Listening Competency in the Workplace:
A Model for Training
Lynn O. Cooper
Wheaton College, Wheaton IL
Listening is a desirable skill in organizational settings; good listening can
improve worker productivity and satisfaction. The challenge facing consultants is how to train employees to be competent listeners. Although much
research in listening has taken place over the last few years, little of that
research addresses workplace listening directly and much is based on false
assumptions: that listening is a unitary concept, that listening is a cognitive
rather than behavioral skill, and that listening is a linear act. In a 10-year
study, we developed a model of organizational listening competency that does
apply directly to the workplace. It provides a basis for assessing listening ability largely through the observations of co-workers. The model emphasizes two
effective behaviors: accuracy, that is, confirming the message sent; and support, that is, affirming the relationship between the speaker and the listener:
This model serves as an effective basis for improving workplace listening, both
through formal training programs and through individual workers’ own
efforts.
Few
EW PEOPLE would deny the importance of listening in the
workplace or the idea that training can improve productivity and satisfaction within corporate life (DiSalvo & Larsen, 1987; Gilchrist &
Van Hoeven, 1994; Lobdell, Sonoda, & Arnold, 1993; Smeltzer, 1993;
Stine, Thompson, & Cusella, 1995; Sypher, Bostrom, & Seibert, 1989;
Waner, 1995; Wolvin & Coakley, 1994). Listening training programs,
however, are often based upon faulty assumptions about effective listening rather than appropriate research data (Papa & Glenn, 1988;
Smeltzer & Watson, 1984; Wolvin & Coakley, 1994). Lewis and Reinsch
(1988) point out that many listening researchers have erroneously borrowed from educators to make corporate training applications. They
75
Downloaded from bcq.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 11,
2016
76
argue that the question facing consultants (unlike educators) is not
the value of listening competency in the workplace or whether individual workers can be trained to be better listeners (and therefore
more productive employees), but how to effectively accomplish this
training goal.
Brownell (1994) asserts that despite the value of listening in the
workplace, the vast majority of individuals entering American organizations in the next decade will not have any focused training in how to
listen effectively. This article presents a comprehensive model for organizational listening competency derived from our io-year study with
the Managerial Listening Survey. It also explores the implications of
this research for staff training and organizational development.
Problems in
Listening Research
an
Although impressive amount of listening research has taken place
over the last 50 years, few studies have attempted to understand listening competency in organizations. Within these studies, little information is available to tell us whether individuals who are perceived as
effective listeners actually listen better than others, or what other
important demographic information (e.g., the employee’s education,
experience, goals, and expectations) and organizational variables have
a significant influence on how listening is perceived. Listening
.
research was conducted for a number of years outside any theoretical
base (Witkin, 1990) and reflects three particularly inhibiting biases:
that listening is a unitary concept, that listening is a cognitive rather
than behavioral skill, and that listening is a linear act.
,
.
Listening Is Multidimensional
Initially, listening was viewed and variously defined as a unitary concept. In his pioneering work on listening, Nichols (1947) saw the
retention of information as the critical feature of good listening, and
this assumption formed the major theme of listening research and
corporate training in the 1950S (Nichols & Lewis, 1954; Nichols &
Stevens, 1957). Lewis and Reinsch (1988) believe the quality and comprehensiveness of Nichols’s work may have inhibited the conceptual
development of listening in the workplace. Only in the last two
decades have researchers moved to an acceptance of listening as a
complex, multidimensional skill.
Downloaded from bcq.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 11,
2016
77
Behavior
A second assumption in the research literature is the conception of
listening as cognition rather than behavior. Listening obviously
involves hearing and cognition and denotes such skills as selectively
Listening Is
a
perceiving, interpreting, understanding, assigning meaning, reacting,
remembering, and analyzing what is heard (Hirsch, 1986). However, in
viewing listening as a mental process and an unobservable skill,
researchers spend more time differentiating listening from other intellectual behavior (e.g., thinking) rather than defining what listening
actually is. When listening is viewed as a communication behavior,
the training agenda is changed to include social skills and social outcomes (Lewis & Reinsch, 1988; Rhodes, 1987; Roberts, Edward, &
Barker, 1987).
