5 ms·
> It isn't a surprise that voices go unheard in companies (large and small). If I had to guess, I would say the most common refrain I have heard from any employ
by Kalium 8y ago
> It isn't a surprise that voices go unheard in companies (large and small). If I had to guess, I would say the most common refrain I have heard from any employee who quit their job, it was "I tried to tell them what they were doing was wrong but nobody would listen, now look at where they are."
I'm always struck by how readily people equate "heard and understood" with "agreed with".
It's very possible that a person can be heard, listened to, understood, and then the actions they want not be taken. Just because a person is heard is not the same as that person being agreed with.
My advice for people is to take on board the difficult lesson that someone failing to do as you wish isn't the same as them refusing to listen to you. That your wishes or warnings are not acted upon is not the same as them falling on deaf ears.
- ChuckMcM 8y agoI don't disagree, people contextualize the conversation with relation to themselves, but it is a bit more nuanced than that. This in particular is incomplete: It's very possible that a person can be heard, listened to, understood, and then the actions they want not be taken. Just because a person is heard is not the same as that person being agreed with. Is half the answer but the important bits it leaves unstated. To hear someone, you should be able to paraphrase their argument such that they agree that you're phrasing, is just as accurate as their original phrasing. And then you have to be able to share your decision process with respect to their argument so that they can see how you reached your choice of directions. If you do that, whether or not you choose make the change they suggest, they will feel heard by you. Conversely if you can't do that, they have no basis for believing you understood what they said and so they won't feel heard.
- Kalium 8y agoYou're right! The ability to understand, contextualize, and restate someone's point cogently and clearly back to them will leave them feeling they have been heard and understood. It's possible that my life experience might suggest that this sense of feeling listened to sometimes dissipates when it is not followed by the actions they would have you undertake. The ability to articulate why you have made this choice contrary to their wishes is, as you so correctly point out, critically important for having the other person understand. More completely, it can be very helpful in leaving another person feeling heard and understood when you choose not to do as they desire you to. It may be possible that not all people are so understanding as to accept that someone who heard and understood them might genuinely come to a different conclusion, even with a clear understanding of their points and lucid explanations of reasoning processes. It may also be worth considering how these techniques can, in some scenarios, interact with complex human systems. The techniques you wisely describe can be incredibly effective on a personal level! Yet, they perhaps can function less well when subject to an intermediating system. In such a scenario, some people might opt to interpret people choosing not to act as they suggest as a failure to hear and understand their points. In an organization, giving each individual the personal attention and explanation required to satisfy them and help them feel listened to can very easily become time-prohibitive. You're absolutely, completely, 100% right. It's just perhaps possible that there might be some further room for subtlety.
- ChuckMcM 8y ago> It's just perhaps possible that there might be some further room for subtlety. Always, it is humans we're talking about after all.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]