Deciding what a role is worth is one of the most consequential — and most contested — decisions an organization makes.
Two people can hold similar titles, work equivalent hours, and sit in the same building. But the complexity of their decisions, the size of what they're responsible for, and the expertise their roles demand can be fundamentally different. Without a consistent method to measure those differences, compensation becomes a negotiation game — where outcomes depend more on who asks than on what the role actually requires.
That is the problem the Hay System was designed to solve.
In this guide, we cover what the Hay System is, how Hay grades and Hay points work, how the system connects to Korn Ferry today, how organizations actually implement it, and where it fits alongside the performance and engagement systems that determine whether compensation structures deliver real results.
What is the Hay System?
The Hay System is a job evaluation framework that measures and compares the value of different roles using consistent, factual criteria — not job titles, seniority, or negotiating leverage.
It was developed by American management consultant Edward N. Hay in the 1940s and has since become one of the most widely used job evaluation methodologies among large and mid-sized organizations worldwide. Today it is administered by Korn Ferry (see the full explanation below).
By evaluating every role against the same factors, the Hay System enables organizations to:
- Compare roles across entirely different functions (finance vs. engineering vs. HR vs. operations)
- Build salary bands and compensation structures that reflect role complexity, not role politics
- Create defensible, auditable pay equity frameworks
- Give employees a clear picture of what determines their grade and how to move between grades
The Hay System is most commonly used in larger organizations, public sector institutions, multinational companies, and any organization that needs a consistent methodology across many different departments, geographies, or business units.
The Hay System and Korn Ferry: What HR Teams Need to Know
If you've searched for the Hay System and found references to "Korn Ferry Hay Method," "Hay Group," or "Korn Ferry Hay Group Guide Chart," here is what you need to know.
Edward N. Hay developed the framework in the 1940s through his firm, Hay Group. For decades, Hay Group was the dominant name in job evaluation and compensation consulting globally.
In 2015, Korn Ferry acquired Hay Group, bringing the entire methodology — including the proprietary Hay Guide Chart — under the Korn Ferry brand.
What this means in practice:
- The Hay System, Korn Ferry Hay Method, Hay Group Method, and Hay Guide Chart-Profile Method all refer to the same underlying framework
- The Hay Guide Chart is a licensed Korn Ferry product — organizations cannot use the official guide charts without engaging Korn Ferry directly or through a certified consultant
- Korn Ferry provides the training, certification, and consulting infrastructure for organizations implementing a formal Hay evaluation
- The core methodology (knowledge, problem-solving, accountability) is unchanged from the original Hay Group framework
If your organization is implementing a Hay-based job evaluation for the first time, you will typically engage Korn Ferry or work with a Korn Ferry-certified HR consultant to access the licensed tools.
What Are Hay Points?
Hay points are the numerical scores assigned to a job after it has been evaluated using the Hay System's three core factors.
Every job is scored independently on each factor. Those scores are then weighted and summed to produce the role's total Hay point score. The higher the score, the more complex, demanding, and strategically significant the role is considered to be.
Hay points are what make cross-functional comparison possible. A finance manager and a software engineering manager operate in completely different domains — different skills, different deliverables, different day-to-day realities. But if both roles demand similar levels of expertise, face similarly complex problems, and carry similar levels of business accountability, they may receive comparable Hay point scores. That shared score is what allows them to be placed in the same salary band — even though the roles themselves look nothing alike.
What is a Hay Grade?
A Hay grade is the classification level assigned to a job based on its total Hay point score. It is closely related to job leveling — the broader practice of defining consistent tiers across an organization.
Jobs with similar Hay point totals are grouped into the same grade or salary band. These grades form the structural backbone of an organization's compensation architecture.
Here is how grades typically map to role types — though exact numbering varies by organization:
A Hay grade measures the scope and complexity of the role — not the individual's performance in it. A high-performing person in a grade 10 role still holds a grade 10 role. A mediocre performer in a grade 16 role still holds a grade 16 role. The grade is a property of the job, not the person.
Hay Grade vs. Hay Level: What's the Difference?
These terms are used interchangeably across organizations, which creates genuine confusion. Here is the practical distinction:
Hay grade typically refers to the compensation classification — the band a job falls into after evaluation. When someone says "I'm a Hay grade 14," they mean their job falls into the 14th tier of their organization's grade structure.
Hay level usually refers to the position within a hierarchical structure — often used in organizations that number their levels rather than calling them "grades." Some organizations use "level 12," "level 15," or "level 18" where others would say "grade 12," "grade 15," or "grade 18."
In both cases, the underlying concept is the same: a numeric classification derived from Hay point scores that determines compensation band placement.
