Myth #5
Everyone views good listening the same way
It should come as no surprise that how I define “good listening” likely differs from how you define that term. The next time you are with friends, ask everyone to write down 2-3 words; it can be anything, but using words related to human communication is more fun (in my opinion). Some good ones to start with are conflict, apology, and good listening. For each term, have everyone engage in 1-2 minutes of free association writing; simply write everything that comes to mind when thinking of that term. Once everyone is done, the challenge is to find someone who has written the exact same thing as you.
Although there are common cultural markers of “good listening,” even in a single culture people will define that phrase differently. More importantly, as we touched on in Myth 4, there are a variety of ways that you can be a “good listener.”
The framework I use in my coaching and consulting work is published in the International Journal of Listening. The ECHO Listening Profile is an answer to this puzzle: How can people who have been exposed to the same message still fail to come to the same understanding of its meaning? Here is how we put it in that article (p. ):
The problem with human communication is that it does not operate like a conduit, taking the thoughts of one person (the speaker) and directly conveying them to another (the listener) (Reddy, 1979). Instead, research across the academic landscape confers that each person interprets environmental stimuli based on their own habits, patterns of behavior, and ways of knowing that are learned over a lifetime and that impact all facets of our lives (e.g., Evans, 2003). With respect to listening in particular, people must make sense of what they hear by choosing from a set of possible (or probable) meanings, meanings that they construct based on prior knowledge and that are shaped by experience and typical ways of listening (Burleson, 2011).
Each person listens to and for different types of information based partially on their listening habits. Much like our other beliefs, we tend to think that our beliefs about “good listening” (our listening habits) are right; and shouldn’t everyone think about listening this way? Moreover, shouldn’t everyone listen in the ways I have found useful for the kinds of situations I am usually exposed to?
I suspect you can discern a bit of sarcasm in those questions. The answer is, of course, an unfailing, NO.
To illustrate these four listening habits, imagine a large, multinational corporation announces an impending merger at a meeting attended by several company managers. Among these managers are four individuals, each of whom scores highly one of the four different listening habits:
Connective Reflective Analytical Conceptual
Filter External Internal Reality Possibility
Connective
Reflective
Analytical
Conceptual
Filter
External
Internal
Reality
Possibility
Strengths
Generous, Supportive, Empathic, Warmth, Concern
Expertise, Depth, Keeps group “grounded” and “on task”
Accuracy, Feasibility, Steers group back to issues “essence”
Versatile, Holds diversity of perspectives simultaneously, New insight
Challenges
Overly influenced by person, May be easily swayed
Miss broader application, tendency to hold back
Need for “proof” and to “get it right”
Can get “lost”, Inability to make decisions
Although not immune from thinking about their own concerns, people with Connective Listening tendencies are more likely to think, at first, what effect the merger will have on the team. They are most likely to consider the effect on team morale and how the merger may affect company culture.
Alternatively, people with Reflective Listening tendencies will initially consider what the change means for themselves, filtering the announcement based on past experience and current purposes: Could it lead to a promotion? Could her position be terminated? What does this mean for my impending client contracts?
Those with Analytical Listening tendencies will focus on facts and details, likely honing in on the specifics of the merger if any are given (e.g., the costs to the company, the specific timing and steps of implementation, what this means for the bottom-line); if not, they will leave the meeting not only frustrated but quite unfulfilled.
Finally, people with Conceptual Listening tendencies are most likely to imagine possibilities that stem from the restructure and will begin to brainstorm multiple scenarios. What new products and services will the company now be positioned to invest in? What new demographics will the company have access to, and how might that affect their offerings already in place?
As discussed briefly in Myth 4 and 6, listening habits are learned, not innate. Early in life, we’re taught to “listen up” and praised as “good listeners” when we obey. In the workplace, our listening habits adapt to fit our roles. Without reflection, we may assume our style is the "right" way to listen, forgetting that effective listening should adapt to each situation. The question at the heart of the matter is: how can we align our listening to meet the needs of our current situation?