to see whether it will endanger the system or not.
3. Growth or the level of development of the problem, that is whether the problem develops in such a way that it is difficult to prevent or anticipate.
According to Chaniago (2017), in determining priority scale, a good decision must consider the problem from all angles including its effectiveness, in terms of quality of results, time of achievement, and the implementation for the people concerned so that efficiency in the process is obtained. Therefore, on the job evaluation a good and quality decision must be made to allow for fairness to employees.

Methods
The researchers use qualitative research because qualitative methods carry out an exploratory process to understand the meaning of individual and group behavior that describes social or humanitarian problems. Data are typically collected in the participant's setting. Data analysis is inductively building from particular to general themes, and then the researcher interprets the data. Qualitative research emphasizes the natural reality of social construction, the close relationship between researchers and those studied, and the situational atmosphere that sharpens research. The researcher acts as a key instrument and data collector to capture meaning and interaction (Creswell, 2014;Koyan, 2016).
Qualitative research is always carried out in the field; therefore, it sometimes refers to case study research (Miles & Huberman, 1994).

Research Methods
The researchers adopted a descriptive case study which aims to establish factors that affect job evaluation, such as 'know-how,' 'problem solving,' and 'accountability factors in the Hay System. The case study research is suitable for this research as it involves companies using the Hay System of job evaluation. The case study also matches the fundamental characteristics of the qualitative method: describing, understanding, and explaining (Yin, 2016). In addition, a case study helps in analyzing information systematically to arrive at useful conclusions and recommendations (Priyono, 2013). As a type of qualitative research, a case study aims to provide an in-depth picture of the problem in a research object. The research was carried out by collecting various information to be processed to find a solution to the problem. The respondents of the research are superiors familiar with the Hay System of job evaluation and those at the managerial level of management involved in the previous job evaluation. These respondents have appropriate authority in decision making in the final result of JE and understand the factors affecting job evaluation.
In terms of the use of the Hay System, this study uses primary data and secondary data. The plan was to distribute questionnaires and conduct interviews, but because of the COVID-19 pandemic, only questionnaires were used. We also had to refer to the results of the first questionnaires and sent a summary questionnaire to be analyzed using USG analysis. The questionnaires are divided into two classifications. The first is for gathering data about the job evaluation, and the second is the prioritization matrix of problem solving from USG Analysis.
With USG analysis, the researchers rank the problems to identify which one is the most important to work on solving first. The questionnaire in USG analysis uses Monkey Survey and the other uses Google Forms. The questionnaires were sent to several companies and financial institutions that use the Hay System. As presented in Figure 7, they include banks, coal mining, oil and gas companies, and utility service companies. Respondents selected are those who have been involved in the job evaluation, either as part of the job evaluation committee or as a resource person responsible for conducting a job evaluation.
The respondents were limited because the Hay System training courses are only for partners working with the Hay System, not for the general public.

Data and Analysis
Because face-to-face interviews were impossible due to high level of COVID-19 transmission in Jakarta, the researchers used online questionnaires with Google Forms and Survey Monkey for USG analysis.

Data Collection
The questionnaires were distributed to respondents via Google Forms. The respondents are in the job evaluation team or representatives of companies who are familiar with the Hay System. The number of respondents is 33, coming from various business types: utility companies, consultancy services, banking, coal mining contractors, FMCG, oil and gas, and coal mining companies. and the next step is to interview to representative respondents and after the data collected as the secondary data. Because of the pandemic, the researchers changed from interview to online questionnaires via Google Forms. There are two types of questionnaire. The first questionnaire consists of 10 questions regarding the job evaluation in general. The aim is to obtain general information about the job evaluation process. The second consists of 10 questions focusing on the Hay method of job evaluation. The purpose is to find out to what extent the company uses the Hay System. After the data is collected as secondary data, the researchers will select the most important data through data reduction to provide a clear picture of which data to be analyzed and study the 15 questionnaires further. The researchers compile the statements as groups which are then analyzed using USG matrix to determine the priority level of the problems.

