Archive for the ‘Listening and Collaboration’ Category
Notes from the Field: Ineffective Team
You might recognize this team meeting because it’s not unusual.
- Eleven people: seven men, four women; three Asian, one black, one Hispanic, six white
- Context: weekly meeting with department manager
- I was there to observe in preparation to facilitate an off site for the group
- Meeting lasted almost two hours
Everyone seemed to have a tacit agreement about seating. The manager sat at the head of the table and no one sat until she did. The second most influential person sat at the other end of the table to balance out the power.
The manager handed out an agenda to everyone and that kicked off the meeting. The first item on the agenda took almost the entire meeting time. Following are the highlights that I shared with the team afterwards:
1. No apparent process or agreement on meeting ground rules.
The effect:
- people interrupted with impunity
- no acknowledgement of one another’s opinions, facts, feelings
- speaker didn’t check for understanding about what s/he said
- little attention paid to agenda timing or content
2. Lack of support for key actions
The effect:
- little agreement about any possible solution(s)
- went off in different directions several times
- attendees often seem confused and lost
- no attempt to follow any decision-making process
3. Advocated individual ideas with very little inquiry
The effect:
- constant revisiting of the same ideas and topics—tried to wear one another down to accept a point-of-view
- promoted opinions with few facts
- incomplete understanding of a position/theory because no one asked for clarification or more information
- power determined results instead of knowledge
If you were coaching this team, what would be the first few things you’d do with them?
More on Open Communication from Dan Tapscott
I recently watched a TED talk given by the futurist Dan Tapscott who outlined four principles of an open world. Of course he was superb, and of course, he built upon what Elon Musk said—open communication is the way forward for our changing world.
You can see the video yourself: (http://www.ted.com/talks/don_tapscott_four_principles_for_the_open_world_1.html)
I want to reiterate only a few of the points and relate them to listening.
Openness is about transparency. I’m reminded of two different organizations I’ve observed. One invites employees to look at the books, attend board meetings, and advise the executive committee about changes that could help the organization. I was asked to attend one of the board meetings to provide feedback to the board after I did some listening skill development with them. The board wanted my feedback about how well they listened and if they were being open with the employees who attended the meeting. They answered all employee questions with candor.
The second organization said they wanted to be open and transparent with employees, but there wasn’t one scintilla of behavior to support that statement. There was a suggestion box and so many layers of management plus pounds of red tape, that the few suggestions were ludicrous (paint the dingy cafeteria, buy soft cushions for the call center).
The employees at the transparent organization told me they felt heard, respected and would do anything to help out.
Openness is about sharing. He told some wonderful stories about insurgents who succeeded because they shared information for the safety of others. I’m on several Linked In groups and I’m impressed by the amount of intellectual property (IP) that colleagues share with one another. Even the concept of TED itself is an example.
So why in the world would anyone give away what s/he has spent years developing? Truthfully, I’m not sure, but I think it’s in our inherent nature to want to add value and be a trusted source. If I listen to the request of a colleague within a social network community, I tend to probe deeper to develop a greater understanding of the issue. I rarely rush in with lots of solutions and information. Those interactions build a community of collaborators that builds trust and a willingness to be open with one another.
Finally, his statement that our young people today are digital natives, whereas, the rest of us are digital immigrants who have to learn to speak the language. I loved the thought that we are constantly challenged to pay attention to what is new and open to us.
Elon Musk, Simplicity and My Soapbox
Elon Musk at the Tesla grand opening in Menlo Park. Photo taken by Brian Solis.
SpaceX, Elon Musk’s company, as reported in Time Magazine, June 18, 2012, successfully launched and landed a rocket, in record time and with streamlined resources. While I read the article I kept correlating the situation with my thinking about workplace productivity.
It’s perfectly clear to me that communication is a major factor in their ability to pull off such an impressive fete. I hope I can make the connection for you.
