R.V. Rasmussen

Over the last two decades, the need for managerial skill development in management training and business school education has been well documented (See Albanese, 1987; AACSB, 1984; Bigelow, 1983; Bradford, 1983a,1983b; Cameron & Whetten, 1983; Endicott, 1982; Golen et al., 1989; Hopelain, 1985; Katz, 1974; Knippen, 1988; Lee et al., 1987; Livingston, 1971; Mintzberg, 1975; Porter, 1983; Powers, 1983; Vance, 1986; Waters et al., 1983; Whetten & Cameron, 1983).

In particular, communication skills have been repeatedly emphasized as essential parts of management practice and skill training programs (As examples, see Bond et al., 1984; Bennett & Olney, 1986; Golen et al., 1989).

Perhaps prompted by this need, a variety of communication skill clusters have been developed which are based on organization research analyzing the skills managers use to conduct their work (e.g., Boyatzis, 1982; Flanders, 1981; Ghiselli, 1963; Livingston, 1971; Mintzberg, 1975).

Undoubtedly, further research and synthesis will unfold over the next decade, but at present there is sufficient consistency to lead Cameron & Whetten (1983) to present a list of skill characteristics that they feel represents "proven characteristics of high performing managers" and sufficiently summarizes the work of other researchers in the field.

Within this broad communication context, skills related to listening (e.g., active listening, paraphrasing) have been repeatedly identified as essential in their own right or as key components of broader skill clusters such as interviewing, counselling, performance appraisal and assertiveness ( As examples, see Cameron & Whetten, 1983:22; Freeston & Lease, 1987; Golen et al., 1989:51; Knippen, 1988:40; Lee et al., 1987:13; Waters et al., 1983:38).

The present chapter is focused on examining training issues related to the particular skill of active listening. It was prompted by two concerns: first, by the author's observation of resistance exhibited by some learners to communication skills like active listening and the consequences of that resistance on the learners' motivation to engage in skill development exercises; and, second, by the author's observation of management training programs and training outlines presented in training and teaching journals which allocate very little time to communications training, too little in the author's estimation for the problems of resistance to the surfaced and adequately dealt with.

The chapter is also prompted by concerns expressed by others who have also observed that difficulties are sometimes encountered in teaching a skill like active listening. For example, Hellriegel, Slocum and Woodman state that "listening skills guidelines are much easier to understand than to develop and use in day-to-day interpersonal communication" (1983:163); Knippen that ".. after spending years themselves doing something ineffectively it feels strange and uncomfortable to do it differently" (1988:45); Axley that "... incredulous questions ... are often put to professors or consultants ... who try to explain that words do not mean, people mean, and the companion notion that meanings are not transferred by communication" (1984:432); and Katz that: "Real skill in working with others must become a natural, continuous activity, since it involves sensitivity not only at times of decision making, but also in the day-to-day behavior of the individual. Human skills cannot be a "sometime thing." Techniques cannot be randomly applied, like an overcoat. Because everything which an executive says and does (or leaves unsaid or undone) has an effect on his associates, his true self will, in turn, show through. Thus, to be effective, the skill must be naturally developed, and unconsciously as well as consistently demonstrated in the individual's every action. It must become an integral part of his whole being" (1974:33).

A major theme of this chapter is that successful skill development depends, importantly, on the learner's attitudes towards the skill. Although this is a common theme in the adult education literature (Wlodkowski, 1985), it has been given little attention in the communications training literature which tends to be focused almost exclusively on learning activities (e.g., role play, simulation) and learning theories (e.g., Social Modeling Theory).

For purposes of narrowing the scope of the chapter, the author elected to focus on the skill of active listening. While the focus is on a particular skill, it will be suggested that the concerns with active listening may well represent the kinds of attitudinal problems that might be encountered in teaching other communication skills. Thus, while narrow in focus, the chapter lends itself to speculations in the broader context.

