Demystifying Job Levelling: Popular Frameworks for Fairer Compensation Management 

As growing organisations scale, particularly in fast-moving sectors, managing compensation becomes more than just a question of market alignment; it becomes a matter of fairness, consistency and compliance. 

Without a clear structure, pay decisions can become reactive or inconsistent, increasing the risk of pay inequities and employee dissatisfaction. With new pay transparency legislation on the rise, a clear and well-structured job levelling framework is now a business necessity, not just a nice-to-have. 

In this blog, we explore some of the most widely used job levelling frameworks and how they help growing companies make smarter pay decisions, whilst laying the groundwork for regulatory compliance and internal equity. 

Why Job Levelling Matters More Than Ever 

Job levelling defines consistent levels of work and responsibility across an organisation. It underpins compensation, career development, and performance management. However, it's also a critical enabler of pay transparency and equity. 

Job levelling helps organisations to: 

• Create salary bands that align with internal roles and external benchmarks 
• Support fair, consistent pay decisions across functions and teams 
• Prepare for pay transparency disclosures, including role comparisons and justifications 
• Identify and close pay gaps across gender and other protected characteristics 

As legislation pushes for greater openness, such as the EU's Pay Transparency Directive which will require employers to share salary ranges and justify pay differences between comparable roles, organisations will need the clarity and structure that levelling provides. 

Popular Frameworks to Support Smarter Pay 

Several widely adopted levelling frameworks can help fast-growing companies bring order to their compensation practices. Here are three of the most used: 

Radford (Aon) Job Levelling Framework 

The Radford (Aon) framework is well-established in tech and life sciences, offering a set of professional levels (P1–P6) that scale with increasing autonomy, responsibility, and business impact. 

Roles are evaluated across factors such as: 

• Independence 
• Leadership or management scope 
• Financial or strategic impact 

This framework provides industry-specific benchmarks and career progression pathways tailored to technology and life sciences organisations. It emphasises technical expertise alongside business acumen, supporting both individual contributor and management tracks. 

Willis Towers Watson Global Grading System (GGS) 

The GGS offers a more granular approach, with 25 grades grouped into broad bands that reflect hierarchy and role scope. It evaluates roles on criteria such as: 

• Problem-solving 
• Accountability 
• Knowledge depth 

This system is especially useful for companies managing diverse job families (e.g., engineering, sales, operations) and needing a consistent cross-functional structure for pay banding.  The GGS uses standardised evaluation criteria and detailed grade definitions to ensure consistency across global operations.  

Korn Ferry Hay Method 

The Hay Method uses a detailed point-factor evaluation, scoring roles across: 

• Know-how 
• Problem-solving 
• Accountability

Each factor is assessed using specific degree levels and weighted scoring systems. Know-how encompasses technical expertise, analytical skills, and human relations capabilities. Problem-solving evaluates thinking complexity and environmental constraints. Accountability measures decision-making authority, impact on results, and organisational scope of influence. 

Tailored or Hybrid Frameworks 

Many organisations choose to create bespoke frameworks by combining elements of established models with their values and culture. This hybrid approach allows for more flexibility while still supporting: 

• Consistent salary structures 
• Clear promotion paths 
• Equitable role comparisons 

Crucially, any tailored model should be documented and repeatable; key requirements when disclosing pay information or explaining pay decisions under new regulations. 

The Strategic and Compliance Payoff 

A robust job levelling framework is more than an HR tool; it's a strategic asset that enables: 

• Market-aligned salary decisions 
• Fair, transparent pay practices 
• Compliance with evolving pay legislation 

With new legal requirements emerging, including obligations to share salary ranges in job ads and justify pay differences between comparable roles, the cost of doing nothing is rising. Job levelling provides the structure needed to meet these obligations — and build a more equitable culture along the way. 

Final Thoughts 

For growing organisations, especially those navigating competitive talent markets and increasing regulatory scrutiny, job levelling isn’t just about operational efficiency — it’s about risk management, employee trust, and long-term scalability. 

Whether you adopt a framework like Radford, GGS, or Hay, or create a tailored version to reflect your unique structure, the goal remains the same: to make pay decisions that are fair, defensible, and transparent. 

If you're building or refining your job levelling approach to support compensation strategy and pay transparency readiness, RoleMapper can help. We work with scaling organisations to design frameworks that balance structure with flexibility.