By Caroline M. Cole

In 1968, American visual artist and leading pop art figure Andy Warhol observed that “in the future, everyone will be world-famous for 15 minutes,” and the decades since have exploded with venues to make that possible. Television talk shows in the 1970s and 1980s, for example, began shifting the norms of whose ideas were worth hearing by providing a platform where everyday individuals could open their lives and pour out their hearts. A decade later, tabloid talk shows began increasing the numbers of people on stage by handing a microphone to all who were willing to appear before a camera and share their ideas and stories—no matter how controversial or outlandish. The Real World, Big Brother, and other reality shows intensified matters by putting non-professionals before a camera, not to talk about themselves for an hour, but to live out their stories before an audience of millions. Meanwhile competitions like American Idol and America’s Got Talent continue to widen the spotlight, suggesting everyone is like Norma Desmond: ready for their close-up.

Personal websites, blogs, YouTube videos, e-publishing, Twitter, Facebook, and other social networking sites have added to the fray, overwhelming our lives with forums in which people representing all cross-sections of society are vying to broadcast their stories, their ideas, their observations, and even themselves to the world. Along the way, they’re finding that their Warholian 15 minutes of fame is not enough, making them increasingly reluctant to relinquish the spotlight for anyone else. But as everyone scrambles to get and stay on stage, is there anyone willing to be in the audience and actually listen?

Compared to talking, many consider listening a passive activity, especially in cultures that value “doing” as a sign of productivity; therefore, those who listen are often seen as the weaker, submissive participant in a conversation. For example, in her research on verbal interactions, Pamela M. Fishman notes that conversations demand more than simply the presence of others; they require “the display of their continuing agreement to pay attention to one another…through the continual, turn-by-turn efforts of the participants.” Unfortunately, she goes on to note, participants often replicate society’s hierarchies, thereby keeping members of the dominant group in more powerful positions (including that of speaker) and members of the subordinate group in roles that neither control nor benefit from the process; they are, according to Fishman, “the ‘shitworkers’ of routine interaction”—individuals that help keep the conversation going with various communication strategies, among which is being a “good listener.” In such contexts, it becomes easier to understand why listening is the literacy skill that gets least attention. Everyone wants to be the one who is noticed, not the one noticing others. But even those who want to be better listeners may be acting in ways that inadvertently sabotage their efforts.

Some people, for instance, assume that remaining silent while someone speaks is sufficient for listening to occur, while others believe that being able to recount what someone has said is evidence that listening has taken place. In both cases, individuals may have heard what has been said, but hearing and listening—though interdependent—are different.

Hearing is the ability to perceive auditory signals that come to us through sound waves. It is a passive activity in that, providing we do not have any auditory impairment, we can still hear sounds, even though we may not be conscious of them. Listening, on the other hand, involves noticing particular sounds from among all of the sounds in our environment, processing them, and deciphering their meaning within the particular context. For example, we can hear the noise a door makes when it slams, but listening involves interpreting that noise: Is it a windy day? Did someone leave in anger? Is the door’s hinge pins loose, or could the weather stripping around the door be worn?

Hearing the sound, considering possible interpretations, and identifying the most plausible meaning in a given context is the essence of listening, and it is this process that allows us to establish relationships with and deepen connections to each other. The following strategies can help in this enterprise.

• Be present. Televisions and music playing in the background, smart phones and other digital devices going off, people coming into and going out of the room, working on projects or addressing other matters at the same time, and other elements that take our attention off the individual who is speaking hinder our efforts to be available in the ways that help us both hear and understand what someone is trying to say. And while we may be able to participate in some activities simultaneously, communication requires a mindfulness of both explicit and implicit conversation cues. Therefore, by minimizing distractions and focusing our attention on the speaker, we can be present in the ways that active listening requires and, hence, more successful in our exchanges.

• Listen to understand what others mean. Hearing what speakers say is critical to listening, but accurately interpreting what they mean requires us to consider more than just their words.

Albert Mehrabian, Professor Emeritus of Psychology at UCLA, devised the “7%–38%–55% rule” to explain inconsistencies between verbal and nonverbal channels. According to Mehrabian, 55% of communication is body language, 38% is the tone of voice, and 7% is the actual words spoken, prompting many to suggest that 80­–90% of communication is non-verbal. Mehrabian cautions against such overgeneralizations, going as far as to post a disclaimer on his website: “This and other equations regarding relative importance of verbal and nonverbal messages were derived from experiments dealing with communications of feelings and attitudes (i.e., like–dislike). Unless a communicator is talking about their feelings or attitudes, these equations are not applicable.” Even so, people continue to use his research to argue that communication is primarily non-verbal.

