אין מוצרים בסל הקניות.
אין מוצרים בסל הקניות.
אין מוצרים בסל הקניות.
אין מוצרים בסל הקניות.
09/06/2017
An employee’s listening ability has implications for the effectiveness of the work team, the organization, and for the employee’s own success. Estimates of the frequency of listening suggest that workers spend about 30% of their communication time listening. However, the ability to listen might be even more important to managers, as empirical evidence suggest that they spent more than 60% of their time listening. Hence, success of both the employee and the manager in communication, and thus in the organization, rests in part on possessing good listening abilities.
Although listening is a complex phenomenon, it appears that people perceive it holistically. That is, people seem to feel in a split second whether the person with whom they interact listens or not. It seems that speakers perceive how well they are listened based on multiple “backchannel” signals sent by the listener. Furthermore, it seems that speakers develop this perception based on three listener’s behavior: attention, compression, and intention (ACI). First, speakers monitor the attention of their listeners. If speaker sees that the listener is busy with anything else (e.g., Smartphone) than paying attention to the speaker, they perceive poor listening. Yet, attention is not sufficient. Speakers gauge from the total behaviors of the listener whether the listener comprehends the message, as the speaker understands it. Related to the perception that one is being understood is the relationship intent of the listener. It seems that speaker ask themselves “Is this person caring about me, and accepting me the way I see myself, or trying to find faults in my message, or even taking advantage of me?” Thus, although people “know” when they are being listened to, it seems that they quickly gauge ACI: attention, understanding (comprehension), and relational components (benevolent intention towards the speaker). This seems to capture what employees
mean when saying “Listen to me!”
When people listen well, they create many of benefits both for themselves and for their interlocutors, according to theories and empirical data. High quality listening enables speakers to (a) elaborate on an event, (b) connect emotionally to it, and (c) become more self-aware. As a result, high quality listening makes speakers, talk more fluently, coherently, and produce more interesting narratives. This process consequently influences speakers’ self-knowledge and memory of these narratives. Moreover, experiencing high quality listening sends the speaker a signal that she is interesting and worthy of attention, thereby increasing personal growth. Furthermore, it has been shown that the non-judgmental nature of high quality listening frees speakers from self-presentational concerns, which increases their psychological safety and reduces their social anxiety. In addition, perception of good listening is positively associated with job satisfaction, relational satisfaction, and better mood, including higher positive affect, lower negative affect, and lower job burnout, to name a few. More so, perceived listening quality is positively correlated with objective measures of performance. This is because good listeners have the opportunity to learn more from others and are able to see how others experience and make sense of the world. This, in turn, leads them to gain more knowledge and broaden their perspective, thereby improving performance. For example, sales people in the financial industry who are perceived by their customers as good listeners sell more. In addition, good listeners are better liked by their interlocutors, and better trusted; this is because listeners who listen well show their interlocutors that they care about what they think and what is on their minds, which in turn builds trust between the listener and the speaker.
Furthermore, leaders who listen well are perceived by their subordinates as more concerned with their subordinates’ well-being. This leads subordinates of such leaders to perceive them to be high on the ability to lead people, and characterize them as high in people-leadership style. Integrating these benefits for speakers and listeners suggests that good listening can constitute a high-quality connection at the workplace; one that is mutually growth fostering, enhancing and promoting the development of both dyad members as well as the tie between them.
Managers are usually characterized by their strong opinions, decisiveness, and strong attitudes. However, much less attention is devoted to managers’ ability and willingness to listen to their employees. Managers become accustomed to speaking rather than listening to their employees, thus, it is no surprise that many managers struggle with their listening ability. This struggle derives from the fact that listening is like a muscle, in order to develop it, a manager has to practice it. Hence, we next offer recommendations for practicing and improving managers’ listening muscle.