_
,
t
<
Listening Is Nonlinear
A third
assumption that hinders training applications is the belief that
listening is a linear act. A message is sent and the result is measured
(i.e., did the employee &dquo;get it&dquo;?). This is most noticeable in measurement of listening on standardized, paper-and-pencil tests which ask
subjects to listen to a message or focus on a set of stimuli and tell the
researcher what they hear. By contrast, a nonlinear model represents
the relationship among behaviors of interacting individuals and
includes intentional symbolic behavior designed to create meaning.
Recent studies have moved toward a receiver orientation in organizational listening training based on dyadic perceptions of listening
effectiveness in the work place (Brownell, 1990; Husband, Cooper, &
Monsour, 1988).
What conclusions should be drawn from a review of listening
research? Researchers are recognizing the limitations of traditional
listening research. Definitions derived from the classroom or laboratory may not transfer well to an organizational context.
Defining Listening Competency
Listening competency means behavior that is &dquo;appropriate&dquo; and
&dquo;effective&dquo; (Spitzberg & Cupach, 1984). Appropriateness requires that
workers understand the content of the interaction and not violate
conversational norms or rules excessively. Effectiveness deals with the
achievement of interaction goals, or the satisfaction of needs, desires,
Downloaded from bcq.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 11,
2016
78
and intentions. In short, competency is the successful adaptation to
situations and the achievement of intended or desirable results
through communication (Cooley & Roach, 1984).
Lewis and Reinsch (1988) identify three marks of effective organizational listening: following directions and suggestions, giving eye
contact, and portraying general attentiveness. Other researchers add
the ability to paraphrase (Wellmon, 1988) and understand another’s
point of view (O’Reilly & Anderson, 1980). Ineffective listening was
seen in failing to follow directions or suggestions, not responding to a
message verbally or nonverbally, talking to another, and forgetting
previous messages.
Testing Listening Competency in the Workplace
To develop a standard for measuring listening competency, we conducted a io-year study that incorporated three separate tests of a survey instrument (see Appendix). Originally called the Managerial
Listening Survey, we also termed some versions the Organizational
Listening Survey for testing that did not exclusively involve managers
(Husband, Cooper, & Monsour, 1988; Cooper & Husband, 1993;
Cooper, Seibold, & Suchner, 1997).
Method
We distributed the survey to employees who were taking part in communication training workshops. The survey consists of a 30-item Likert-type questionnaire that reflects various listening attitudes and
behaviors indicated in the literature. It also includes five semantic
differential items, including the co-worker’s judgment of satisfaction
with the work relationship and assessment of perceived listening
effectiveness. A follow-up study was then administered before participants finished interpersonal communication training (Cooper, Seibold, & Suchner, 1997). The workers who participated in the training
program received feedback in the form of a listening profile which
enabled them to compare self-perceptions of their listening behaviors
with the perceptions of their co-workers.
Results
Using the co-workers’
observations of listening, we developed a twofactor model of competency. The first factor deals with the perception
Downloaded from bcq.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 11,
2016
79
that the worker has accurately received and comprehended messages;
the second focuses on other-centered behavior that demonstrates support for the relationship with the worker. Listening with accuracy
involves discriminating facts from opinions, analyzing facts to understand messages, and remembering significant details from conversations. Listening to show support includes giving attention to the
individual and showing involvement with verbal and nonverbal
behaviors as well as the ability to make the other person comfortable
and undistracted while communicating (see Figure i). Accuracy and
support are highly correlated.
Figure
1. A Model of
~ ~~ ~
Listening Competency
As the reliability of the instrument was tested with various groups,
19 items proved to be the most reliable indicators (see Appendix).
