Quick answer: Hay job evaluation, now the Korn Ferry Hay Guide Chart-Profile Method, sizes jobs on three main factors: Know-How, Problem Solving and Accountability, with Working Conditions added in some versions. Each factor is scored on guide charts whose point values rise in steps of about 15%, Problem Solving is measured as a percentage of Know-How, and the points are added to give a total job size. A “profile” check then tests whether the balance between the factors makes sense for the job.
Hay job evaluation is the best-known proprietary job evaluation method. In our experience, many large employers in the UAE and Saudi Arabia have used it to build grading structures, and it is also widely misunderstood: treated as a black box that produces points, when its real strength is the logic behind those points.
This guide explains how Hay job evaluation works, using the published Government of Canada executive evaluation plan, which is based on the Korn Ferry methodology, as the main documented reference. It covers the factors, the 15% step logic, profiles, and when Hay is, and is not, the right choice. For a comparison of all the main methods, see our guide to job evaluation methods.
Table of Contents
What is Hay job evaluation?
Hay job evaluation is an analytical, point-factor method originally developed by Hay Group and now owned by Korn Ferry, which calls it the Korn Ferry Hay Guide Chart-Profile Method. It measures the job, not the person doing it, and produces a numerical size for each job that can be used to rank jobs and group them into pay grades.
Public bodies publish how they use it. The Government of Canada’s Executive (EX) Group Job Evaluation Standard, in effect since 3 October 2022, states that “The plan is based on the Korn Ferry Hay Guide Chart – Profile Methodology.” The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, which introduced the method in 1987 and updated it in 2023, describes it as “a pay equity compliant and gender-neutral evaluation system”.
The Hay factors: Know-How, Problem Solving and Accountability
The Canadian EX plan defines three main factors, each with sub-factors:
| Factor | Definition (Government of Canada EX plan) | Sub-factors |
|---|---|---|
| Know-How | “the sum of every kind of knowledge and skill, however acquired” | Practical, technical, specialized know-how; planning, organizing and integrating knowledge; communicating and influencing |
| Problem Solving | “the requirement on the part of the position to put Know-How to use” | Thinking environment; thinking challenge |
| Accountability | “the degree to which a job is accountable for action and the consequences of that action” | Freedom to act; area of impact (magnitude); nature of impact |
Some versions add a fourth factor. The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador uses Working Conditions, which “considers the intensity, duration and frequency of physical effort, physical environment”, along with sensory attention and mental stress. In our experience, Working Conditions matters most for operational, field and industrial roles, and is often omitted for office-based professional and executive jobs.
How Hay points work: the 15% step
The most distinctive feature of Hay job evaluation is its numbering system. The Canadian EX plan explains that “The numbering system on the Guide Charts is geometric, with point values increasing in steps of approximately 15%.” Each step represents the smallest difference between two jobs that evaluators can reliably agree on, described in the plan as “the minimum perceptible difference (just noticeable difference)”.
Three rules follow from the published plan:
- Know-How and Accountability are scored directly in points from their guide charts.
- Problem Solving “is treated and measured as a percentage of Know-How”: you cannot solve problems beyond what you know.
- Total job size is the sum of the factor points, which gives a preliminary ranking of the job.
Illustration only. The table below shows how a geometric scale with steps of about 15% grows. The figures are rounded for illustration and are not Korn Ferry guide chart values.
| Step | Illustrative points | Increase on previous step |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 100 | – |
| 2 | 115 | 15% |
| 3 | 132 | 15% |
| 4 | 152 | 15% |
| 5 | 175 | 15% |
| 6 | 201 | 15% |
The geometric scale is why Hay job evaluation totals are compared in steps rather than raw points. A 50-point gap means something very different at 200 points than at 2,000.
Job profiles: the built-in sense check
After scoring, Hay checks the shape of each evaluation. The Canadian EX plan calls this “the concept of short profiles”, which tests “the relative proportions of Know-How, Problem Solving and Accountability in a position”. It notes that “Positions that exist to deliver operations and services will have a relatively high score in Accountability,” and that the distribution of factors within the total score “is independent of job size.”
In our experience, practitioners describe three broad profile shapes:
| Profile shape | What it means | Typical roles |
|---|---|---|
| Accountability-heavy | Accountability points exceed Problem Solving points | Operations, sales and service delivery roles |
| Level | Accountability and Problem Solving are broadly balanced | Many general management and professional roles |
| Problem Solving-heavy | Problem Solving points exceed Accountability points | Research, policy, strategy and specialist advisory roles |
In Hay job evaluation, a profile that contradicts the job’s purpose, such as a strategy role scoring like an operations role, is a signal to re-examine the evaluation before it is finalised.
