The university’s Remuneration Committee of Council requested that a differentiated remuneration system for the executives, currently all on the same grade, remunerated (entry level) on the same percentile of the band (Peromnes, P3 grade) be investigated. The objectives of this study were to determine: (i) the utility of a 270° job evaluation methodology used to differentiate between the executive positions in the university; (ii) the reliability of the process by determining the degree of agreement between the internal evaluation methodologies used and the external, independent measurement, and (iii) whether these results differentiate between the positions. The 270° job evaluation methodology used in this study comprised a position rating by the superiors (portfolio managers), a rating by peers and a self-rating, and all of this was validated against a rating (job evaluation) by external consultants, using a standardised approach based on the Patterson job evaluation system. The raw score of this external rating was used, as well as the conversion grade to that of the Peromnes system (the job evaluation and grading system used by the university). Significant positive correlations were reported between the portfolio managers’ ratings, the external job evaluation ratings and the peer ratings, but there was a negative correlation with the self-rating. Three distinct categories of executive director/executive dean position (also referred to in the literature as zones within a grade – in this case Peromnes P3) were determined, namely a lower, midspread and upper category. The methodology used, except the self-rating, was proven to be reliable, if measured against the independent, external measure.