E13
===

[00:00:00] Andrew Hibel: Welcome to the HigherEdJobs podcast. I'm Andy Hibel, the chief operating officer, and one of the co-founders of HigherEdJobs.

[00:00:06] Kelly Cherwin: And I'm Kelly Cherwin, the director of editorial strategy here at HigherEdJobs. So I have the pleasure of working with Chris Lee as one of our regular contributors. Chris is the chief human resource officer at the college of William and Mary.

And today we are going to be discussing the topic of diversity zoom search committees. Today's disrupted job search. So Chris, we're gonna be starting talking about your, your new book, ‘The Performance Conversations. How Do You Use Questions to Coach Employees, Improve Productivity and Boost Confidence Without Appraisals.’ Andy and I really enjoyed your book.

So our, our first question is what prompted you to write this book?

Christopher Lee: I won't bore you. The long story of starting this in around 2002, 2003 timeframe when I worked at Bates College in Maine and the new CEO wanted to install performance appraisals, the college and the college had a [00:01:00] new system called the document created by the previous president.

And so I disagreed with the approach. And if you disagree with your CEO, you, you probably should come correct it. So I started researching how and why this new approach we were doing was the right way. And I haven't stopped since. So I published the first book in 2006, called “Performance Conversations: An Alternative to Appraisals.”

And then really 2.0 is the new book, which extends the previous book and adds a couple additional techniques of doing an alternative approach to performance management, it's called a performance improvement system, a fundamentally different way of thinking about the role and responsibility of performance management.

And it's about helping people get better, perform better and feel better about their work. Not about trying to give a rating, look backwards, document performance.

[00:01:54] Andrew Hibel: Do performance appraisals accomplish what they set out to do and why?

[00:01:58] Christopher Lee: Nope. They don't. [00:02:00] All kinds of research in and outside of higher ed in and outside of the workplace on the idea of labeling or rating people really doesn't work, because ratings are judgment. Feedback, not evaluation is the mantra. It's about giving people information about how they're doing and allowing them to calibrate, readjust, and to work better. It's coaching. That's the metaphor. The metaphor is how do you coach people to increasingly a higher level of performance?

That's the goal. Traditional appraisals, again, they are judgemental, you know, they can be very negative. They're past oriented that says, okay, Chris, you didn't do good yesterday, but it didn't tell you how I need to do better tomorrow. You need a coach to do that right. To kinda diagnose. And Chris needs to be interacted in that process to say, well, I don't fully understand.

Or the instructions I've received. Aren't they're not resonating with me. I don't really know what to do, but Chris is not gonna say I know what I'm gonna do if you're gonna use that information against me. So that's where the judgment and the evaluation [00:03:00] interrupts the ability for, to have earnest conversation, feedback, exchange things can be critical, but I know that it's improvement oriented.

So if you think about a coach metaphor, which is what the book talks about versus a boss metaphor, it gets you. Coaches, aren't known for being nice. They're known for giving it to you straight, but you know, they're trying to help you get better and you perform better, not the old idea, the boss evaluating you or judging you or holding you accountable for things that you can no longer fix.

That happened yesterday. I need to focus on what I'm doing now and tomorrow to perform better and get better.

Kelly Cherwin: So why do you think colleges were kinda stuck in this rut of, of judging and using this performance appraisals and how can we transition to this more performance conversation approach that you're discussing?

Christopher Lee: Well, first it's a shift of mindset and it's a shift of the role and responsibility of the leader. Really the academic side of the house has it kind of closer to correct than the staff side in that [00:04:00] the division chair, the department, head of academic disciplines, you don't really see those folks as a boss of other faculty.

You see them as a facilitator of things. That idea is fundamentally better. The person who's in the role in responsibility of being a leader, their sole role is to help others perform better, to a higher level than they wouldn't have otherwise without having a supporter or a coach. Cause otherwise you're just unnecessary overhead.

If Chris could do it all by himself, then he would need to be in an organization within an organization. I should have supporters. I should have, you know, a cheerleader. I should have a coach. I should have someone helping me get better, perform better, and feel better about work. That's what a leader does encourage others.

And that's the role and responsibility that we need to have in the 21st century. Millennials love it, baby boomers, you could say, Hey man, you're a B plus work hard for a year. I'll see you. Next September. Millennials will be gone by the end of the month. They would've already applied for 12 [00:05:00] jobs on HigherEdJobs and found someone who's much more supportive of them.