How the Hay System Works: The Three Core Factors
The Hay System evaluates every job against three primary factors. A fourth factor — working conditions — is included in some implementations, particularly for non-office roles.
Factor 1: Knowledge (Know-How)
Knowledge measures the total capability required to perform the job at an acceptable level — "the sum total of every kind of knowledge and skill, however acquired, needed for acceptable job performance" (University of Waterloo HR).
Three dimensions are evaluated:
Technical and professional depth — How specialized is the knowledge the role requires? A generalist coordinator scores lower than a compensation and benefits specialist or a software architect.
Breadth of management — Does the role require planning, organizing, directing, or controlling functions, resources, or teams? A team lead scores higher than an individual contributor; a department head scores higher than a team lead.
People and relationship skills — How much of the job depends on influencing, developing, negotiating with, or motivating others? A customer-facing role with complex client management scores higher than a purely technical role.
Factor 2: Problem-Solving (Thinking Challenge)
Problem-solving measures how much independent thinking the role demands.
Two dimensions are evaluated:
The thinking environment — How much structure, precedent, or guidance exists when problems arise? A role with clear processes and known solutions scores lower than a role that regularly faces novel, ambiguous situations with no established playbook.
The thinking challenge — How complex are the problems? How much analysis, judgment, creativity, or inference is required to resolve them?
Problem-solving is expressed as a percentage of the knowledge score — recognizing that you can only think with what you know. A role that requires deep technical knowledge but follows highly structured processes may score 25% on problem-solving. A role that requires similarly deep knowledge but applies it to constantly changing, ambiguous challenges may score 50% or higher.
Factor 3: Accountability
Accountability measures the impact the role has on organizational results.
Three dimensions are evaluated:
Freedom to act — How much independent authority does the role carry? Does the person make decisions, or execute decisions made by others?
Magnitude — What is the scale of the budget, revenue, assets, team, or operational scope the role influences?
Impact — Is the role's effect on business outcomes direct or indirect? A CFO who owns the P&L has more direct impact than a finance analyst who contributes inputs to decisions made by others.
Factor 4: Working Conditions (Where Applicable)
This factor is applied to roles involving physical demands, environmental exposure, sensory strain, or safety risk. It is most relevant for:
- Manufacturing, logistics, and field operations roles
- Healthcare and clinical positions
- Construction and facilities roles
- Any role with significant physical effort, hazard exposure, or difficult environmental conditions
How Organizations Implement Hay Job Evaluation: A Practical Overview
Implementing a Hay-based job evaluation is a multi-phase process. Here is how organizations typically approach it:
Step 1: Prepare accurate job descriptions
The evaluation is only as good as the job description — which is itself the output of a thorough job analysis. Each role needs a description that clearly articulates what the role does, what decisions the person makes, what they are accountable for, who they interact with, and what expertise they need. Vague job descriptions produce unreliable evaluations.
Step 2: Assemble an evaluation committee
Hay evaluations should not be done by a single person. Best practice is a trained committee of HR professionals and senior managers who understand the organization's role landscape. Korn Ferry certification or a certified consultant is typically required to access the official guide charts.
Step 3: Score each factor independently
The committee evaluates each job across the three (or four) factors using the Korn Ferry Hay Guide Chart scales. Each factor dimension is scored separately, producing a sub-score for each dimension within each factor.
Step 4: Calculate total Hay points
Factor scores are weighted and summed. The weighting varies by organization and implementation. In most frameworks, accountability carries the highest weight, followed by knowledge, then problem-solving.
Step 5: Group roles into grades
Jobs within a defined Hay point range are placed in the same grade. Organizations define their own grade bands — there is no universal "Hay grade 14 = X points" standard; the mapping is organization-specific.
Step 6: Calibrate against market data
Internal grade structures tell you where jobs sit relative to each other. Market pricing data tells you where salary ranges for each grade should sit relative to external benchmarks. Many organizations use Korn Ferry's compensation survey data to calibrate salary bands within each grade.
Step 7: Communicate and maintain
The system requires ongoing maintenance. Roles evolve — a role that was a grade 10 individual contributor three years ago may now include team management and budget ownership, making it a grade 13 or 14. Regular review cycles (typically annual or biannual) keep the structure current.
