FOI - Jobs grading and promotion [Apr 2025]

Request

I am writing to request information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 regarding the Greater London Authority's (GLA) grading structure and promotion processes. Specifically, I would appreciate clarification on the following points:

1. Grade Structure:

Could you explain the criteria that distinguish different grades within the GLA, particularly the practical differences between grades (e.g., Grade 1 vs. Grade 5)? How are these distinctions justified? 

2. Consistency in Role Allocation:

Are there examples where employees with similar qualifications and responsibilities have been assigned to different grades? If so, what rationale underpins these decisions?

3. Matching Specialist Roles:

How does the GLA ensure that specialists with similar expertise are assigned to comparable grades, and how do you address discrepancies when similar roles are given different grades?

4. Promotion and Career Progression:

How does the GLA determine promotion eligibility, and what criteria are used to assess readiness for advancement? How are these criteria applied consistently and transparently?

5. Fairness in Grade Allocation:

How does the GLA ensure objectivity in assigning grades, especially for roles where there might be overlap in responsibilities or expertise? Are there checks to ensure fair and consistent decision-making? How often are these checks implemented?

6. Role Creation and Review:

How are new roles graded, and when was the last review conducted on the GLA's grading structure? Were any changes made following that review?

7. Pay vs. Grade Discrepancies:

Are there instances where an employee’s pay does not align with their grade, and how does the GLA address such discrepancies?

- Please provide any relevant documents or policies that detail these processes.

Response

I can confirm that the GLA holds the information in scope of your request, which is set out below:

1. Grade Structure:

Could you explain the criteria that distinguish different grades within the GLA, particularly the practical differences between grades (e.g., Grade 1 vs. Grade 5)? How are these distinctions justified? 

Response:

The GLA uses the Hays methodology for job evaluation within the organisation. This provides a method of assessment to objectively evaluate the relative levels of work within an organisation and works by allocating a number of points to a series of factors. This is the manner by which the organisation assesses different roles. Copy of the current Job Evaluation process is in the appendix.

 

2. Consistency in Role Allocation:

Are there examples where employees with similar qualifications and responsibilities have been assigned to different grades? If so, what rationale underpins these decisions?

Response:

The focus is on the roles, rather than employees when determining grades within the organisation. The Hays methodology of job evaluation provides a robust approach to determining the grade of a role and ensures that similar roles are graded in a similar manner.

 

3. Matching Specialist Roles:

How does the GLA ensure that specialists with similar expertise are assigned to comparable grades, and how do you address discrepancies when similar roles are given different grades?

Response:

As above, the focus is on the roles, rather than employees when determining grades within the organisation. The Hays methodology of job evaluation provides a robust approach to determining the grade of a role and ensures that similar roles are graded in a similar manner.

 

4. Promotion and Career Progression:

How does the GLA determine promotion eligibility, and what criteria are used to assess readiness for advancement? How are these criteria applied consistently and transparently?

Response:

The GLA doesn’t have a process for determining promotion eligibility. Individuals must meet internal requirements before applying for roles, such as passing probation, but the assessment regarding who is selected to fill the vacancy is undertaken via an interview panel assessment against the agreed competency-based criteria for the role.

 

5. Fairness in Grade Allocation:

How does the GLA ensure objectivity in assigning grades, especially for roles where there might be overlap in responsibilities or expertise? Are there checks to ensure fair and consistent decision-making? How often are these checks implemented?

Response:

As above, we focus on the roles, rather than employees when determining grades within the organisation. The Hays methodology of job evaluation provides a robust approach to determining the grade of a role and ensures that similar roles are graded in a similar manner. The Hays evaluation method includes a check against other roles in the organisation when determining the grade of a role.

 

6. Role Creation and Review:

How are new roles graded, and when was the last review conducted on the GLA's grading structure? Were any changes made following that review?

Response:

The GLA uses the Hays methodology for job evaluation within the organisation. This provides a method of assessment to objectively evaluate the relative levels of work within an organisation.

An independent review of our pay and grading system was completed in 2022.

A series of proposals were developed to address the findings. Staff and Unison were consulted on these between autumn 2022 and January 2023.

Following this, the GLA made a commitment to prioritise the introduction of Job Families into the GLA and this work is ongoing.

 

7. Pay vs. Grade Discrepancies:

Are there instances where an employee’s pay does not align with their grade, and how does the GLA address such discrepancies?

Response:

In terms of when an employee's pay might not align to the grade, there are some instances where this legitimately might occur.

1. In line with the GLA’s organisational change policy, members of staff who as a result of a restructure are assimilated, appointed or redeployed to a lower graded job will have their salary protected for two years from the date of appointment.
2. We also provide market forces supplements in instances where a particular set of skills is unable to be recruited due to those skills attracting a premium in the external labour market – this supplement would be paid on top of an individual’s salary and would be determined following an exercise to determine the median in the external labour market.
3. Elsewhere, we provide allowances for to compensate for specific activity – such as working at a higher grade for a limited period of time.

Supporting document with the relevant excerpts of policy/process is added in the appendix.

Appendix

The job evaluation process

New jobs

You may need to create a new position that is different to any other roles in your team. If so, you must first check with your HR Business Partner whether there are any similar job descriptions within the organisation that you can use.

If not, you will need to write a new job description and get it approved (see guidance on writing job descriptions). You must have this approved before applying to create a new position or carrying out any recruitment.

You must send your updated job description to your HR Business Partner. They will submit the job description to Korn Ferry, via the Reward Team, and through an independent and expert assessment Korn Ferry will determine the pay band. The cost of this work will be recharged back to the relevant directorate budget.

As the Line Manager, you will be expected to explain the role and provide additional context to Korn Ferry to ensure that they fully understand the complexity and scope of the role.

Once your Job Description has been evaluated by Korn Ferry, your HR Business Partner will let you know the outcome. There is no appeal process for the evaluation of new posts.

Once the grade has been determined, you can then apply to approve the new post using the GLA Post Approvals process.

Re-evaluating existing jobs

The GLA will not be carrying out evaluations of existing roles until the work on Job Families has been completed which is looking at how we group jobs with broadly similar skills and competencies across the GLA.

About the job evaluation process

The GLA send job descriptions to Korn Ferry to be evaluated. All job descriptions across the GLA are evaluated using the Korn Ferry job evaluation scheme which is widely used across the public and private sector and underpins our grading system. Jobs are assessed against three broad criteria:

‘know how’ – the sum of knowledge, skills and experience required for acceptable job performance;

‘problem solving’ – the level of complexity involved in undertaking the role; and,

‘accountability’ – the impact of the job and the level of independent action that the jobholder can undertake.

When considered together, these factors determine the grade for the role.

Excerpt from Organisational Change policy and procedure

6.16  Salary protection

Members of staff who as a result of a restructure are assimilated, appointed or redeployed to a lower graded job will have their salary protected for 2 years from the date of appointment.  After this time, the salary will be adjusted to the top of the appropriate scale. Cost of living increases will apply during the period of salary protection, but there will be no incremental progression.

Any existing entitlements to contractual and casual overtime, payments for unsocial working arrangements, or other allowances will not be protected in the new role.   

Excerpt from GLA Terms and Conditions relating to Market Forces Supplements

3.1.6 If a post is difficult to fill and there is objective evidence of recruitment and retention difficulties, a market forces supplement may be paid where:

• the job has been advertised unsuccessfully more than twice during the past year, and
• there is evidence from independent pay data that the GLA evaluated salary is lower than the average salaries for similar roles.

3.1.7 The amount of the market forces supplement will be set by reference to the difference between the GLA evaluated salary and the external rate.