Archive for November, 2008

Years ago, when I first met Ed, I became intrigued and inspired by the listening method he espouses when I saw the result of it in a conversation we arranged  with “Tom,” a man with whom I’d had problems for years.  I was certain that my assessment of Tom was correct, especially since several of my friends had the same view of him.  Assuring me that he would coach me in my listening, Ed suggested that I meet with Tom, and that I primarily listen rather than speak. I was skeptical and reluctant, but gave it a try.

As we drove to the meeting, Ed suggested that I initiate the conversation with my SPEAKING turn, but to keep it very brief — no more than one or two sentences, because Tom would already be reacting either in his head or out loud to me — and then to shift to a LISTENING turn for as long as it took for him to express his reaction.  Why continue speaking if he wasn’t going to hear anything I said?  That made sense to me in terms of understanding the two fundamental Conscious Conversations questions: (1) Whose turn is it to SPEAK or to LISTEN? and (2) Who’s got the ‘red?’ Initially, I have the ‘he talked for over 2 hoursred’ so I start the conversation.  Immediately, he has the ‘red’ in reaction, so then I need to shift to listening.  

That is exactly how it played out.  After briefly opening the conversation, and keeping my own ‘red’ in check, I just let Tom react, and talk about the issue from his perspective.  I listened as he talked for over 2 hours, becoming more and more animated and inspired by the ideas that were coming out of his mouth.  I’ve known Tom for over 35 years and this was the first time i saw him so inspired.  I could hear his “humanity,” so to speak; instead of just his shortcomings.  I was moved by his emotion (which seldom happens to me).

By the end of his speaking, i didn’t need to say a word.  It was all complete for me.  To this day, there is no more resentment in me about Tom.  After that evening, i was hooked on the possibilities of listening in a different way–to suspend or censor my own reactions & judgments in order to create a safe space for the other person to draw out their buried grief, hopes or dreams.

-Kathleen

As an end in itself, listening becomes simply a technique.  It might look good, and make people feel good, but what is accomplished?  We can say to ourselves, Wow, I listened great, yet it seems much more is required — some kind of action connected with what we are understanding often seems required.  If we are not moved to action I’m not sure we can say that we really understand.  It’s easy for listening to remain an intellectual exercise.

Example:  Years ago, standing on the sidelines with other parents watching our kids’ baseball game,  I  listened with appropriate feedback (e.g. So, it’s hard to see him standing out there, the only one on the field without a glove) to a woman feeling bad about not being able to afford to buy a glove for her son.  A few minutes later, feeling self-satisfied with my listening, I moved away from her to attend to something else. Awhile later, a friend who witnessed my exchange with the woman came over to me and said, Ed, you might be interested in what happened after you left that woman whose son didn’t have a glove.  Remember the man who was standing on the other side of her?  After you listened and left, he handed her $30.

I’ve never forgotten that incident.  I “listened” as a technique, but that man was the one who really heard her. Can we listen, and say we understand, and not take action on what we hear?  Have we really understood if we are not moved to action?

Ed

The red and green lights are a metaphor, they are not necessarily a rule.  The “green light” in a conversation, for instance,  is a cue that indicates the speaker is probably finished speaking. Usually, it is shown by the speaker saying some form of “Yes,” and nothing more, in response to my listening feedback:

e.g. “Exactly” or “Right” or “That’s it” or “No, I didn’t” or perhaps an affirmative head nod.

The “green light” is only an indicator. It is not an automatic clue to begin taking my turn to speak — OK, I did my listening. Now I get to talk.  See post, “How long to listen?”

Standing outside the polling place talking with a few friends, we were approached by a man who started muttering angrily to us about how Obama wanted to shut down all the coal mines, and what a jerk he was.  I immediately took in what he looked like, guessed why he was talking to us, and concluded that there would be little hope in telling him he had the wrong context about Obama’s coal comment.  He didn’t like Obama, and would use any information he had to support that stand.  Facts to the contrary would most likely have little impact.  This 3-second assessment told me all of our time would be better served by walking away.

My friends began to react to him.  I don’t think it was a conscious choice.  I was feeling the same agenda they were pushing — to influence him and to change his mind — I just didn’t think a speaking turn would be helpful at that point.  I watched their exchange for a moment or two, adding in a few listening responses like, “So, you basically believe Obama is a jerk.”

He’d nod at me and then go back to the argument with the others.  So, the question I’m left with is, “How does one influence someone who wants to believe something that may have no factual basis in reality?” Is it even possible?

My conclusion, so far, is that nothing can happen without the willingness to first listen.  It seems logical:  why should someone listen to me when I’m not willing to listen to him/her?  Yet, we’re all trying to convince each other of our ‘rightness.’ In a situation like this, for example, with a person holding strong political beliefs, it seems I could listen for a few minutes and really try to understand what I believe is an insane and totally ‘wrong’ point of view.  “So, that comment about the coal really convinced you that Obama isn’t someone whose values you can support.”  “It seems like no matter what anyone would tell you about Obama, even a fact that made sense to you, you won’t change your mind. You want to dislike Obama, no matter what.”

That’s what I was hearing in his speaking, so that would have been my listening feedback — to his process more than to his content.

If I can manage to withhold my own point of view for a few minutes, I might actually be able understand this person  and he would feel understood.  What other path is there to begin a successful communication?  Who’s willing to listen first?  After listening, and getting his “Yes,” I would have a chance to say, “Here’s something I know about Obama that might make sense to you.  Remember how he ________ ?” The man would most likely go off on me again.  And if I was willing, consciously to stay with the process, I would listen again, and the communication cycle would be repeated, with me giving up a lot of airtime.  After 10 or 20 minutes, we might have the start of a productive conversation.

What if this was a spouse, and I disagreed just as vehemently as I did with this stranger?  If I have the skills of Conscious Conversation, am I willing to listen without being listened to in return?  This is just the reality of life on the planet.  People don’t know how to listen.  We don’t value it enough to teach it in our schools, and few teachers are skillful listeners, themselves, so where will people learn how to do it? People don’t know how to do it, much less want to do it.  Given that reality, what am I willing to do?

Ed

I was in a group recently where the question came up of how a listener knows when a speaker is finished?  There’s not an easy answer to that one.

The most expressive speakers are easier to read.  They just put it all out without taking a breath as if there’s no tomorrow.  When they finally do pause to take a breath, they are usually finished.   Someone like me, on the other hand, who is slower in general and pauses to think a lot while speaking is tougher to read.  I might pause for 5 or 10 or more seconds to think about what I am saying and what I want to say next.

So, there’s a whole lot to think about re whether or not a speaker is finished.  Often I know a speaker is done, and it still does not feel appropriate to take a speaking turn.  They might be done speaking, but I know they are not done with their feelings about whatever it was they were talking about.  I know it.  I can feel it.  So, I don’t  just start responding or speaking because I’ve got the “green light” and it’s legal to speak.  In this case it might be best to say something like this to the speaker, Wow . . . a lot in that for you.  Seems even too big for you to handle.  I have some time tomorrow afternoon if it would help to say some more about it.  That would be great, and if not that’s fine. Hey, thanks so much for being willing to tell me about it.  Ready to go get some pizza?

The point: The SPEAK: LISTEN ratio is not 1: 1.  Just because I listen does not mean I automatically get to speak even if all the cues are there that the speaker is done.  Life is not just about me, and my reactions, and what I have to say.  A little less self-absorption can go a long way toward better communication.

Ed