First of all, there’s Musk’s call for simplicity: “If you want to change something or fix something, just stalk to Elon. It keeps the signal-to-noise ration high.” When the lines of communication are narrow like that, there’s less room for misinterpretation. Think of how different it would be in many organizations if an employee has a question and can go to the person who is most equipped to answer it, rather than to someone designated on the org chart.
Simplicity also shows up in design. I’m not as interested in the mechanics of the rocket as I am in the process behind arriving at those mechanics. They’ve hired people from other venues who had to have prior experience with bloated and convoluted decision-making, so what’s different here that there’s so little bureaucracy? Musk says, People ask how it’s possible to be safer but also more cost-effective. It’s possible because complexity is the enemy of both.” At his three companies the norm is to ask questions, inquire, debate, prototype, problem-solve, challenge until everything is stripped down to the essence—the simplest form. From there they build, adding as little as possible to achieve the required results.
I know all this because Tesla Motors used to have a showroom here in Boulder, and I had the opportunity, as a member of International Business Circle, to spend an evening with some headquarters staff people and Elon on the phone (he could not attend in person because he was in a tobogganing accident). No doubt what he told us about the development of the Tesla automobiles applies to all his ventures.
Secondly, there’s consistency of purpose. I know some people who work at NASA and they talk about constant changes in messages, decisions, and priorities. In Musk’s case, although I don’t know this first-hand, there’s a clear direction and unwavering drive to arrive at it. “I believe,” says Musk, “that I have a design in mind that would enable the colonization of Mars.” Remind you of John F Kennedy’s famous race-to-the-moon speech?
Finally, there’s the Control issue. When I’m on my soapbox I say that Creativity loves Structure and hates Control. Most of the employees of SpaceX don’t have offices, including Musk, but they have discipline, rigor and priorities, so they don’t have to spend their creative juices trying to figure out boundaries. They don’t have creative constraints and rules, rules, rules, so there’s little that gets in their way towards innovation.
Streamlined, uncluttered, open communication is worth billions of dollars.
How do you think this kind of work environment would effect listening skills?
Listening Skills Ground Rules
In last week’s blog post, Tortoise and Hare Listening, I said that having ground rules for listening might increase the likelihood that people would actually pay attention to the expectations and needs of one another during an interaction and experience improved listening skills.
It’s not such a crazy idea. Groups establish ground rules for meetings and workshops to make assumptions explicit. A ground rule gives direction about how someone is expected to behave. For example, a common one is “Do not interrupt.” Ostensibly, that gives members of the group permission to point it out when someone speaks over others. Just having that as a ground rule indicates to the group that interrupting behavior will not be tolerated, and will heighten attention to avoid displaying that unwelcome trait.
That set me to thinking about listening ground rules that might be helpful:
- Identify the purpose– determine with your partner(s) what you’re both listening for and what you want to get out of the interaction
- Obey the listening golden rule: Listen to others as they would have you listen to them—don’t project your desires and biases on others
- Ask permission to take notes and be willing to share what you’ve written
- Give undivided attention—no gadgets, fidgeting, side-conversations
- Make body language invitational instead of armor-like
- Inquire more, advocate less
- Tell others when you’re losing your ability to listen and request a physical break
I posted these at a recent two-hour meeting and asked if we could try them out to see if it was a good idea and how they’d influence the meeting. Everyone agreed to try them, and afterwards we took an extra fifteen minutes for debrief. There were many more responses than expected, but here are the most frequently said ones:
- The list was intimidating at first because we (5 people) wanted to do it “right,” but after a while we got embroiled in the conversation and the list just served as a guide.
- Everyone really liked the listening golden rule—e.g. “Now I see that I get impatient when people don’t listen the way I want them to.”
- Several people said they wanted to ask for a break, but thought they couldn’t.
- Many noticed that there were more people who allowed others to finish a thought than usual.
- The undivided attention rule was hardest to follow and sustain.
What others would you include? How do you think they’ll be received?
