Sonic refle ctions from Gary Diggin s
The Leader as Listener
In the workplace, our impact
on a colleague or a team often
comes from what we impart
silently rather than the good ideas
we dispense verbally. Big ears are
more desirable than a big mouth
when it comes to communicating
a sense of interest, support, and
empowerment. Employees can
usually determine whether a
co-worker is fully present by how
much the person says silently. A
listener’s gaze, posture, and
overall energy can convey an
important message: “I am fully
present for you. I am not just
rehearsing what I will say once
you stop talking.”
In medieval times, citizens
used to apply for an “audience”
with a sovereign figure or a
religious authority. In many cases,
they didn’t anticipate receiving
volumes of advice. A person’s
problems were simply seen in
a new light because the speaker’s
words landed with someone who
wasn’t distracted. Likewise,
a good leader doesn’t possess
any magical powers other
than creating an empowering
condition for others. Listening, in
this process, is like brilliant
candlelight. It illuminates possibilities that were present all along
but obscured in the dark.
Relative to effective communication, let’s consider some of
the modes of listening that either
serve or obscure meaningful
exchanges.
The Sympathetic Listener
Sometimes, as a listener, we
may feel compelled to come
up with an intensity of emotion
that corresponds with how a
speaker feels about a particular
issue. When we work hard to
match the speaker’s level of
passion or disturbance, we might
be described as a sympathetic
listener.
The problem with being a
sympathetic listener is not so
much that we feel compassionate
about the speaker’s issues, but
rests in the fact that we are rarely
silent about our reactions.
Frequently, a sympathetic listener
has a compulsive need to assure
the speaker that “I understand
exactly what you are feeling.” He
or she will habitually point out
that “I’ve been in identical
situations,” and will repeatedly
offer unsolicited examples of how
the “same thing happened.” One
can’t
entirely
fault
the
sympathetic listener. The desire to
support others is inherent to
human nature but, despite good
intentions, there can be a flawed
side to sympathetic responses.
As a rule, interrupting a
person’s storytelling with our own
“relevant” tale disrupts the flow
in the speaker’s narrative and
cancels the possibility of the
exchange dropping down into a
deeper level. More importantly, it
is dis-respectful to compare two
life experiences. If we genuinely
aim to be compassionate as
listeners, then we’ll deliberately
honour the particulars of
another’s life. A client or
colleague may ask, “Have you ever
been through anything like this?”
At that point we are given
permission to share a related
experience – but always with the
knowledge that no two situations
are identical and the lessons
learned are not transferable.
More often than not, what a
speaker needs is undiluted and
focused listening in order to sort
through a jumble of thoughts
or tangle of feelings. In most
cases, a sympathetic listener
doesn’t actually hear what is being
said. It appears as if the listener is
feeling empathetic about the
speaker’s suffering but he or she is
actually dialed into personal
memories that have been
triggered. The experience is akin
to having two radio stations
dialed in and trying to
comprehend both broadcasts
simultaneously.
For further information on events or workshops, please contact Gary Diggins at:
(416) 482-2783; e-mail: [email protected]
1
The Leader as Listener
The Generalist Listener
Qualitative communication
can also be dissipated when we
generalize what a person is telling
us. A listener who generalizes
takes the unique particulars of a
situation and reduces those
specifics into handy assumptions.
“Oh yeah, that’s something that
happens all the time to women.”
“Well, that’s par for the course as
far as bosses go.” “Sure, that just
confirms my experience about those
kinds of people.” Such grand
sweep
thinking
prevents
penetrating
insights
or
unprecedented perspectives.
The tendency to generalize is
partly due to a widespread interest
in psychology over the past several
decades. With pop psychology
inundating us from talk shows,
supermarket magazines, and selfhelp books, it’s easy for each of us
to think like an amateur therapist
and dole out pat psychological
theories or categories for complex
situations.
By regarding the general
population in general terms, we
lose our discernment of the
explicit details in a situation and
thereby circumvent an important
discovery process. No longer is
a coworker telling us about the
run-in he had with a colleague.