Active listening is generally conceived of as a complex of verbal and non-verbal responses on the part of a listener that encourage an in depth exploration of a speaker's thoughts and feelings. Verbal skills generally associated with active listening include paraphrasing, querying, passive listening, using door openers, acknowledging (both verbally and non-verbally), and using concentration techniques (Gordon, 1978:78; Haney, 1986:273). According to Rogers and Farson an active listener "actively tries to grasp the facts and feelings in what he hears, and he tries, by his listening to help the speaker work out his own problems" (1955:27). In short, active listening consists of a variety of associated skills designed to facilitate a non- directive problem-solving discussion.

Various rationales are provided to explain the importance of active listening. Perhaps the most common rationale is that it is useful in reducing miscommunication and misunderstanding. Communication and management texts virtually all share a communication process model indicating that sender and receiver choices with regard to encoding, channel selection, channel noise, and decoding combine to create the potential for message distortion. Redundancy and feedback measures (like active listening) increase the likelihood that the intended message is that which is received. This theme has been further extended by Axley (1984) and Haney (1986), among others, who state that miscommunication in organizations is pervasive and costly and that active listening is a preventative measure.

A second rationale provided to justify active listening is contained in the visions of the early and later human relations schools which held that 1) employee counselling would provide emotional relief for workers, reducing obstacles to work performance; 2) that supervisors able to create "supportive relations" were more effective; 3) that "the ideal managerial climate is characterized by supportiveness, empathy, participation and trust ..." (Redding, 1972:330). In short, active listening (along with other communication skills) enjoys a lengthy history of attention in the management literature.

A third rationale presents active listening as a quasi- coaching technique which facilitates problem exploration and problem-solving on the part of a subordinate, work colleague, or important other and that is used to implement a developmental-type appraisal interview (see Maier, 1976 for a full treatment of this topic and Cederblom, 1982 for a review).

The investigation described below originated with the author's experience in teaching communication skills in five contexts: 1) private and public sector management development workshops, 2) distance education for managers, 3) interpersonal communication labs, 4) MBA courses, and 5) undergraduate courses. The insights offered are based both on informal debriefing discussions with trainees in small groups and on unstructured interviews with six randomly selected learners from each of the five learning groups specified above.

The interviews ranged in duration from 17 to 85 minutes and were initiated with a non-directive question asking interviewees to describe their personal reactions to the idea of active listening. Following the interviewees' self-initiated reports of issues related to active listening, a series of structured questions were employed to verify or disconfirm issues raised by other interviewees.

Among the biases held by the interviewer were that there would be a fair degree of resistance to the idea of active listening. While this expectation may have been transmitted to the interviewees creating an "experimenter demand" effect, the interviewer was also involved in teaching the skill of active listening and thus could as easily have been perceived as demanding favorable attitudes toward active listening. In short, it is impossible to estimate either the direction or the degree to which researcher expectancies affected the statements made by the interviewees.

The interviewees ranged in age from 19 to 54 (mean = 33.9) with four populations (Managers in distance education, workshops, and labs and MBA students) being older (range 24 to 54, mean = 36.8) and undergraduate business students considerably younger (range 19 to 34, mean = 22.5). Omitting undergraduate students whose work experience was minimal, the mean number of years of work experience for the remaining groups was 6.4 years. Prior to conducting the interviews, the interviewer believed that younger, less experienced interviewees (e.g., undergraduates, managers with less experience) would feel more resistance to the idea and practice of active listening.

Random selection was done with a predetermined male/female ratio of 50/50 in order to ensure that gender differences, if they existed, would surface. Prior to the interview process, the interviewer believed that females would be more accepting of active listening than males.

All interviewees experienced essentially the identical approach to teaching communication skills in general and active listening in particular. The pedagogical approach has been described elsewhere (Rasmussen, 1984). Thus, all comments made by students may simply reflect the instructor, method, and materials used in the communications courses and not the concept of active listening. However, the courses were all rated very highly by learners. MBA students rated the course at 4.7 on a 5.0 scale, where faculty averages are in the 3.5 to 3.8 range. Managers in management development workshops rated the course at 4.5 on a 5-point scale where 4 represented "very good" and 5 "one of my best management development courses ever." These consistently high ratings mitigate against, but do not preclude, the possibility that the instructor, method, and materials were the cause of the resistance.

