Posts Tagged ‘personality traits’
Notes from the Field: Ego and Listening Skills
People with big egos, by nature, are poor listeners. No news there. So let’s look at how having an over-sized ego can influence one’s ability or desire to listen.
Following are factors that cause ego to overshadow listening.
- Attachment to one’s own needs
Here’s a situation I recently witnessed that exemplifies this statement. I was visiting someone in a medical rehabilitation facility. When I arrived, the patient, a highly regarded professional, was hopping mad and anxious to tell me about the incompetence of the night nurse who did not listen to him. The night nurse, a person who says she’s devoted to helping others, took me aside to say the patient was uncooperative.
His position: “I’m an important person and I expect others to listen to me and do what I want.” Her position, “I’m the authority here and I expect patients to comply with my orders.”
A clash of egos.
It was not my place to intervene, so I watched two people talking past one another. He kept explaining his own needs and she kept throwing policy at him. Eventually, the nursing supervisor was brought in, and the first thing she did was ask the patient, “Can you please tell me from your standpoint, what’s the issue?” After he explained, she followed with, “What is it you want that you’re not getting?” When he responded that he wasn’t being heard, bless her, she asked him to explain what being heard would be like. Together, the supervisor, night nurse and patient developed some very simple solutions that satisfied him and were agreeable to the facility.
- Belief that one’s opinion is more valid than another’s facts
My brother is a judge and he often says that one of the most challenging parts of his job is to help people understand that opinions and anecdotes are not facts, regardless of who says them. But people with big egos often think that their opinions are as valid as any scientifically based or evidenced facts. They don’t listen when the facts don’t fit within their schema of beliefs.
- Need to be right
There’s a difference between wanting to get to a right answer, something that problem-solving listeners do well, and wanting to be right. Being right usually means someone or something has to be wrong. If the Being Right person’s ego is questioned, s/he usually shuts down and listening stops.
In the rehab facility situation, the nurse stopped listening to the patient when he questioned a practice. Her response was, “Because that’s what the rules say.” How often do you hear some variation of that remark, when it’s really an excuse to be in the right rather than to listen fully and consider options?
- Desire to compete
Some people love to exercise their egos by entering into battle. They don’t care so much about the outcomes as they do the fight. They parry and thrust, which means there’s precious little time left in an interaction to listen to the other person, especially if the other person has valid points and can also compete. The competitive person has no time to listen because s/he’s busy thinking of the next strategy that might win both the battle and the war.
I think I was much like this competitor as a teen. I entered many interactions, especially with my parents, intending to wear down the other side. The more exasperated my parents became the more my ego was fed with a sense of triumph. Fortunately, I got older and the rewards of collaboration were more ego-satisfying.
- Intimidation equals compliance
People with big egos often force others into agreement, or at least what they perceive to be agreement. Some people use their organizational power and position to intimidate, others use their persona and still others use knowledge to maneuver people into saying they agree. The person with the big ego walks away satisfied that others are in agreement with him/her. But, if s/he checked up on actions taken, s/he’d see that few actions were executed. All the people wanted was for the haranguing to stop, so they said yes without listening; therefore hollow promises were made with little intention of acting on them.
In this case, not only the bombastic person wasn’t listening, the audience wasn’t either. The egoist was in his world convinced there was agreement from others who actually just suffered in silence.
What other ego factors would you add and how do they impact poor listening?
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?
Listening at the Airport—Notes from the Field
I’m so inured to air travel that I don’t pay much attention to what’s going on around me. But tonight, in the Minneapolis Airport on my way home from working in NC, I did lift up my head and listened around me.
One man talked on-and-on without pausing, asking a question, or seeming to be in conversation with anyone else. Nearby, a couple sat next to one another, held hands, and made no other connections. When he stood up, she scowled and seemed indignant. He stretched, but didn’t wander as though he knew the limits, beyond which it would not be all right to stray.