We are merely hearing “another
example of passive-aggressive
behavior.” Thinking and listening
as a generalist, we no longer
receive another as an intricate,
one-of-a-kind individual. Instead,
people appear to us as “extrovert,
Type A drivers,” “addictive
personalities,” “passive aggressive
individuals,” or “emotionallyunavailable bosses.”
It has been enormously
helpful for us moderns to be
exposed to various psychological
models as we traverse the dense
jungle of our psyche. Many of
these concepts have served us as
practical signposts. Problems
arise, however, when we regard
those models and systems
completely, as if the complexities
and peculiarities of a life could be
simplified into narrow terms and
theories.
Effective communicators aim
to listen from an intrigued and
interested place where the details
of someone’s situation are heard
exclusively not comparatively. A
leader/listener knows that when
general assumptions are made,
when someone’s difficulties are
squeezed into neat packages, it is
too tempting to have ready-made
answers available without really
hearing a person out.
Think of a person who is
telling you about a disturbing
interchange she had with a
manager. If you are listening
through preconceived notions
that you have about gender, age,
cultural
background,
or
psychological temperament, then
you may assume that the
interchange was “typical of that
type of person.” In this sense, we
all need to be more discriminating
and less discriminatory in our
listening. A listener who pigeon
holes individuals with convenient
psychological terms is not unlike
someone who categorizes people
according to their professional
category, ethnic background, or
religious faith.
If we simply listen through
preconceived notions we have
about certain political, racial,
sexual, and professional backgrounds, then soon no one has
anything new or strange to say to
us. We’ve reduced everyone
and everything to mediocre
theories, presumptions, and
beliefs. The antidote to classifying
a colleague’s problems under
convenient psychological categories is to listen from a place free
of mindsets. Only then can we
hear someone’s situation from a
fresh perspective.
The Analytical Listener
The magic of a meaningful
exchange can be quickly dispelled
if we continually analyze what
someone is telling us. When we
habitually analyze a speaker’s
words we are not really hearing
the person’s content in context
but are pulling apart fragments
with the hopes of examining and
comparing them. The analytical
listener, working with detached
pieces, makes large leaps of
connection to preformed ideas.
Fast-track solutions are built on
the illusion that if a coach can
intellectually isolate the factors
within an issue then he or she can
logically understand it, fix it, or
change it. Fortunately, the issues
others share with us are usually
composed of elusive mysteries
that stubbornly resist being
pinned down by analysis.
I come from a counseling
background and I know it is
difficult for a person seeking help
to find someone who will listen to
stories of suffering and be equally
mystified as to the “cause.” A
client is more likely to find
therapists who listen analytically
so they can offer efficient advice
based on their “if-then” theories.
For further information on events or workshops, please contact Gary Diggins at:
(416) 482-2783; e-mail: [email protected]
2
The Leader as Listener
Analytical listening is a convenient
but contrived means of piecing
together disjointed parts of a
story. “If this happened to you,
then such and such must have
resulted.” A complete chain
of
deductions
is
forged.
Should you tell a therapist that
you were sexually abused as a
child then almost everything
you subsequently say may
be scrutinized according to
preformed ideas and expectations
regarding sexual abuse.
When the analytical ear is
stilled, a focused silence emerges.
A quality of quietness presents
itself not because someone
refrains from speaking. It comes
largely from a silencing of the
detective mind. Instead of taking
apart everything the speaker says,
in an attempt to build a case and
arrive at a conclusion, the listener
holds a client’s words in a spirit of
wonderment, fascinated by an
incomparable story.
The Empathic Listener
Each of us deserves to be
heard as an individual. Our
situation is not just like so and so,
our difficulties are not typical of
such and such a trait, and no one
person is a typical bundle of
symptoms. The alternative to
listening styles in which we
sympathize, generalize, or analyze
is to be found in the practice
whereby we empathize with a
speaker.
To listen empathetically is not
to sit with our best poker face, not
saying or feeling a thing. Rather, it
is a state imbued with just the
right mix of compassionate
support and intellectual clarity.
demonstrate that he or she
clearly understood or needs to
have something clarified by
the speaker.
The listener, in an empathic state,
assumes a frame of mind that
might be found by a practitioner
of meditation: still, alert, and onepointed.