While Mehrabian and others debate the percentages of verbal and non-verbal communication, what’s important to this discussion is the idea that communication is more than words alone. Therefore, if we aim to understand what others are saying, we must not only be attentive to what they say, but the ways they are saying it (for example, their delivery, their body language), the reasons they may be saying it, the context in which they are saying it, the audiences to whom they are saying it, and so on if we are to increase the accuracy of our interpretations.

• Remain silent as others are speaking, and let them finish. If we are talking, we are not listening. Therefore, even if we think we know what someone is trying to say, we should be patient and remain quiet until that person has finished talking. As the Greek philosopher Epictetus observed, “Nature hath given men one tongue but two ears, that we may hear from others twice as much as we speak.”

Listening may not require absolute silence at all times. In fact, Fishman’s research suggests that much of the maintenance work in a conversation actually involves talking, such as “minimal responses” (that is, words like umm, mm-hmm, yeah, oh…) inserted between a speaker’s breaths—not over the speaker’s words—to signal an ongoing attention to and interest in what is being said. Research by Candace West and Don H. Zimmerman suggests that constructive conversation overlaps might also include statements or questions signaling a need for clarification—not an attempt to “violate” the speaker’s turn in talking (for example, “I’m not sure who X is…” or “I’m unfamiliar with the concept of Y. Could you explain what that is?”). But even in the midst of such conversation maintenance work, we should remain attentive to what the speaker is saying.

Staying quiet while others are talking requires discipline and practice—especially when we may disagree or when the person may be complaining about us. Counting to three once the speaker has stopped talking is one strategy for enhancing communication, ensuring that the person has finished his or her thought, not simply taking a breath. But whatever our system, remaining patient and letting others finish their ideas and their sentences demonstrates an interest in what they consider important, disconcerting, valuable, noteworthy, and so forth. We also avail ourselves to new information or different understandings of topics and, perhaps, of the speakers themselves.

• Focus on what others are saying, rather than what we will say next. Although listening involves a willingness to learn from another person, Stephen R. Covey writes in The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People that “most people do not listen with the intent to understand; they listen with the intent to reply.” Unfortunately, by using silence to plan how we might respond, rebut, or redirect the conversation altogether, we indicate that we are less interested in what others have to share than we are with securing the stage for our own egos: we have important ideas to share, we have interesting perspectives to add, we have a worthwhile contribution to make here, and so on—and we think our contributions are more worthy that what the present speaker has to offer.

Granted we may have things to offer the conversation, but others do as well. Therefore, by providing a space where everyone can share the microphone in front of an attentive audience, we can promote more inclusive discussions that enrich the perspectives of all participants.

• Let speakers hold onto the spotlight and help them shine. While people are speaking, the listeners’ comments, facial expressions, and asides can reveal what they think about the speakers’ topic, the speakers’ views on the subject, and even the speakers themselves. Responding “I know that,” “you can’t be serious,” “that’s stupid,” and so on, for example, suggest the speaker is willfully wasting our time with information that is not worth sharing. Muttering things under our breath and side conversations can be equally disruptive. The former lets others know there’s disagreement, but in a way that is not conducive for them to respond constructively; the latter suggests the speaker is not worth listening to and can also prevent others from hearing what someone is trying to say. But disruptive responses are not always passive-aggressive. Statements like “I know what you mean,” “oh, me too…,” or “When I was in a similar situation…” may convey empathy but, depending on the context, they also redirect the focus away from what the speaker is trying to say and onto ourselves, even briefly. The same holds true for most quips that people interject into a discussion, for such comments suggest, “Look at me and how clever I am!”

Body language can also discourage accurate listening. Crossing arms and legs, turning our torso away from the speaker, rolling our eyes, scowling, looking at a watch or clock, drumming our fingers, doodling, checking smart phones or other digital devices, and so on can all suggest a lack of interest in what someone is saying, which will inevitably affect what listeners hear and the accuracy of their interpretations of that information.

This discussion is not to suggest that we cannot disagree with or take offense at what someone is saying, but effective communication requires participants to hear out, rather than derail speakers so that we can help others deliver their best performance and, in doing so, establish a platform that allows us to enter the spotlight in a way that merits equal consideration.

• Keep our biases in check, and verify what the other person has said before responding. Filtering information through our own biases and perceptions, we often hear things that the other person may have neither said nor meant, prompting us to respond or react in unjustified ways. Therefore, in addition to letting speakers finish their ideas without interruption, we should ensure our own ideas—either about the topic or about the speakers themselves—are not distorting their message.