The role and responsibilities are different. Millennials want a coach someone who's in their corner who has their back who's gonna give them frank and earnest communication and feedback about what they can do to get better. And that's really what it's all about. So for all of you

[00:05:19] Andrew Hibel: So for all of you baby boomers out there and when we throw gen X, gen Z and, and millennials in there as well, we at HigherEdJobs wanna know what you think of this?

How would you like having a coach as opposed to a boss, make sure to email us at podcast@higheredjobs.com or tweet us @HigherEdJobs, let us know what your thoughts are. We want to hear.

A powerful quote from your book struck us. It was from Sobel and Panas. “People want to be heard. Studies are quite clear that we care most about people who listen to us. People crave two things above all else. They seek appreciation and they want someone to listen.” Why do you think it's so important for leaders to acknowledge this need?

[00:05:56] Christopher Lee: Well, higher ed gives us a good metaphor for this, it's teaching and [00:06:00] learning. I teach you all day. That didn't mean you've learned. So someone listening to you is that opportunity for that feedback loop to happen.

In that way, the manager can adjust because it's really the manager's responsibility to adjust because if your leadership style is not supporting the style needed by the subordinate, then somebody has to adjust. If the goal is to help the subordinate get better. So listening is part of the holy grail.

Listening says, okay, I get it. You know, I'm giving you feedback and I'm giving you deadlines and I'm giving you this, but you are not receiving it in the way I intended. So listening is important. And of course, active listening, all the research and science behind that supports that endeavor. But on a separate level, listening says one very important thing, I actually care about what you have to say, I actually care about you.

And that's a part of the relationship that's necessary for the coach performer dynamic to thrive. Think about the old [00:07:00] appraisal. It was designed for me to give you a rating. I really didn't want you at that point to gimme any feedback, cause you're gonna debate the rating and my conclusions, the environment, the whole setup is wrong.

I'm underperforming. Not because I'm not good. It's because I don't have a good coach or I got problems with my coworkers or all kinds of other things. W.Edward Deming who fathered TQM. He talks about seven different variables and the individuals only one. So the point is those other six variables could be in place.

We need to create an environment for Chris to say, I need help. I don't understand. I'm I'm not feeling good today. All kinds of other things. And for the leader to listen and then respond accordingly. Do I need to pat you on the back or kick you in the butt? Do I need to give you more explicit details? Do I need to get outta your way?

You know, having a coaching relationship in the environment where we're exchanging information and I'm listening, creates the space for us to adjust, to help Chris do his very best work, which is the whole goal.

Kelly Cherwin: If I'm hearing you correctly, I think you're saying that there's [00:08:00] not a one size fits all approach.

Like you said, you have to respond differently. And I love that you're talking about active listening and it's not just about listening, but truly understanding, and then implementing that on both sides on both the employee and the manager has to be accountable. So that's, that's great.

Christopher Lee: Yes. And we are gonna equip the employee to come to the conversation.

We're gonna give them questions in a framework, just like we're gonna help the manager so they can come together and have a structured conversation, a productive conversation. So performance conversation methods is all about a series of brief structured conversations about the things that matter most. So a series, their schedule every four to 16 weeks, four weeks for rookies and new employees, 16 weeks for veterans and superstars and in the middle for others, depending on what they need, as well as the kind of work they're doing, some move faster than others.

So brief 20 to 30 minutes. Structured. We got a plan for that conversation. We got some questions and tools to help you frame those conversations, to make sure that they're appointed and that they're useful. [00:09:00] And also it's conversations. It's two-way back and forth. Now here's the interesting thing about it.

Everybody knows organically, even though we may not acknowledge it consciously that one of the most effective tools in the history of humankind, is the ability to ask good questions. So if you go to the doctor, what does the doctor do to diagnose your condition? Ask you questions. Lawyers interrogate witnesses with questions, police officers investigate with questions, scientists, the whole purpose of a university is to advance knowledge. It is the scientific method form a research question, a hypothesis, and test it out. Your whole purpose for being around higher ed jobs is to help people get employment. What do we do to determine who gets a job? We ask them a series of structured questions called an interview.