Data Analysis
Qualitative data analysis is carried out when the empirical data obtained is qualitative. They are usually in the form of a tangible collection of words instead of a series of numbers and cannot be arranged into categories or classification structures. Sources of data can be from observations, interviews, documents, and references from other parties. Kartikasari (2017) says that qualitative data analysis is carried out interactively through data reduction, display data, and verification or conclusion processes. The process of qualitative data analysis is described as follows: The final result of the company's job evaluation such as job size is not easy to communicate to employees because it represents band and salary structure; therefore, it is strictly confidential. Data collection consist of concepts, categories, and themes because data collection and data reduction interact with each other through conclusion drawing and presenting data to analyze how deep the information will be. The next stage is data presentation or data display which allows the researchers to gain a better understanding of what is happening and to plan the next work based on the data obtained. The final stage is drawing initial conclusions which are still temporary and which will develop after the research is undertaken. To the best of our knowledge, this finding has never existed before, that is combining the Hay method of job evaluation with the USG method in calibrating the final value of job size.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
In selecting respondents for job evaluation, HR invites department representatives that are familiar with the Hay System and used to be a part of a job evaluation committee. In general, the HR department will coordinate with related departments and the board of directors represented by the HR director. Figure 9 and Figure 10 show the working period of the respondents and their respective department or division. It has been explained earlier that job evaluation may impact on changes in compensation and benefits. Thus, the final assessment of the size of the job must give a sense of fairness. Job evaluation is carried out to determine the salary rating or salary structure of employees. High levels of job complexity will have different salary structure from lower job complexity or equal pay for equal work (Kartikasari, 2017). Table 4 is an example of salary structure of company X. It also shows the leveling at company Y based on the point value from the job evaluation and the job evaluation with the Hay System, and based on the band system. An example of job evaluation from one of the companies participating in this study is as follows Table 5.
Based on the data from the Hay System evaluation above, non-core business depart-ments, such as HR, Finance and Accounting, General Services, and Health and Safety, are under the core business, namely the Operation and Maintenance Department. The researchers will examine the differences or gaps in the final assessment of job size by performing calibration using USG analysis, a problem solving method.
The researchers will also carry out an inventory of information from the respondents' responses on Google Forms and random interviews with several respondents to extract data from their questionnaire responses. The research data may become materials to see the trends. In addition, the review of the incoming data may provide important information which makes further study easy. The following are the questions about job evaluation in the questionnaires (Table 6).   The final result of the job evaluation score, whose assessment has been recapitulated and followed by description for each officeholder, is presented and submitted to the BOD to get approval. Based on the 15 questions above, the researchers compile the statements as groups which are then analyzed using the USG matrix to determine the priority level of the problems. The use of the USG matrix is to determine a priority problem for immediate action. One of the techniques that can be used is the problemsolving technique using USG (Urgency, Seriousness, Growth) matrix (Ariyanti et al., 2020). The following are the three factors and their respective functions (A. Riswanto, 2016a): 1. Urgency factor: It relates to how urgent it is to solve the problem. The indicator is that the more urgent a problem is, the higher the level of urgency is. The impacts are loss of employees, for example as a result of the final assessment of job size, higher impact of the problem on individuals or groups in a department, and the problem is becoming more serious.
2. The level of seriousness of the problem can be determined by observing the impact of the problem on work productivity, such as how it affects success, whether it endangers the system or causes demotivation due to job evaluation, whether it promotes a sense of justice and fairness or not.
3. Growth factors are related to the growth in research problems. The faster the problem develops, the higher the growth rate of the problem is. Problems which increase fast will become a priority to be solved, so that they do not get worse.
The researchers will present an action plan which may promote a sense of fairness when conducting job evaluations using the Hay System. Action plans will be presented as priority I, II, and III.