These suggest a further correlation between others’ perceptions of
&dquo;satisfaction with the work relationship&dquo; and &dquo;effectiveness of listening&dquo; and the perception of listening competency.
Applications for Training
This research has several implications for the workplace. Organizations help employees achieve listening competency through training
and development. Training applies to a specific, necessary job skill;
development aims at broader objectives. Listening programs target
both areas, since listening skill can enhance an individual’s work performance as well as personal life. In contrast to training and development, Watkins (1995) uses the term &dquo;workplace learning&dquo; to
encompass what learners do, rather than focusing solely on the work
of consultants and human resource specialists in organizations.
Downloaded from bcq.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 11,
2016
80
Workers can learn
behaviors.
to
observe well their
own
and others’
listening
The Managerial Listening Survey offers an easy-to-administer, reliable measure of listening and provides a way to tailor staff training
according to the needs of individuals and organizations. Workers can
be surveyed and grouped according to similar needs. In addition, the
model reveals differences in others’ observations of competent
worker behaviors that might otherwise go unnoticed by describing listening competency from the receiver’s view. It provides a descriptive
tool for better assessment and encourages both self- and other-assessment.
The model confirms other research on training and development.
example, McCroskey (1984) recommends breaking down complex
communication behavior into component skills. Brownell (~990) uses
an instrument in both pre- and post-training assessment to transfer
specific, performance-based goals utilizing a cluster of behaviors
needed by the work group. Lewis and Reinsch (1988) insist it is impossible to improve listening competency without looking at the
employee’s interpersonal communication, nonverbal communication
and related skill training. For example, listening assessment can be
effectively taught along with writing because of the coupling of these
skills in the workplace (Stientjes, 1993).
As effective listening skills are identified and implemented, organizational planners must assess any changes in listening behavior following training, determine if these changes persist over time, and
relate changes to the particular instruction methods, frequency of
training, or materials used in the session (Haas & Arnold, 1995). How
is individual motivation factored and measured? Will this worker be
able to utilize these changed skills in the right time and place on the
job? Will co-workers perceive an increased listening effectiveness in
this employee?
Hall (1996) argues that, as important as formal training programs
are, most &dquo;real&dquo; training comes from peer-assisted, self-directed learning through such activities as project teams, task forces, electronic relationships, personal networks, customer relationships, and relationships
with co-workers. For this kind of on-the-job learning to be successful,
the organization needs to provide supervisory and technological support as well as an organizational culture that promotes learning and
For
Downloaded from bcq.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 11,
2016
IT
81
risk-taking. Supervisors can use such everyday activities as work
assignments, feedback, mentoring, and coaching to foster the mindset
needed to link specific workplace needs to a more self-directed,
empowered worker. Emerging information technologies are another
useful tool for training. The computer-generated, multidimensional,
inclusive environment of virtual reality may allow future employees to
learn behavioral strategies within a simulated setting. As a follow-up
to training, workers can try a skill or interactional routine repeatedly,
gaining confidence and skill in a practical way (Roth, 1995). The Internet can provide a form of collaborative learning in the workplace
while eliminating the boundaries of space, time, and distance. It can
also serve to enhance communication with others outside the barriers
of role, status and power among organizational players.
Future Needs
millennium, we must enhance oral commuwith
to deal
the changing needs of the workplace
(Folinsbee, 1995). Flattened managerial hierarchies, the domination of
teams and work groups, and new patterns of work (such as homebased work sites, job-sharing, and variable work hours) will become
the norm rather than the exception. In addition, an increase in the
number of diverse, multi-generational employees will force attention
upon social, cultural and value-based issues (Spikes, 1995). Based on
partnerships among human resources developers, managers, and
peers, the workplace can provide opportunities for team-based learning and growth in basic competencies such as listening. That is, the
work environment itself can become a development tool.
In order to train and develop the worker of the 2tst century, we
need short-term studies in naturalistic settings that capture the complex process of organizational listening. Such studies must represent a
collaboration between researchers and participants to achieve information useful in the workplace, especially in self-directed learning
applications like critical reflection in journals (Johnson, Barker, &
Pearce, 1995), performance appraisals, and team projects.