A few decades ago, Dr. Carl
Rogers and Dr. Eugene Gendlin
conducted extensive research at
the University of Chicago trying to
understand what made a
“successful”
counseling
or
therapeutic
session.
After
listening to thousands of taped
sessions between therapists
and clients, Gendlin concluded
that the depth of a session was
only marginally related to the
therapeutic techniques employed.
Neither did it hinge upon the
actual content a patient talked
about. Success largely depended
on two things:
how patients talked about
what was going on inside
themselves and;
how therapists supported this
inner process by active
listening skills.
Out of his research, Gendlin
developed a technique for
therapists to practice empathic
listening skills. He called his
process Focusing and wrote a
training manual on the basic
tenets. While the process can’t be
reduced to a few methods there
are four main guidelines in the
Focusing technique that are
central to the coaching process.
A listener never introduces
topics or verbal content that
doesn’t arise from the speaker.
A listener never imposes upon
the speaker his or her own
interpretations of what the
speaker said.
A listener may support the
speaker’s process by asking
questions that help the
speaker access “felt” answers
as opposed to “mental” ones.
Empathic conversations feel
distinctly different from what
most of us are accustomed to in
everyday social conversation.
As we incorporate these four
tenets of empathic listening,
the conversation can feel a bit
stilted. It may be awkward for
the speaker because few of
us get to communicate without
interruption. As a speaker, it may
feel like we are delivering a
soliloquy to an audience of one.
Most of us are more accustomed
to what we imagine is interactive
communication.
In reality, many conversations
are not equitable exchanges but
rather like two disconnected
monologues
pursued
intermittently. Empathic listening
promotes a deep exchange by
setting up a more formalized or
ritualized situation with definitive
roles of participation and rules of
interaction.
Agreements of the
Empathic Process
Empathic listening can enhance a
conversation because it is
predicated on a few important
agreements. Throughout the
entire process the listener agrees:
A listener only speaks to
For further information on events or workshops, please contact Gary Diggins at:
(416) 482-2783; e-mail: [email protected]
to not interrupt the speaker
with helpful advice
to not to play cheerleader with
well-intended encouragement
3
The Leader as Listener
to not recoil because of
personal reactions to content
to help a speaker get to what
he or she feels about an issue,
a goal, or an obstacle.
Upon first inspection it may
appear as if this technique puts
the listener in a passive position.
We are just allowing a speaker to
“run off at the mouth.” However,
this methodology is not about an
open-ended monologue for the
speaker. The listener does
contribute verbally from time to
time, albeit concisely. Little
phrases, such as “I can see how
this made you feel that way,”
provide strong indicators from the
listener to the communicator that
she is coming across. Other
expressions, such as “I lost you,”
or “could you please say that again
for me,” help to elicit clarification.
Empathic listening also entails
summary statements, voiced by
the listener. The point of these
summations is not to change
anything but to get to the crux of
what the speaker precisely meant
or felt. Usually the listener
rephrases what was heard in his or
her own words and then waits for
the speaker’s response or
continuation. (The exception
would be when dealing with
rather tender or personal detail in
which case one repeats the
speaker’s description verbatim.)
By feeding content back in
summation
statements,
the
listener gives the speaker an
opportunity to take in what has
been expressed. The speaker may
subsequently need to add to it,
correct it, and restate it. One of
the values of this clarification
process is that it helps a client to
precisely communicate what he or
she is feeling relative to a
situation, a block, or a desired
goal. This is new ground for many
people in that few of us are
accustomed to making our
underlying feelings explicit.
Sometimes it takes effort and
perseverance to put feelings into
words since the majority of us are
rather vague when it comes to
describing matters of the heart.
In a hypothetical exchange,
the speaker may want to get to a
new level of cooperation with his
co-workers. As the story unfolds,
the speaker discloses an event in
which he felt shamed by coworkers and about which he is
now feeling intense anger. The
speaker’s description may be
rather complicated since it
involves circumstantial details as
well as feeling reactions. The
listener, making sure she
comprehends the facts and forces
involved, continually restates the
essence of what she heard in a few
sentences. The speaker, upon
hearing this, might then fill out
the picture further or clarify with
additional comments.
