Here's the scenario: Your boss interrupts your work to make a request of you. You march off to take care of it and 30 minutes into it you stop and say to yourself, "Wait a minute. Was that what she wanted me to do?" You're not certain. Then, as one of my commenters put it, you wonder whether you need to hear something several times before it sinks in. You muddle around with what you thought he said, and finally tuck your tail between your legs, go back and double check his request.
So how do you avoid those sometimes embarrassing misunderstandings?
Begin with this insight: You hear with your ears, but listen with your mind. Listening is not about recording information on a disc, but interacting with it, making sense of it and putting it into actionable formats.
Paradoxically, listening is really about asking questions. By that I mean that listening is about various forms of questions that clarify what's being said. Many professionals are successful at paraphrasing. Paraphrasing is simply putting what you thought you heard into your own terms, and then asking if that's what the other person meant. I have no doubt that paraphrasing will raise your listening batting average.
What's the best way to listen and not misunderstand?
Paraphrasing, however, is a poor second to the action implication question. The action implication question is a form of clarification in which you respond to what was communicated by describing what you are going to do, what's going to happen as a result of your listening. Keep in mind that you want to insure that you have really understood not only what the other person said, but also what was meant.
Here's the scene: your boss is delegating a task to you, describing the what and why. Like most smart bosses, she's leaving the how up to you. Now you're at the place to check your listening. Here are some possible action implication questions for that scenario:
- In light of what you've said, I plan to attack the problem by . . . What do you think?
- Based of what you've said, I see a couple drawbacks to trying. . . . Instead, it seems to me that the best strategy is to. . . . Make sense to you?
- Based on what I understand thus far, I think that the next three steps should be . . . . Do you think that will handle all the issues?
In each of these responses, you acknowledged what was said, laid out the suggested remedy, and concluded with a question. Theaction question gives your boss an opportunity to assess your remedy or solution, and based on what you've said, figure out whether you understood her correctly.
When your boss confirms your action steps, that's the sign that you listened and understood correctly. When your boss rejects your solution, that's the sign that either her communication was inadequate or you misunderstood. In any instance it provides an opportunity for both of you to problem solve and go through the action implication process again.
Action implication is a slick model that will take time to learn, but will provide the best opportunity for effective listening in both tactical and strategic business settings. It also forces a dialog between you and your boss, which cannot help but be useful for the long term.