5 PDQ Mistakes That Ruin Your Job Evaluation Data

5 PDQ Mistakes That Ruin Your Job Evaluation Data

A job evaluation is only as good as the evidence behind it. In a point-factor program, that evidence usually starts with a position description questionnaire. If the PDQ is wrong, the score is wrong. If the score is wrong, the pay grade is wrong, and you inherit a defensibility problem that no spreadsheet can fix later.

Most position description questionnaire mistakes are small, common, and easy to catch. They are also expensive, because they slip through and quietly distort the data your committee relies on. This article walks through the five that do the most damage, shows what each one looks like on the page, and gives you a review step that stops it. You will also see a worked example of the mistake HR teams miss most often: percent of time that does not add up.

TL;DR

• The five costliest PDQ mistakes: describing the person instead of the position, copying generic job description language, writing vague duties, percent of time that does not total 100%, and a supervisor review that rubber-stamps or rewrites the answers.
• Each mistake has a simple, repeatable fix. Build the fix into your form and your review step.
• Catch errors before the evaluation committee sees the form. A bad PDQ costs minutes to correct at intake and weeks to unwind after scoring.

Why PDQ errors matter more than they look

A PDQ documents the job, not the incumbent's performance. Your committee then scores that evidence against compensable factors using the point-factor method. Every factor score traces back to something written on the form. Vague or inflated text produces vague or inflated scores.

Public-sector HR offices, which handle thousands of these forms, publish long lists of reasons they return a PDQ. Iowa's Department of Administrative Services, for example, warns that requests copying class description language will be returned. Nebraska's guide lists blank fields, unsupported percentages, and restated duties as common errors. If you want the full anatomy of the form first, read our guide to the position description questionnaire.

The 5 PDQ mistakes at a glance

Caption: The five position description questionnaire mistakes that corrupt job evaluation data, with the fix for each one.

Use this as a checklist at intake. The sections below explain each one.

Mistake 1: Describing the person instead of the position

This is the most common error, and it is natural. Employees know their own work and want credit for it. So they write about what they do well, what they added on their own, and how hard they work.

The problem is that job evaluation scores the position, not the person. Nebraska's instructions ask for the duties and responsibilities assigned to the position under review. A PDQ full of personal initiative makes one role look bigger than it is, and the next incumbent inherits a grade they cannot justify.

• What it looks like: "I always go above and beyond and have built the whole reporting process myself."
• The fix: Put one rule at the top of the form: "Describe what the position requires, not how well the current employee performs it." Ask for extra work that was never assigned to be flagged separately.

Mistake 2: Copying the job description

Copied text feels safe. It is already approved, and it saves time. It also tells the reviewer nothing new. Class specifications and job descriptions are broad and generic by design. The PDQ exists to capture what is specific about this seat.

Nebraska's guide says plainly not to copy duties from the class specification. South Dakota's Bureau of Human Resources tells employees to write in their own words rather than copy class specifications or existing PDQs.

• What it looks like: The duties section matches the old job description word for word.
• The fix: Tell employees to use the job description only as a memory aid. At intake, compare the two documents and return any form that is a copy.

Mistake 3: Vague duties with no evidence

"Assists with," "handles," and "responsible for" tell a reviewer nothing about scope. Iowa specifically flags vague verbs such as assist, direct, and assign when they appear without an explanation of what is done and how. Nebraska adds that independent decisions should describe the actual decision, its impact, and how errors are corrected. Simply restating the duty does not count.

Strong answers carry a number, a limit, a frequency, or a consequence.

These payroll examples are fictional. For a longer set of before-and-after rewrites, see how to fill out a position description questionnaire.

• The fix: Add a worked example to your form. Train reviewers to send back any duty that has no number, limit, frequency, or consequence.

Mistake 4: Percent of time that does not add up

Percent of time drives how your committee weights the duties. If the numbers are wrong, the emphasis is wrong. The most common failure is a total that is not 100%.

Forms rarely catch this for you. Iowa notes that its form calculates the total but shows no error when the total is off, so someone has to check by hand. Nebraska's guide treats unsupported percentages as a common error and, in its own form, expects the column to total between 90% and 100%. Your organization should set its own rule and state it on the form. The worked example below shows the check.

• What it looks like: Five duties that add to 120%, or a list that stops at 85% because a duty was forgotten.
• The fix: Make the total visible and automatic, or add it up at intake. Round to the nearest 5%, because false precision such as 43.7% suggests the number was invented.

Mistake 5: A supervisor review that rubber-stamps or rewrites

The supervisor's review is the second chance to catch errors, and it is often wasted in one of two ways. Some supervisors sign without reading. Others "fix" the incumbent's answers directly, so the committee never sees where the employee and supervisor disagree.