The issues emerging from the interviews are presented in the spirit of Vaill"s (1983) "practice theory," a concept similar to Argyris' "theory-in-use" (Argyris & Schon, 1974). According to Vaill, an actor's practice theory consists of "... the models of situations and the relation to them which the actor develops in his mind. ... (it is) literally, a personal theory guiding his practice, bearing some relation. to public objective theories about organizational situations, but in no sense identical with them" (1983:51).

While Argyris suggested that managers must be shown how ill- founded their subjective theories-in-use are, Vaill disagrees. He is convinced that "there is far more wisdom in practice theories than academic theory has yet begun to tap" (1983:51).

Following Vaill's ideas, one goal of the present chapter was to identify "practice theories" underlying expressed resistance to the concept of active listening. This can lead to the development of the contingency theory of interpersonal skills to which both Bradford (1983b) and Vaill allude as lacking in current skill development approaches. At the very least, it should lead to insights derived from trainee "wisdom" which can be used to anticipate training problems and develop training approaches to deal with those problems.

Most interviewees (86.7%) made comments that indicated that they had some level of concern about the idea and practice of active listening. While more strong resistance was expressed by younger, less experienced interviewees (as expected), there were no apparent differences between male and female interviewees (contrary to expectation). Overt manifestations of resistance either observed in courses or described by interviewees include joking about the skill, incorporating satirical paraphrases into their conversations (e.g. "Do you mean to say that what you really meant was ..."), avoiding using active listening in daily conversations, and ridiculing fellow learners who are attempting to use active listening in conversations. As one interviewee put it, "I'm so nervous about being caught (paraphrasing) ... I can't concentrate ... when I'm out with them (other students in the MBA class) ... I keep a low profile so that they won't give me the gears."

Through the interviews, the author has identified several themes underlying the interviewees' stated resistance to using active listening in their day-to-day conversations. The order of presentation of the themes is not meant to reflect on their relative importance. The percentages stated in the thematic reports below correspond to whether the interviewee spontaneously mentioned the issue without having been prompted or whether the interviewee agreed with the issue after having been prompted by the interviewer.

Theme 1: Good communications involves "give and take. Most interviewees either spontaneously stated (53.3%) or agreed when asked (33.3%) that effective communication requires "give and take" and that a person initiating a discussion of a problem is implicitly demanding advice. Someone who is listening actively is not doing his or her share. Merely reflecting, rephrasing and summarizing another person's feelings and thoughts does not suffice. Giving involves giving ideas, suggesting solutions, asking the question that causes a light to go on. As one person put it, "I feel that I have to tell my friends what I think. Why else are they raising the issue in the first place if not to get my ideas-"

Gordon's (1978) book contains some support for this theme. Although he does not systematically explore sources of resistance to active listening, he does present a list of questions asked by learners which stem from what he believes are common misunderstandings about the skill. For example, the question "Can't I ever use roadblocks" (1978:69) could be reasonably interpreted as an indication that learners often want to respond by giving advice or by making responses other than active listening.

Theme 2: Communications "techniques" are manipulative. Most interviewees stated (36.7%) or agreed (41.7%) that active listening lacks spontaneity and/or is manipulative. Interviewees focus both on a sense of fraudulence and a sense of conscious, strategic responding. Consistent with this, some interviewees (8.3%,36.7%) view active listening as a mechanism for leading people to say what one wants them to say.

In contrast, most interviewees (21.6%,66.7%) felt that responses that are recognized to be problematic by communications experts and by the interviewees themselves (e.g., moralizing, sarcasm, blaming, advice) are spontaneous and natural, and, while undesirable, are a cut above being manipulative. In short, the interviewees' practice theory suggests that spontaneity is as or more important than communication modality.

