The most common mistake when classifying jobs into equal value categories is that companies start from existing job titles and salary scales, rather than from the actual content of the work itself. Two jobs called "senior mechanic" and "project coordinator" then automatically end up in different categories, even though the tasks, responsibilities and required skills may actually be comparable.
This mistake is persistent because it doesn't feel like a mistake. The existing job titles have existed for years, appear in employment contracts and payroll administration, and therefore seem like a logical starting point. The problem is that these titles have often grown historically, have not been tested against objective, gender-neutral criteria and sometimes already reflect a pay difference that was never examined. Anyone who classifies on that basis confirms the existing classification rather than testing it.
Why this is more than a technical detail
The Directive requires classification into categories of equal work or work of equal value, based on criteria such as skills, effort, responsibility and working conditions. This is a substantive test, not an administrative one. If the classification in practice amounts to "everyone with the same job title sits in the same group", then there is a real risk that jobs with comparable content but different titles are kept separate unfairly. This strikes at the very purpose of the classification: to make visible whether equal work is also paid equally.
A second, less visible variant of the same mistake is that the criteria are named but never weighted or documented. It might say somewhere that "responsibility" counts, without making clear how much weight it carries compared to, for example, working conditions. When an employee submits a request for information or when the classification needs to be explained, the substantiation is then missing.
How this mistake manifests itself in SMEs
In smaller organisations, the classification often emerges informally, via the existing organisational structure or the existing pay scales of a collective agreement. That is understandable: there is no HR department to take this on as a separate exercise, and the existing structure has worked well for years for payroll administration. But a pay scale is designed to order wages, not to demonstrate that work of equal value is also paid equally. Both objectives can coincide, but this is never self-evident and must be substantiated separately.
Another recurring pattern is that the classification is done by a single manager, based on their perception of the jobs, without applying the criteria in the same way for everyone. Here too there is a risk that unconscious assumptions about which jobs are "heavier" influence the classification without anyone recognising it as such.
What an objective classification requires
The core of the solution is simple to state and harder to execute: start with the content of the work, not the label attached to it. Describe for each job what is actually done, what skills that requires, what responsibilities are involved and under what conditions the work takes place. Then compare jobs on that content, regardless of the name given to them or the department they sit in. Only after that follows the classification into categories.
This comparison is precisely what many SME organisations are facing: it's not a legal question, but one that requires a consistent, repeatable method. This is also why job classification in practice is often separated from payroll administration and organised independently, with a fixed set of criteria applied in the same way across the entire organisation. how the categorisation is structured provides the basis for this, regardless of where your own organisation currently stands.
How to recognise the error before it creates problems
A practical indicator is whether you could explain the classification to someone unfamiliar with the job titles. If the answer is "because that's how the scale works", the classification is probably still closer to the existing pay structure than to the actual work content. A second indicator is whether the criteria and their weighting are documented somewhere, or exist only in someone's head.
To see where your organisation currently stands and what steps still need to be taken, you can get an indication of your current situation in a few questions. This is an initial overview, not a judgment on whether your current classification meets the requirements; that assessment ultimately rests with you, possibly with a lawyer, or with the competent supervisory authority.
Developing an objective, gender-neutral classification with the accompanying documentation is part of the paid system around the knowledge base; what that costs and what is included is separate from the free question-and-answer section. How the underlying information is compiled, including where to find it in the official text, you can read via the methodology behind the knowledge base.
Do you want to first see whether this topic is relevant to your organisation and what still needs to be done? The free quick-scan and the knowledge base are available without an account and provide a short answer per topic and the location in the official text.