Many people were on mobile phones, some talking so loud that anyone who cared to could hear every word of their interactions. I eavesdropped. One woman was helping an offspring work through a homework problem. One woman was gossiping about an errant family member. One man was berating someone over a business decision. One man was talking on the phone and poking his nearby wife’s arm to emphasize a point. And more than one person was talking, typing, and doing yet something else such as filing nails, eating, reading, and putting on makeup, all simultaneously.
I kept on wondering if any one of the people was listening. If so, what were the indications—laughter, raising or lowering of voices, pauses, or even silence? The one couple didn’t even need to say a word to one another to be able to read intent and expectations.
I’d love to ask each of the people I watched if their interactions were satisfactory and if they felt heard. Short of that, I looked for positive or negative signs. But, for the most part, people were blank and went on to whatever was next.
My conclusion is that listening is elusive and hard to describe even though it’s a huge part of our every day.
I Dare You!
If you’ve never gone to the Harvard Implicit site to take one of their many tests, you are missing an opportunity to learn about yourself, or at least, confirm what you already know or suspect.
All the tests I’ve seen are set up similarly, so after you take one or two, others might seem redundant. The power is not in the process, but the content; so ignore how the tests are set up, and pay attention to your responses.
Note that I got confused on one of the tests I took last night and I did not receive any results because there were too many mistakes. Make sure you understand the instructions before proceeding.
The first time I came across this site was when I attended a diversity conference and one of the speakers had us take one of the many tests to open our eyes about what kind and degree of biases we held. She made it clear that we all have prejudices and act on them, often unconsciously. The point of taking the test(s) was to develop awareness of our biases, manage our biases, and develop cultural competence.
The results were memorable and prompted the majority of attendees to want to talk about diversity at a much deeper level than when they walked in the door.
I know that there’s a strong correlation between our biases and listening. If, for any reason, conscious or unconscious, the speaker triggers a prejudice, that directly influences how attentive we are to that person. I wonder how seriously a listener who tells dumb blonde jokes takes the information delivered by a Marilyn Monroe look-alike?
Case in point. Many moons ago I ran a learning center at a college and we had a tutoring program. The faculty was very good at recruiting student tutors who met our criteria. A professor said he was sending over the top student in all of his science classes. About fifteen minutes later a beautiful young woman with curly blonde hair piled on top of her head, wearing knee-hi boots and rather seductive-looking clothing came to my desk.
As was customary, I asked how I could help her, I’m sure in a somewhat patronizing tone. As I started to reach for a tutoring request form, she introduced herself and said Professor Jennings suggested she come talk to me about becoming a tutor. Her favorite subject was physics, but she felt confident she could help students with most science subjects. She probably accounted for 25% of our tutoring load with great success for those students who looked past her looks and listened to her brilliance.
Let us know, if you are comfortable, what tests you took and how what you learned about yourself influences your listening.
Harvard University’s Implicit Association Test, which gauges prejudicial attitudes or beliefs about certain groups of people:
Neuromarketing and Listening
The crux of neuromarketing is to get to the subconscious brain before the conscious mind kicks in. Why? The neuroscientists would say it is to tap into a mind free from biases, memories and learning. The marketers would say it is to increase the likelihood that a product will sell.
As you know, much of our research at ListeningImpact focuses on the role of the brain in determining listening preferences. We’re pretty sure that there’s an instantaneous reaction when we’re in a listening situation that governs whether we will pay attention to the speaker(s).
The neuromarketers are trying to unravel that same hypothesis. Can we program the brain to pay attention? For us in the realm of listening, it is to help people make better decisions, collaborate more openly, and develop more satisfying relationships that happens when the brain is engaged in listening. For the neuromarketers, it is to reduce the failure rate of new products (80%) and increase the chances people will rush out to buy a product.
What the neuromarketers are doing is fascinating. Let me quote from an article, They Have Hacked Your Brain by Adam L. Penenberg, in the September 2011 issue of Fast Company magazine, p 89 that explains how the neuromarketers track what’s going on in the brain. Hang on, it’s heady:
…neuromarketers can track electrical waves as they relate to emotion, memory, and attention from specific areas of the brain: namely, the amygdala, an almond-shaped region that plays a role in storing emotionally charged memories and helps trigger physical reactions (sweaty palms, a faster heartbeat); the hippocampus, where memory lurks; and the lateral prefrontal cortex, which governs high-level cognitive powers (one being attention). Once the brain waves are collected, complex algorithms can sift through the data to connect each reaction to a specific moment.