The most important step is for the manager to develop an attitude and make a decision to become a better listener. The result of such an attitude is prioritizing the goal of improving one’s listening skill at the top of the manager’s list. Yet, you are probably not going to adopt such an attitude without experiencing the potential benefits of listening and being listened to. Thus, you can try the next time you have to listen to someone who makes you anxious to interrupt, to announce that you are now in a listening mode, put a timer for three, or even five, minutes, and tell your interlocutor that you are only going to listen. Try it with three different people, and then reflect what have you learned from being silent. Moreover, if you adopt the goal to improve your listening skill, you are likely to fail often. Thus, a concomitant attitude that may help acquiring the skill is the recognition that this skill is hard to acquire and that the failing along the way should be greeted with self-compassion. Once you develop a strong pro-listening attitude, you may find it easier to overcome the urge to interrupt, and to jump into immature conclusions. Such an attitude may enable you to hear the information your employees are trying to share with you.
If the managers’ attention is elsewhere during a conversation, he or she risks sending a message that the employee and what the employee has to say is not important enough. Such incidents occur daily in the modern workplace, for example, when a manager plays with her smartphone during a conversion with an employee. Therefore, every time when people address you, you need to reach a decision. Can I pay attention now? If the answer is yes, dedicate your time to the other person. That is, move away from your screens (computer, smartphone, tablet), even ask someone else to take your calls, and be ready to give 100% of your attention to the speaker. If you cannot pay attention, do not pretend to listen. Apologize that you cannot pay attention at this time, and if relevant, schedule a time, in which you will be “present” in the conversation. Alternatively, if you are planning for a conversation in which you sense you will have difficulty to listen, you can practice mindfulness before going into that conversation. By practicing mindfulness, you may be able to reduce the “internal noise” that prevents you from listening to the other.
High quality listening is more than merely hearing words and nodding your head. Much of the communication in the conversation passes through the non-verbal channel. For example, the employee might say one thing but her face and body are saying the opposite. A manager should pay attention to the verbal and non-verbal cues, which are conveyed by the employee. You may want to indicate that you read your interlocutor’s attempted meaning. For exam- ple, you may say “It seems that you are worried about this change”, or “I guess that X is the gist of the opportunity you see.”
Asking a good question represents attention, intention (a question that can benefits the speaker) and a relational aspect (the opposite of commenting and judging what the speaker has said). A good question can be as simple as: “is there anything else you want to say”? Or, “could you please tell me some more?” A good question is a question that advances what the speaker intends to say, and not necessarily what the listener want to hear.
People have a natural tendency to evaluate what they hear. Hence, this recommendation is challenging but crucial for high quality listening. Managers often express their disagreement with what they hear before the message has been fully delivered, especially, when the content is negative. However, listening in a non-judgmental manner is a way to achieve real communication with the employees and encourage voice behavior. In this way, managers can obtain a lot of information that would not have surfaced if they hurry to evaluate and comment on what they hear.
The information that the employee provides should be treated as important to the manager regardless of whether or not the manager agrees with the content. A prerequisite for empathy is that managers imagine themselves in the shoes of the employee, who want to have someone listening and understanding her.
Given the myriad benefits of listening described above it is essential to learn how organizations can improve the listening skills of their employees’ and managers. Yet, our recommendation may be difficult to implement. Therefore, in this work, we focus on a listening training termed the Listening Circle paradigm. This paradigm may become a practice in the manager’s tool kit that cultivate the behaviors required for good listening in a relatively easy manner.
The listening circle, or council, is an ancient form of meeting that people used to conduct respectful conversation for thousands of years. The circle has served as the foundation for many cultures. The key element of the listening circle is the willingness of its participants to shift from a formal, opinionated, discussion into a receptive and thoughtful process of speaking and deep listening.
The listening circle is a structured process aimed to bring people together to better understand one another, build and strengthen connections, and solve social problem (e.g., in the community and the workplace). Listening circles facilitate conditions for people to work together to solve conflicts or make decisions in a safe and productive way. This process is being used for decision making, problem solving and conflict resolution in neighborhoods, schools, workplaces, and criminal legal systems.
