Three truths about being heard
First, there are few things that make more difference to us than the sincere interest, attention, and concern that others provide at moments when we really need to be heard. This is true at home, with friends, and at work, especially with our boss. Second, they are unique moments in which we create a deeper connection with others, so we should not abuse the privilege, or we’ll wear out our welcome. Third, when skillfully done, the experience of listening-and-being-heard does a great deal to bolster the confidence, competence, and performance of those we lead.
Faking attention and interest undercuts trust
We’ve all had the experience of not being heard: Just as we think we’ve gotten their attention and begin sharing our ideas, feelings, or concerns, we notice that they are not really there. The overt gestures and facial expressions meant to convey attention, the excited utterances of support or sympathy, all feel a bit too practiced, insincere. We can tell. If not the first time, then soon enough the “fake” listening of others is found out. Thereafter, we’ll be quick to recognize their gaze and glib words as a mask that barely conceals their eagerness to move on to the next “important” thing in their day.
Most of us would rather be told “I cannot listen right now unless it’s really urgent because...” And the because-of reason provided matters less than the sincerity with which it is expressed. Why? Because, paradoxically, we now do feel heard and respected. Our needs are being seen for what they truly are, deserving of others’ time and attention. And if we do get that subsequent hearing on the matters we wished to discuss, all the better. On the other hand, if we get the “fake” version of listening-and-being-heard, we may very well be left feeling disrespected, dismissed, and diminished by the experience.
If we recognize this vulnerability in others – that they find it hard to say “I cannot take time right now…” – be mindful, we are not helpless to change this dynamic. In the rush of the day, many communications are simply intended to coordinate action, so our expectations understandably vary across situations. So, when we feel a deeper need to be heard, we might need to “bookmark” a subject for later discussion and consider the “right” time to broach a special conversation. We might also consider whether there’s something in our style that makes it hard for others to meet our needs, e.g., do we get to the point?[i]
The power of Presence in role-taking
Being there for one another is an apt way of characterizing a relationship in which we feel cared about, valued, respected, even loved as a person.[ii] Listening-and-being-heard is a vital part of being-there-for-one-another. And it’s in this quality of relationship that we most expect an I-Thou versus an I-It attitude. I-Thou signifies a deep, empathic understanding and concern for another person and their experience. I-It involves objectification of the other. They are seen primarily in terms of their functional role, in terms of how they might help others realize their strategic aims through an impersonal scheme of action. [iii]
Communicative action is the more personal modality of I-Thou exchanges. It generates a shared quality of relational presence or we-ness. It’s presence with respect to time (now) and place (here). The content consists of acknowledged facts, feelings, thoughts, attitudes, and desires. As interaction becomes more than listening, more fully dialogical, it includes a probing of meaning that illuminates attitudes, values, and concerns. Trust and goodwill deepen, positive aims and motivations become manifest. This, in turn, purchases greater openness, a deeper kind of reason-giving,[iv] thus expanding mutual understanding.[v]
While communication for understanding requires an intentional here-and-now focus (the foreground), both (all) parties are implicitly aware that their present interactions are nested in a history of relational dynamics. This history is linked to a social context defined by its purposes and goals.[vi] And in the service of remaining present, we must suspend for the moment any judgment, final position-taking, and action on such goal-directed matters in order to understand the other’s feelings, thoughts, and concerns. That attitudinal discipline is what makes it different from communication for influence, which is distinct in its aims to persuade, win over, decide, and take action.
The I-Thou exchanges that precede major decisions and commitments to action are critical. The mutual understanding which they generate helps us appreciate how we must be there for one another as we engage in shared challenges that will require our best efforts. Our strategic discussions of purpose and goals will incorporate moments of deliberation. At these times, we need to vigorously argue the merits of alternative action strategies. But this proceeds more smoothly, with less suspicion of motives, and with greater transparency when preceded by communication for understanding.
This brings us to the power of presence in role-taking and interpersonal relations.
Conclusion
The vitality of personal presence is what makes our role-taking authentic and differentiates it from mere posing. This is true for our roles as intimate partners, as collaborative colleagues, as good friends, and as parents. In any of these roles, we rightfully feel a moral duty to be there for others, to hear, understand and support them. And if we are to realize this duty of care, we will find it necessary to be present, and to make the art of being present a priority. There are few acts of fidelity more vital than this. Dialogue of this kind, verbal and nonverbal, has a way of ensuring healthy bonds of trust and personal growth.
[i] If we recognize such issues, consider how you might provide feedback, making them aware of how a small change in their style might make it easier for them to be heard. This, too, conveys sincere concern when ably done.
[ii] How can we be there for one another without being genuinely present? It seems to me that being present with and for one another, what I call “relational presence,” is at the heart of being of there for one another.
[iii] “Impersonal” here is not intended to be a pejorative term; it simply reflects a way of seeing, knowing, and relating to others from the “outside” as agents of action differentiated by role, contribution, and accountability.
[iv] Philosopher, Thomas Scanlon (What We Owe to Each Other, 1998), makes a remarkably simple and important point, that what we owe one another most are reasons. These can be reasons of the head or reasons of the heart. In either case, the intention is to help others understand move moves us to think and act as we do.
[v] For more on the dynamics of interaction that expand this domain of mutual understanding, see my article on the Johari Window & Relational Coaching.
[vi] An attitude of fully attentive presence to the other and the moment-to-moment flow of interaction represents the “foreground” of consciousness in this in this situation, but it stands against an implicit awareness that there is also a “background” or history of experience that exists, which may be evoked to complement or compete with the present.