How to Calculate Hay Points: The Logic Explained
The official Korn Ferry Hay Guide Charts are proprietary and licensed — the precise scoring matrices are not publicly available. However, the underlying calculation logic follows this structure:
For each factor (Knowledge, Problem-Solving, Accountability):
- Score each dimension within the factor using the guide chart scales
- Arrive at a total factor score
Apply weighting:
- Accountability typically receives the highest weighting
- Knowledge receives the second-highest weight
- Problem-solving receives the lowest weight (as it is expressed as a percentage of knowledge)
Sum to total Hay points:
- Add the three weighted factor scores
- The total is the job's Hay point score
Map to grade:
- The organization's grade table maps point ranges to grades
- A job scoring 200–250 points might fall in grade 12 in one organization; another organization may define grade 12 as 300–380 points depending on their overall structure
Accurate Hay point scoring requires both the licensed guide charts and trained evaluators. Organizations new to the system should engage a Korn Ferry consultant for initial setup, then train internal HR staff to maintain the system over time.
Hay System Example: Two Roles, Same Department
Here is how the evaluation logic plays out in practice.
Role A: Customer Support Executive
- Knowledge: Product knowledge, communication skills, process adherence, basic system operation
- Problem-Solving: Structured problems with defined resolution paths; guidance and precedents available
- Accountability: Executes defined tasks; limited decision authority; impact is transactional, individual, and customer-facing
Role B: Customer Support Manager
- Knowledge: All of the above, plus people management, coaching, escalation judgment, operational planning, and performance reporting
- Problem-Solving: Complex, ambiguous problems involving team dynamics, policy gaps, customer escalations without established playbooks, and strategic trade-offs
- Accountability: Owns team performance metrics, customer satisfaction outcomes, process design, headcount decisions within the team
The manager role scores higher on every factor. Not because the person is more valuable as a human being — but because the role demands more from whoever holds it. That difference in Hay points is what justifies a higher salary band.
Benefits of the Hay System
1. Internal pay fairness
The Hay System provides a common framework for comparing roles across functions. It reduces the influence of bias, negotiating skill, and manager subjectivity on compensation decisions.
2. Defensible compensation structures
When employees question why two roles are paid differently, the answer is grounded in documented, consistent criteria — not organizational politics. This is especially important for organizations facing pay equity scrutiny.
3. Cross-functional job comparison
A VP of Engineering and a VP of Marketing can be evaluated on the same scale. Without a methodology like the Hay System, cross-functional comparison relies on gut feel.
4. Career progression clarity
When grade structures are defined and visible, employees understand what it takes to move from grade 10 to grade 12. This supports internal mobility conversations, succession planning, and development goal-setting.
5. Pay equity and compliance support
A structured evaluation with documented criteria creates an audit trail. Organizations can demonstrate that pay decisions are based on role requirements rather than characteristics that should not influence compensation.
Limitations of the Hay System
1. It requires licensed access
The official Hay Guide Charts are a Korn Ferry product. Organizations cannot run a certified Hay evaluation without engaging Korn Ferry or a certified consultant. For smaller organizations, this creates meaningful cost and access barriers.
2. Implementation is resource-intensive
Building a Hay-based grade structure correctly requires trained evaluators, high-quality job descriptions for every role, and an evaluation committee with the time and organizational knowledge to do the work accurately.
3. It measures the role, not the person
The Hay System tells you what a role is worth, not how well the person in the role is performing. Two people in the same grade, doing the same job at very different levels of capability, receive the same grade. Performance management requires a separate system.
4. It can lag behind fast-moving organizations
Startup-stage companies and high-growth teams often see roles evolve faster than evaluation cycles can track. A system that runs annual grade reviews may not reflect a role that absorbed three new responsibilities in six months.
5. Communication demands are high
If employees don't understand how grades are determined, the system can generate resentment instead of trust. Transparent communication about the evaluation methodology and criteria is essential to the system working as intended.
Hay System vs. Other Job Evaluation Methods
No method is universally superior. The Hay System is most valuable when organizations need rigorous internal equity, cross-functional comparability, and a defensible audit trail — and when they have the scale and resources to implement it correctly.
Where the Hay System Fits in the Modern HR Stack
The Hay System answers a foundational question: what is this role worth inside our organization?
But role value is only the starting point. Once roles are defined, graded, and compensated equitably, organizations need answers to a set of harder questions:
- Do employees understand what success looks like in their specific role and grade?
- Are managers conducting performance reviews that help people grow — not just evaluate them once a year?
- Are performance appraisal methods aligned to how employees actually develop over time?
- Does 360-degree feedback give employees a complete picture of how they're performing across the dimensions their grade requires?
- Are employees engaged enough to actually grow within their role — or are they disengaged and waiting for the next opportunity?
These are performance and engagement questions. They require a different infrastructure than compensation architecture.
Job evaluation defines what a role requires. Performance management determines whether the person in that role is meeting, exceeding, or falling short of those requirements — and what to do about it.