Tortoise and Hare Listening: Defining Listening Skills
Recently when I was conducting a webinar, one of the very insightful participants surfaced a great question: “What’s the right pace for good listening? Since we can listen faster than we can talk, what’s the best balance?” After some probing we determined that what he was really asking was just how much attention must be paid in an interaction before the interaction is too long and interest wanes.
While there’s not a formula for balancing listening to speaking, our webinar attendees did consider who wins the listening race—the tortoise-listener who moves slowly and deliberately, missing very little on the way to gaining complete understanding; or the hare-listener who moves swiftly in preparation to decision-making and action.
The tortoise-listener is the embodiment of the “move slow to go fast” rule. She asks many questions, gathers facts and data, digs for underlying motivations and concerns, and weaves it all together to develop the most comprehensive thorough understanding of the situation before making recommendations or developing a plan.
The hare-listener is seen more commonly in organizations. He asks just enough questions and gathers just enough evidence to make a decision or plan and recommend his ideas as the best path forward.
Can’t you see them both in a meeting? The hare loses patience with the plodding approach of the tortoise, rolls his eyes, fidgets in his seat, checks email, and tunes out. The tortoise looks stoic, ignores the hare’s obvious frustration, and continues to seek more information. Both are convinced they’re right and that the other doesn’t listen. By the end of the meeting, one usually wears down the other, collaboration hasn’t happened, and it’s doubtful they’ve arrived at the best results.
Our webinar group decided the only way to get these two polar opposites to work effectively together is to acknowledge their differences at the start and develop some listening ground rules. (I need to think about what those ground rules might be and I’ll write them up in the next post—it would be great if we could develop a community list.) When teams have taken Hear! Hear? and seen their group reports, they inevitably come away with much deeper appreciation of how their listening styles impact communication. The tortoises and the hares can talk about the consequences of too much inspection or too much speed and how to balance their tendencies to arrive at best fit for the situation.
Too fast and the hare-listeners finish ahead of everyone else, alone and without enough fuel to run the next race. Too slow and the tortoise-listeners cross the finish line after everyone else has gone on to the next race.
Listening Ears
Listening Ears in Great Britain
Notebook – A selection of Independent views, by Richard Taylor-Jones;Wednesday, 23 May 2012 at 12:00 am
I’ve just had the most amazing few weeks filming some very personal films for this year’s Springwatch. The basic idea of them was to be Landscape films, each with a different theme to explore. Dungeness, the Southern most tip of Kent, was one of my favorite locations and its theme was energy.
Its an area of shingle that’s 40sq Km, the largest shingle foreland in Europe and its been formed by the energy of the sea. Waves washing and shifting shingle relentlessly. In itself, it’s a very natural and unique environment, but there are certainly some very Accidental Nature things going on too. The most visually striking of those is to be found at what are known locally as the Listening Ears. Three large concrete walls and domes standing a good 40 ft. high.
Now classed as Schedule One listed monuments, these bizarre structures were built just after the First World War in an attempt to find a way to hear enemy fighters approaching over the English Channel. The inventors hoping they would focus distant aircraft engine noise, magnifying to a point that allowed the defence staff to hear them well before their human ears would normally pick them up. Those few extra minutes would give valuable time to scramble air defence ahead of the enemies arrival.
In the end The Ears never came to use as Radar was invented, and they became defunct along with the land surrounding them. That land was an old quarrying pit from which cement was made, that Cement used to make the Listening Ears. The pits are now flooded and full of life. Reed beds play home to the likes of marsh frogs and reed warbles and high above them Marsh Harriers hunt. And it’s the Marsh Harriers that were relevant for my film. What better place to comment about the importance of sound energy and the Harriers acute listening skills when it comes to hunting, than at these marvelous Listening Ears.
The cement works and listening ears were certainly never created with the idea of a nature reserve being made off the back of them but, by accident, that’s certainly what happened. And, now the ears are schedule one monuments I’m pretty sure the area will always be protected and nature will benefit.