Theme 3: Listening is passive and a sign of weakness. Many interviewees (23.3%,48.3%) felt that active listening represents a passive, nurturing stance. More females (31.7%,56.7%) than males (15%,40%) expressed this position. Some female interviewees stated that they have consciously distanced themselves from nurturing roles - or at least from entering additional situations in which they are expected to take a nurturing stance. Speaking to this point, one female interviewee said, "I have a difficult enough time holding my own. If I don't go nose to nose with those guys (other managers in her organization), they'll walk all over me." In short, their 'practice theory' suggests that it is more important to be seen as assertive than as a good listener. While communications experts would probably take exception to the assumption that assertiveness and listening are mutually exclusive, the fact that it is part of the interviewees' practice theories is instructive.

Related to this, needing someone to help clarify a problem is seen by some (5%,26.3%) as a sign of weakness or inadequacy. They felt that problems ought not to be shared. This suggests that interviewees have not bought into what Eisenberg and Witten have called "the ideology of openness" (1987:418).

Theme 4: Paraphrasing is parroting and a waste of time. To many interviewees (53.7%, 15%), active listening in the simple form of paraphrasing seems overly repetitive and a waste of time. The listener is seen as merely repeating (with minor variations) what the speaker just said, and the speaker then merely repeats him or herself. On an emotional level, this perception of listening as circling around an issue is experienced as irritating and frustrating. As one person put it, "I get impatient and think, 'What are we waiting for- Let's get on with it.'" Interviewees also reported (36.7%;45%) that there wouldn't be sufficient time in the workday to extend conversations with extensive paraphrasing.

In part, the interviewees may be reflecting a 'practice theory' that problem-solving should be straightforward, that people ought to be able to say what's on their minds and move to a solution in a fairly linear, rational fashion.

Fitting with this theme, Gordon reports that learners ask whether they "need to feedback every message" (1978:69).

Theme 5: Active listening is unnecessary because miscommunication is infrequent. This theme relates to the communication process models that are contained in the communications chapter of virtually every management text. In general, the models indicate that a message recipient may not receive the meaning intended by a message sender because of difficulties in the encoding, transmission, and decoding processes. Most texts go on to state that work relationships and organizational effectiveness may be affected adversely unless message redundancy measures are taken. One such measure is active listening.

Many interviewees (11.7%, 73.3%) felt that the communication process model is interesting and probably useful. However, very few agreed (11.7%) that they often experience difficulties arising from misunderstanding. This stance is consistent with Axley's (1984) belief that the conduit metaphor of communication is pervasive, which is a simplistic belief that meaning is easy to transmit from person which is anchored in four (incorrect) assumptions: 1) that language transfers thoughts and feelings from person to person, 2) that speaker and writers insert thoughts and feelings into words, 3) that words contain the thoughts and feelings, and, 4) that listeners and readers extract the thoughts and feelings from the words.

Theme 6: Second party facilitation is not desirable. While willing to admit that they are caught up in personal dilemmas that are sometimes difficult to resolve, few interviewees (only 11.7% when asked) believed that such dilemmas are commonplace. Related to this, few interviewees (8.3%, 23.3%) accept the social value of joined problem exploration in the style suggested by active listening. Most (26.7%,61.7%) felt that the best way to help a close friend is by showing sympathy, not through a non-directive listening approach. Many (13.3%, 35%) believe that it is inappropriate or even dangerous to get involved too deeply with the work or social problems of anyone except ones own close friends. When asked, few (5%) believed that the simple act of active listening on the part of a relatively unskilled peer could be very helpful in resolving those problems.

The themes identified above are subject to several limitations. First, a qualitative approach to understanding the issues related to active listening doesn't provide a measure of the extent of the problem. Second, because the learners interviewed were participants in the interviewer's courses, they may well not generalize to learners in other courses. Related to this, the learners may have been responding to the interviewer's expectations or the interviewer may have mapped the information generated during the interviews to fit his preconceived ideas.

Despite these limitations the findings contribute to an understanding of the attitudinal underpinnings and sources of resistance to learning the skill of active listening, and are of sufficient interest to warrant discussion in the literature and further systematic investigation.

