HR435 Unit 2 Job Evaluation Exercise Example

Reviewed by Chester Goodwin, MBA Total Rewards and Compensation Strategy Purdue University Global Free custom sample in 24 to 48h

In this HR435 Unit 2 job evaluation exercise, the eight benchmark roles of Ironweed, a composite pest control firm, are scored on a 1,000-point plan before anyone looks at payroll, and one result stands out: the termite and fumigation specialist reaches 620 points yet earns less than the route scheduler and the inside sales representative. Purdue Global HR 435 builds its compensation sequence on this internal valuation, so later units on market pricing and structure use these scores. The exercise defines five compensable factors with weights and degrees, explains each degree assignment in a sentence, records where the three raters disagreed, and leaves the dollar question to the market study. It serves students in the BS in Business Administration (Human Resources) program.

CourseHR435 Total Rewards and Compensation Strategy
UnitUnit 2
Paper typeJob evaluation exercise
LengthAbout 860 words, 6 pages double-spaced
FormatAPA 7 student paper
SchoolPurdue University Global
ProgramBS in Business Administration (Human Resources)
UpdatedOctober 2026

Free sample paper for HR435 Unit 2

1

Six Hundred Twenty Points and Fourth From the Top in Pay: A Unit 2 Job Evaluation Exercise

[Student Name]

Purdue University Global

HR435: Total Rewards and Compensation Strategy

Unit 2 Job Evaluation Exercise

[Instructor Name]

[Date]

Ironweed Pest Services, its jobs and every score and salary are composite and illustrative; the sources cited are real.

What this part is doingNaming the one break in the order in the lead tells the reader what the exercise found before showing how.
2

The Plan

Ironweed Pest Services uses a point-factor plan with five compensable factors. Each factor has five degrees rising in equal steps.

Technical knowledge, 300 points. Degrees of 60, 120, 180, 240 and 300, from basic product knowledge to licensed expertise in structural fumigation or entomology.

Problem solving, 200 points. Degrees of 40 to 200, from following set procedures to diagnosing infestations with no standard answer.

Accountability, 200 points. Degrees of 40 to 200, from responsibility for one's own work to responsibility for a branch's results or regulatory compliance.

Contacts, 150 points. Degrees of 30 to 150, from routine contact with coworkers to negotiating with commercial clients and inspectors.

Physical demands and working conditions, 150 points. Degrees of 30 to 150, from office work to crawlspaces, attics, confined spaces and fumigation under tarps.

Milkovich et al. (2020) describe point plans as a way to make the basis of internal comparisons explicit, so that the plan, rather than current pay, explains why one job ranks above another.

What this part is doingDefining every factor's degrees before scoring shows the plan was fixed before any job was rated.
3

The Scores

Three raters, the operations director, a branch manager and the human resources generalist, scored each job independently from its job description, with current pay removed, then agreed final scores in a meeting.

Customer service representative, 350. Technical knowledge 120, problem solving 40, accountability 40, contacts 120, physical 30. Contacts earned the fourth degree because representatives handle upset customers who have seen pests in their homes.

Residential pest technician, 460. Technical knowledge 180, problem solving 80, accountability 80, contacts 30, physical 90. Accountability reached the second degree because technicians apply restricted products under their own license.

Commercial accounts technician, 500. Technical knowledge 180, problem solving 120, accountability 80, contacts 30, physical 90. Problem solving rose because food-plant work requires adapting treatment to inspection findings.

Inside sales representative, 540. Technical knowledge 180, problem solving 120, accountability 120, contacts 90, physical 30.

Route scheduler, 580. Technical knowledge 180, problem solving 160, accountability 120, contacts 90, physical 30. Problem solving reached the fourth degree because schedulers rebuild routes when technicians call out or emergencies arrive.

Termite and fumigation specialist, 620. Technical knowledge 240, problem solving 120, accountability 80, contacts 30, physical 150. Physical demands took the top degree, earned by crawlspace work, confined spaces and fumigation under tarps with fumigant monitoring. Technical knowledge reached the fourth degree because the role requires a separate state license category for fumigation.

Branch service manager, 670. Technical knowledge 240, problem solving 160, accountability 120, contacts 120, physical 30.

Technical director, 730. Technical knowledge 300, problem solving 160, accountability 120, contacts 120, physical 30. The top degree in technical knowledge reflects board certification as an entomologist.

The Payroll Revealed

Only after scores were final was current average pay set beside them.

Customer service representative, 350 points, $38,400. Residential technician, 460, $46,800. Commercial technician, 500, $52,600. Inside sales, 540, $61,900. Route scheduler, 580, $59,300. Termite specialist, 620, $57,200. Branch service manager, 670, $71,500. Technical director, 730, $84,000.

Pay rises with points at every step except one, and the exception is the job with the most dangerous working conditions and a license few employees hold.

Reading the Break

The order breaks at the termite specialist, who earns less than two jobs with fewer points. Two explanations are possible. Either the plan overvalues physical demands, or pay for the specialist has fallen behind. The scheduler's and inside sales representative's pay may reflect a market where office skills are scarce, while the specialist's pay was set years ago and has moved only with general increases.

Gerhart and Rynes (2003) note that internal evaluation and external markets often disagree, and that the employer must decide which to follow. The next unit's market pricing tests which explanation fits.

