(5 minute read)

The Burden Of Trying To Understand

In my view, the argument about the right to control communication as production, as dissemination, and as consumption seemed to be seriously one sided, focusing on the right to utter, to publish, to broadcast, to consume.

There was no reciprocal concern with an obligation to listen.

Charles Husband, Between Listening And Understanding, Continuum: Journal of Media & Cultural Studies, Vol. 23, No. 4, August 2009, emphasis mine

Husband is a social scientist at the University of Helsinki and the quote above is one that needs greater attention. Especially today.

Life–long communicators forever champion the right to free speech. The right to produce and distribute information. They also defend the right for access to that information. Indeed the practice of and access to free speech is arguably the most important cornerstone of a democracy. But Husband takes this idea one step further.

It is important to have the freedom to speak, print, and send information. But what good is all that information if it falls on deaf ears? What is the obligation of the audience to our information?

Having been in the public relation industry there is a belief and practice in the corporate world that is disturbing. Very few leaders are interested in listening. They would rather play the game of one way communication. After all they have the title, the money, the prestige, the expectation to have all the answers.

Very few are interested in gathering information within the organization. After all, someone will ask a question they are not capable of answering. Keep everyone at arms length. If they do look for information, they ignore truth and facts. Rather, they focus on confirming their biases.

Sounds harsh, I know. It’s not every organization, but enough to show that it is happening at epidemic proportions. Of course if it happens at the head of an organization that business ethos trickles down the organization. Where it usually shows up is the first place we walk into, the interview process for new employees.

Everyone who has ever written an employment classified ad will declare the same thing. Those who conduct job interviews seeking potential future employees will also say the same thing.

“We just want to look for and hire the best and most qualified candidate to fill the position.”

NYTimes Best Selling author Martin Yate has noted the problem with this approach. He has pointed out that the usual process of gathering information on applicants does just the opposite. It is not designed to support the declaration.

Rather than concentrating on the challenging task of vetting qualified candidates, the focus is on eliminating candidates. This approach uses time and resources to “knock out” candidates from the process. The hiring process disqualifies an applicant using a set of criteria. A series of questions are also used as they move through the hiring steps.

The candidate, for example, doesn’t have the one-year experience needed for the entry level position. Instead they only have 10-months of internship experience at a small firm across town. Although the candidate meets all the other requirements, too bad they say. The applicant is two months shy of what is required. Despite everything else being equal the candidate is essentially “knocked out” or disqualified from moving ahead in the process.

And even if she manages to get by the first hurdle and is provided a first interview, no worries. They have plenty of questions at the ready later in the process that is intended to further disqualify candidates.

We intend to weed out the “bad” ones with such important questions like:

• Tell me a little about yourself.
• How did you hear about the position?
• What do you know about our company?
• What are your strengths/weaknesses?

These questions and others like them do very little in vetting a qualified candidate. Instead, they are used to disqualify candidates. They fail to fulfill the original intention of finding the best candidate. If the candidate answers them in a way not pleasing to the interviewer, the candidate is “knocked out” of contention. The process stops dead for them.

They do not pass Go. They do not collect $200.

In such a flawed process of “selective” gathering of information and “selective” hearing …the last person “standing” is deemed the winner and offered the position. All this despite the interviewer or candidate being capable of proving that they are the most qualified.

In his best selling book Yate does more to help the interviewee rather than the interviewer. He argues that corporations use backward practices in their communication and hiring practices. He encourages applicants to take advantage of the situation. They should prepare themselves to answer questions more adequately than the company representatives asks them.

This sleep walking, selective question and answer practice is important. It belongs here in this post about our obligation in understanding others. Indeed, as receivers of information, it is our obligation to try and understand those very ideas.

It takes commitment and practice to willingly open our ears and shut our mouths. We must refuse to be submissive to a process of “knocking out” criteria and dismissing people we don’t agree with. Effective two-way communication requires commitment from both the sender and receiver. They must be willing to try and understand one another. And in our society that is something that clearly seems to be lacking.

Read Pt. 2 of A Call To Listen.