Training is generally based on the underlying assumption that
problems in an organization are caused by deficits in knowledge or
skills that can be remedied through an orchestrated program of learning (Cranton, 1996). The competency model outlined in this article
As
we
approach the
next
nication skills
Downloaded from bcq.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 11,
2016
82
should help trainers and workers themselves achieve listening skills
that will not only improve individual performance and satisfaction
but also make a positive contibution to the organization itself.
References
Brownell, J. (1990, Fall). Perceptions of effective listeners:
A management study.
The Journal of Business Communication, 27
(4), 401-415.
Brownell, J. (1994). Managerial listening and career development in the hospitality
industry. Journal of the International Listening Association, 8,
31-49.
Cooley, R. E., & Roach, D. A. (1984). A conceptual framework. In R. N. Bostrom
(Ed.), Competence in communication: A multidisciplinary approach (pp. 11-32). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Cooper, L. O., & Husband, R. L. (1993). Developing a model of organizational listening competency. Journal of the International Listening Association, 7, 6-34.
Cooper, L. O., Seibold, D. R., & Suchner, R. (1997, October). Listening in organizations: An analysis of error structures in models of listening competency. Communication Research 3.
Reports, 14,
Cranton, P. (1996). Professional development as transformative learning.
San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
DiSalvo, V. S., & Larsen, J. K. (1987, Summer). A contingency approach to communication skill importance: The impact of occupation, direction, and position.
The Journal of Business Communication, 24 (3), 3-22.
Folinsbee, S. W. (1995, Winter). Workplace basics in the 1990s: Critical issues and
promising practices. In W. F. Spikes (Ed.), Workplace learning, 63-73. San Francisco : Jossey-Bass.
Gilchrist, J. A., & Van Hoeven, S. A. (1994). Listening as an organizational construct. Journal of the International Listening Association, 8,
6-30.
Haas, J. W, & Arnold, C. L. (1995). An examination of the role of listening in judgments of communication competence in co-workers. The Journal of Business
Communication,
(2),
123-139.
32
Hall, D. T. (1996). The career is dead: Long live the career. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hirsch, R. O. (1986). On defining listening: Synthesis and discussion. Paper presented at the meeting of the International Listening Association, San Diego,
CA.
Husband, R. L., Cooper, L. O., & Monsour, W. M. (1988). Factors underlying super-
perceptions of their own listening behavior. Journal of the International
Listening Association, 2, 97-112.
Husband, R. L., Schenk, T., & Cooper, L. O. (1988, March). A further look at managerial listening. Paper presented at the meeting of the International Listening
visors’
Association, Scottsdale, AZ.
Johnson, I. W., Barker, R. T., & Pearce, C. G. (1995, October). Using journals
to
improve listening behavior: An exploratory study. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 9 (4), 475-483.
Lewis, M. H., & Reinsch, N. L., Jr. (1988). Listening in organizational environments. The Journal of Business Communication, 25
(3), 49-67.
Lobdell, C. L., Sonoda, K. T., & Arnold, W. E. (1993). The influence of perceived
supervisor listening behavior on employee commitment. Journal of the International Listening Association, 7, 92-110.
Downloaded from bcq.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 11,
2016
83
McCroskey, J.C. (1984). Communication competence: The elusive concept. In R. N.
Bostrom (Ed.), Competence in Communication: A multidisciplinary approach (pp.
259-268). Beverly Hills CA: Sage.
Nichols, R. G. (1947, February). Listening: Questions and problems. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 33, 83-86.
Nichols, R. G., & Lewis, T. R. (1954). Listening and speaking: A guide to effective oral
communication. Dubuque, IA: William C. Brown.
Nichols, R. G., & Stevens, L. A. (1957). Are you listening? New York: McGraw-Hill.