Nebraska's guidance for supervisors and managers is clear. Leave the employee's responses unchanged. State whether you agree or disagree, and add clarifying information in the review section or as an attachment. If several levels review the form, identify who wrote each comment. Supervisors also have a specific job in the PDQ review: Iowa expects them to identify the essential functions of the position.

• What it looks like: A signature and no comments, or answers rewritten in a different voice from the rest of the form.
• The fix: Give the supervisor a separate review section with three prompts: Do you agree with the duties and percentages? What is missing or overstated? Which duties are most critical? Plan on about 20 to 30 minutes. That figure is a practical planning estimate, not a published standard.

Worked example: fixing a percent-of-time table

Here is a fictional payroll specialist form that came back from an employee. It is an illustration, not real data.

Caption: A worked example of a PDQ percent of time table that totals 120% and the corrected version that totals 100%.

The first draft lists five duties: process payroll 50%, reconcile to the ledger 30%, answer employee pay questions 20%, maintain tax and garnishment records 10%, and support audits 10%. Add them: 50 + 30 + 20 + 10 + 10 = 120. The form claims 20% more time than a workweek holds.

The reviewer asks the incumbent to think about a typical month and trim. The corrected table reads 45% processing, 20% reconciling, 15% employee questions, 10% tax records, and 10% audits. The arithmetic now works: 45 + 20 + 15 + 10 + 10 = 100.

Notice what changed. The ranking of duties stayed the same, but the weights now reflect a real workweek. That matters when your committee scores the job.

Build a PDQ review step that catches all five

You do not need a long process. You need a short one that runs every time.

1. Check completeness. No blank fields, a current org chart, and the actual job title.
2. Check the subject. Is every statement about the position, not the person?
3. Check originality. Compare the duties to the job description.
4. Check evidence. Does each major duty show a number, limit, frequency, or consequence?
5. Check the math. Do the percentages total 100%?
6. Check the supervisor section. Is there a real agree-or-disagree statement, with the employee's answers untouched?

Run these six checks before the form reaches the committee. If you are deciding which instrument to use in the first place, our comparison of PDQ vs PAQ explains the tradeoffs. For how scoring uses the answers, see our job evaluation questionnaire guide.

PointFactors flags problems such as percent of time that does not total 100 before a questionnaire reaches your committee, so you spend your review time on judgment, not arithmetic. See how it works in a demo.

FAQ

What are the most common position description questionnaire mistakes?

The most common are describing the person instead of the position, copying the job description, writing vague duties, percent of time that does not total 100%, and a supervisor review that rubber-stamps or rewrites the answers.

How do I check if a PDQ is accurate?

Read it as a stranger would. Confirm each duty has a number, limit, frequency, or consequence, the percentages total what your form requires, and the supervisor has stated agreement or disagreement. Compare the duties to the job description to rule out copying.

Should percent of time always equal 100%?

Many organizations require exactly 100%. Iowa's form instructions say the total must equal 100% and note that the form will not warn you if it is off. Nebraska's form expects a total between 90% and 100%. Pick one rule for your organization and print it on the form.

What should a supervisor do when they disagree with the employee's PDQ?

Leave the employee's answers unchanged. Record the disagreement in the supervisor review section and explain why. The committee then sees both views and can resolve the difference, which Nebraska's guidance supports.

How long should a supervisor review take?

Plan on about 20 to 30 minutes per form. This is a planning estimate from practice rather than a published standard, so adjust it after a pilot.

Can I return a PDQ that copies the job description?

Yes. Iowa returns requests that copy class description language, and South Dakota tells employees to use their own words. Returning the form early is cheaper than correcting scores later.

Do PDQ mistakes affect pay equity?

They can. If similar jobs are documented with very different levels of detail or inflated language, the scores will diverge for reasons unrelated to the work. Consistent forms and consistent review protect internal equity, which is a separate concept from regulatory pay equity.

How often should PDQs be reviewed?

Iowa's DAS recommends reviewing standardized PDQs at least once every five years. Review sooner when a job changes in a substantive way, and document what changed.

Fix the data before you score it

Five checks catch nearly every costly PDQ error: subject, originality, evidence, math, and a genuine supervisor review. Make them part of intake, and your job evaluation data gets cleaner without adding much work.

Ready to move from clean questionnaires to defensible pay grades? Start free with PointFactors to see a job move from questionnaire to point-factor score, or review pricing to plan your rollout.

Justin Hampton, founder and CEO of PointFactors, writes about job evaluation, pay structure, and compensation strategy for HR leaders and compensation analysts.