Listening Versus Talking

Leading others is one of the toughest jobs in an organization; it requires an astonishing level of adaptability to the workers and presenting context. Research tells us that while there is not a single set of traits found among all leaders, some characteristics are typical. For example, an extraverted personality is often associated with leadership, although examples exist where this is not true.¹ Typically a leader also has a high need for Power and Achievement and a lower need for Affiliation (McClelland's work).² My research has found that senior leaders also tend to be higher in the trait of narcissism; behaviorally this means a leader enjoys being the center of attention and seeks adoration and confirmation from followers.³

 

These behaviors can dampen the effectiveness of a leader.  One behavior that has been observed to cause problems is the failure – out of ignorance or lack of willingness – to listen instead of talk; some leaders do most of the talking. Leaders have the same natural human tendencies we all do. However, these inclinations may diminish the capacity of one’s leadership. Here are some examples followed by some solutions:

Meeting Domination

I have spent countless hours in decision-making meetings where the person in the more senior role dominates the meeting. If the leader is high on the trait of narcissism, it may stem from his/her exhibitionist tendencies. Alternatively, if they are high on the need for power, it may be a way of confirming who is in charge. Sometimes leaders react negatively when participants interject their thoughts. When a leader reacts harshly to an outspoken participant, it casts a pall over the session; a negative outcome may be evidenced by a reduction in participation.   

Why should a leader avoid these behaviors? To start, if the leader is doing all of the talking, he or she is not listening. There have been countless studies of Transformational Leadership that suggest individualized consideration is a component of effectiveness.¹ Most workers have the need to participate in meaningful and purposeful work, and when one is not allowed to express important ideas and thoughts, it robs the worker of these opportunities and organizational effectiveness can be decreased.

Leaders who are dominant also don’t get to hear what others are thinking. Perhaps this comes out of the belief described in last week’s post that he or she knows better. How can an organization optimally function when the leader does all of the talking and thus is the only person expressing ideas? 

The Interview

I have found most job interviews (excluding the process in academia) rather dull and horrifying. It is dull from the perspective that I did little talking and horrifying in that the organization did not have any idea who I was when I left the process. A job interview is about getting the candidate to talk so the organizational members can assess alignment, skills, and if he or she is a match to the position.¹ I have been on many interviews where I simply nodded my head while the leader interviewing me did all of the talking. Given that hiring the right people is one of the most important activities performed in an organization, a leader must ask probing questions and keep the candidate responding. Organization fit is very important, and a structured interview technique can be utilized to assess; it also permits adequate comparisons between candidates.

Listening Barriers and Avoidance

It is a truism that leaders don’t always know the reality of what is happening “on the ground” in their own organizations. In fact, leaders should expect to receive mostly positive and few negatives from their direct staff and employees; this comes from a desire to give the leader what the worker thinks he or she wants to hear. 

Sometimes leaders create barriers out of a desire to empower employees. Unfortunately, some leaders go too far and assume this means laissez-faire; leaders must always know what is happening in their organization. Getting reports and having regular dialogue is an effective way to make this happen.   

Some leaders are not interested in listening; they fail or refuse to walk around and engage with organizational members. Granted, leaders may be overwhelmed with meetings, emails, decisions, projects and due dates, but it is vital to carve out time to be with workers, as opposed to operating above or separate.  A leader who is not genuine in this process is just as bad.

Solutions

In meetings the easy solution is to talk less and question more. Deep-dive probes without being intimidating can pay dividends for leaders; it sends the signal he or she cares and respects the workers enough to engage in conversation and listen to their ideas. There are also benefits to the organization because it is very common for ideas to bubble up from below.

Leaders can change the interview process. The interviewer and candidate have a finite amount of time together. For every second the interviewer talks, the candidate is not sharing vital information about his or her knowledge, skills, abilities and fit. Unfortunately, the leader in his or her excitement about the organization, and or what he/she has done with it, may get in the way of learning about a candidate.  

Leaders don't always like to mingle with the troops. Some leaders believe they are above it all and this is not necessary. Others have the attitude that followers are just expected to do the job and a leader, due to his or her power position, does not need to do anything other than make this expectation clear. Some leaders are afraid of doing the wrong thing. None of these leaders, in my opinion, are prepared to lead and probably should not be in the role. Leading by definition is a process of reaching organizational objectives through and with others. It is not optimized by the use of power or by sending out commands. Due to the size of the business, some leaders are far away (e.g. in another state or country) from workers, but there are still ways to engage.

Finally, leaders need to find mechanisms and ways to learn what is happening. This could mean the use of skip-level lunches, employee focus groups, and/or through the development of relationships at different levels of the organization. Sometimes workers are asked to participate and observe high-level meetings so lower-ranking members can feel more involved. Organizations have also created employee councils to advise management on issues of relevance.

Leaders need to listen more than they talk; if a leader wants to influence workers to do more, they need to engage with the workers in a way that motivates; this means caring enough to listen. Of course, getting the “right people on the bus”⁴ is important, and thus listening begins in the interview.

Please feel free to make comments.

References

¹  Robbins, S., & Judge, T. (2011). Organizational Behavior (14th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

²  Yukl, G. (2006). Leadership in Organizations (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River: Pearson.

³ Arvisais, M.A. (2009). “Narcissus in the Workplace: What Organizations Need to Know.” Submitted to Journal of the North American Management Society.

⁴ Collins, J. (2001). Good to Great. New York, N.Y: HarperCollins.