May 22, 2013

How do you get someone to listen?

Four people speaking in front of a laptopIt was an informal meeting in a hotel bar with 4 or 5 people present. I’d been asked to say a bit about this myself. This from someone I’d met only a few hours previously. Nothing very unusual about that. What was unusual was the way my short potted history was interrupted by comments, not to say criticism, from the other party. Let’s say my patience was tested, and eventually found slightly wanting.

The thing is…

How do you handle such situations?

Eventually, the other person’s turn to tell their story came, after we’d picked up the pieces, and it might have been tempting to return with interest the earlier challenging.

Instead, I managed to listen intently without interjection (I was tired, which helped), wondering all the while if the contrast was apparent.

The question is…

Does deep listening encourage a speaker to go on and on, or do they “get” that they are being honoured with attention and soon it will be time to return the favour.

In other words, does modelling “deep listening”—an apparently passive activity—encourage the same behaviour in others, whom one might rather imagine would just take advantage of the opportunity to talk all the more?

I find it does. People realise they are called to a higher standard of dialogue.

What’s your experience?

How do you get someone to listen?

How do you reach the problem person?

Three people in a meetingIt’s so often the way, isn’t it? Somebody you’re in touch with really sees the change you can help them make in their business.

The trouble is…

The person who most needs to change is someone else in the organisation, quite probably somebody very senior, perhaps the boss. They’re the business’s greatest strength but also it’s greatest weakness, simply because they have so much influence and everything they do is greatly amplified for good or for bad.

(OK, that’s assuming we’re already being the change we want to see and so on.

How do you help your contact successfully suggest a meeting with you to begin the process of change? How do you help them see what they need to see? How do you get started?

One way is to begin by seeking the problem person’s knowledge and input.

What works for you?

The unchanging nature of leadership

Admiral Horatio NelsonWe’re so accustomed to ever-present change and the need to lead ourselves and others through challenging times, we’re inclined to think leadership itself is a changing field. I am anyway, or I was.

Actually, of course, it’s really the one constant…

I mean leadership in the sense of contributing something to help shape the future, or more literally, “stepping ahead.”

The nature of leading is a timeless quality, resting partly on skill, partly on personal presence, and partly on inner belief and sense of purpose, and more besides—an art much more than a science, and so somewhat elusive.

Our individual knowledge of leadership, of course, changes as we learn and grow.

And yet the nature of leadership probably stays the same, and so a very worthwhile investment.

Sometimes people talk about different styles of leadership. I’m not so sure. I believe all of these styles (or most of them) are part of the range of the best leaders—the ones with the most flexibility. Ultimately leadership encompasses them all.

Constrained or radical?

Tall buildings in LondonIf you’re on the inside, it can be hard to stimulate change in the wider system because although you have some explicit authority, you’re constrained by your stakeholders’ expectations. We can’t really look to you to show the way on a wider front.

If you’re on the outside, it can be hard to stimulate change because although you’re not constrained, you don’t have authority.

But you do have the chance to be radical.

And those on the inside need those on the outside to be radical, because the stakeholders are influenced.

And then those on the inside can do something different because they have authority.

And then the system can change.

Humility and influence

Group in discussionDo those with the most humility have the most influence? Or is vocalising knowledge and expertise an essential part of gaining the attention required to make a difference?

Often it seems that those who have learned the most have the least need to speak, whilst others who are working things out need to express their ideas outwardly.

Of course, we need to remember some people like to process internally and others externally as a matter of preference, so we need to take that into account.

That allowed for, sometimes it’s the quieter ones—the ones with humility—that really have the knowledge, and in fact the greater influence. Perhaps they know enough to know how much they don’t know, and so we trust them more.

What’s your experience?

Are we talking about the same thing?

Informal meetingThe conversation seems to go round in circles. Actually, it would be more accurate to say it meanders all over the place. The participants do seem to be talking about one subject though. After all, they’re using the same words.

But they’re not talking about the same thing at all.

And so the conversation doesn’t make much sense and the result is a fog.

The reason is, of course, words mean different things to different people, and they automatically attach the meaning they know to what’s said. All these different meanings have their place, to be fair, but we need to make clear which one we have in mind.

