Executive function deficits mediate the relationship between employees’ ADHD and job burnout

Listening is widely recognized as essential to human interaction, yet research on it remains conceptually fragmented and theoretically inconsistent. Although extensive evidence shows that good listening benefits emotional, cognitive, motivational, and relational outcomes, the field lacks consensus about what listening is, how it should be defined, and under what conditions it helps or hinders interaction. This article synthesizes these tensions by identifying 10 core “listening puzzles” that reveal contradictions in existing theories and findings: (1) what constitutes good listening and its dimensions such as empathy and non‐judgment; (2) the paradox of distraction and invisible inattention; (3) the relationship between listening and agreement; (4) when listening requires follow‐up action; (5) the benefits and risks of silence; (6) asymmetries between speakers' and listeners' perceptions; (7) the dual role of question‐asking; (8) the role of paraphrasing in demonstrating active engagement and non‐judgmentalness; (9) the balance between speaking and listening; and (10) the link between listening and personality. Together, these puzzles demonstrate that listening is neither a fixed skill nor a uniformly positive behavior, but a context‐dependent, relational process shaped by perception, goals, and situational norms. By mapping these puzzles, the article provides a foundation for a more integrated and nuanced understanding of how listening operates across interpersonal and social contexts.

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.