Ruminations of a former high school teacher: Listening in the Classroom
Now that I have learned about the four listening habits that Marian Thier has documented in Hear! Hear? Your Listening Portfolio, I am curious how her insights would apply to classroom teaching.
I retired as a high school biology teacher about seven years ago. My primary charge, according to the curricular guides, was to transmit content. You know; actual facts, theories, principles, and the history of science. It was also extremely important that students develop the skills of critical thinking using scientific thinking. This, of course, meant for the students to understand “The Nature of Science.” However, the goal of complete success had to include “turning kids on” to science.
I always assumed that students were satisfying just one of the purposes of listening that Ms. Thier has documented: to listen for their own personal gains, such as to get a good grade on a test or to gather enough information to further their education, or even choose a profession. (I taught Human Anatomy and Physiology. Many of my students now have successful careers in medicine.) Ms Thier’s research on listening habits shows that likely my students were satisfying additional ways to listen beyond personal gains.
If I could get a redo of my career, I would modify my teaching to satisfy all the needs of the listener that Ms. Thier has identified. I am convinced that I would have been a much more effective teacher by relating presentations to a wider range of students’ listening preferences.
Ruminations will continue about how to utilize listening habits in the classroom.
Your comments about how you apply listening tools to the classroom are most welcome.
Some Real Costs of Poor Listening Skills
W. Edwards Deming, was a true pioneer who elevated the quality of goods and services post WWII. He advised, “American companies have focused almost exclusively on the tangible products and services produced by those systems. They have often substituted measurement for management.”
I’m sure you’ve seen the aftermath of such behaviors in you careers, I certainly have. I’m reminded of the time I was invited to hear Dr. Deming speak at a convocation of senior executives at GM. It was in the early 90’s, a time when automobile companies were beginning their decline, and I was part of a project designed to upgrade leadership skills. I happened to be in Detroit, he was speaking, many of our clients were going to be in attendance, and they thought his topic would be relevant. I was thrilled to attend, they not as much.
One of the many brilliant ideas that the 90 year-old thinker had to share was about the real costs of poor quality, often caused by faulty decision making. I’ve never forgotten his formula, and have shared it often because it’s so powerful and graphic.
Dr. Deming said his research showed that costs of poor decisions are:
$10 to rectify inaccurate, incomplete, biased facts or details at the information gathering stage
$100 to rectify when that information is used when the decision is made
$1000 to rectify when the decision is executed
No amount will rectify the results of the decision when it gets into the hands of customers
Some tips to avoid costly decisions:
- Take much longer than anticipated at the information-gathering stage.
- Ask everyone who might have valuable knowledge, insights, and experience to contribute.
- Ask open-ended questions to broaden thinking and responses.
- Accept all ideas. That does not mean you have to use them all.
- Keep customers/end-users in mind.
- Inform everyone involved and affected about the decision. Whether their ideas were used or not, they want to know the results.
- Keep checking to make sure everything is on track.
- “Stop the line” when anything goes awry. It costs much less to halt the process than to re-do.
Listening Symposium
Columbia, MO, Reynolds School of Journalism at the University of Missouri, September 15-17
About 30 of us gathered to examine the state of listening in our various worlds with a primary focus on the media. The sessions were loosely structured, which enabled conversations to range widely. With so many experts in the room, it probably would not have worked as well as it did if there was an attempt to rein in the conversations.
It’s always a challenge to share such an experience with people who were not there, so I will not make any attempt to recount the symposium. Instead, here are some observations:
What: The job of the media is to gather information from others. Their expertise is to listen to both what is and what is not said.
So: Skilled journalists are excellent interviewers. They have to ask “beyond-the-obvious” questions.
************************
What: Many of those in attendance are people the media interviews. They have knowledge and experience to share, but may not necessarily be adept at being interviewed.
So: Chances are if the interviewer isn’t schooled in the art of listening and asking probing questions, the results of the interview will be disappointing.
*************************
What: Whether in plenary or in smaller groups, much more time was spent in advocacy than in inquiry, regardless of profession.
So: People who might be inquirers in their professional lives, might not carry that skill forward during other types of situations.
**************************
What: When people talked about the theory of listening, participation languished.
So: Listening cannot be approached as an intellectual exercise. If all the senses and emotions are not included, there is not full engagement, even when someone’s livelihood depends on listening.
***************************
What: We talked a lot about the responsibility of listening, and while we mostly agreed that it is no different, regardless of profession, we did say people really want the media to be transparent and accurate.