What has all that to do with listening? While we don’t attach an EEG machine to people’s heads, we do help people identify what they pay attention to and what they ignore. We also educate people about all the various triggers in their lives that influence their attention. For example, when someone becomes aware of her physical reactions to another person, she can use her body to bring herself back into the interaction just by shifting position.
We at ListeningImpact and the neuromarketers with their very sophisticated technology aim to:
- Tap into the pre-conscious brain to isolate it from conscious thought and resulting behaviors
- Enable people to develop skills that will slow knee-jerk reactions to other people, information, and situations
Channel the brain, body and emotions into maintaining attention
Can an assessment actually tell me how I listen at work?
There are all sorts of assessments available to people who are curious to learn about themselves. They range from the pop psych quizzes to the well-researched and validated ones often used in business settings.
When I was deciding how to share my accumulated knowledge about listening habits, it was natural to think about creating an assessment. But first, I needed to address the reasons people turn to the instruments, and why more and more seem to pop up yearly.
Broadly, people take assessments to:
- make self-discoveries that add knowledge about what makes them tick
- get a framework that organizes descriptions of who they are
- be provided with information that can be used in real life
- gather hints about how to have better relationships, make better decisions, and be a more effective collaborator
I found that most hard working people want to feel good about themselves and contribute to the satisfaction of others in the workplace.
For example, with my assessment, Hear! Hear? Your Listening Portfolio®, people learn how they listen, what they pay attention to and what they leave on the table, what their body language signals to others, what triggers them to drift off, what questions they use to satisfy their listening habits, and how others read them as listeners.
If we look at some of the more popular assessments, such as MBTI, HBDI, EQi or FIRO-B, they enable the assessment-taker to understand his personality, thinking styles, emotional intelligence and relationship requirements. All these instruments are valuable and enriching, and each sheds a slightly different light on the person. But, if the individual does not use the assessment as a platform for discussion and growth, it is just information, and not much better than one of the pop psychology ones that can be found in Cosmo or FB.
The real benefit comes when an assessment highlights where to make changes that will be of personal and professional benefit, and the user sets about a course that results in real, valuable growth.
I’m often asked if there’s a process to make real change, not just cosmetic upgrades, but lasting and significant change. From what I’ve read, researched and observed, there does seem to be a process. It is:
test, practice, reflect, modify, practice
Read the next blog for more on the process.
Assumptions about What Makes a Good Listener
A person on a Linked In discussion I participate in stated that it’s necessary to be empathetic to be a good listener. The author went on to explain that no one will share information or ideas if the listener doesn’t display empathy.
I thought about that assumption a lot and just wasn’t convinced I’d agree. Then I went back to my research that led me to develop Hear! Hear? Your Listening Portfolio®.
The first piece of research that I returned to was from Chris Argyris and Donald Schon:
The words we use to convey what we do or what we would like others to think we do, can then be called espoused theory.
When someone is asked how he would behave under certain circumstances, the answer he usually gives is his espoused theory of action for that situation. This is the theory of action to which he gives allegiance, and which, upon request, he communicates to others. However, the theory that actually governs his actions is this theory-in-use, or what he does. (Argyris and Schön 1974: 6-7).
Their writing made me wonder if the Linked In person is himself an empathetic listener who both theorizes and models the behaviors that lead him to be regarded as a successful listener. In other words, if we observed his listening, would he “walk his empathetic talk?”