What this part is doingOffering two explanations and naming the test that will decide between them keeps the exercise from concluding too early.
4

Where the Raters Disagreed

The raters disagreed on two jobs before the meeting. The branch manager scored the inside sales representative's contacts at the fourth degree, arguing that closing commercial contracts involves negotiation with facility managers. The other two scored it at the third degree, since contract terms are set by the branch service manager and the representative presents them. The final score kept the third degree, with the reasoning recorded. The operations director scored the termite specialist's accountability at the third degree because a fumigation error can endanger occupants; the others held it at the second because the specialist works under the technical director's procedures. The second degree stood, but the note records that the question should be revisited if specialists begin to sign fumigation management plans themselves.

Limits

Three raters from one company may share its assumptions. The plan's weights were chosen by management and could be tested by asking whether they reproduce the ranking of jobs most employees would accept. Rynes and Milkovich (1986) caution that market data carry their own assumptions too, so neither the points nor the survey should be treated as the single truth.

5

References

Gerhart, B., & Rynes, S. L. (2003). Compensation: Theory, evidence, and strategic implications. Sage.

Milkovich, G. T., Newman, J. M., & Gerhart, B. (2020). Compensation (13th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.

Rynes, S. L., & Milkovich, G. T. (1986). Wage surveys: Dispelling some myths about the "market wage." Personnel Psychology, 39(1), 71-90. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1986.tb00575.x

Reading the HR 435 Unit 2 instructions

Unit 2 asks for a point-factor evaluation of a set of benchmark jobs, built so that current pay cannot influence the scores. You define the plan first: the compensable factors, a weight for each with a reason, and degrees a rater could tell apart. Then score every job factor by factor and explain the less obvious degree assignments. Only after the totals are fixed should current pay appear, so you can see where the internal order and the payroll agree and where they part. The prompt also expects you to describe the method, such as who rated, whether they worked independently and how disagreements were settled, because a reader judges the scores partly by how they were produced. Close by saying what the evaluation can and cannot decide. It ranks jobs; it does not set what anyone should be paid, which belongs to the market pricing and structure units that follow.

How this HR435 Unit 2 example is built

The sample starts with Ironweed's plan: technical knowledge carries 300 points, problem solving and accountability 200 each, contacts and physical demands 150 each, and every factor has five equal degrees. Milkovich et al. (2020) are cited for the purpose of a point plan. Three raters, the operations director, a branch manager and the HR generalist, score from descriptions with salaries removed. The scores run from 350 for the customer service representative to 730 for the technical director, with a sentence under the notable degrees, such as the specialist's top physical-demands degree for crawlspaces and fumigation under tarps. Payroll is revealed only afterward, and the highlighted sentence names the single break in the order. Two explanations are offered and handed to Unit 3 to test. A section on rater disagreements and a limits paragraph citing Gerhart and Rynes and Rynes and Milkovich close the exercise.

HR435 Unit 2 rubric: what earns full points

A Unit 2 job evaluation is generally marked on the soundness of the plan, the consistency of the scoring and the honesty of the interpretation. Defined factors with reasoned weights earn more than a list of factor names. Degrees need to be distinguishable, so a reader could place a new job without asking the author. Scores should be explained where they might be questioned, and the method should show that pay was kept out of the ratings. The comparison with payroll is where students show judgment: identifying the break in order and offering more than one explanation earns more credit than declaring the job underpaid. Recording rater disagreements shows the process was real. The Milkovich text and survey research such as Rynes and Milkovich are cited in APA 7, as the unit expects. Tables or clearly labeled rows are acceptable, as long as each score can be traced to its degrees.

HR435 Unit 2 help from the desk

Exercises that lose points here often let pay leak into the scoring, for instance by ranking jobs first and then adjusting points to fit the ranking. Another weakness is weighting every factor equally without saying why, or defining degrees so loosely that two raters would never agree. Some students score the jobs correctly and then conclude the specialist should earn a specific amount, which the evaluation cannot support until market data arrive. Others skip the disagreement record, so the scores look more certain than they are. Watch your arithmetic: each job's factor degrees must add to its total, and the totals must match any table you include. Avoid describing jobs only by title; a sentence on the duties behind a degree is what makes the score defensible. Our team can help if you have the benchmark descriptions but are unsure how to weight the factors.

Get an HR435 Unit 2 example written to your instructions

Job descriptions and whatever factor plan the Unit 2 case supplies are the inputs, along with the rubric. A worked evaluation comes back within 24-48h: factors weighted and defended, every degree explained, totals added correctly and pay compared only after scoring. Your first sample is free. The paper above is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Purdue University Global document.

Request this unit free All HR435 units Finished samples

More HR435 papers and BS in Business Administration (Human Resources) samples

HR435 Unit 2 questions, answered

Why hide current pay from the raters?

Because knowing what a job earns pulls scores toward the existing order, and the point of job evaluation is to test that order rather than confirm it. The example strips salaries from the descriptions, scores all eight jobs, and only then brings in payroll. If your case gives you pay data up front, say how you kept it out of the scoring.

Where can I find a free HR435 Unit 2 sample paper?

This page has a complete HR435 Unit 2 job evaluation exercise that scores the eight Ironweed benchmark jobs on a five-factor, 1,000-point plan, with margin notes.

Why does the termite and fumigation specialist score so high?

Its technical knowledge reaches the fourth degree because the role needs a separate state license category for fumigation, and physical demands take the top degree for crawlspaces, confined spaces and work under tarps. Those two factors give it 390 of its 620 points.

What happens to the rater disagreements?

They are settled in a meeting and recorded. In the sample, the inside sales contacts score stayed at the third degree and the specialist's accountability stayed at the second, with a note to revisit it if specialists begin signing fumigation management plans.

Can the plan's weights be wrong?

Yes, which is why the sample names the test: whether the weights reproduce a job order most employees would accept. Weights are a management decision, and the paper defends them rather than presenting them as facts.