Take “leadership”, for example—one of the most talked about themes in the world today. Unfortunately, also one of the words interpreted in many different ways, such as…

Going first
The individuals in charge of an organisation
Politicians
The exercise of authority
Management
Taking the initiative in a team
Contributing something to shape the future
Stepping ahead or across
Setting an example

That’s just a few of the possible interpretations. The problem is we may not realise how different our understanding can be.

In another example, we tend to talk about measures and targets interchangeably as if they’re the same thing. They’re not. Measures help us learn about a process, and generally are helpful. Targets, on the other hand, are much more controversial. Do they lead to the desired outcomes or do they make them less likely? Talk in a muddled way about targets and measures without distinguishing between them and we have little hope of making progress.

This all seems rather obvious, but public gathering after public gathering shows we still make the mistake.

It’s wise to assume our words have a wider range of meanings than we realise and state the one we mean (as well as our respect for the rest).

If you want a fruitful conversation; take time to make clear what you’re talking about.

Otherwise, make plans for fog.

Changing what you know

Woman reflecting… as opposed to what you know about.

It’s one thing to know about something, quite another to know a subject and be able to deploy it in life. Unless you can do (or be) something, you don’t know it, not really. There’s a world of a difference between knowing your purpose and knowing about purpose, for example.

This comes up with books—a great change resource if used properly…

Sometimes people ask me to post a summary of a book I’ve read for them to access, as if that’ll achieve the same effect. And sometimes, I’m offered summaries by other people.

It would be handy if you could radically cut the time invested and still get the same result, and change by just as much.

You can’t…

You can know about something from a summary, but you can’t truly know it.

The best books take you on a journey of learning. You’re changed by the process of reading from cover to cover. Your unconscious mind accepts new patterns. As a result, you live what you’ve learned, and achieve the corresponding results.

Changing what you know about isn’t the same as changing what you know.

A summary most likely won’t change what you know. Skip the reading and you skip the change.

What do you know about and what do you really know? And how do you tell the difference?

(I think a clue is one’s a head thing and the other’s a whole body experience.)

Are you condemning yourself to be wrong?

Margaret Thatcher and Tony BlairWe see it as all or nothing with political leaders, and others too for that matter. If there’s something we dislike about them or what they’ve done, we’re inclined to dismiss everything about them.

Nice and tidy, but a mistake.

Because some of what everyone does is right—even the most extreme people you can think of.

If we do the opposite, we are almost bound to be wrong some of the time.

Dismiss everything about someone, and we’re left with only the alternative, on every point.

Best to notice what is right, even amongst what is wrong.

Clarity or ambiguity—which is your friend?

Executives listening to a presentationMost of us have been brought up to seek precision; to look for clarity; the one right answer.

So it seems natural to be uncomfortable with ambiguity.

And yet…

Sometimes ambiguity is our friend. It helps keep people together and, oddly enough, things on track. It allows connection to develop and be sustained.

Define things too precisely and some of those involved will no longer be on board. Keep things a little bit loose and they can leave their hats in the ring, especially if they are predisposed to for other reasons.

Eventually, perhaps, the differences will have to be reconciled. Or perhaps they won’t. Maybe they’ll be unimportant by then, so much having been achieved by the joint effort.

Some questions have more than one answer anyway. “Both-and” applies more often than we realise.

So the skilful management of “creative ambiguity” is an art worth practising.

And of course, in the words of the Tao Te Ching, “Mystery is the doorway to understanding.”

Perhaps ambiguity is a doorway too.

Holding the mystery may create the conditions for learning. Going for clarity too soon may shut them down.

What’s the right amount of ambiguity to tolerate for the particular outcome you want?

Profiling—reformer or reinforcer?

Team of business people walkingThere’s a problem with the team. They’re not performing as effectively as we would expect…

Tempting perhaps to reach for the psychometric profiling tools to understand who’s doing what and why.

But there’s a danger…

The results of profiling are almost bound to reinforce the problem patterns because they give the individuals involved greater reason, justification even, for being the way they are.

Sure…

They may become more aware of their traits and choose to change them—that is a possible outcome.

But it might be better just to build their flexibility in the first place; to coach them in different ways of showing up in the world.