The listening circle has three main foundations. The first foundation is that every participant speaks with intention. That is, by speaking about something that has relevance to the conversation in the circle. The second foundation is to listen with attention. That is, every participant needs to be respectful for both the learning process and for all members of the group. The third foundation is to pay attention to the well-being of the circle by remaining aware of the impact of one’s contribution to the circle, both as a speaker and a listener (e.g., not to talk simultaneously when another participant speaks, avoid criticism, pay attention to the person who is speaking, speak according to the general topic).
The practice of Listening Circles, involves about 10—25 people sitting in a circle with one or two trained instructors. At the beginning of the Listening Circle, the instructors explain the rules of the circle. The first rule is that only one person talks at a time. The talking turns are signaled by a talking object, which is handed over between the participants around the circle, or placed in the center of the circle for interested participants to pick it up. Second, the instructors invite the participants to consider four ‘intentions’ when they participate: to listen from the heart, to talk from the heart, to talk succinctly, and to talk with spontaneity. Third, the instructors ask participants to avoid any positiveor negative-verbal feedback comments to one another. They are invited to express support after a person completed talking, by saying “Ho” or “Amen.” Finally, the instructors mention that speaking in the circle is not mandatory, and note that listening without speaking is also participation. That is, a participant who does not wish to speak can simply pass the talking object without speaking (or never pick it up from the center). The instructors practice the rules several times (usually 2—3 rounds) until participants become accustomed to the dynamic in the circle. After explaining and practicing the rules, the instructors invite the group to talk about a certain topic. The topic could be specific (e.g., thoughts and feelings about one’s position at work) or general (e.g., the most meaningful experience this year).
Although the listening circle has many benefits it has also numerous challenges. First, it is enough for one unsatisfied participant to break the intimacy and closeness created in the circle. Second, participants can get carried away by the good feeling of being truly listened to and lose sense of time. This will make them talk in greater length and upset other participants. Such occurrence will break the flow of the circle. Third, some people might feel intimidated by the intimate atmosphere in the listening circle. Such people would not gain as much benefit from the circle as others will, but more importantly, their embarrassment will sometimes be expressed as cynicism and sarcasm, which will have a negative impact on the rest of participants. Finally, one of the rules of the circle is that the things that are told in the circle remain in the circle. However, there is the risk that some participants will be carried away by the safe atmosphere created in the circle and reveal information that they will regret they shared afterwards. Given these challenges it is a perquisite that each listening circle involves at least one trained instructor who has been trained to deal which these challenges.
The Listening Circle is different from most listening training programs in its practical perspective. That is, while most listening training programs allocates the vast amount of time teaching theoretically about listening and its benefits, the Listening Circle, is aimed at creating conditions, such as sitting in a circle and holding a talking object, that facilitate high quality listening. That is, in the Listening Circle training less time is devoted to lecturing to trainees that listening is good and beneficial and more time is devoted for practicing listening skills under facilitating conditions. Interestingly, in listening circles, the quality of listening is enhanced not only by the listener but also by the speaker. Most of the rules in the circle are about speaking. For example: “Speak one at a time”, “talk from the heart”. This is different than other listening interventions which barely relate to the speaker.
Listening Circles were used for training management students to improve communication and conflict-management skills, solve managerial challenges, rehabilitate prisoners, improve communication and self-expression in urban middle schools, treat trauma in the wake of a natural disaster in Sri-Lanka, increase quality of life and reducing mental health problems among fifth-grader in Brazil, and develop 222 G. Itzchakov, A.N. Kluger self-esteem, self-determination, body awareness, and self-concept, among children and adolescents in community settings and in schools. All of these reports suggest that Listening Circle improve listening but do not test its outcomes. Therefore, we offered a quantitative evaluation of the effectiveness of Listening Circles beyond merely improve listening. This goal could be understood through the lenses of Kirkpatrick’s criteria of training evaluation. Specifically, Kirkpatrick suggested four exceedingly more demanding training criteria: reaction (of participants), learning (by participants), behavior, and results. Testing whether the Listening Circle increases’ listening is testing whether the training affects behavior, whereas testing whether listening, operationalized as Listening Circle, influences additional outcomes is testing whether the training affects results. Thus, we sought to test whether the Listening Circle affects the two most demanding criteria for training evaluations: behavior and results.
