LISTENING, DECIPHERING & INQUIRING SKILLS

I begin this article with a thought-provoking story relating a revered philosopher, considered a sage in ancient Europe around 400 BC. The story goes like this ………….

One day, one of his mentees anxiously approached “S”. The mentee expressed, “Sir, in case you have not known already, I want to tell you what I just heard about “P” (another philosopher of the same era who was competing against the teachings of S) from my friends.”

S immediately cut in. “Hold on! First, I like to ask you three questions as a filter test.”

The mentee was bewildered. “Huh? A filter test?”

“Yes, First filter test, on truth. Can you vouch what you are going to tell me is true without any doubt?”

“I can’t say for sure,” replied the mentee. “I just heard about it from two friends who said they had heard from a source.”

“So, you don’t really know whether what you heard is true or a false,” retorted S. “Now, the second test, this time on goodness. Is the talk about the person something good?”

“No, on the contrary……….”

S cut in abruptly again before the mentee could complete answering. “Hmm, sounds you want to tell me something bad about another person although probably may be false.”

The mentee’s countenance radiated embarrassment.

“But you may still pass the test though, if you can pass the third filter, on usefulness,” continued S. “Is the information you want to share with me any use to benefit my work?”

“Er…….not really…….”

“Well, if the subject you have in mind may be false, is bad about another person and of no use to my work, why tell it to me?”

His mentee then walked away in silence, feeling dejected.

This story shows why S was a sage revered for his righteous philosophies. But it also explains why he never knew P was flirting with his wife, to secretly elicit materials from his work archives with intent to counter his teachings.

Perhaps, a slight twist might have been added by the narrator of this story. Yet, it presents a valid truth applicable to people holding leadership roles.

May I summarise the moral of the story for the benefit of readers who are leaders, as follows:

(       * Have an open mind to listen, despite the possibility of hearing unfounded information.

(    *Listen first, then decipher whether what is said is pertinent.

(    *Not necessarily leaders deemed to be astute are perfect and always right. They also misjudge at times.

(    *Sometimes, rumours may indicate signals of possible developments albeit not entirely factually true. Leaders should be willing to listen, then check for validation. And if found to be valid, the information will be useful for gearing up preparations to handle the imminent developments.

Many leaders hold the notion that their leadership role mainly involves providing advice, making decisions and paving directions. They are somewhat right regarding this perspective. Conversely, however, they overlook the vitality of listening. They fail to recognise that due diligence given to listening forms the basis for averting adversities.

Had S the philosopher been willing to listen to his mentee, he would have discovered the hideous plot of P and his wife. On one hand, he demonstrated wisdom by not engaging in vain talk. On the other hand, he missed the chance of discovering a truth which not only would adversely affect his immaculate image as a philosopher, but also would engrave the stigma as the cheated and clueless husband.

There is a difference between being wise and being prudent. Wise individuals tend to act according to their profound guiding principles. Prudent individuals open their ears to receive valid inputs from other stakeholders for incorporation with set guiding principles before deciding and acting. Good leaders exude both wisdom and prudence, i.e. manifesting wisdom at the wholesome level, thus averting possible risks and flaws.

Interactive listening facilitates the listener to decipher the validity of a statement or said happening. Truths are difficult to elicit from counterparts without the skill to decipher efficaciously. The “art” entails making scrutinised observations while interacting (with a counterpart) and listening.

To validate the real essence of cascaded information or statements, observing the “body language” of individuals in the interaction process may be needed. The ability to interpret body language is a handy asset which leaders should aspire. I, myself, attended courses on body language and applied it in my discourse with various stakeholders during my tenure in previous corporate engagements. I am an ardent observer of this phenomenon.

A person’s body language is depicted by gestures, postures, countenance, voice pitch, verbal speed etc. Body language involves gestures of the eyes, face, arms and the rest of the body stance vis-à-vis the environment he is in. Body language prowess helps to extricate more information not verbally said upfront but unsaid inside the mind and heart of a counterpart, which in turn adds weight to sound judgement for meting out the right decision or action regarding an issue. Polished leaders are profound thinkers, penetrative listeners and extractive decipherers.

How does a leader detect whether a subordinate or peer is stating true facts or otherwise? Well, that will require some inquiring skills. Let me relate a true story. Many years ago, I was invited to witness how my superior managed out a subordinate who had been lagging far behind the monthly targets on new agents (doing sales) recruitment. Before calling the subordinate for dialogue, my superior examined all trail reports pertaining to recruitment activities over the past 12 months, viz. the register containing names who received invitations to each month’s career orientation programme (COP), names of enrolees, names of actual participants who attended the sessions, names of confirmed candidates who signed up the agent’s contract after the sessions. He then listed down the numbers on a piece of paper.

