How one vague verb can sabotage the integrity of job evaluations

Image source: Illia Uriadnikov – 123RF.com

While seemingly innocuous, this one word regularly finds its way into profiles and causes measurable damage to the fairness and accuracy of job evaluation outcomes.

This article focuses on one of the most overlooked yet impactful issues in profiling: unclear language, and how it creates grading inconsistencies that ripple across all HR and remuneration processes.

Job evaluation supports organisational design, defines career paths, informs reward and recognition frameworks, and shapes performance management — ultimately aligning roles to the organisation’s strategy and objectives. The impact of incorrectly graded positions is therefore far-reaching and significant.

Why "ensure" is a silent saboteur

The word “ensure” may sound professional, but it introduces uncertainty around accountability and level of work. In the context of evaluation, where grading depends heavily on clarity of output, imprecise language opens the door to misinterpretation, often leading to overgrading or undergrading of roles.

Poor example: “Ensures delivery of monthly reports to management.”

This phrase lacks detail. It prompts evaluators to guess or make assumptions:

• Is the person producing the report?
• Merely reviewing it?
• Approving it before submission?
• Or just following up to see that someone else does it?

Better example: “Prepares and submits monthly reports for approval by senior management.”

This version communicates the jobholder’s exact contribution, making it possible to accurately evaluate the level of accountability vs responsibility, complexity, decision-making, and skill required.

Talent Acquisition

Why traditional job descriptions aren't cutting it in today's workplace

1 Nov 2023

Why it matters: Grading depends on clarity

In job evaluation, precision matters. Profiles are not evaluated in isolation—they are benchmarked, compared, and aligned across an entire organisational structure.

If two profiles says “ensures delivery”, it becomes difficult to differentiate true levels of work—especially when the vague profile may unintentionally reflect more authority than it actually holds.

The result:

• Overgraded jobs, which inflate pay and distort internal equity
• Undergraded jobs, which damage morale and fairness
• Misaligned grades, which compromise benchmarking and defensibility

In essence, when verbs are unclear, the integrity of the evaluation framework is compromised, which in turn compromises the integrity of all the other HR and remuneration processes that rely on accurately graded positions.

Responsibility vs accountability: The core distinction

The misuse of "ensure" also blurs the distinction between responsibility (doing the work) and accountability (owning the outcome).

Artificial Intelligence

AI in action: How creative industries are evolving with new roles and job titles

Karabo Ledwaba  31 Oct 2024

A soccer team analogy:

The players share the responsibility of winning all the matches. But if the team consistently loses, it is the coach who gets fired. Why? Because the coach is accountable. Responsibility can be shared, and accountability is where the buck stops.

In profiling terms:

• A junior may execute tasks
• A mid-level role may coordinate and supervise
• A senior role may review, approve and be held accountable

The verbs we choose need to make those boundaries explicit.

Every sentence within the description of a key performance area (KPA) should begin with a clear, unambiguous, present-tense verb that signals output, level of autonomy, and degree of decision-making.

Poor example: "Ensures project milestones are met."

Better Example: "Coordinates project activities and tracks progress against milestones."

This clarity directly supports fair and defensible grading.

Final word

In the world of job profiling and evaluation, language is not just communication — it is evidence. Weak or ambiguous phrasing like “ensure” introduces ambiguity, which undermines confidence in the grading system and leads to inconsistent, indefensible outcomes.

This is not a stylistic preference — it’s a structural risk.