Nov 09

Falling Behind the Listening Curve

Yesterday our defense secretary was fired because of the election results. Our president said he had heard what people had said by voting out a significant number of republicans and in a significant number of democrats for local, state and federal offices. And since the exit poll research said the primary issue for voters was their dissatisfaction with how the Iraq war was being handled, our president decided to fire the man (almost) at the helm of the program, Donald Rumsfeld.

Then President Bush went on to say he would work to establish good bipartisan relations with the people in the majority party who had supplanted the folks from the now minority party.

Now, this brief analysis is not about politics; it is about listening. It seems to me that what has happened is that as long as the nation’s leader had around him more people who agreed than disagreed with him, he would not have to listen much, if at all, to the dissenting opinions of those who did not agree with him. This is dangerous. When a leader surrounds himself or herself with so many agreeable people that the dissenting opinions of equally passionate and skilled people (and in this case, equally empowered representatives of “the people”), sooner or later, the leader will miss an important trend - and be blindsided.

Blindsided by what? By decisions those ignored people took precisely because they were not listened to. Blindsided by actions borne of dismissiveness, at worst, or a slightly-too-focused pursuit of one’s goals, on the brighter side.

Leaders should be insatiably curious. Insatiably curious. Not just a little curious, unrelentingly curious. While I am not a George Bush fan, the point here is not about the man. It is about how a leader solicited, weighed and set aside the views of people who saw a different reality than he was seeing…and, importantly, wanted to talk about it more openly - and what can happen as a result.

Falling behind the listening curve really means not listening well at all. Sooner or later, those who are not listened to, those whose views are not equally weighed with the prevailing views will take matters in their own hands. In this case, it was by firing a bunch of people and hiring a bunch of others. For followers of poor-listening executives the workplace, it often is by firing the company (and the person) they were working with and hiring a new company and leader to go work with.

Being ahead of the listening curve means openly and actively seeking the views, both logical and emotional, of everyone involved. It means thoroughly considering dissenting views and working to understand their merit. Sometimes there is no merit. Sometimes there is. Perhaps those with alternative views see things invisible to the majority’s eyes. And besides, the effect good listening has on those being listened to proves the action is worthwhile no matter the end result. Listening is one process that has very little downside, even if the idea I am putting forth is deemed unsuitable for further consideration or action. Listening is about the process more than the “result” or “value” of what is being voiced.

Business leaders who listen well, invite open dialogue and participate in vigorous debate, posit alternative strategies and entertain seemingly harebrained ideas are much more likely to end up with not only well-considered programs, but programs that are more fully embraced by the people being led - if only because those people feel they were fully heard out.

People are substantially motivated by being listened to. It’s time to really get that!

Uncategorized