The interviewees revealed that they have resistance to the concept of active listening and the reasons given are interesting and varied. Were such attitudes found to be pervasive, one could postulate on the part of learners an unwillingness to spend the time necessary to master a skill like active listening or a learning stance of 'going through the motions' if forced into a non-voluntary skill building practice session. While each theme may display a lack of understanding of the concept or an ill-conceived practice theory, the themes may also reflect a wisdom that goes beyond the academic theory.

The ideas offered in this section are based on the assumption that there may be a good deal of resistance to the concept of active listening and, thus, that it is worthwhile to explore issues in workshop design that affect that resistance.

As a means of exploring workshop design issues, Vaill's (1983) practice theory is used as a key element of a process-oriented training model (Figure 1). Trainees arrive at the training sessions with practice theories which may or may not be consistent with the communication theory to be employed in the workshop. The first step in training (beyond needs analysis) often is cognitive in nature, consisting of an exposure to materials explaining and demonstrating the concept of active listening. These would include communication models, persuasive arguments made in text and by the trainers, text and media examples of the concepts in practice (e.g., transcripts), modelling by the trainer, and empirical evidence. As a consequence of exposure to the concept, the learner's practice theory can be expected to surface. Learners will experience dissonance to the extent that the materials fit with their practice theories.

Different practice theory themes might be expected to be in the foreground for different learners. For example, in light of the evidence offered above, a female might relate to materials in terms of interpersonal issues like strength/weakness. The consistency of the materials with the learner's practice theory, and the degree to which the materials deal with surfaced inconsistencies will determine the learner's attitude about the concept and motivation to engage in skill practice sessions on a committed level.

----------------------------

Insert Figure One about here

----------------------------

The training model is useful as a guide for systematically examining practice theory and attitudinal issues related training design. In the sections below, the adequacy of each element is examined. The examination is meant to be exploratory, not exhaustive.

Cognitive materials available in texts and on various forms of media (video-tape, audio-tape, film) may not be adequate to convince learners that active listening is important or that it would accomplish the outcomes predicted by the experts. The most pervasive model found in management texts is the communication process model. It implies that misunderstanding is pervasive and costly.

There are several problems with the process model as a justification for active listening. First, active listening is but one of many measures that could be used to prevent miscommunication. Second, the model fails to indicate the degree to which (lack of) active listening plays a role in miscommunication. Third, The model fails to provide different, convincing contexts in which active listening might be employed to solve miscommunication problems. Fourth, there are no contingencies. For example, in a conflict situation, it is difficult to conceive that active listening alone could help to prevent miscommunication or to find a solution. In such a situation, the way one presents his or her version of the issue may be as or more important than active listening.

When arguing for the need of measures like active listening, communications materials often cite examples of problems that have stemmed from poor listening. Axley, for example, states that "miscommunication is the normal state of affairs in human communication" (1984:432). He also states that miscommunication is dangerous "... particularly in settings such as organizations in which great numbers of lives and material resources can be affected ..." (1984:434). Using specific anecdotes, Haney quotes a top business executive who suggested that "billions of dollars are lost in waste and duplication clearly induced by miscommunication" (1979:6) and cites estimates by managers that miscommunication consumes from "25 to 40 percent of their budgets" (1979:6). Finally, he uses examples both horrific (e.g., two pilots bailing out of their two planes at the command by the wing leader 'bail out, your plane is on fire') and inconsequential (e.g., a sign reading 'eat here and get gas') as evidence that miscommunication is costly. However, neither author offers other than anecdotal evidence.

A non-exhaustive and non-random selection of 70 management texts found on the author's bookshelves revealed that most (90%) have communication chapters, that most (92%) of these chapters contain a version of the process model of communication, but that no evidence (except anecdotal) is provided in any of the chapters. As a consequence, readers (and trainers) are left with the types of anecdotal evidence mentioned above. Furthermore, a survey of the literature failed to find a single study in which the questions of pervasiveness and cost of miscommunication was addressed.

