Abstract

Listening has been identified as a key workplace skill, important for ensuring high-quality communication, building relationships, and motivating employees. However, recent research has increasingly suggested that speaker perceptions of good listening do not necessarily align with researcher or listener conceptions of good listening. While many of the benefits of workplace listening rely on employees feeling heard, little is known about what constitutes this subjective perception. To better understand what leaves employees feeling heard or unheard, we conducted 41 interviews with bank employees, who collectively provided 81 stories about listening interactions they had experienced at work. Whereas, prior research has typically characterized listening as something that is perceived through responsive behaviors within conversation, our findings suggest conversational behaviors alone are often insufficient to distinguish between stories of feeling heard vs. feeling unheard. Instead, our interviewees felt heard or unheard only when listeners met their subjective needs and expectations. Sometimes their needs and expectations could be fulfilled through conversation alone, and other times action was required. Notably, what would be categorized objectively as good listening during an initial conversation could be later counteracted by a failure to follow-through in ways expected by the speaker. In concert, these findings contribute to both theory and practice by clarifying how listening behaviors take on meaning from the speakers' perspective and the circumstances under which action is integral to feeling heard. Moreover, they point toward the various ways listeners can engage to help speakers feel heard in critical conversations.

Highlights

  • IntroductionRecords indicate the engineers gave up after their concerns went unheeded—much like Greg in the quote above

  • A tragic example comes from the explosions on the Challenger and Columbia space shuttles, disasters that may have be avoided through better listening

  • While these exceptions create greater insight into the subjective perception of workplace listening, the decontextualized lists of behaviors they offer are not suited to provide insight into how the items take on meaning for speakers; rather, qualitative, inductive studies are better suited to this purpose (Maxwell, 1996)

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Records indicate the engineers gave up after their concerns went unheeded—much like Greg in the quote above Both scholarly research and practical wisdom suggests that organizations benefit from high-quality listening. There are exceptions in which researchers have built conceptions of listening based on actual accounts of dyadic workplace interactions (e.g., Lewis and Reinsch, 1988; Lipetz et al, 2020) While these exceptions create greater insight into the subjective perception of workplace listening, the decontextualized lists of behaviors they offer are not suited to provide insight into how the items take on meaning for speakers; rather, qualitative, inductive studies are better suited to this purpose (Maxwell, 1996). From a practical perspective, understanding subjective perceptions of listening interactions should pave the way for more effective interventions (Brockner and Sherman, 2019)

Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call