1. A position cannot be evaluated if there is no incumbent. This applies to both new positions and positions where the position is vacant. It is still possible to evaluate the position using other sources of information such as interviewing the (potential) manager, colleagues, the past incumbent or clients/stakeholders, and examining documentation such as position descriptions, business plans, and other corporate materials.
  2. You should only talk to the manager. Although the manager is a good source of information about a position, it is always important to talk to an incumbent where possible as it is the incumbent that should best understand the details of the position.
  3. You should only talk to the incumbent. The incumbent is usually one of the best sources of information about a position, however there are times when the incumbent may not be performing at the level expected of the position or may be bringing individual strengths to a position that would not be expected if the position was re-advertised and filled by a new person. It is always best to interview both the incumbent and the manager and, where relevant, colleagues or stakeholders to get a full understanding of the position.
  4. The process is completely objective. Although the work value assessment tool uses a scoring mechanism to arrive at a recommended classification level, the judgements made by the assessor are necessarily somewhat subjective, as they involve interpretation of the descriptors and the full WLS. The work value assessment tool and the WLS help to make the process more objective than pure guess work alone.
  5. The higher the score in the range, the better. There are some managers and incumbents that believe that a ‘higher’ score in a range is a better one. It is expected that, across an organisation, positions will score variably within their classification levels and this is reflected in the rationale for the scoring ranges with lower level positions having more room for diversity (and therefore a larger ‘range’ of scores) than higher level positions. Positions would also be expected to score variably across factors, with, for example, more specialist positions scoring higher in the knowledge factor and independence factor, and policy positions scoring higher in the judgement and risk factor and impact factor. This further reflects the diversity of positions that can be expected within an organisation.