We build on Carl Rogers’ theory to test how participation in the Listening Circle workshop can influence the attitudes of speakers who interact with the workshop attendees. Rogers, in his work on Client-Centered Therapy argued that good listening is about trying to understand the other person’s point of view and achieving the other person’s reference point. Good listening, according to Rogers, means not only paying attention, and comprehension to the speaker’s message, but also a certain type of relating to the speaker that includes being non-judgmental, empathic, authentic, and respectful. According to Rogers, such good listening is not common because people have a natural tendency to judge and evaluate statements that they hear. This tendency prevents people from achieving real communication with their interlocutors. However, when good listening occurs, it can resolve internal communication failure within the speaker, which results in emotional and cognitive changes within her. The process of good listening and its outcomes was described by Rogers (1951) as follows:
“In this atmosphere of safety, protection, and acceptance, the firm boundaries of self-organization relax. There is no longer the firm, tight gestalt, which is characteristic of every organization under threat, but a looser, more uncertain configuration. He begins to explore his perceptual field more and more fully. He discovers faulty generalizations, but his self-structure is now sufficiently relaxed so that he can consider the complex and contradictory experiences upon which they are based. He discovers experiences of which he has never been aware, which are deeply contradictory of the perception he has had of himself…”
According to Rogers, experiencing listening that is empathic, attentive and non-judgmental, frees speakers from apprehension of negative evaluations, which will be reflected in reduced social anxiety –“a state of anxiety resulting from the prospect or presence of interpersonal evaluation in real or imagined social settings”. The reduced anxiety, together with the safe atmosphere created in the Listening Circle should enable the workshop attendees to acknowledge multiplicity within themselves, and this multiplicity should results in presence of opposite pros and cons with regard to the attitude object they discuss. The presence of both pros and cons would result in attitudes that are more balanced and less extreme.
We conducted a study in an organization to test our predictions using participants from a public organization which employs over 4000 people. The management in the organization sends its employees, as a matter of routine, to take part in various workshops designed to improve soft-skill, one of which is the Listening Circle. We were able to measure employees in these workshops as well as in control workshops that were highly similar in scope, but did not train its atendees in listening.
The participants were from various divisions in the organization. The organization’s human-resource-management department assigned its workers into workshops. At the time we collected data, managers could allocate their subordinates to participate either in a Listening-Circle workshop, or in a confidence-enhancement workshop. The manager chose which workshop to send the entire department. Managers chose workshops that were scheduled on dates that fit their departments’ schedule, that is, when most employees could attend. Both workshops were six hours long and included two breaks, one short break (15 minutes), and one lunch break (45 minutes). Upon arrival to the workshops, participants answered a listening questionnaire which related to how well their colleagues in the workplace usually listen to them. In addition, participants were asked to recall a significant experience they have had with a colleague and completed pre-test questionnaires which contained questionnaires of listening, social anxiety, and attitude towards the event they described.
Participants in the Listening Circle workshop were trained in the benefits of attentive and empathic listening, and given practical tools for its implementations in daily interaction at the workplace. Specifically, two instructors arranged the chairs in one circle and gave a background of the history and development of the Listening Circle paradigm and its rules. Subsequently, participants were asked to introduce themselves.(*1) Each participant who spoke held a “talking object,” which indicated who has the permission to speak. Afterwards, participants shared the significant experience they have had with a colleague, which they referred to in the pre-workshop questionnaire, while their colleagues listened without interruptions. Moreover, the participants were asked not to comment about the events they hear, just to listen. For example a worker in one department shared the following event:
“Three months ago I was a candidate for a position of a shift manager. Eventually, my friend,(*2) who we work together many years, got the position. Initially I thought that things will remain the same but ever since he got the position I feel that he thinks he is now better than me. It affected our relationship; we stopped hanging out after work and he barely talks to me anymore about non-work issues. I feel hurt twice, first for not wining the position, and second for losing a friend. I’m sure that if I had gotten the position I would have behaved differently and in a more friendly way towards him than the behavior I receive from him.”