Hay compared with an in-house point-factor scheme
| Feature | Hay (Korn Ferry) | In-house point-factor scheme |
|---|---|---|
| Factors | Fixed: Know-How, Problem Solving, Accountability (plus Working Conditions in some versions) | Chosen and weighted by the organisation |
| Scale | Geometric, steps of about 15% | Usually linear, set by the organisation |
| External comparability | Widely used, so job sizes can be compared with other users | Limited to the organisation |
| Access and training | Licensed; Korn Ferry certification training is open only to client organisations using the method | No licence; training developed internally |
| Flexibility | Low; the method is standardised | High, but needs careful design and testing |
Is Hay right for your organisation?
In our view, Hay job evaluation is a strong choice for larger GCC organisations that want an established, externally recognised method, plan to compare job sizes with market data tied to the same method, and can invest in trained evaluators. It is a weaker fit for smaller organisations that need a quick, low-cost structure, or where licence and training costs would outweigh the benefit.
Whichever method you choose, apply it consistently. The ILO’s guide to gender-neutral job evaluation is clear: “The same method must be used to evaluate all of these jobs in order to be able to compare them to one another.”
Common mistakes with Hay job evaluation
- Evaluating the person, not the job. Qualifications or performance of the current jobholder inflate Know-How scores.
- Working from weak job descriptions. The Canadian plan states that “An accurate job description is an essential component of the job evaluation process.”
- Ignoring the profile check. Totals that look reasonable can hide a factor balance that makes no sense.
- Treating points as pay. Points size jobs; grade boundaries and market pricing turn them into pay.
Frequently asked questions about Hay job evaluation
What is the Hay method of job evaluation?
The Hay method, now the Korn Ferry Hay Guide Chart-Profile Method, is an analytical point-factor approach. It scores each job on Know-How, Problem Solving and Accountability, sometimes adding Working Conditions, using guide charts with point values that rise in steps of about 15%. The points are added to give a total job size used to rank jobs.
What is the Hay method of grading?
Hay itself sizes jobs; grading is the next step. Organisations take the total Hay points for each job, set grade boundaries at sensible breaks in the points, and place jobs into grades. Each grade is then given a pay range, usually informed by market data for jobs of similar size.
What is the method of job evaluation?
Job evaluation methods fall into non-analytical approaches, such as ranking and classification, and analytical approaches, such as point-factor schemes, which score jobs against defined factors. Hay is a proprietary analytical method. Whichever you use, apply the same method to all the jobs you want to compare.
Go deeper: Job Evaluation Methodologies
This guide covers one method in depth. My book Job Evaluation Methodologies is the decision guide for choosing and running the right method, from ranking, classification and point-factor schemes to Hay-style factor comparison and market pricing. It covers defensible compensable-factor weighting and the documentation that stands up to a pay-equity audit. To turn evaluation results into grades, see Salary Grading Framework. Both are in the RewardEdge Publications library.
Need jobs sized consistently before you build grades? RewardEdge designs job evaluation, job architecture and grading for organisations in the UAE, Saudi Arabia and beyond. See our job architecture and grading service or describe your challenge.
Sources
- Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat. Executive (EX) Group Job Evaluation Standard 2022. In effect from 3 October 2022. Accessed October 2026.
- Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, Treasury Board Secretariat. What is the Korn Ferry Hay Group Guide Chart Profile Method of Job Evaluation? Accessed October 2026.
- Korn Ferry. Korn Ferry Hay Guide Chart training. Accessed October 2026.
- International Labour Organization (2009). Promoting Equity: Gender-neutral job evaluation for equal pay. A step-by-step guide. Accessed October 2026.
This article is general information for HR and reward professionals. Korn Ferry Hay Guide Chart is a proprietary methodology; RewardEdge is not affiliated with Korn Ferry. Illustrations are hypothetical and do not reproduce licensed guide chart values.
About the author: Muhammad Ahsan Mehboob is the founder of RewardEdge Consulting, a CIPD-certified reward practitioner with an MBA in Banking and Finance and more than ten years of compensation and benefits experience across the UAE, Saudi Arabia and the wider GCC. More about the author · Books by the author