How ThriveSparrow Supports What Comes After Job Evaluation
Once your organization has defined role grades and salary bands — whether through the Hay System or another methodology — the challenge shifts to building the infrastructure that helps employees perform and grow within those grades.
ThriveSparrow is an employee experience platform that brings performance reviews, goal tracking, 360-degree feedback, continuous feedback, and employee engagement surveys into one connected system.
Here is how it connects to what the Hay System establishes:
1. Performance reviews help managers assess how employees are developing within their role's knowledge, problem-solving, and accountability requirements — the same dimensions the Hay System uses to grade the role. When grade criteria and performance criteria align, development conversations become clearer and more useful.
2. Goal tracking gives employees visibility into what success looks like at their grade level, and connects individual goals to the business priorities that accountability — the third Hay factor — is supposed to support.
3. 360-degree feedback surfaces perspective from the peers, direct reports, and stakeholders an employee works with — exactly the relationship dimensions that Knowledge and Accountability in the Hay System are designed to reflect.
4. Employee engagement surveys tell HR whether the compensation and role structures the organization has built are actually translating into motivation, trust, and intention to stay — or whether structure is there but engagement is not.
Compensation builds the foundation. ThriveSparrow helps you build what happens on top of it: the performance, feedback, and recognition infrastructure that makes people want to stay and grow in the roles you've defined.
Start your free 14-day trial and see how ThriveSparrow connects role clarity with performance, feedback, and recognition.
.svg){kind=small}
Frequently Asked Questions
1. What is the Hay System in HR?
The Hay System is a point-factor job evaluation method that measures the relative value of different roles within an organization. It evaluates three core factors — knowledge required (know-how), problem-solving complexity, and accountability for business outcomes — to produce a numerical Hay point score. That score determines a role's Hay grade, which is used to build salary bands and compensation structures. The system was developed by Edward N. Hay and is today owned and licensed by Korn Ferry.
2. What is a Hay grade?
A Hay grade is the classification level assigned to a job based on its total Hay point score. Roles with similar Hay point scores are grouped into the same grade and placed in the same salary band. Hay grades provide the structural framework for an organization's compensation tiers, from entry-level operational roles to executive leadership. The grade describes the role — not the individual in it.
3. What are Hay points?
Hay points are numerical scores generated by evaluating a job against the Hay System's three core factors: knowledge (know-how), problem-solving, and accountability. Each factor is scored independently using the Korn Ferry Hay Guide Chart, then weighted and summed to produce the total Hay point score. Higher point scores indicate greater complexity, expertise requirements, and business impact.
4. What is the relationship between the Hay System and Korn Ferry?
The Hay System was created by Edward N. Hay and developed through his firm, Hay Group. In 2015, Korn Ferry acquired Hay Group, bringing the methodology — including the proprietary Hay Guide Chart — under the Korn Ferry brand. Today, "Korn Ferry Hay Method," "Hay Group Method," and "Hay System" all refer to the same framework. The official implementation tools are licensed by Korn Ferry; organizations cannot run a certified Hay evaluation without engaging Korn Ferry or a certified consultant.
5. How do you calculate Hay points?
Hay points are calculated by scoring a job across knowledge, problem-solving, and accountability dimensions using the Korn Ferry Hay Guide Chart scales. Each factor score is weighted, then the weighted scores are summed to produce the total. Because the official guide charts are Korn Ferry's licensed property, organizations implementing formal Hay evaluations work with Korn Ferry directly or with a certified evaluator. The exact numerical scales are not publicly available.
6. What is the difference between a Hay grade and a Hay level?
Both terms refer to the same concept: the classification tier a job falls into after a Hay System evaluation. "Hay grade" is the more common term and typically refers to the compensation band. "Hay level" is used by some organizations interchangeably, or to refer specifically to the hierarchical position within the grade structure (e.g., "Level 14"). The terminology is organization-specific — what matters is that both are derived from Hay point scores.
7. Does the Hay System measure employee performance?
No. The Hay System evaluates the job, not the person in the job. It tells you what a role requires from whoever holds it — not how well the current holder is performing. A high-performing employee in a grade 10 role and a poor-performing employee in the same grade 10 role have the same Hay grade. Performance must be measured separately through performance reviews, feedback, and goal-tracking systems.
8. What are the main criticisms of the Hay System?
The most common criticisms are: (1) the official guide charts require a Korn Ferry license, creating access and cost barriers; (2) it requires significant time investment from trained evaluators and HR teams; (3) it evaluates job complexity but cannot capture the interpersonal, cultural, or motivational dimensions of a role; (4) grade structures can lag behind organizations where roles evolve rapidly; and (5) it requires strong communication to employees or it creates resentment rather than trust.
