“Do you hear me?”: Understanding the interplay of listening and perceived partner responsiveness

The Listening Circle is a method for improving listening in organizations. It involves people sitting in a circle where only one talks at a time. Talking turns are signaled by a talking object. Although there are several reports regarding the effectiveness of the Listening Circle, most are based on case studies, or confounded with another intervention, and do not use theory to predict the listening-induced outcomes. We predicted that perceiving good listening decreases employees’ social anxiety, which allows them to engage in deeper introspection, as reflected by increased self-awareness. This increased self-awareness enables an acknowledgment of the pros and cons of various work-related attitudes and can lead to attitudes that are objectively more ambivalent and less extreme. Further, we hypothesized that experiencing good listening will enable speakers to accept their contradictions without the evaluative conflict usually associated with it (subjective-attitude ambivalence). In three quasi-experiments (Ns = 31, 66 and 83), we compared the effects of a Listening Circle workshop to a self-enhancement workshop (Studies 1 and 2), to a conflict management workshop (Study 2) and to employees who did not receive any training (Study 3), and found consistent support for the hypotheses. Our results suggest that the Listening Circle is an effective intervention that can benefit organizations.

The effect of feedback and a self-set goal on the relationship between a goal primed in the subconscious and performance were examined in three laboratory experiments and one field experiment (n = 241, 465, 201, 74 respectively), using normative (bogus) and absolute feedback manipulations, and different performance tasks that were coded for both performance quality (i.e. creativity) and quantity. The hypothesis that providing feedback, a moderator in goal-setting theory, amplifies the causal effect of a primed goal on performance was supported. Specifically, in experiment 1, participants were randomly assigned to a 2 (prime of effective vs. ineffective performance) × 3 (positive, negative, no feedback) factorial design. The primed goal for effective performance led to higher performance than the negative primed goal. In addition, feedback, regardless of its sign, increased both task and creative performance when a primed goal for effective performance was presented but did not do so when the goal primed ineffective performance. This effect was replicated in two subsequent laboratory experiments which employed three primed goal conditions (effective/neutral/ineffective). In experiments 2 and 3, a consciously set goal, with no prompting by an experimenter, mediated the relationship between a primed goal and performance when feedback was provided. Experiment 4 provided a conceptual replication in a work setting, involving employees in a customer service department of a large communication company. Finally, a meta-analysis of these four experiments indicated an average effect size of d = 0.36, 95 percent CI [0.23, 0.49] with no evidence of heterogeneity across the four experiments. These findings suggest that not only are subconscious goals a foundation for the difficulty level of consciously set goals but in addition, subconscious goals and conscious goals work together in affecting performance.