To that end, once the person has finished speaking, we should delay any approval or criticism until after we have confirmed that our understanding of what the other person said is, in fact, accurate. We can do so by offering a neutral, matter-of-fact summary of the speaker’s comments or ideas in a way that the speaker him or herself would confirm. Along the way, we should ask open-ended questions for clarification or ask the speaker to elaborate on the ideas or information we may not have fully understood. For example:

 “To be sure I understand your ideas about… could you explain what you mean when you said…?”

“I’d like to clarify something you said about… Can you say more about how…?”

“I am unfamiliar with… , so I don’t readily see how these ideas connect. Could you tell me more?”

Even when we think we understand what the person has said, we should reiterate or paraphrase key points and ask the speaker to confirm whether we have understood correctly; for instance:

“I hear you saying… Is that what you mean?”

“I’d like to make sure I understand your position accurately…”

“It seems as if you’re suggesting… Is my interpretation correct?”

In recapping what others have said, we can enhance our connection to the speaker by adopting language echoing their presentation and, perhaps, learning style. For instance, auditory learners might respond to sound-related language, such as “I hear you saying…” or “it sounds like… .” Visual learners might respond to phrases such as, “I imagine that…,” “I see…,” “It appears that….,” “Your observations that…,” “It looks like… .” Meanwhile, tactile- and feeling-oriented learners might find greater connection to statements like, “I sense that…,” “It feels as if…,” and “ I understand you saying that….”

Whatever language we use, our primary goal should be to verify what the person meant to say, minimizing any misunderstandings so we can make better decisions about how or if we might respond.

• Think before offering a response. Having verified our understanding, we must consider how to respond most constructively, even when we don’t agree with what has been said. In other words, how can we add value to the discussion and, simultaneously, protect the speaker’s ego? Author and executive educator Marshall Goldsmith explains one way to do so.

In What Got You Here Won’t Get You There, Goldsmith advises that we develop the habit of asking, “Is it worth it?” Noting that genuine conversations are more than a talk–respond–talk–respond exchange, Goldsmith explains that the most effective listeners are comparable to experienced chess players who think several moves ahead. That is, having heard what an individual has said, effective speakers will consider what they might say, the phrasing they might use, and the ways that response will make the person feel in the moment, in the hours, days, weeks… that follow—and they do all of this before opening their mouths.

By considering whether the immediate and subsequent exchanges are worth it, Goldsmith suggests we can bypass responses that have unintended and, perhaps, long-term repercussions—especially when we consider that the responses we offer (whether in words, in actions, or a combination thereof) tell others what kind of people we are: How important, respected, and valued do we make speakers feel as they are talking? Do we merely hear what others say, or do we actually listen to understand the messages they intend to offer? How well do we listen; that is, can we accurately report what others have said, regardless of whether we agree? How compassionately do we listen, in terms of our time, our attention, and our interpretations of the speaker’s message? By thinking about the ways our responses will affect immediate and subsequent exchanges, we can build and sustain relationships, even during times of disagreement.

• Postpone conversations that may need more time and attention than what is presently available. Active, accurate listening takes time, and while many conversations are possible in the moment, some topics or interactions may deserve more attention or time than is presently available. In such cases, it would be both strategic and honest to ask to postpone the discussion, rather than rush through points or otherwise shortchange the conversation in ways that leave others feeling unheard. In taking this approach, however, it is vital to propose a specific time frame and to follow up, lest this action be viewed as a tactic for avoiding uncomfortable conversations. For instance:

“This topic may need more time then we have left in our meeting. Can we pick up this conversation at the start of our call next week?”

“I’d like to think more about the concerns you raised. Could we arrange a time to meet next week to discuss these points more? What day would work for you?”

Although others might prefer an immediate response or resolution, delaying a conversation until a time that we can be fully engaged, prepared, or otherwise available can help them feel heard.

* * *

In their efforts to impress others and make a name for themselves, people will always compete to hold the microphone or to dominate the spotlight. The ability to listen, however, may be an even greater asset, for when we give people our attention, we make them feel as if they matter, as if they’re special, as if their comments are worth hearing, and as if they are worth listening to. It is empathy, concern, respect, and validation in action. And people notice.

They may not remember the words that were exchanged, but they will remember how they felt, and being both heard and understood will help them feel valued. And that feeling will make one of the greatest impressions.

Working toward Areté…
In the space below, share your observations and strategies for becoming better listeners.