Learning to listen: Downstream effects of listening training on employees' relatedness, burnout, and turnover intentions

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.

We examined how the experience of high-quality listening (attentive, empathic, and nonjudgmental) impacts speakers’ basic psychological needs and state self-esteem when discussing the difficult topic of a prejudiced attitude. Specifically, we hypothesized that when speakers discuss a prejudiced attitude with high-quality listeners, they experience higher autonomy, relatedness, and self-esteem than speakers who share their prejudiced attitudes while experiencing moderate listening. We predicted that autonomy needs satisfaction would mediate the effect of listening on speakers’ self-esteem even when relatedness, a well-documented predictor of self-esteem, is controlled for in mediation models. Two experiments that manipulated listening through in-person interactions with high-quality or moderate listeners supported these hypotheses. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed, with a focus on the role of experiencing high-quality listening for speakers’ state self-esteem during difficult conversations.