The listener then incorporates
the corrections and restates, “So it
wasn’t that everyone made a snide
comment to you, but everyone did
laugh at you.” This may enable the
speaker to dig even deeper into
the circumstances or feelings. The
exchange may go back and forth
again until the listener formulates
another summation sentence such
as, “So I get that what hurts most
for you is that you feel put down by
people you trusted.”
The listener, in this process, is
always moving toward a clearer
view.
When
she
doesn’t
understand exactly what the
speaker meant, she asks for
repetition. In sorting through the
details, the listener takes care not
to make critical comments such
as, “You were a bit vague there.”
Neither does the listener dismiss
what the speaker communicated
by blankly stating, “I didn’t
understand a thing you just said.”
Usually there are points the
listener did comprehend and
builds upon those. “I understand
how important that incident was
for you but I wasn’t sure about...”
This process facilitates a
focused exchange for both
participants and doesn’t allow
ambiguity to lull either person
into a dazed state. If something is
not understood, the listener goes
for clarity before the speaker
proceeds. The speaker, as a result,
reflects deeper upon the inner
material in order to surface
various issues and accompanying
feelings. Since the trajectory is
always toward clarification, it
doesn’t matter whether the
listener comes across as a bright
person, an expert coach, or a
compassionate soul. The ride may
even be bumpy at times. Perhaps
the speaker has to repeatedly say,
“Well, no it’s not really like that,
it’s more like...” Regardless of
stops and starts, the experience is
an empowering one since it is the
speaker who is uncovering the
opportunities and obstacles
hidden within highly personal
material.
In the empathic process, it is
not uncommon for a speaker to
feel uncomfortable or evasive the
closer he or she gets to emotional
blocks such as regret, shame,
anger, or sorrow. One of the
strategies we each have for
For further information on events or workshops, please contact Gary Diggins at:
(416) 482-2783; e-mail: [email protected]
4
The Leader as Listener
avoiding a felt experience is to
dive into descriptive details in our
narration. We tell the story but
skip over the emotions. In these
cases it is permissible for the
listener to interrupt the speaker in
order to ask that he or she return
to the feeling content. The listener
might say, for instance, “Excuse
me, before we go on, could you
return to that feeling of frustration
you just mentioned? I don’t want
you to say anything just now. I’m
asking you to sit with that feeling
for a few seconds and then talk
about how it is affecting your way
forward.”
Sometimes a speaker has been
living with a problem for several
years and has habitually used
words to frame it. An individual’s
explanation of a problem can be
so formulated that, unconsciously,
the person is resisting change. The
individual may say, “I know that
procrastination is my hang-up. I
have felt that for years, so what else
is there to say?” In these cases,
rather than resort to advice, it’s
helpful to pose a question such as:
“How might you feel if this wasn’t
in the way?”
The trick in such a situation is
for the listener to help the speaker
broaden any feelings about a
problem. Instead of confronting
what is stuck, a tactical question
might be asked that could yield
fresh feelings. The listener might
say, “I heard that you sense this is
the way you are and nothing ever
changes. Do you have any further
feelings about your condition?”
Rather than fight against words of
stubbornness, one might probe
the sense of desperation behind
the words. Perhaps anger or
frustration about the problem
comes up rather than a pessimistic
roadblock that states, “I’ll never
change.”
The question might be fairly
asked whether the technique of
empathic listening can work
outside this more formal
approach to a conversation. The
answer partly hinges upon the
arrangement and agreement
between two people. Anyone can
try talking less and listening more
in order to help a partner or
friend speak their heart; but
empathic listening is more than
talking less. It involves specific
techniques of communication
such as confirming what a speaker
has said, asking for clarification,
and making summary statements.
Because the process is structured,
it is important that both parties
contract to use the techniques.
Otherwise the experience might
come across as too controlling.
Without mutual consent about
the process, the listener may
appear as a neutral interviewer
who never really discloses what is
going on in his heart or her head.
In the end, one the highest
compliments that could be paid
to an individual is to be characterized as a good listener.
For further information on events or workshops, please contact Gary Diggins at:
(416) 482-2783; e-mail: [email protected]
G. Diggins
5