Management and communication texts contain a variety of examples, including transcripts demonstrating active listening. These may not be adequate to convince learners that active listening is a practical skill. For example, 50 percent of the interviewees of the present study were shown a transcript contained in a leadership text by Gordon (1984:69) and asked for their reactions. The transcript begins with a subordinate presenting a problem. The supervisor's responses consist entirely of paraphrasing. Nearly all interviewees (91.6%) stated that they didn't believe that the transcript was realistic, that the supervisor's responses were genuine, or that the outcome would have been so positive. The lack of "give" on the part of the supervisor and the smoothness of the discussion bothered many of them. Interestingly, Gordon goes on to give answers to questions typically framed by trainees in response to reading such transcripts (e.g., "Do I need to feedback every message-", "Can't I ever use roadblocks-", and "Can I trust that others can always solve their problem-"). These questions and Gordon's attention to answering them indicate that trainees may indeed respond negatively to such transcripts.

To further investigate the impact of text materials, the other 50 percent of the interviewees were shown the Gordon transcript and a transcript taken from Maier's (1977) text on the performance appraisal process. Unlike the Gordon transcript, the Maier transcript consists of a mixture of active listening and directed probes. All interviewees expressed a preference for the Maier transcript, stating that it was more realistic and that the outcomes were more feasible.

In sum, transcript examples may interact with trainee practice theories in ways that shape trainee attitudes towards the concepts being demonstrated. Thus, it might pay to create or select transcripts that demonstrate different issues. For example, one that shows assertiveness coupled with active listening might serve to convince females that active listening does not necessarily connote weakness. At the very least, research is necessary to determine how trainees react to transcripts used in training sessions. Transcripts might also be constructed and tested for trainee reaction.

Modelling may have a high payoff in terms of demonstrating the efficacy of certain communication styles like active listening and in promoting social learning. In fact, interviewees (18.3%;70%) reported that they thought that the instructor's style was very effective, especially with respect to active listening. However, the interviewees also reported (8.3%;46.7%) that they thought the workshop or course context was very different from the organizational context, implying that the same skills may not work in the organizational setting.

Other problems with modelling were demonstrated through a series of modelling experiments conducted by the author. Three styles of interviewing (active listening, probing, and advising) were employed with three volunteers who presented real back-home problems. The other workshop participants acted as observers and were asked to report their reactions in terms of preference and to explain their reactions. The author did not reveal which of the three styles was preferred and attempted to model probing and advising styles in positive ways. In almost every case, the volunteer presenters in the active listening mode reported more satisfaction and more progress with the session than did presenters in the probing and advising modes. However, the observers preferred the probing mode and rated the active listening and advising modes equally. Their explanations followed to some extent the themes presented above.

One conclusion that can be tentatively drawn from these two sets of experiences is that modelling as a mechanism for shaping positive attitudes toward active listening may be confounded by role, context, and stage of development. For example, it may be that learners will not understand the potential power of active listening unless an expert models it directly with them (learning role). Simplistic modelling in role plays and as trainer-leader may not suffice to convince learners that the skill will transfer to the workplace (context). Modelling may work only in the stage of a workshop when the trainees have bought into the skill and are focused on learning how to do it (stage of development). Prior to that time, they may be so focused on reacting in terms of their practice theories, that the intended social learning process is negated.

Vaill (1983) has stated that practice theories can be used to develop a contingency theory of interpersonal skills. While the practice theories surfaced through this study are considered by the author to be exploratory, and not exhaustive or complete, the findings contribute to the development of a contingency model of communication (Figure 2).

----------------------------

Insert Figure Two about here

----------------------------

Organizational characteristics such as culture and leadership style would influence organization members' choices with respect to communication style. Mediating variables such as gender, age, and the communication context (e.g., a conflict situation versus a conversation between colleagues) would account for variations in styles.

Individual styles collectively would influence the efficiency of communication (accuracy, cost in terms of time spent communicating, degree of conflict, cost of miscommunication). Individual styles would also determine, in part, the degree to which the member feels respected or powerful.

Following Vaill's ideas, the wisdom contained in learners' surfaced practice theories can lend to the development of a contingency model. The present study indicates that such an idea is sound and that further systematic research is warranted.