Whilst filming, not only did we get shots of the Marsh Harriers, we also captured some fantastic behavior as the male came in and made a food pass with his mate. An arial exchange of food energy, part of the Springtime bonding rituals. Along with nailing some cracking starlapses, brown hares and stunning landscapes it’s all in made for a great film, with those Listening Ears taking center stage.
The Ears are privately owned by Cemex who now value the areas importance to wildlife and they allow guided walks to go and see the Listening Ears. Learn more about them here. For details of the open days and guided walks, contact Owen Leyshon, Romney Marsh Countryside Project [email protected]. Springwatch starts Monday 28 May, see the whole film then.
The Classic Trap of Experience—Listening Case
Jonathan, the senior VP of Sales, and Francesca, the senior VP of Marketing, have had a contentious relationship for the year Jonathan has been in his job. At first their peers thought it was a matter of getting clear about roles, responsibilities and territory, and that it would smooth over, especially since working with Francesca was never a problem.
Yesterday at an Executive Committee meeting, Francesca presented three ideas for a new marketing campaign and asked the EC for feedback. Jonathan swiveled in his chair and said, “There’s nothing new here. We did almost the exact same things at my last company without success. Why didn’t you come to me beforehand? I could have saved you a lot of time and effort.”
Everyone in the room was stunned. The CEO pulled himself together and said, “Jonathan, let’s hear Francesca out, then we can discuss the ideas. Your response seems hasty.”
Unfortunately, interactions like those happen much too often in the workplace. Of course, there’s more than one explanation for what happened, but a big one is that Experience gets in the way of Listening. Because Jonathan sees himself as an expert, he reverts to what he knows and closes off new information that doesn’t match with anything in his past that has brought success.
Some considerations:
- New information is perceived to be a threat to what has been tried and made true
- Prior experience has been repeated enough to be trusted
- It takes time and effort to assimilate new information
- Success speaks for itself; there’s no need to start again from the beginning
- Reputation is built upon replicating winners
What advice do you have for the people in this case?
Part 2 of Notes from the International Listening Association Convention
Dr. Doyle Srader, Northwest Christian University, Eugene, Oregon
Performance Listening
Question: How is the act of listening sufficient to fulfill the duties of the listener and/or create relationship?
Some findings:
- There are three categories of performance listening:
- Listening toward relationship—calls relationship into being and establishes ties
- Listening toward leadership—enters without an agenda and allows interaction to establish meaning and directions
- Listening toward fairness—hear someone out much like in the judicial system where there is a hearing
- Measure of success is when followers are satisfied that the interaction has been effective and appropriate
- Communication is transactional and a co-created encounter
- Goal—use all three to be a credible listener so other person would say s/he’s been heard
Christopher Gearhart, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA
Sensory-processing Sensitivity
Question: Is the Highly Sensitive Person a Highly Sensitive Listener?
Some findings:
- No, highly sensitive people are easily distracted by stimuli and may not focus well as a listener
- fMRI shows more processing activity and less accuracy for a highly sensitive person
- fMRI shows longer and deeper processing activity for a less sensitive person
Sheila Bentley, Bentley Consulting; Graham Bodie, LSU; Jennifer Grau, Grau Interpersonal Communication
A Time I Felt Listened To
Question: Which techniques make a person felt listened to?
Some findings:
- People describe attributes first and behaviors second
- Sometimes the researcher had to ask, “What caused you to list that attribute to get the person to describe what the person did?
