8 min read
Job Architecture 101
For: New and experienced people leaders
A working model for how roles fit together before pay, titles, or promotions enter the conversation.
Step 1 of 4. Start with the work, not the person.
Step 1 of 4
Start with the work, not the person
Most pay conversations are really retention, performance, or leveling stacked together. Pull them apart and each one gets easier.
Most of the toughest comp conversations I've sat through started with the person, not the job. The conversation was really about retention, performance, or pay pressure. Each of those matters. They're separate decisions, with separate evidence, and they'll go better if you keep them apart.
is the system that organizes work. Function, family, , , title, market match. Six layers. Once they're clean, every downstream Total Rewards program (pay ranges, equity bands, promotion criteria, analysis) gets noticeably easier to defend.
- Sara is a senior product designer. She's done excellent work for two years.
- Question 1: Has the job changed? (Same scope, same complexity, same influence pattern.)
- Question 2: Has Sara's performance changed? (Yes, she's now setting design standards across two product areas.)
- If only the answer to Q1 is yes, this is a leveling decision.
- If only the answer to Q2 is yes, this is a performance decision.
- If both are yes, you have two decisions to make in sequence, not one.
Performance, tenure, retention risk, and pay pressure are real. They just aren't the level.
The six layers
Function, family, track, level, title, and market match. Once those six are clean, every downstream comp decision gets easier to defend.
This toolkit uses a six-part working model inspired by public Aon framing and common survey practice. It holds up across messy private-company structures, big-company multi-country structures, and almost everything in between.
FunctionEngineering, Finance, Sales, People
The broad area of work. Functions help leaders see how work clusters across the enterprise.
Manager question: Which business capability does this role primarily strengthen?
Job familySoftware Engineering, FP&A, Account Management
A group of related jobs that use similar skills and career paths. Families keep job matching and career movement clean.
Manager question: What work would this role benchmark against in the market?
Career trackIndividual contributor, people manager, executive
The path by which work increases in value. Strong architectures let experts grow without forcing them into management.
Manager question: Does the role scale through expertise, people leadership, or enterprise strategy?
LevelP4 Advanced, M4 Senior Manager, E2 Regional VP
The relative size of the role based on scope, complexity, autonomy, influence, knowledge, and impact.
Manager question: What is the size of the job, independent of the current employee?
TitleSenior Software Engineer, Director of Finance
The business-facing label. Titles should be consistent, but they should not be the primary evidence for level.
Manager question: Would this title mean the same thing in a different business unit?
Market matchRadford McLagan survey job and level match
The external comparison point used for market pricing. This is where licensed survey tools are strongest.
Manager question: Which external survey role is closest in work, level, and talent market?
| Layer | What it answers | Where it shows up |
|---|---|---|
| Function | Which broad area of work? | Reporting structure, leadership orgs |
| Job family | Which related group of jobs? | Career ladders, market match |
| Career track | How does this role scale value? | IC vs. manager vs. exec ladders |
| Level | How big is the job? | Pay ranges, equity bands, promo criteria |
| Title | What do we call it externally? | Business cards, signatures, LinkedIn |
| Market match | What benchmark applies? | Survey participation, market pricing |
The six layers, top-down
- Layer
- Function
- What it answers
- Which broad area of work?
- Where it shows up
- Reporting structure, leadership orgs
- Layer
- Job family
- What it answers
- Which related group of jobs?
- Where it shows up
- Career ladders, market match
- Layer
- Career track
- What it answers
- How does this role scale value?
- Where it shows up
- IC vs. manager vs. exec ladders
- Layer
- Level
- What it answers
- How big is the job?
- Where it shows up
- Pay ranges, equity bands, promo criteria
- Layer
- Title
- What it answers
- What do we call it externally?
- Where it shows up
- Business cards, signatures, LinkedIn
- Layer
- Market match
- What it answers
- What benchmark applies?
- Where it shows up
- Survey participation, market pricing
Architecture is the spine of Total Rewards
Pay ranges, equity bands, promotion criteria, and pay equity all sit on top of architecture. Skip the architecture and the rest gets fragile.
When architecture is clean, Total Rewards programs line up. Pay ranges connect to levels. Equity grants follow guidelines. Promotions move people between known bands. work groups people into comparable cohorts. None of that is glamorous, all of it is load-bearing.
When architecture is vague, the same questions keep coming up. Why does this role pay more than that one? Why does this title exist at three different levels? Why doesn't our equity guideline match what we just paid the new hire? Every answer that starts with "well, it's complicated" is usually an architecture problem in disguise.
Where Radford and Aon fit
This tool teaches the public model. Aon and Radford do the licensed survey work. Use both for the parts they're built for.
Aon publishes its job-architecture framing openly. The Radford McLagan Compensation Database uses a consistent architecture for job matching, benchmarking, custom peer groups, and executive regression. (See [src/aon-architecture] and [src/rmcd-features] in the methodology page.) That's why I anchored the toolkit on a public-source mental model rather than picking my own.