In today’s financially constrained environment, organisations of all kinds, public bodies, private companies and not-for-profits, are rethinking how they operate. With falling income, rising costs, and growing pressure to reduce expenditure, HR functions are inevitably drawn into conversations about cost savings.
Among the areas being questioned is the continued investment in formal job evaluation (JE) schemes. If recruitment is on hold and new roles are not being created, some may wonder whether maintaining a job evaluation framework is still a priority. But this assumption can be a costly miscalculation.
Scaling back job evaluation can feel like an obvious efficiency, but it removes one of the most important safeguards an organisation has. A credible, well-established job evaluation process isn’t just about new posts. It underpins fair, transparent, and consistent pay decisions right across the board.
When organisations are adapting roles, streamlining services, or restructuring teams, as many are right now, those job changes need to be evaluated properly. Without that, decisions about pay may lack rigour and leave employers exposed to claims of inequality.
Compliance is ongoing even during contraction
Equal pay law doesn’t pause in a downturn. If organisations amend roles without evaluating whether those roles have increased, decreased, or fundamentally changed in complexity, they risk undermining the very pay structures they have spent years building.
More importantly, they may find themselves unable to demonstrate compliance with equal pay legislation. That presents not only a legal risk but also a reputational one. In unionised environments or highly visible public services, that exposure is even greater.
Strategy still matters when downsizing
Job evaluation should be seen as a strategic asset, not just an HR process. Even in a shrinking organisation, you need to understand the relative value of roles, identify duplication or overlap, and ensure that key responsibilities are distributed fairly. Job evaluation provides the data and structure to support these decisions.
During times of change, organisations that retain a clear and consistent approach to JE are better able to manage their talent, maintain staff trust, and make informed choices about where to invest and where to scale back.
The goal is not to make job evaluation more complex, but to make sure it continues to deliver value where it’s most needed.
Take the long-term view
In difficult times, the instinct may be to strip back to the basics. But job evaluation is a basic, an essential foundation of fair employment practice. Reducing investment in JE might deliver short-term savings, but at significant risk of longer-term costs: poor morale, lost trust, misaligned structures or even equal pay disputes.
Organisations that retain a robust commitment to JE are more resilient, better equipped to manage change, and more credible in the eyes of their workforce.
Now more than ever, it’s worth asking not whether you can afford to maintain your job evaluation scheme, but whether you can afford not to.
www.ecc.ac.uk