O’Reilly, C. A., & Anderson, J. C. (1980). Trust and the communication of performance appraisal information: The effect of feedback on performance and satisfaction. Human Communication Research, 6,
290-298.
Papa, M. J., & Glenn, E. C. (1988, Fall). Listening ability and performance with new
technology: A case study. The Journal of Business Communication, 25
(4), 5-15.
Rhodes, S.C. (1987). A study of effective and ineffective listening dyads using the
systems theory principle of entropy. Journal of the International Listening Association, 1,
32-53.
Roberts, C. V., Edwards, R., & Barker, L. (1987). Intrapersonal communication process.
Scottsdale, AZ: Gorsuch, Scarisbrick.
Roth, G. L. (1995, Winter). Information technologies and workplace learning. In W.
F.
Spikes (Ed.), Workplace learning, 75-85. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Smeltzer, L. R. (1993). Emerging questions and research paradigms in business
communication research. The Journal of Business
181-198.
Communication,
30,
An empirical comparison
length and level of incentive. Central States Speech Journal, 35,
166-
Smeltzer, L. R., & Watson, K. W. (1984, Fall). Listening:
of discussion
170.
Spikes, W. F. (Ed.). (1995, Winter). Preparing workplace learning professionals. In
Workplace learning, 55-61. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Spitzberg, B. H., & Cupach, W. R. (1984).
Interpersonal communication competence.
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Stientjes, M. (1993). Empowerment through employability skills: The ACT Work
Keys Listening Assessment. Journal of the International Listening Association (special issue), 56-63.
Stine, M., Thompson, T., & Cusella, L. (1995). The impact of organizational structure and supervisory listening indicators on subordinate support, trust, intrinsic motivation, and performance. International Journal of Listening, 9, 84-105.
Sypher, B. D., Bostrom, R. N., & Seibert, J. H. (1989, Fall). Listening, communication
abilities, and success at work. The Journal of Business Communication, 26 (4), 293303.
Waner, K. K. (1995, December). Business communication competencies needed by
employees as perceived by business faculty and business professionals. Business
Communication Quarterly, 58 (4), 51-56.
Watkins, K. E. (1995, Winter). Workplace learning: Changing times, changing practices. In W. F. Spike (Ed.), Workplace learning.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Wellmon, T. A. (1988). Conceptualizing organizational communication competence: A rules-based perspective. Management Communication Quarterly, 1,
515-534.
Witkin, B. R. (1990). Listening theory and research: The state of the art. Journal of
the International Listening Association, 4, 7-32.
Downloaded from bcq.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 11,
2016
84
Wolvin, A. D., & Coakley, C. G. (1994). Listening competency. Journal of the International Listening 148-160.
Association, 8,
Address correspondence to the author at Communications Department, Wheaton
College, Wheaton IL 60187 (e-mail: Lynn.L.Cooper@ wheaton.edu).
Appendix
Survey Items for the Listening Competency model
These 19 items proved to be the most reliable (numbers represent
numbers from the 30-item survey instrument).
t.
3.
4.
something when listening to show understanding
[doesn’t] react to details and sometimes misses the point
watches for tones and gestures to help understanding
makes eye contact when listening
says
5.
8. takes time
10.
11.
12.
16.
original
to
listen
to
others
simple questions when listening to clarify the message
[doesn’t] have difficulty remembering significant details
gives straightforward information in response to questions
[doesn’t] allow preconceived attitudes to interfere with what is
asks
heard
18. remembers
significant details of past conversations
[doesn’t] fail to discriminate fact from opinion
20. [doesn’t] find it difficult to express ideas or opinions during message
21. uses positive nonverbal expressions when listening
24. tries to make others feel at ease when talking
25. [isn’t] easily distracted by outside interruptions
26. analyzes what is said to determine the facts
27. [doesn’t] make negative verbal statements when listening
28. asks clarifying questions during conversations
29. [doesn’t] fail to hear consistency in facts and logic when others talk
19.
.
Downloaded from bcq.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 11,
2016
i
: