As part of a broader initiative within the United Nations system to simplify and clarify job evaluation and build linkages to other HR processes, UNAIDS agreed to participate in a pilot project to link job evaluation and performance management criteria. Through such a linkage of job grading and performance measures, it was intended to assess how individual staff serving at the same grade level could be consistently evaluated. Taking such an approach, it was also decided to test the possible use of a multi-rater (360°) framework.
What was the challenge?
The approach to performance appraisal within United Nations agencies is determined by each agency; however, all agencies generally use a method known as MBO—Management By Objectives—based on cascading objectives from the organization to the individual. The structure of the objectives is not linked to the grade of the job, nor is there any process to align objectives across grade levels. This results in a discrete performance assessment for each individual, which can only be completed by the immediate supervisor, limiting the perspectives in performance assessment.
What was the solution?
For the pilot, UNAIDS adopted a new performance management solution that changed the basis of assessment from MBO to using the standards of job evaluation, which provide consistent criteria by grade level. The UN classification standards are based on a simplified and transparent table of values against four factors of classification. A set of corresponding values to measure performance was established to provide clear and consistent measures. The new measures also enabled the testing of the 360-degree feedback, since the standard was easy to understand and relied solely on the evaluators’ experience working with the individual being assessed.
The nomination of peer evaluators was left to each staff member following criteria defining a good cross-section of evaluators, while supervisors reviewed and approved the list on a strictly confidential basis.
Another change under the pilot program was the introduction of a four-point rating scale, replacing the existing five-point scale. The new rating scale was introduced to align more closely with the focus of the assessment, which emphasizes the confirmation of achieving the expectations of the incumbent’s grade level. Using grade-level-specific measures, evaluators were asked to answer three questions:
Did the staff member display competence in the subject area of work?
Did the staff member listen and take into account perspectives from the team and the client?
Did the staff member deliver the needed services/outcome, meeting expectations in terms of timeliness and quality?
An online platform was created for capturing performance data with a review timeframe of five weeks established for the conduct of the exercise.
What was the outcome?
The exercise covered some 400 staff serving in 80 country offices, including staff at UNAIDS headquarters in Geneva. Within five weeks, more than 2,000 evaluations were completed, covering eighty percent of the staff. Examination of the ratings showed a broad correlation between supervisor and peer assessment, validating the multi-rater approach. Participants also indicated the pilot system was generally easily understood and accessible across the user community.
As a comparison, the prior system used by UNAIDS achieved just a six percent completion rate over twelve months.
What’s the takeaway?
Linking performance to the same factors used to evaluate jobs and anchoring them to what makes their job level distinct simplifies performance management. A simple performance standard facilitates 360° feedback.
You can learn more about Community™ Performance here.
A regional network of civil society organizations in Africa is committed to advocating for fair, equitable, and transparent tax systems across the continent. Through grassroots organizing, capacity building, policy advocacy, and research, the organization empowers communities and institutions to challenge tax injustices and promote sustainable and inclusive development. Coordinating these efforts is its Secretariat, strategically located in Nairobi, Kenya. Given its mandate, attracting, retaining, and developing a multidisciplinary and multinational workforce is essential for the organization to effectively realize its vision of an Africa where tax justice prevails. To achieve this, it partnered with Birches Group to design a grading structure that clearly articulated the differentiation and progression of work in the organization, along with a pay scale guided by a compensation philosophy defining its target market and position.
What was the challenge?
The newly established grading and pay structure provided the organization with a solid foundation for managing its diverse workforce based on the principles of equivalent worth and significant difference. To fully utilize this structure, the organization recognized the need for a comprehensive framework to manage individual pay progression within salary ranges, inform promotion decisions, and recognize employees’ varying levels of experience and knowledge.
The challenge was two-fold: bridging the structural framework with the people within it, and establishing sustainable pay equity practices to maintain fairness and effectiveness over time.
What was the solution?
Guided by the principle of equal pay for work of equal value, the organization, in collaboration with Birches Group, implemented a clear and transparent framework to address both challenges. This framework, Community™ Skills, expands upon the principle by explicitly defining the knowledge gained through experience as the primary determinant of value. In this approach, equity involves consistently and transparently measuring and remunerating the value of experience—recognizing that individuals have varying levels of experience and should be compensated proportionately.
Through Community™ Skills, the organization established a framework with clear criteria for pay management by articulating the progression of knowledge across five distinct stages—Basic, Proficient, Skilled, Advanced, and Expert. Each stage directly aligns with specific pay points: Minimum, 1st Quartile, Midpoint, 3rd Quartile, and Maximum, respectively. By adopting this structured approach, the organization has achieved greater clarity, consistency, and precision in managing workforce compensation and career progression.
What was the outcome?
A persistent gap in HR has traditionally been the disconnect between structure and capacity—the divide between what is considered “hard” vs “soft” HR. By building upon a solid job-based foundation and integrating a skills-based approach, the organization effectively bridged this gap. This resulted in a systematic and efficient approach to managing resources for salary increases and provided actionable insights into workforce capabilities. It also positioned the organization to make informed promotion decisions and to strategically reinforce skills growth through targeted learning and development.
What’s the takeaway?
Now in its fifth year of implementing the Community™ Skills framework, this regional network of civil society organizations in Africa serves as a prime example of how there is an alternative to the conventional, often imprecise practices of utilizing time-based steps or performance as proxies for experience. Instead, it explicitly measures experience for what it is—knowledge, expertise, and skill—enhancing transparency, fairness, and effectiveness in workforce management.
The Caribbean Development Bank (CDB) is a focused multilateral development bank (MDB) and international organization committed to fostering a strong community for its staff. To remain competitive, CDB has progressively refined its compensation strategy and closely monitored developments among comparator institutions.
What was the challenge?
Competition within the multilateral banking and international organization community can be quite demanding. While being a smaller institution, CDB faces direct competition from organizations such as the World Bank and the United Nations, which have active programs in the same countries where CDB functions. In building its market model for setting salaries for its internationally recruited staff, CDB has found the greatest challenge in market competition has been for its more senior-level staff. CDB recognized that staying competitive in this area is essential to effectively serve the Caribbean region.
What was the solution?
In building the sample of comparator employers against which CDB would examine its levels of compensation, it recognized that the pay progression found in the development banks is indeed more aggressive for senior management roles than in other international organizations. As a result, CDB decided to give greater “weight” to the market data from the development banks, whereby 80% of the market reference would be drawn from these comparators for senior management roles.
What was the outcome?
By placing greater weight on development bank data for senior-level roles, CDB has been able to more closely match the progression of compensation found in these key comparators. Since this adjustment in market assessment was limited to senior roles, CDB has been able to sustain its critical market position in a very cost-effective manner by focusing on these critical roles where there are limited numbers of staff.
What’s the takeaway?
Refining comparator weighting in building the market sample is a very effective approach to targeting and optimizing market position. It enables an organization to focus on critical roles in a broader context of market positioning.
You can learn more about Community™ Market here. To see other client experiences related to optimizing market position, click here.
We are proud to announce that on May 20, 2025, Birches Group successfully achieved SOC 2 Type 2 compliance, marking a significant milestone in our ongoing commitment to data security, privacy, and operational excellence. This certification, awarded by an independent third-party auditor, builds on our previous SOC 2 Type 1 achievement and confirms that our security controls are not only well-designed but also operate effectively over time.
What is SOC 2 Type 2 Compliance?
SOC 2 (Service Organization Control 2) is an auditing standard developed by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). While SOC 2 Type 1 evaluates the design of controls at a specific point in time, SOC 2 Type 2 goes further—assessing the operational effectiveness of those controls over an extended period. This certification validates that Birches Group consistently maintains the highest standards of security, confidentiality, and availability for our clients’ data.
Why SOC 2 Type 2 Matters
In today’s digital landscape, data security is not a one-time effort—it’s a continuous responsibility. As a trusted provider of HR management solutions, Birches Group understands the importance of safeguarding sensitive information. SOC 2 Type 2 compliance gives our clients added assurance that our systems are secure, reliable, and resilient over time. We want to thank our clients for their continued trust and support in Birches Group.
Key Highlights of the Certification:
Security: We continue to implement advanced safeguards to protect against unauthorized access and ensure data integrity.
Confidentiality: Our strict protocols ensure that sensitive client information remains protected and accessible only to authorized personnel.
Availability: Our systems are designed for reliability and uptime, ensuring consistent and uninterrupted service delivery.
“SOC 2 Type 2 certification is more than a badge—it’s a reflection of our long-term commitment to protecting our clients’ data and delivering dependable, secure HR solutions. It shows that our controls are not only well designed, but consistently effective over time.”
—Jeffrey Slater, Co-founder & Partner, Birches Group LLC
Next Steps and our Continuing Journey
SOC 2 Type 2 certification is the result of months of rigorous evaluation, continuous monitoring, and a company-wide dedication to best practices. But our journey doesn’t stop here. Birches Group remains committed to evolving our security posture, staying ahead of emerging threats, and delivering trusted, secure HR solutions to clients around the world.
For more information on SOC 2 Type 2 compliance or to request a copy of our report, please contact us.
In our Q&A spotlight, we explore the insights of a thought leader in workforce management, delving into their experiences in building and sustaining effective workforce strategies.
Katrina Sam is the Head of Performance and Reward at the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), with over ten years of experience in multilateral development, compensation, talent management, and data science. She designs and implements policies and programs aligned with the Bank’s vision and goals. Prior to AIIB, she served as Director of Human Resources and Administration at the Caribbean Development Bank. With a 20-year career in human resources, she has provided services across the Caribbean and spent nine years advising on internal HR practices at one of the Big Four accounting firms.
Q: I want to start with a simple question about the principle of equal pay for work of equal value. How is that, or is that practiced in your organization?
Yes, I think that is a key principle of compensation benefits administration here at AIIB. And it has been a principle for all of the organizations with which I have been associated for the last 20 years.
Q: Well, does that also form part of the management dialog in your organization?
In my current organization, the Bank has repeatedly articulated its commitment to equity, and obviously, as a grounding principle in our compensation and benefits program. It is something that we discuss and that we keep in mind. It is the foundation upon which all our HR practices rest.
Q: Is it well understood by the staff and management that those are the base principles that govern HR in your organization?
Certainly, I’ve been with the institution for three years now. And, in my work and in the projects and the initiatives that I have led over the last three years, we have sensitized staff and managers to this as a core principle and trying to help them to understand what it what it means and how it impacts all of the work that we do in HR and had it permeate the organization in general.
Q: How do you use job evaluation to kind of backstop or support the concept of equal pay for equal work?
For the past 13 months, we’ve been engaged in a job evaluation exercise, grounded in the belief that jobs are the foundation for everything else. By accurately valuing roles and creating a synchronized, equitable job-worth hierarchy, we ensure that all subsequent decisions reflect the principle of equal pay for equal work. We’re also pursuing Edge recertification, which includes annual reviews of gender equity and pay to uphold these values.
Q: How is your organization doing with regard to that?
Very well. We are far below the accepted standard of a 3% gap. With every assessment, our performance improves. Therefore, we are satisfied with our efforts to eliminate anomalies in pay gap analysis and gender-based pay differentiation.
Q: Do you find that your grading structure serves you well in terms of helping support career pathing and clarity around roles and so on?
The Bank is at a pivotal inflection point as it approaches its 10th anniversary early next year. Since its inception, the current structure has largely remained the same, with only a few additional grades introduced since 2016 to support career growth. While this structure has served us well, looking ahead to 2030 and our projected growth, it’s time to revalidate and adjust it to ensure it remains fit for purpose.
Q: The Bank is growing. You’ve doubled in size in the last couple of years, and you want to double again. So, your workforce becomes bigger and more multidisciplinary. Is the current structure still fit to support that purpose?
Well, I’ll let you know at the end of our exercise. But for now, we believe the current structure can accommodate both existing and projected roles. The key focus is ensuring clarity and consistency in how we evaluate and position those roles within the structure. So, while the framework itself is sound, we’re reassessing how we apply and sustain it moving forward.
Q: I understand the Bank is planning to go forward with more hub office locations like the one you have in Abu Dhabi. As you move away from the current models, which focus on international recruitment and international staffing, do you anticipate creating a complementary category of nationally recruited staff?
No, we do not. I can say that confidently.
Q: Last year, we had the pleasure of supporting your market assessment, helping define where the Bank aims to position itself within the international compensation landscape. As this remains an evolving process, how well do you feel the current methodology is serving your goals, particularly in attracting and retaining the talent you need?
The methodology continues to serve us well in maintaining our desired market position. As a global employer, we strive to remain competitive. Unlike some other MDBs, we’re not limited to recruiting from member countries—we draw talent from around the world. Today, our workforce represents over 70 economies, and this inclusive approach has supported our competitiveness and aligned well with our overall philosophy.
Q: Ultimately, the real test of any pay system is whether it enables you to reach the talent markets you’re targeting. It’s always a delicate story, especially given the volatility of the current economic climate. Do you feel the methodology you’re using is robust enough to navigate these challenges and maintain your reach?
We’re confident that our market posture and total rewards philosophy have been robust in getting us to this point. That said, we’re always evolving—continuously monitoring and assessing the market to make timely adjustments. Following our most recent exercise, we believe the updates we’ve made will help us stay competitive in attracting the global talent we’re aiming for.
Q: There’s an ongoing debate within the MDB community around compensation for front-office versus back-office roles. Some organizations support pay differentials within the same grade, while others prioritize a strict equal pay approach to maintain team cohesion. How is AIIB navigating this issue—does the Bank lean toward differentiated compensation or a unified, equal pay for equal work model?
At AIIB, we’ve remained firmly committed to the principle of equal pay for equal work, as workplace harmony is a key priority for us. Our pay ranges are designed to reflect and accommodate role differences, such as front-office versus back-office, without introducing hard distinctions. This approach allows us to fairly manage professional differences within a unified and equitable framework, unlike some organizations that have opted for more segmented compensation models.
Q: Each salary grade at AIIB has a defined range of pay. How does this range allow you to recognize differences in experience and knowledge within a particular grade? Do you feel it adequately acknowledges these factors as it should?
Over the past 12 years, I’ve been fortunate to work with organizations where pay ranges were broad enough to reflect differences in skills and job value, and AIIB is no different. Our ranges are sufficiently wide to accommodate staff along the continuum, allowing us to recognize and reward differentiated skills and the value each individual brings to the table.
Q: Are you seeking to be a career organization where the current structures can support people staying and measuring their development, and the candidates can anticipate building a career here?
Yes, the Bank is in its 10th year, and my colleagues in Learning and Organization Effectiveness are working diligently on building career ladders and defining opportunities. Over the past three years, we’ve promoted more than 40% of our staff, which is notably higher than most MDBs. Our goal is to ensure that staff understand the career opportunities available and know they can have a long, fulfilling career at AIIB.
Q: When providing career opportunities through learning and development programs, do staff perceive the Bank’s approach as equitable in how these opportunities are offered?
From my perspective, particularly with the annual promotion program I oversee, we’ve worked hard over the past four cycles to communicate the criteria for advancement. We’ve set clear thresholds, emphasizing both performance and readiness for the next level. While any organization goes through a period of growth and evolution, staff have become more comfortable with the process, though some still seek further clarity. We strive to consistently communicate the criteria and hold managers accountable for adhering to them when making promotion nominations.
Q: When it comes to recognition and reward, some organizations distinguish between skills growth (recognition) and performance (reward). Does AIIB differentiate between these two, or are they combined into a single assessment?
At AIIB, recognition and reward are closely linked, though we have distinct programs for each. For example, our Applause platform facilitates both peer-to-peer and manager-to-staff recognition for going above and beyond daily expectations. We also have financial reward programs, including high-performer awards and promotions based on performance. While recognition and reward overlap, we maintain separate initiatives, but both are integral to our approach.
Q: When recruiting new staff, do you have effective mechanisms in place to assess candidates’ experience and differentiate them in terms of recruitment ranking or starting salary positioning?
While I’m not directly involved in recruitment, the principles we follow align closely with those in many organizations I’ve worked with, including my experience in executive recruitment. When hiring, we consider efficiency, skill, and experience, particularly in the development space. We recruit from organizations with which we’re familiar, and our ability to attract talent is influenced by external market pressures, our location, and internal pay relativity. These factors guide how we position candidates and make offers.
Q: Given the challenge of forming an international workforce from diverse domestic markets with varying conditions, how do you ensure equity in positioning individuals, especially when salary history may not be a relevant factor?
For us, pay history doesn’t drive our offers. We’ve established grade levels and salary ranges for jobs, and we focus on the skills and value an individual brings to the table. An individual’s nationality or country of origin is not a factor in determining pay; it’s based solely on their proficiency and contribution.
Q: When managing a workforce through their career growth, how closely are the approaches for pay movement, learning and development, and promotion aligned or integrated?
To answer your question, AIIB is still growing and evolving, particularly compared to other multilateral development institutions. One of the strategic decisions that stood out to me when I joined was how the Bank integrated performance and reward into a single portfolio. Unlike many organizations that separate performance management from compensation and benefits, AIIB brings them together, signaling their close interconnection. As a result, our efforts to recognize growth, reward staff, and promote individuals are well integrated, and these factors play a key role in decisions around career advancement and pay increases. So, yes, they are closely linked.
Q: While you have solid frameworks in place, different occupations offer varying opportunities, which can sometimes be seen as an equity issue. How much counseling do you provide staff about realistic expectations, especially since some roles are core to the Bank’s function, while others may be more contingent? Are staff well-informed about what to expect in these areas?
AIIB is still an evolving organization, and many discussions are happening at both individual and departmental levels. Last year, we implemented a strong HRBP function, which is still relatively new. Our HRBPs have been working hard to provide counseling and coaching to both managers and staff. While I’m not involved in all these conversations, I’m available to clarify policies, intentions, and technical details. Ultimately, our HRBPs are on the front line and leading these discussions.
Q: As the Bank has grown and welcomed more members, how do you see its reputation and culture evolving, particularly in terms of fairness and workplace policies? How important is it for both staff and members that AIIB is perceived as a fair and equal place to work?
It’s incredibly important to us. In every interaction with our members and board, we emphasize and demonstrate, with data and insight, that fairness and equality are ideals we’re actively striving to achieve. This focus is at the forefront of all our workforce management efforts and will remain our guiding principle as we move forward.
This interview is part of the inaugural edition of Community Magazine, Birches Group’s publication on workforce management. Subscribe to receive the full issue and future updates. Subscribe here
We use cookies to help us provide you with a positive experience when you browse our website, help improve our content, and to personalize your visit. By continuing to use our website, you agree to our use of cookies as described in our Cookie Notice and Privacy Statement.
