My preferred method for conducting job evaluations is using a combination of performance reviews and clear, measurable goals set at the beginning of each review cycle. I use a standardized rubric that assesses both results and behaviors aligned with company values. One method I've found fair and effective is a 360-degree feedback system, which includes input from peers, direct reports, and managers. This provides a more balanced view of performance and reduces bias from a single evaluator. Linking this feedback to compensation decisions ensures that raises and bonuses reflect both individual contributions and team collaboration.
As someone who hires VAs and supports founders through backend ops consulting, I've found the most effective way to link job evaluations to compensation is by focusing on ownership and outcomes, not just tasks. When evaluating a role, I look at what the person is responsible for and how their work moves the business forward. It's not about how busy someone is, but more so about whether they're delivering on what actually matters. During reviews or hiring assessments, I break down: - What outcomes they're accountable for - How consistently they meet (or exceed) those outcomes - Whether they've taken initiative beyond the scope of their role Compensation decisions are then adjusted based on contribution, not just time served. This keeps things fair, transparent, and aligned with where the business is going. It also helps founders reward impact, and not just presence. This approach is baked into the work we do at The Remote Catalyst, because hiring shouldn't be a gamble.