COPYRIGHT NOTICE -- This document is © copyrighted by the Illinois Association of School Boards. IASB hereby grants to school districts and other Internet users the right to download, print and reproduce this document provided that (a) the Illinois Association of School Boards is noted as publisher and copyright holder of the document and (b) any reproductions of this document are disseminated without charge and not used for any commercial purpose.

An angry parent confronts you about the new science curriculum. A group of concerned citizens attends a board meeting to voice concerns about an attendance center versus neighborhood school proposal. The superintendent just made recommendations for next year's budget. A fellow board member has a very different opinion from yours about what policies will best deal with the high school's disciplinary problems. You hear each of them -- but are you listening?

School board members are constantly called upon to listen -- both as a corporate body and as individuals. By listening, they are able to learn the concerns, values and desires of the stakeholders; as well as the facts, data and information that will be the basis of their decision making. Unfortunately, most of us, including board members, don't do it very effectively. Most of the time, we are listening with the intent to reply" rather than "listening to with the intent to understand" (p239*). The result is missed opportunities to really communicate and to find the win/win possibilities discussed in the previous article in this series.

It has been said that human beings tend to operate in one of two communication modes: speaking or getting ready to speak. That leaves little time to digest and understand what the other person has to say, and often leads to miscommunication, misunderstanding, and mistrust.

According to Stephen Covey, we generally listen at one of four levels (p. 240):

To listen effectively, Covey tells us we have to move to a fifth level which he calls empathic listening. Empathic listening is listening to understand. It's listening for meaning as well as content. It does not mean agreeing, although that is a risk that comes with opening yourself to be influenced by another point of view. It does involve trying to understand what the speaker is saying from his perspective rather than filtering it through our own experiences and paradigms.

Empathic listening requires skill and commitment. Practicing and refining the skills will start the process, but unless there is a real desire to understand, the skills are little more than techniques that will quickly become transparent. That's why, according to Covey, personal integrity along with the courage and commitment that come with maturity (habits one through three) are critical to becoming an empathic listener. (p. 243)

Acquiring the skills first of all means that we need to discard what Covey refers to as our "autobiographical responses." These responses include:

Each of these ways of "listening" is based on our own perceptions, background and beliefs. (p. 245) We may feel like we are listening, but none of these responses will really allow us to understand.

So what do we do instead? Become a faithful interpreter. You have probably watched an interpreter for the hearing impaired sign a conversation. What did you notice? The good interpreter not only signs the words, but also captures the meaning behind the words with facial expressions and animation. Listening empathically requires this same skill. It means interpreting the content and the meaning and then checking to make sure your understanding is correct.

For example, an upset parent demands to know, "How can you allow inappropriate books to be shelved in the school library?" Rather than probing ("What do you mean by inappropriate?") or evaluating ("I think you are mistaken.") listen to understand by rephrasing the content and reflect the emotion.

You might say, "You believe that there are inappropriate materials in the library and that has you concerned," opening the door for the parent to explain further without becoming defensive. The ultimate goal is to be able to explain the other's position better than they can explain it themselves, by acknowledging both the content and the feeling.

Once you understand at this level, you have the opportunity to present your position effectively. Explain it clearly, specifically, and in the context of the other person's perceptions and concerns.

According to Covey, knowing when to listen empathically is the final piece of developing the skill. Not all conversations require empathic listening. When the communication is logical and not driven by emotion, or when a person asks for your help or point of view, empathic listening is not necessary or even appropriate. When you are asked your opinion about a topic under discussion at a board meeting, it would be pretty silly to respond with, "You're curious about what I'm thinking about this." Listening to respond is called for in these cases. So do it!

However, board members will find themselves in many situations where empathic listening is appropriate and necessary. Covey points out situations when listening empathically is vital: (The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People Workshop Manual, p. 147):

Empathic listening takes time, but it is time well spent. Consider an all too frequent scenario. A group of parents, students and citizens attends a board meeting to speak about an emotionally charged issue. The board hears them out, following board policy for public comment, thanks them for their time and concern, promises to consider their opinions, and moves on to its regular business. The board is following acceptable policy and practice: it is allowing public comment; it is refusing to engage in what could become a heated debate; it is delaying action on the issue in order to allow time to carefully consider the options rather than being pressured into making a hasty decision. But within a few days, the letters to the editor start to appear accusing the board of being unresponsive.

An even larger group attends the next meeting, the scenario repeats itself, but this time the item is on the agenda. After discussion among the board, a vote is taken and the result is not what the public group had requested. Soon, in addition to the letters to the editor, whole editorials are written about the board's disregard for the public's opinion. Would empathic listening have made a difference in this case?

Suppose that following the public's comments at the first meeting, the board president acted as the interpreter for the board and summarized the content and acknowledged the emotions of the speakers, checking to make sure that she really understood. This may take a while as the speakers clarify their position. Finally, all agree that the message has been delivered.

Think about the positive impact this might have had. Now, the board's promise to consider those opinions has some merit because the speakers know that their opinions were heard and understood. In the earlier scenario, that promise was only words with nothing to guarantee that the board had truly heard anything that was said. Now there is a climate that allows the public to trust that the board will take into account their feelings and opinions. What is the likelihood now that those letters accusing the board of being unresponsive will appear?

At the next meeting, the item is on the agenda and the original group is back to see what will happen. During the board discussion, their position is clearly discussed along with the other options. As the board works its way towards a decision, it becomes clear that the decision in not going to go the way the public group had hoped. What if, after taking the final vote, the board president explained the b/oard's position clearly, logically and in the context of the opposing group's position? By doing this, she is making it clear that the board really heard and considered what had been said, and then logically explaining the board's decision in relationship to their position. The letters to the editor and editorials may still criticize the decision itself, but chances are they will not be accusing the board of unresponsiveness and callousness toward the public's interests.

Yes, that all takes time. But it is time designed to build trust and positive relationships. In the long run, it is much less time than would be required to repair the damage done in the first scenario. It opens the door to future communication which can take advantage of all the good thinking and perceptions available to the board and allows real synergy (the next habit to be discussed) to occur.

Are you listening?