Ears to Hear: Three Levels of Listening for Compensation Pros

An interesting post at the HBR blog got me thinking about the importance of listening for compensation and HR professionals and the impact that learning to practice "higher level" learning can have on our work.  In considering some of the listening lessons my own experience has taught me, I came up with my own hierarchy of compensation listening levels, highlighted below for your consideration and reaction.  In an effort to connect each level to compensation reality, I have used the example of a manager approaching you with concerns about an employee (John) who has reached the maximum of his assigned salary range.

Level One: Pretend Listening (aka the tune out)

At this level, the listener is only pretending to hear what is being said, having essentially tuned out the manager after her opening line because it's the same old complaint the listener has heard time and again.  You know your program is right and the manager's concerns are simply a factor of her not understanding.  So you do your best to assume an interested listening pose and then, when she stops (or perhaps just stops for a breath), you plug and play your standard tape on salary range design and overpaid employees.

Here I go again, explaining our salary range and salary increase programs to another manager...

Level Two: Defensive Listening (aka listening with an agenda)

Here you are listening, but for the purpose of picking up enough of the context and key facts to tailor your talking points to the manager's circumstances and concerns.  You're hearing her, true, but not at a deep level because your intent is simply to understand well enough to hone your message in explaining and defending current policy.

Now that I understand John's work and performance history, I can better explain why we have a policy - via salary ranges with set maximums - of holding base salaries to a level of 20% above the market rate.  And I can make some informed suggestions regarding what the company believes are options that employees in this situation should consider.

Level 3: Learning Listening (listening to learn and understand)

At this level of listening, you put aside the urge to explain or defend current policies and practices and focus on deep inquiry and understanding. Try to escape the bonds of program ownership and adopt a beginner's mind.  Be curious and inquisitive; seek to see the situation through the eyes of the manager and employee.  Not because they're right and you're wrong, but because it's a learning opportunity for you. You may not discover anything that changes the short term reality - the employee may still face a capped base salary - but practicing this level of listening may bring other benefits.  It will help you gain the trust and respect of those who bring their concerns to you.  It will also broaden and sharpen your understanding of the larger talent management system in which your pay programs operate.

We have lots of employees in John's shoes.  What levels of engagement and motivation are they bringing to their jobs?  What are these employees seeking from their careers - and is there a business case for the company to take extra steps or make extra investments to retain them in their roles?  What challenges and opportunities do such employees present for managers, and how can we best support those managers in responding?

My own observation here: It takes a certain amount of self-confidence, professional maturity and courage to move from Levels 1 and 2 to Level 3.  As young professionals, many of us struggle to escape Level 1 because we believe that the ability to explain and defend policy is the first test of our competence as professionals.  Conversely, and somewhat ironically, it is often through experience and "seasoning" that we become comfortable admitting we don't have all the answers and can open ourselves to listening and learning.

What are your thoughts about better listening?  How do we develop better ears to hear?

Ann Bares is the Founder and Editor of the Compensation Café,  Author of Compensation Force and Managing Partner of Altura Consulting Group LLC, where she provides compensation consulting to a wide range of client organizations.  Ann was recently named President Elect of the Twin Cities Compensation Network (the most awesome local reward network on the planet) and has joined the Advisory Board of the Compensation & Benefits Review, the leading journal for those who design, implement, evaluate and communicate total rewards.  She earned her M.B.A. at Northwestern University’s Kellogg School, is a bookhound and aspiring cook in her spare time.  Follow her on Twitter at @annbares. 

Creative Commons image "Ear" by Travis Isaacs

Comments

[Jim Sillery]

I would add one more level that is sorely missing in most companies, Learning Listening. This means approach a discussion as a conversation with a mindset that the employee may tell you something that you do not know and that you can probably use.

[Ann Bares]

Hi Jim!

Learning listening is already my Level 3 above, but your point is an outstanding one in explaining what this kind of listening actually means!

Thanks for the comment!

[Amy]

This posting is so timely because yesterday afternoon I had a conversation with a manager regarding a group of techs who were (again) complaining about pay being capped. It seems as though every time a new manager joins the group, the issue bubbles up. I started to go down the path of explaining our market driven pay philosophy, which I was ready to espouse before the first sentence came out of her mouth and then stopped myself. Instead, I said "you know, I am a comp professional and so I live and breathe the reality of market based pay where every single job has a minimum and maximum value assigned to it. However, let's take some time to understand the real issues and see where there is common ground and if there is any room to satisfy the groups needs and wants, without abandoning our structure and philosophy." I don't know what made me say that yesterday as that is a brand new approach for me, but your post really reinforces that, in that moment, that was the right thing to do.

[Ann Bares]

Amy:

Thanks for sharing your story - you've set a good example for all of us!

[Jim Sillery]

Correction to above, I meant to say: I would add one more level that is sorely missing in most companies, this puts Learning Listening in a different perspective. It is Proactive Listening. This means approaching a discussion as a conversation at the from end of pay program development. By coming in with a mindset that the employee can tell you something that you do not know and that you can probably use, you can increase the perceived value of the program when it is finally delivered.

[Rory Trotter]

Great post, Ann.

Another key reason for taking the option three approach:

If managers feel that you have a rigid compensation philosophy and aren't ever willing to have a discussion around top performers pay, then they start coming up with ways to circumvent your system.

Many managers are very smart - and if they can't give an employee a raise within the existing structure then they will do things like wordsmith job descriptions, exaggerate job duties and responsibilities and give empty title promotions to get the employee into a higher pay grade.

As such, it's much better to really listen to a manager and understand the challenge if he/she comes to you with a concern around reaching the top of the range. Otherwise you become an enforcer rather than a consultant.

As always, thanks for sharing - and keep writing.

Best,

Rory

[Ann Bares]

Rory:

Great point - level 3 listening is more likely to lead to a sense of partnership between you and managers, rather than a sense of you being the enforcer ... either oblivious to or uncaring about their needs. Forcing them to find their own way.

Thanks for the comment and insights!

[E. James (Jim) Brennan]

Quite on point, Ann. Those wanting a longer article on such resolution communications should read "Active Listening" by Carl Rogers, easily found on the Internet.