Should we also use that technique to determine if you perform well to understand how or why you're hitting the mark or not? And how might we adjust? [00:10:00] So that's the framework we're operating within utilizing proven management tools within a framework to create the success we want a performance improvement system.

[00:10:10] Andrew Hibel: Here's the question that rains on everybody's parade. We all, I think get a lot out of work that is non-monetary, but yeah, at the end of the day, we all have to make a living. And the performance appraisal has in, in many ways, been part of the staple of a compensation evaluation for employees. So for those people who are out there, let's take a break for the parade because it's gonna rain a little bit.

How within the performance conversation process, show us the pathway as to how will compensation decisions be made within this process?

[00:10:41] Christopher Lee: Right. Well, in the new book, I don't spend much time talking about money because in the first book there's a chapter at the end called ‘The Truth About Money,’ which debunked the whole idea of how we use, uh, appraisals to make decisions around money.

I've documented 23 different variables that are used to determine a person's pay performance management is [00:11:00] only one. So the truth about money is that we say that if you perform at this level, you will get this reward. That is not true because there are 22 other factors that will come into play. Last year was a good example.

Many organizations were thinking about going out of business, thinking about laying off people in all kinds of things. Many organizations did not offer an increase because of the economy and what was going on. So that violates the basic principle of pay for performance. Also, if you're in a profession that is high demand, people tend to give you more than if you are in a profession that is more stable.

If you are on a team with Michelle Jordan or Michael Jordan, you might get paid less because your reference point is different. Your supervisor, we're assuming your supervisor is fair, they're unbiased and they can actually evaluate performance correctly. The research shows that is not the case. We also show that in some organizations, some managers rate everybody as an A, and as you make mistakes, you go down.

Other managers rate, everybody's a [00:12:00] C and you do things and you go up and other organizations, if you above the midpoint, you get less because we're slowing people down. If you’re, before the midpoint, we accelerating you. That's a basic compensation technique. And a whole bunch of other, other variables. Those are off the top of my head.

There are 23 different variables that determine how a person gets paid. But the other thing is, oh, managers do this all the time as a chief HR guy, I hate this idea. We price the market at this, and that's what we wanna pay and the manager disagrees. So at the first opportunity of an appraisal, they inflate the value of a person's rating in order to get to an economic end.

So the tail is wagging the dog. All kinds of reasons, why it's a bad idea. And so I, I would recommend against it being a linear design system to say, here's the answer, because that is not the whole truth. And it's never the truth, and employees know that some people worked hardest ever last year because of the crazy world we were in, but their organization offered noincreases.

So it just violates the basic principles [00:13:00] of, of a complete, accurate portrayal of how we make compensation decisions. One last.

[00:13:05] Andrew Hibel: As a candidate, what should I be asking about performance appraisals versus performance conversations? And as an employer, what should I be saying?

[00:13:13] Christopher Lee: So two parts of a whole. One is the culture of the organization and how they view people's contributions and how they value employees and all of that really, really matters.

The, is really intensive evaluation of the leader, his, or herself. Because I always say to people, if I were to wish anything for you in your life and to be successful is to win the boss lottery because having the right leader determines your opportunities for promotion, additional compensation, fulfillment, professional development, and you know, it's kind of a crapshoot.

You have a manager who does not have the right skillset and mindset. You can't succeed. And you have some other managers who are total advocates for you. Right. You know, Kelly, I mean, they're a champion, they're sponsored, they're cheerleader. They go out for [00:14:00] you. They help you. They find opportunities. They give you stretch assignment and you grow your performance can be exactly the same between the two different managers, but the outcomes are different.

So I say that winning the boss lottery of these most important thing that never happened, I'm sure anyone who's successful as you or I are. We're the recipient of a great boss or two that we had in the past. But the point about this is, interview the organization and the leader as they're interviewing you. That is part of the success in the hiring process.

Kelly Cherwin: Thank you, Chris for such valuable information.

[00:14:31] Andrew Hibel: Thank you Chris, for your time. I think if you're looking at a job search, it's hard to argue. It's not disrupted, but if you look at your core skills that you used prior to 2020, you'll realize they're very applicable today.

Understand the technology and understand that the schools that you're applying for jobs with are trying to adjust to it just like you. Be patient. Thanks for listening.