I HEAR You

Rating

I HEAR You

🔥 Both Active Listening and Nonviolent Communication focus on LISTENING to the other person. But actually SPEAKING is also a key element of both approaches. Why? In any helping relationship you need to ask a lot of questions to make sure you are both "on the same page". The kind of wording you use when asking such questions is important for the other person to feel comfortable in opening up and sharing their thoughts and ideas with you.

I just found out about an interesting tool for this. It helps you to express or signal receptiveness (a willingness to listen) to other people by using certain language. I thought I'd share it here with you.
The tool can be easily remembered by the phrase: "I HEAR you". HEAR is an acronym that stands for:

• H - HEDGE YOUR CLAIMS, softening your assertions (effective examples: I think it's possible that… This might happen because… Some people tend to think that…)
• E - EMPHASIZE AGREEMENT, common ground (effective examples: I think we both want to… I agree with some of what you are saying… We are both concerned with...)
• A - ACKNOWLEDGE OTHER PERSPECTIVES (effective examples: I understand that… I see your point that… What I think you are saying is…)
• R - REFRAME IN POSITIVE, CONSTRUCTIVE TERMS (effective examples: I think it's great when… I really appreciate it when… It would be so wonderful if…)

This "I HEAR you"-framework combines actively acknowledging the other person's perspective with presenting your own view in a friendly, humble and positive way.

Do you think that training staff and managers in using this kind of language could be a useful element in fostering a culture of appreciating disagreement and debate, open mindedness, organizational learning and innovation? And could it contribute to helping managers to act more like a coach or mediator?

Reference: Minson A.J. and Gino F., "Managing a Polarized Workforce", HBR Mar-Apr 2022, pp. 62-71.

		Comments by date▼ Comments by rating Rating
		1 Gregory Johnson Coach, United States
	I 'HEAR' You!!!! Great information for someone like myself that is focused on Coaching Leaders. I attempt to articulate the difference between "Listening" and "Hearing". I will apply this simple I HEAR you-formula in my future interactions. Thank you, Jaap.

		1 Maurice Hogarth Consultant, United Kingdom
	Listening by HEAR I was told, or read somewhere, last century... That "You h-EAR with your EAR and l-I-sten with your m-I-nd. This HEAR framework seems to give credence to that as all the points given are based in applying your mind to the conversation/discussion going on. It also seems to have some synchronisation with the Itemised Response approach, which is based in actively acknowledging the other person's view while voicing 'negatives' in a positive non-confrontive way. The first response to another person's point is required to be based on positives, (so have to listen in order to identify them) a statement of your "likes" (i.e. you have to identify the "good" aspects, points of agreements, positives, what the successes would be etc., as per the HEAR here. Then (and only then) do you give your "concerns" in relation to weaknesses, gaps, worries that you have etc., framed in terms of "I like A, & B & C. My concern is how would you/we/us overcome X, Y & Z?" Responding with positives is a form of recognition, acceptance, the giving of credence, then with "how to" overcome shortfalls as a question, rather than rejecting because of them, means that you are HEARing as per the points in this framework. I like its potential for improving discussions, particularly where there is potential for conflict. My concern is how to get those people trained in such techniques to actually use them? (Bearing in mind that training, per se, is useless the learning from it only becomes useful when it is applied.).

		1 Helen Strong Business Consultant, South Africa
	Hearing Needs More than Ears! @Jaap de Jonge: You are so right. When coaching / debating / arguing / negotiating, the way in which a person directs the conversation is so important. Using respect, one can avoid unnecessary aggression and make the other party more accepting of an alternative point of view. However, I do believe that in the workplace this approach needs to come from the top. True understanding of what a person has to say comes from combining one's reading of body language with listening to what they are saying. Using the full message of words and actions, hearing comes from being able to see and correctly interpret the complete picture. This sensitivity then allows you to formulate strategies to influence others and overcome their opposing position(s). It is evident in labour negotiations that a political agenda can often influence the interaction. Also, whether you are part of management or the workforce's, one cannot appear 'weak' when acknowledging the other side's point of view. That is, do not let them assume that a positive expression of their argument is agreement. This could lead to later accusations that you have gone back on your word. In the work-place there is no doubt that a more civilized approach would be more constructive – however adopting a non-confrontational approach may also depend on A) Whether the demands on both sides are realistic / reasonable, B) If the current or envisaged situation is 'fair', and C) Whether the organisation would survive the potential implications or consequences of the outcome of negotiations. All we need to do now is overcome the egos; provide an interaction framework and somehow impart the knowledge to all involved. Then we would be able to solve business issues in an ethical and amicable way.