Discussion
Compensation plays a vital role in attracting, motivating, and retaining talented employees (Mabaso & Dlamini, 2017). Therefore, job evaluations should be done with transparency and the compensation should be suitable for the position or level. This could be an effective way to encourage employees to remain in employment and to be loyal to the company. If the company wants to implement the job evaluation, they need to assess whether the final result reflects fairness, as argued who criticizes the Hay System (El-Hajji, 2015).
To be good decision-makers, the job evaluation committee need to understand the Hay System of job evaluation comprehensively so that the results reflect fairness and transparency.
The results of job analysis and the organizational structure can be used for a job evaluation. Fair and transparent results will increase productivity and will foster more satisfaction and motivation. The purpose of job evaluation is to provide a fair scale of payment for work and its value for the organization. The priority of USG analysis is to bridge the gap of point in the Hay System. It is not enough to only use the Hay Guide Chart in the job evaluation. It is necessary to have a second opinion to create a sense of fairness in the final results of the job evaluation. Besides the method, the evaluator's competencies of understanding job evaluation is also of great importance.

CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTION
Based on the result of USG analysis, the priority problem to be solved is in conducting job evaluation with the Hay System. It is important not to use only single information from the Hay Guide Chart, but also to use the result of the job analysis. It is also important to see the organization structure and to do benchmarking in relation to other similar companies. If further information is still needed, the evaluator may interview the superiors to increase the data. Salary survey can be used as a reference for any salary adjustment. According to Abraham & Chirchir Kipkemboi (2016), a job evaluation in an organization can be carried out with the top management's involvement. The top management should understand the relevance of job evaluation to guide its implementation. The human resources department should orient the values and vision of job evaluation to the top decision-makers. The HR department should also understand the necessity of job evaluation and that their role in a job evaluation is significant to organizational growth. Therefore, the opinion of top management concerning the evaluation process determines how the evaluation would be conducted in the organization. The key success factors in job evaluation and whether it will be accepted by all employees depend on the capability of the HR department to stress the importance of job evaluation.

a. Empirical Benefits
In every job evaluation, problems with the final score of the job size can cause anxiety for employees, therefore, in the implementation of job evaluations, you must follow the rules in carrying out job evaluations in accordance with the hay methodology. Researchers understand employee anxiety because of the experience of the evaluator as a job evaluation committee. There are several resource persons in the implementation of job evaluations who still do not understand the use of using the Hay System.

c. Economic Benefits
Conducting job evaluation with transparency and fairness may provide positive values for employees, contribute to productivity, create a harmonious work relationship, and advance the company's reputable image.

New Findings
As far as we know, studies related to job evaluation using the Hay System have never been carried out in Indonesia. The findings in this research are useful both for academic studies and for companies seeking how to conduct job evaluations that can provide fairness.

Limitations
There are not many journal references that specifically study job evaluation using the Hay System in Indonesia. There are some journal references to job evaluation that used other methods. The job evaluation using the Hay System is only provided for Hay System Consulting partners and there are no public training or workshops. Companies that use the Hay System services are mostly corporations. In addition, obtaining data related to job evaluation from companies is not easy because such results are strictly confidential. Information on how the job evaluation is conducted, the data, and the results are only shown and are not allowed to be taken from the companies. Instead, they only explain the process of calculating job evaluation based on the Hay System. Fortunately, the researchers understand the job evaluation using the Hay System, so no difficulties were encountered.
Regarding the respondents of this study, the researchers chose several companies that used the Hay System of job evaluation. These companies were selected based on the recommendation from some HR colleagues who participated in the Advance Level Job Evaluation Workshop in Jakarta and from other sources. To ascertain that the respondents had been involved in a job evaluation, the researchers provided several statements in the research questionnaire, and after that, the researchers made a summary of the previous statements and sent back the summary questionnaire to obtain information that could be studied thoroughly.