This procedure repeated itself so that each speaker had the opportunity to elaborate on the experience, and the other participants practiced how to listen attentively without interrupting.
The self-enhancement workshop combined a lecture and training in different thinking strategies, and practical activities. The goal of the workshop was to impart skills that enable self-confidence enhancement, coping with pressure, and making quick decisions when time is running out. Specifically, participants (a) received both a theoretical basis and practical tools, (b) learned self-control techniques, alongside with the experience of their impact on decisions and behavior of others, and (c) learned and practiced making wise and rational decisions under time- pressure. Participants in the self-enhancement workshop did not talk about the event they reported in the pre- workshop questionnaire.
Immediately after the workshops ended, all participants filled out the post-test measures. We compared the pre-and post measurement scores of the Listening Circle workshop and Self-enhancement workshop. The result indicated that participants in the Listening Circle workshop reported experiencing better listening when they were speaking, less social anxiety, and reported attitude which were more balanced and less extreme, than participants in the self-enhancement workshop.
——
(*1) Most employees who participated in the workshops did not have a previous acquaintance with one another.
(*2) We asked the attendees in the workshop to not mention any names while describing the event in case other attendees might know the employees that were described.
Our results suggest that applying the Listening Circle and thereby increasing employees’ listening abilities can make the attitudes of the people they listen to more balanced and less extreme. These findings can help in the domain of conflicts in the workplace. When employees are practicing good listening, the parties in a conflict are more able to focus on what is happening between them, rather than each party focusing on what is going on within the mind of the other. Extending from our empirical findings, we suggest that using the Listening Circle at conflict situations can make the attitudes of the parties involved more balanced and less extreme and thus increasing the chances of resolving the conflict. That is, the Listening Circle might bring to awareness solutions that are not accessible when poor listening instigates a defensive and competing approach. Moreover, the Listening Circle has to potential to resolve conflicts that initially seemed non-negotiable. Many conflicts become intractable because they serve the needs of the conflicted parties to blame their own inadequacies, difficulties, and problems on each other, thus avoiding the necessity of changing oneself. However, a non-negotiable conflict may become negotiable through the Listening Circle, where the parties will be better able to listen, emphasize, and understand each other’s feelings and perspectives. As a result, the parties exchange information, ask diagnostic questions, and seek to understand their needs and interests, which underlie their declared positions, as a result, they become able to construct creative combinations that create added value, making the conflict negotiable and strengthen parties’ longterm relationship and promote future cooperation.
Moreover, employees often complain that meetings are a waste of time. Perhaps, this is so because there is very poor listening and thus very little change in understanding of a situation. Therefore, managers who may wish to transform meetings may consider raising a topic for group meetings and then running a Listening Circle. One key difference between a typical meeting and a Listening Circle is the absence of a meeting table. People sitting in a circle without barriers may both feel more exposed, and yet, may be more authentic and involved.