Next I went to an interview with Srini Pillay from the Neuroimaging Center at McLean Hospital. I’m only excerpting a little of what he said:
We know from brain imaging that the amygdala is stimulated when we are under stress – and a stimulated amygdala interrupts the functioning of the higher order regions of the brain (those involved in clear decision making). So, it’s an easy leap to say that you will make better decisions if you can quiet the amygdala (reduce the stress). Of course, stress cannot be just wiped away, but there are things that you can do to stabilize the amygdala – things like reframing the issue or refocusing attention on another element of the issue or decision. Anxiety is a very powerful emotion – even if you can’t see it, it is influencing the way you behave.
Dr. Pillay led me to think that not all amygdalae would be stabilized by empathy. As a matter of fact, being empathetic will only raise the stress of problem-solver or conceptualizing listeners (as described in my work). Only clarity, facts, data, and details will provide the problem-solvers with what they crave to settle their nerves. And conceptualizing listeners want space to generate ideas. To them empathy means freedom to think and interact without boundaries.
So we must be careful to acknowledge the needs of others and not lay our assumptions or projections upon them. One person’s empathy is another person’s nettle.
However, I did say in the Linked In discussion that no listener would fault by being respectful.
Why Are There “Yes” Decision-Makers?
London, April 20 (IANS) Some people are born “yes men,” thanks to their genes which make them more likely to follow other people’s directives.
Researchers found that coming to a decision often involves listening to two parts of the brain – one that relies on taking advice and the other on experience.
The brain weighs up the often-opposing views and then comes to a decision to take an action. But Brown University researchers in Rhode Island discovered that some people have genes that skew the decision towards one part of the brain than other.
They discovered the DARPP-32 genetic variation meant that individuals are more likely to do what he or she is told, even when it is contradicted by experience, the journal Neuroscience reports.
The gene means that like “a ‘yes man,’ who is flexible to a fault, the brain is more likely to be influenced by what it is told than what its experience tells it,” the report said, according to the Telegraph.
Michael Frank of Brown University recruited more than 70 people who gave saliva samples and then performed a computerized learning task.
The subjects were shown symbols on a screen and asked to pick the ‘correct’ one, which they had to learn by being given advice that was not always correct.
Ultimately, the people with DARPP-32 were the “ones who stuck with wrong advice the longest, and in a later test they were more likely to choose symbols that they were advised were correct over those that in reality had higher likelihood of being correct.”
Frank said that being a “yes man” might actually be advantageous as taking advice is easier and less dangerous than always having to experience things.
What does that mean for people with different listening habits? Each time you listen well, you rewire brain cell connectors and reshape listening ability; thus you increase the likelihood you will be a fluent listener rather than being a “yes” or “no” listener.
Is Listening a Social Activity?
The quick answer is, yes. The more accurate answer is, it varies according to style.
David Brooks, writing “The Social Animal” in the January 17, 2011 issue of The New Yorker, says:
“There’s a debate in our culture about what really makes us happy… Research over the past thirty years makes it clear that what the inner mind really wants is connection…Joining a group that meets just once a month produces the same increase in happiness as doubling your income.”
That’s powerful affirmation for YPO, Vistage and TED groups for example.
So, if what the mind craves is connection, how do the four (4) listening habits provide it given the differences in the four habits?
Let’s begin at looking at how socialization varies for each of the four (4) habits.
Inner-Personal listeners want to know the relevance of the information to them. They listen to connect the information to what they know and are interested in. In a work setting, that listener will connect to the person who has something worthwhile, in his opinion, to say.
I often attend the Boulder/Denver NewTech Meetup, not because I know much about new technology, but because I’m fascinated by the creativity in the room. The assembled group is a perfect example Brook’s hypothesis. They meet once per month to a sold out registration, talk in code, ask probing questions, come early to talk in loud, excited voices, and linger afterwards. In another setting, these mostly Inner-Personal listeners, might not interact at all with others and would spend their time inside their heads thinking about their interests while others label them as non-social.
Extra-Personal listeners want to know the relevance of the information to others. They listen to connect the information to how it pertains to the needs of others. In a work setting, those listeners will share what they’ve learned with others. They can be teachers and mentors or gossips because for them, knowledge is a connection commodity.
