Listening to Understand: The Role of High-Quality Listening on Speakers’ Attitude Depolarization During Disagreements

The quality of listening in interpersonal contexts was hypothesized to improve a variety of work outcomes. However, research of this general hypothesis is dispersed across multiple disciplines and mostly atheoretical. We propose that perceived listening improves job performance through its efects on afect, cognition, and relationship quality. To test our theory, we conducted a registered systematic review and multiple meta-analyses, using three-level meta-analysis models, based on 664 efect sizes and 400,020 observations. Our results suggest a strong positive correlation between perceived listening and work outcomes, r = .39, 95%CI=[.36, .43], 휌 = .44, with the efect on relationship quality, r =.51, being stronger than the efect on performance, r =.36. These fndings partially support our theory, indicating that perceived listening may enhance job performance by improving relationship quality. However, 75% of the literature relied on self-reports raising concerns about discriminant validity. Despite this limitation, removing data solely based on self-reports still produced substantial estimates of the association between listening and work outcomes (e.g., listening and job performance, r = .21, 95%CI=[.13, .29], 휌 = .23). Our meta-analyses suggest further research into (a) the relationship between listening and job knowledge, (b) measures assessing poor listening behaviors, (c) the incremental validity of listening in predicting listeners’ and speakers’ job performance, and (d) listening as a means to improve relationships at work.

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.