Opinion Piece: Profiling Mistakes That Cost You More Than You Think

The Silent Saboteurs of Job Profiling (Part 3)

The Real Cost: How Bad Profiling Undermines HR Strategy and Organisational Trust

Chimone Zaayman shares her expert insights

In Parts 1 and 2 of this series, we explored some critical flaws in the job profiling process: the use of vague, ambiguous verbs and the failure to differentiate properly between levels, leading to structural misalignment. In this final instalment, we confront the cascading consequences of these errors and how they quietly sabotage multiple layers of HR strategy.

Poorly written or misaligned job profiles are more than a documentation nuisance. They are a foundational flaw that distorts pay structures, undermines equity, weakens performance management, and fractures trust in HR systems.

Here's how the damage unfolds:

1.         Distorted Salary Structures

When job profiles are underwritten or overwritten, duplicated across levels, or padded with non-core duties, the resulting job evaluations are then graded too low or too high. Because job grades are linked to base pay, these errors directly impact the salary structure by introducing artificial disparities between similar jobs. Employees in different departments may perform comparable work but receive different grades—and consequently, different pay—based solely on the incorrect wording of their profiles.

Incorrectly linked base pay linked to grades then creates internal inequity issues and resistance to any rationalisation of pay structures. Grading becomes reactive rather than principled, undermining the core value of Job Evaluation and leads to misaligned salary survey submissions, skewed market positioning, and flawed compensation strategies.

Organisations either end up then overpaying junior roles or underpaying strategically critical ones—leading to talent retention issues and reputational risk in a competitive employment market.

2.         Broken Career Pathing and Talent Planning

Career paths are only meaningful if the steps between levels are clearly defined. When all levels of a department have the same responsibilities listed—such as "manages operations" or "develops policies" — it becomes impossible to distinguish junior from senior roles.

Without progressive complexity in profiles, succession planning becomes arbitrary. High performers struggle to understand what competencies or responsibilities they need to demonstrate to advance, and internal mobility stalls.

3.         Performance Management Disconnect

Output-based profiles serve as the backbone by developing Key Performance Areas (KPA’s). Yet, when profiles are written, incorrectly so, in a form of Tasklists instead of Outputs, the link between the role (the job) and performance expectations (the person) erodes.

One of the most common mistakes we see is that people confuse KPA’s with KPI’s:

• Key Performance Areas define the broad functional responsibilities in the form of outputs, derived from the job profile (e.g. "Develop and maintain internal and external stakeholder relationships").
• Key Performance Indicators are specific, measurable targets (e.g. "Achieve stakeholder satisfaction score of 90%+").

When this distinction is blurred, performance management becomes inconsistent. Employees may be measured on metrics that don’t align with their actual role, and bonus outcomes become contentious.

4.         Erosion of Trust in HR and the Job Evaluation System

Perhaps the most damaging outcome is the erosion of credibility. Employees quickly notice when grades don't make sense. They question why one position is evaluated higher than another, even when the level of complexity and responsibilities appear similar—or identical.

Once trust in the fairness of the system falters, it becomes harder to implement organisational changes, defend pay decisions, or attract and retain talent. HR loses its strategic footing and is seen as inconsistent or biased.

Final Word

Job profiling is not an administrative exercise. It is a strategic function that shapes the very architecture and roots of all Human Capital systems and processes. When done poorly, the consequences ripple across remuneration design, performance management, talent retention, and workforce morale.

Getting it right requires following correct profiling rules, discipline, clarity, and strategic alignment. Every output written, every responsibility listed, and every profile approved must reflect the true scope and complexity of the role—no more, no less.

If your organisation is serious about building fair, sustainable HR systems, it starts with rigorous, defensible job profiling. For guidance and training on best practice, contact 21st Century or reach out directly to Chimone Zaayman for expert advice and support.

Total Words: 712