For your review, here is version 2 of the “job decision model”. Take a gander at the whole thing and then I’ll highlight key areas.
I like what I’ve tagged as “trend icons” but in reality, they’re a calculated comparison between a current job and then the identified job opportunities.
Another item is the “weight differential”. Once the weights – which really to represent the aspects you care more about – are applied, I thought it valuable to see the difference in the rated result.
[You can also see the difference in the “trend icons”, too!]
Also, a very key thing is the actual ability to “weight” the various factors. After considering a few approaches, the best seemed to a simple option to allow users to assign their own percentages and then to do a flat calculation between qualitative and quantitative factors. You can also note that the field which is be 100% to show it’s been completed has conditional formatting – if it’s not 100% it will turn red.
Lastly, the Quantitative Factors are not directly inputted by the user. There are actually two tabs to this model: an input sheet (not shown) and the result sheet above. Let me show it to you and then we’ll talk about it.
The way the calculations work are with “steps”. For example, if someone has a target salary of $50,000 and the Base Compensation has been assigned steps according to 10%, that results in three things:
- An example salary range of $45,000 – $55,000 will represent a step (10% of 50,000 up/down, both directions).
- Hitting within that example range, since the target was $50,000, represents a ranking of 4 [4 = great, but not excellent, and there’s a reason for this].
- If hitting the target were to equal a 5, there would be no way to represent an opportunity that has exceeded expectations – therefore, that’s why meeting the target is still only a 4.
The charts (because charts are always necessary)
Overall, this is what it looks like:
And what I call the QQ Chart, Qualitative versus Quantiative:
Notes on future changes
There are some items which I think can be folded together like Paid Holidays and Paid Sick Days — however, the combination of that would shift it out of the “quantitative” area and push it to “qualitative”. That said, another approach would be to combine Paid Holidays + Paid Sick Days + Vacation Days into PTO (Paid Time Off) which could then be considered as a block and remain in the quantitative area.
Separately, in looking at the final version, I think it could be simplified much further. That’s for two reasons:
- Some of the areas feel too specific (a split 401k consideration between qualitative and quantitative; office location and commute, industry stability) and this shouldn’t be an onerous activity
- My biggest fear on models is that specificity often gives the appearance of certainty – and that is not the case here. This, at best, gives you a frame to get a sense of whether or not a job could be a step in the right direction, but it’s not a guarantee, not at all.
If you enjoyed this article and found it helpful, please make sure to pass it along to a friend. Also, reach out and let’s continue the conversation.