My partner, an educator, is both a voracious learner and very social. He uses what he’s reading or experiencing in his interactions. I’m often amazed at the conversations he gets into with total strangers about subjects it’s hard to imagine they’re both interested in, but they do seem to find common ground.
Problem-Solving listeners want to know the relevance of the information to a problem they are thinking about or working on. They listen to connect the information to their pathway towards getting to a right solution.
I recently conducted a session with a group of predominantly Problem-Solving engineers. They began sitting alone, not interacting with one another or me, and with heads in gadgets. As soon as I posted the group results from Hear! Hear? Your Listening Portfolio® and asked them to identify patterns and themes in their listening habits, they came alive. They moved closer to one another, pointed to the chart, asked one another and me questions, spoke up, and laughed at their similarity.
Conceptualizing listeners want to know how they can add ideas to what’s being presented. They listen to connect the information to everything and anything. Of the four habits, they are assumed to be the most social. Now we know that is not the case, but they make it easiest to detect. What they hear often gets translated into lots of new ideas that they just have to share.
They are the people who get others enthused about possibilities and options. I have a long-term friendship with a leader who was once on a team I coached. When he listens, he inevitably absorbs the information, generates ideas about how it can be used, and gathers others who want to come on board.
One problem I have with traditional Team Building activities is they are undifferentiated and assume one-size-will fit all.
If we accept David Brook’s research, then it’s important to allow people to work according to their varied social needs, and to listen for what has meaning to others.
More Research to Share #2
This post is a continuation of articles taken from Discover Magazine, Fall, 2010 issue on The Brain.
From the lead article:
Inside Man by David Ewing Duncan, pp 5-11
“With the power of neuroimaging, Discover reporter David Ewing Duncan takes a magical mystery tour of his own mind, exploring fear, memory, and faith.”
MJT: I’ve been following the work of Dr. Adam Gazzaley, director of The Brain Lab at University of California at San Francisco, and have cited his work in previous posts. In this article, the author goes to the UCSF lab to test his ability to remember.
“Through his research, Gazzaley has set out to prove that the brain does not lose its ability to remember as it ages but rather loses its ability to filter out unwanted memories; in a sense it remembers too much. He is demonstrating that the frontal lobe—the rational and decision-making part of the brain—has a major influence on what is retained by the hippocampus and the brain’s other emotional centers. Neuroscientists call this function top-down modulation, a process by which the frontal lobe guides both what people recall and what they do not want or need to burn into their memory cells. The brain does the same thing with hearing. Young ears (and brains) can easily discern the voice of a friend sitting across a table in a noisy bar; as ears and brains age, they are less able to pick out the friend’s voice from the barrage of others sounds. ‘We think it’s a filtering problem,’ Gazzaley says.”
MJT: Because aging brains do not always filter out what it was supposed to ignore, we must really focus our listening to absorb what is crucial. If you sense you’re not filtering well, learn and use techniques to keep yourself attuned.
Article:
The Internet Makes Deep Thought Difficult, if Not Impossible by Nichols Carr, pp. 13-15
MJT: I love the following analogy the author makes.
“Imagine filling a bathtub with a thimble; that’s the challenge involved in transferring information from working memory into longer term memory. By regulating the velocity and intensity of information flow, media exert a strong influence on this process. When we read a book, the information faucet provides a steady drip, which we can control by the pace of our reading. Through our single-minded concentration on the text, we can transfer all or most of the information, thimbleful by thimbleful, into long-term memory and forge the rich associations essential to the creation of schemas. With the Net, we face many information faucets, all going full blast. Our little thimble overflows as we rush from one faucet to the next. We’re able to transfer only a small portion of the information to long-term memory, and what we do transfer is a jumble of drops from different faucets, not a continuous, coherent stream from one source.”
“…improving our ability to multitask actually hampers our ability to think deeply and creatively….The more you multitask, the less deliberative you become; the less able to think and reason out a problem.” Quoted from Jordan Grafman, head of the cognitive neuroscience unit at the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke.
“The Roman philosopher Seneca may have put it best two thousand years ago: ’To be everywhere is to be nowhere.’”