Although the myriad benefits of the listening circle described throughout this paper and the support obtained in our research, implementing the circle in the organization includes some challenges to the manager that are needed to be taken into account. First, a key rule of the circle is that everyone is equal. This rule is relatively natural and easy to implement when the circle is composed out of random participants. However, when the circle is composed of managers and their employees the feeling of equality will be much harder to be obtained. Hence, it might be problematic if the manager serves as the leader/instructor of the circle. Therefore managers who want the meetings of their teams to run with a listening circle could consider three options. First they can hire an outside trained listening circle instructor. Second, they can consider sending their HR personnel to listening circle trainings and then ask them to lead the listening circles in the organization. Third, they could consider attending listening circle trainings themselves in order to lead this intervention. If none of these suggestions is implemented, and an untrained manager ends up leading the listening circle, it will quickly become a personal interview, where each employ is speaking directly to the manager and ignores the rest of the participants. This will prevent the creation of a safe and intimate atmosphere. The managers have to work hard to convey the feeling they are equal to their employees in the circle. Moreover, prior relationships between the employees can also create an obstacle for the circles’ success. For example, two employees who have been in bad relationship will need to work very hard to sit together in the same circle. It is the manager’s responsibility to ensure that these employees make an effort to put the past behind in order for the circle to succeed. Furthermore, when the listening circle takes place in an organization it has a concrete goal such as making a decision or resolving a conflict. As a result it is crucial that the ideas and decisions that emerge in the listening circle are converted into action. Otherwise the listening circle will quickly lose its momentum and will stop motivating employees to participate. It is the manager’s responsibility that the employees see their ideas in action and to receive feedback on how they are working out.
Listening is a dyadic or a group phenomena, it does not depend solely on the listener or the speaker but is about the connection that is facilitated, whether in a dyad or in a group. In our view, the most powerful force of the Listening Circle is a collective “listening power” that is unleashed between the people sitting around in the circle. The Listening Circle provide opportunities for employees of all ranks to speak about things that concern them, such as issues that are significant to their work life. The Listening Circle gives all employees an opportunity to use their authentic voice, even if employees of different ranks are sitting in the same circle. Some employees might find the Listening Circle is silly to start with, especially if they are not used to being taken seriously. However, they will stop feeling silly eventually, especially when they know their turn will come to have their say. Moreover, the listeners in the circle are active rather than passive. A person is not just sitting there waiting for her turn to speak but actually engaging in what others are saying, even without replying.
We found the Listening Circle paradigm to be an effective intervention in improving employees’ listening abilities, making them less anxious and making their attitudes more balanced. Recent work has shown that experiencing good listening can influence speakers’ attitude, however, this is the first attempt to test Rogers’ core argument regarding the positive effects of listening on attitude balance, in organizational context. We hope that this work inspire tests of using the Listening Circle paradigm in organizations and that managers will used it for increasing the quality of relationships in the workplace and resolving conflicts.
This article is based on an empirical study conducted as part of the dissertation of the first author: Itzchakov, G. The Effects of Listening on Speakers’ Social Anxiety and Attitude Characteristics, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
For more information about listening theory and empirical research see:
Bodie, G.D. (2012). Listening as positive communication. In T. Socha & M. Pitts (Eds.), The positive side of interpersonal communication (pp. 109—125). New York: Peter Lang.
Johnson, I.W., Pearce, C.G., Tuten, T.L., & Sinclair, L. (2003). Self-imposed silence and perceived listening effectiveness. Business Communication Quarterly, 66(2), 23—38.
Guy Itzchakov completed his B.A in Psychology and Economics, and received his M.A in Public Policy. Guy is currently a PhD candidate at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, School of Business Administration. Guy’s research draws on Carl Rogers’ theory and focus on how attentive and non-judgmental listening facilitates an appeal to the speaker’s emotions and cognitions. His research has appeared in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, European Journal of Social Psychology, and International Journal of Listening. (School of Business Administration, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem–Mt. Scopus, Jerusalem 91905, Israel. Email: [email protected]).
Avraham N. Kluger is a Professor of Organizational Behavior at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. He has studied for more than 20 years the destructive effects of performance feedback (telling people something about their performance with the often false hope that it will improve performance). Recently, he began researching what happens if instead of telling people things, people are given the opportunity to be listened to. For updates about his listening research, visit: http://avikluger.wixsite.com/avi-kluger. (School of Business Administration, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel).
This research was supported by grants from the Recanati Fund at the School of Business Administration to the second author.