- Women square off more in an interaction while men take an open positioning
- 80% of all malpractice suits are caused by patient feeling “brushed off”
- An initial reaction determines degree of satisfaction/dissatisfaction with the entire interaction, even if the first person encountered is not the main interaction (e.g. person at the front desk makes a good/bad impression, and that colors every subsequent interaction, regardless of how others treat the person)
- Back-channel responses, those that are unconscious such as nodding or uttering “uh-huh” signal understanding
- The key attributes included in a Physician Listening Study:
- It is assumed the physician brings these attributes to the table:
Confidence, Empathetic, Humane, Personal, Forthright, Respectful, Thorough
Most important verbal behaviors: Answers questions, elaborates on topics being discussed instead of answering with short statements, asks questions, does not interrupt or change the subject
Non-verbal behaviors: Maintains appropriate eye contact, focuses body language and position, engages in appropriate composure, smiles/laughs
Random notes:
- Good listening gives you currency
- There are four stages of counseling/therapy
- engagement
- assessment in context
- insight
- action
- Babies borrow their sound from parents—that’s why many children have similar voices and speech patterns as their parents
- Listening is enhanced when the listener asks: Who/what am I as a listener in this situation?
- Anticipation of where the speaker is going next derails communication
- Metaphor: Listening is a cup. If it’s full with our own stuff, there’s no room for another’s.
There was a lot of validation of our work in Listening Impact, especially for Hear! Hear? Your Listening Portfolio ®
Active Listening might be a passé term: What would you nominate in its place?
Scary Statistics about How Employees View the Workplace
While I’m skeptical when shown absolute numbers about the condition of the workplace, I do accept the premise behind them: few people are really happy at work.
Following are some of the dismal figures from studies:
Towers-Watson, Global Workforce Study
- 20% are engaged (they don’t say though that 80% are disengaged)
- 50% don’t feel inspired by leaders
- 53% don’t feel leaders are trustworthy
- 58% don’t think senior management cares about talent development
- 61% don’t think leaders deal effectively with poor performers
- 62% don’t feel leaders have interest in their well-being
Gallup, Workplace Study
- 49% are not engaged and 18% are actively disengaged
- $350 billion per year cost of disengaged workers to the US economy
Great Places to Work Institute
650% ROI to stockholders from the organizations on their list
There is:
- Low turnover
- High engagement
- Constant innovation and agility
- Ever-growing customer satisfaction
The numbers in these studies don’t tend to change year-after-year, nor do the questions asked that determine the answers. Still, some other findings do support the results. When people are exchanged from the best to the worst places to work, they change. There’s evidence that says when top performers are put into a low performing environment, they gradually falter and fail. But there aren’t a lot of studies done on the poor performers going to a top-notch outfit. Have you known people who said they were failing where they worked before coming to your organization and flourishing? Share those stories.
I tend to believe that the purpose in life and leadership is creating value. I once heard a very inspiring motto that I feel is the best way to articulate that belief and be a positive influence, anywhere/anytime.
What choice can I make and action can I take, in this moment, to create the greatest value?
My choice was to write this post to you, someone who is not one of the negative statistics, but someone who adds value.
A Listening Formula with a Twist
I certainly did not invent the following formula for attentive listening, and I don’t know where to give credit either. Regardless, it’s a very nice four-step process to remember:
Receive, Appreciate, Summarize, Ask
It works as a general rule of thumb. The twist though is when you throw listening habits into the mix. Each of the four habits will respond differently to a step in the process.
For example an Inner-personal listener will receive information if it has personal value and ignore other kinds of information, let’s say that which would be of interest to a Problem-solving listener. While the Inner-personal listener might be very well-intended, but unaware of his listening habits, he’d gloss over the facts and details that would appeal to a Problem-solving listener. Furthermore, he probably wouldn’t be aware that had occurred. The outcome: limited reception.
A listener must learn to Appreciate that there are different listening habits and preferences before she can accept the variety in styles. If we continue with two different listeners from above, the Problem-solving listener will appreciate it if the Inner-personal listener picks up on all the details in the interaction because that would mean they are on the same wave-length (or have synchronized mirror neurons). However, when that doesn’t happen, the outcome is antipathy rather than appreciation.
I’m sure you’re getting the drift: Listening is not formulaic; it is a highly individualized activity that requires awareness, knowledge, and intent. While it’s very good to have a process like Receive, Appreciate, Summarize, Ask in your head as you interact with others, you must also remember to tailor each step to the styles of others.