Emotional Labor in Job Evaluation: Redesigning Compensation Practices

Abstract

Few client-oriented organizations compensate those who perform emotional labor. Traditional job evaluation systems, used by employers to construct a wage hierarchy, fail to recognize the value of emotional labor. Through the pay equity movement, this bias was identified. This article offers a technical attempt to design a new job content questionnaire and evaluation framework that measure the actual tasks, activities, and situations in which incumbents of differentially female jobs perform emotional labor. Four general dimensions of emotional labor are discussed: human relations skills, communication skills, emotional effort, and responsibility for client well-being. These instruments offer the most detailed measurement of the components of emotional labor available and represent a starting point for refinement of this increasingly important type of work.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Beatty, R. and J. Beatty. 1984. Some Problems in Contemporary Job Evaluation . In Comparable Worth and Wage Discrimination , ed. Helen Remick. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Benner, Patricia. 1984. From Novice to Expert: Excellence and Power in Clinical Nursing Practice. Menlo Park, CA: Addison-Wesley.

England, Paula and George Farkas. 1986. Households, Employment, and Gender: A Social Economic and Demographic View. New York: Aldine.

Kessler-Harris, Alice. 1990. A Woman's Wage: Historical Meanings and Social Consequences . Lexington: University of Kentucky Press.

Milkman, Ruth. 1987. Gender at Work: The Dynamics of Job Segregation by Sex During World War II. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

Ontario Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal. 1991. Haldimand-Norfolk. No. 6, 2 P.E.R. 105 at 117.

Remick, Helen. 1979. Strategies for Creating Sound, Bias Free Job Evaluation Plans. In Job Evaluation and EEO: The Emerging Issues, ed. Industrial Relations Counselors. New York: Industrial Relations Counselors.

—. 1981. The Comparable Worth Controversy. Public Personnel Management 10:371-83.

—. 1984a. Dilemmas of Implementation: The Case of Nursing . In Comparable Worth and Wage Discrimination , ed. Helen Remick. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

10.

—. 1984b. Major Issues in a Priori Applications. In Comparable Worth and Wage Discrimination , ed. Helen Remick. Philadelphia : Temple University Press.

11.

Riegel, John W. 1937. Wage Determination. Ann Arbor, MI: Bureau of Industrial Relations.

12.

Schwab, D. 1985. Job Evaluation Research and Research Needs. In Comparable Worth: New Directions for Research, ed. H. Hartman. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

13.

Steinberg, Ronnie J. 1984. Identifying Wage Discrimination n and Implementing Pay Equity Adjustments. In Comparable Worth: Issues for the '80s , ed. U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

14.

Steinberg, Ronnie J. and Lois Haignere. 1985. Testimony on Comparable Worth. Testimony before the Subcommittee on Compensation and Employee Benefits, Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, U.S. House of Representatives. 99th Cong., 1st sess., 28 Mar.

15.

—. 1987. Equitable Compensation: Methodological Criteria for Comparable Worth. In Ingredients for Women's Employment Policy, ed. Christine Bose and Glenna Spitze Albany: State University of New York Press.

16.

Steinberg, Ronnie J. and W. Lawrence Walter . 1992. Making Women's Work Visible: The Case of Nursing—First Steps in the Design of a Gender-Neutral Job Comparison System. In Exploring the Quincentenniel: The Policy Challenges of Gender, Diversity, and International Exchange. Washington, DC: Institute for Women's Policy Research.

17.

Taylor, Susan. 1989. The Case for Comparable Worth. Journal of Social Issues 45(4):23-37.

18.

Treiman, Donald. 1979. Job Evaluation: An Analytic Review. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council.

19.

Treiman, Donald and Heidi Hartmann. 1981. Women, Work and Wages: Equal Pay for Jobs of Equal Value. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.