So: It’s difficult for the public to develop trust in the media, but authenticity and the intention to be open, increases the likelihood it will happen.
It was a privilege for me to have been invited. I am even more positive that my commitment to the science and art of listening is a calling—not just mine, but with many superb folks like those at the Listening Symposium. I applaud the gifted people who made the event happen, and I hope this is the beginning of our dialogue.
Expectations Drive Behaviors
Do you remember the Pygmalion Effect study? Let me refresh your memory. There were two groups of students and two teachers. One teacher was told his students were accelerated and very bright, while the other teacher was told his students were in the normal range. At the end of the year, the “smarter” students were significantly ahead of the “normal” children.
While the study became famous, little attention was paid to the kids labeled “normal.” Not only did they lose out on that year’s best teaching, but also, expectations of their performance were lowered by teachers, classmates, “smart” students, parents, and worst, themselves.
How does the Pygmalion Effect show up at work? Following are a few cases:
1. John has worked for Sue for ten years as her second-in-command. He rarely misses work, completes all assignments on time, gets along with everyone, and stays late if Sue is in a bind. At this year’s performance review, John tells Sue he wants new challenges, and is looking around as a result.
Sue is shocked and fearful of losing her trusted employee. John and Sue have to figure out how to change both of their expectations. Sue saw John as normal, not as smart, so she relied on him to perform his job without the need to provide new challenges.
2. Barry inherited Miguel from another department. Miguel’s old boss told Barry that Miguel is a tech star, but not very interactive. He often missed department meetings, seemed to keep odd hours, and was thought of as quiet.
Barry decided to change his expectations of Miguel in hopes he’d be more of a participant in the department. Barry asked Miguel to attend the next department meeting and talk about his work and how it could impact the department’s mission. Barry also seated Miguel in a pod with others instead of isolating him behind closed, glass walls. From the start Barry expected Miguel to be integral to the team, which shaped Miguel’s future behaviors.
3. On September 3, 2013, at the Women’s Startup Phenomenon, I heard Margaret Neale, professor at Stanford University, speak about negotiations, especially as they pertain to women. She said the following about how Expectations Drive Behavior:
- Women are uncomfortable negotiating because they might be seen as greedy, not nice, demanding.
- Stereotypes often prime expectations (Asians are quiet but aggressive, women won’t ask for more, foreigners should be grateful for a job).
- Little is done to surface what the negotiator wants more of, so assumptions are made about what to offer (more wealth, status, control, achievement, reputation, security, love…).
So what does this mean for you? Know and share what you expect, listen for what others expect, and observe how expectations are changing behaviors.
Leadership Starts with Listening Skills – Notes from the Field
Stephanie has recently been promoted to manager of a newly created business unit, global business development. She’s been with the company for six years, initially as a sales person, and most recently as a regional sales manager.
While Stephanie is capable and well regarded, she’s sought me out to coach her on how to grow into a leader. The organization is depending upon her to develop a cohesive team, forge new client relationships, collaborate with other business units, and swiftly outshine the competition. Quite a tall order.
We mapped out a thirty-day plan that relies heavily on listening, the gateway skill to good leadership. The three crucial first steps are:
- Meet with each team member individually to find out:
a. What’s in it for him/her to be on this team?
b. What expectations does s/he have for Stephanie?
c. What factors will cause him/her to remain in or leave the team? - Meet with the team as a whole to learn:
a. What are our individual skills, experience, and values that will serve the team?
b. What are the attributes of the best teams I’ve been on?
c. What are the pitfalls we need to avoid?
d. How will Stephanie be the leader we need? - Hold an offsite to explore:
a. What was the thinking behind the creation of this business unit?
b. What is our vision to be a high-functioning team?
c. What are our team values?
d. What is our vision for the business unit?
e. What is the mission of the business unit?
Stephanie and I set about practicing her listening for each of the steps. Remember, her rise in the company was due to her ability to sell and mentor. That translated into more talking than listening, so Stephanie had to re-orient not only her skills but also her mental maps about what brings success.
We practiced:
- Developing a strategy to include a mix of closed, open and inquiry questions.
- Balancing advocacy and inquiry.
- Asking follow up questions to probe thinking.
- Using silence to invite others to complete thoughts.
- Mirroring body language, word choice, and tone-of-voice to connect with the speaker(s).
- Smiling and praising—being positive and appreciative never fails.
You might think that your organization would never support taking so much time upfront, but there’s lots of research that says any endeavor that starts slow, is equipped to move fast. Success is about momentum, and listening is a sure way to get the wagons headed in the right direction, and at the right speed.