I still remember the gist of the dialogue on that “fated” date, somewhat like this:

SUPERIOR: “For the next COP, how many people do you think will enrol?”

SUBORDINATE: “Err…about 100.”

SUPERIOR: “How many invitations have you sent out?”

SUBORDINATE: (Silent pause)……”120.”

SUPERIOR: “How many do you expect will really turn up for the COP?”

SUBORDINATE: Err……….say, 80.”

SUPERIOR:  “And, how many minimum new recruits are expected to be contracted thereafter?”

SUBORDINATE: (Long silent pause)…………………”Well, 50.”

SUPERIOR: “You are confident of your figures?”

SUBORDINATE: (Silent pause, with face gazing downward)…….”Yes” (in subdued tone).

SUPERIOR: (Took out his paper and referred to it). “Let’s see this list that consists details of your past 12 months experience. The number of sent-out invitations, with the support of agency sales managers, averaged around 100 per COP. Past statistics show about 50 enrolled for each session but fewer than 30 turned up as attendees. And only 5 to 7 of the attendees finally signed up the agent contract. Tell me, falling on your previous scores as shown in this finding, how can you ensure you will be able to recruit 50 new agents from the next COP? Share with me your plan what you are going to do differently in order to achieve the figures mentioned by you just now?”

SUBORDINATE: (Long silent pause and looked dumbfounded. He never reckoned my superior would scrutinise the records on the scores of his past recruitment tasks.)…………………...”I will do my best.”

SUPERIOR: “Saying you will do your best is not the right answer. It shows you didn’t draw up any plan to carry out your recruitment activities in line with your targets all along. And you merely plucked unreal figures from the air when queried by me. Please correct me if I’m wrong.”

SUBORDINATE: (Total silence, with glum countenance)

End Outcome: The subordinate was required to resign, with an exit compensation granted to him. Obviously, the non-performer had not been executing his assignments seriously but instead went on carefree mode as his routine job. He was caught unprepared by the skilful inquiry deployed by my superior.

Before a leader can decipher correctly, he must first listen and inquire effectively (using the right technique). This is one skill that leaders should covet via education, practice and experience. The “art” very often engages in paraphrasing statements or answers from respondents to affirm correct understanding. It also includes observing gestures (body language) of the respondents during dialogue.

Experienced listeners can decipher whether a respondent is utterly honest or otherwise in rendering answers. For example, an immediate exclamation of “yes, absolutely!” with a radiant smile connotes confidence, in contrast to “well…..(pause), yes” (in subdued tone and nonchalant demeanour), depicting uncertainty.

For effective leadership to materialise, the leader concerned ought to know the situation and events prevailing in his territorial realm – or ground feel, so to speak. Such cognition depends very much on the knack to solicit correct pertinent information via interactive listening, which invariably connects with proactive, skilful inquiry.

Interactive listening, deciphering and inquiring constitute the elements. Practice and experience emanating from acquired knowledge on the three elements represent the combined essence. The elements coupled with the essence form the potent force for drawing out truths from counterparts. See the holistic link?

SUM UP:

Leaders who only focus on paving directions will not be stellar until and unless they also exude keenness to listen interactively, which incorporates deciphering and inquiring process too. Without going through due diligence to pick up this “trick of the trade”, a leader may make decisions and directions based on incorrect perceptions, thus resulting unfavourable consequences. Worst still is a leader who shuts his ears - just like the analogy of the philosopher, he will be totally unaware of what is adversely happening on the ground around him!

I end this article by sharing the following quotes:

·        There’s a misconception that listening is a passive act……but focused, intensive listening is more like a form of “martial art”. (a former professional hostage negotiator – quote published in a management magazine)

·        We should never pretend to know what we don’t know, we should not feel ashamed to ask and learn from people below, and we should listen carefully to the views of the cadres at the lowest levels. Be a pupil before you become a teacher, learn from the cadres at the lower levels before you issue orders. (Mao Tse-Tung)

·        Be a good listener. Your ears will never get you in trouble. (Frank Tyger)

·        Seek first to understand, then to be understood. (Steven R Covey)

·        You should learn to hear with your eyes, also listen with your mind when interfacing with the person you are dealing with. Don’t just register what the other party says upfront, but also perceive what is not said verbally by deciphering his body language. (my self-composed quote)