Global Grading

Making a global grading framework usable

A global grade describes the relative scope of work across an organisation. It provides a common reference for jobs in different countries, but it does not mean that every country should pay the same salary. The grade framework, local salary structures and benefit policies need explicit connections so managers understand what is globally consistent and what varies by market.

Start with reference roles

Choose roles that represent different functions, countries and levels of responsibility. Use their actual accountabilities to test proposed grade definitions. Local titles can be misleading: a director in one business may have a different scope from a director elsewhere. Document the reasons for each mapping and resolve disputed cases through calibration rather than negotiation over status.

Manage legacy grades and exceptions

Build a crosswalk between existing grades and the new structure, identifying cases that require individual review. Avoid an automatic translation based only on salary or title. Some roles may need better job information before a reliable decision can be made. A controlled exceptions register helps distinguish temporary transition arrangements from continuing design choices.

Does a global grade require a pay change?

Not automatically. Grade alignment establishes the role framework; pay decisions require separate assessment of local market evidence, current salary, affordability and relevant employment arrangements. Communicating this distinction early helps prevent employees interpreting a mapping exercise as a promise about pay.

What sustains the framework?

Named owners, a clear job-evaluation process and regular calibration are essential. New roles, acquisitions and significant changes in accountability should follow the same evidence standard. The implementation pack should include grade definitions, reference jobs, mapping decisions and manager guidance, linked to the wider job architecture and pay structures.