ListeningCommunication&Trust

8/13/2019 ListeningCommunication&Trust

1/11

THE INTL. JOURNAL OF LISTENING, :73-82, 2008Copyright Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 1090-4018 pr in t / 1932-586X on l ine S \ Taylor FrancisCroupDOI: 10.1080/10904010701808482

i j Routledge5 ^ ^ Taylor & Francis Crou

Listening, Communication & Trust:Practitioners' Perspectives ofBusiness/Organizational RelationshipsBrigitta R. Brunner

Auburn University

Re lationship is a term that is used frequently in business communication. Butwhat exactly is a business/organizational relationship? How is one built and main-tained? Are processes such as listening and communication integral elements? Thisstudy attempts to suggest answers to the aforementioned questions using data col-lected from interviews with business communication professionals.

IMPORTANCE OF LISTENING IN BUSINESSPerhaps because listening is often overlooked iti the scholastic setting, it is also akey husiness skill that few people have (Elman, 2001). Many business comm unica-tion professionals erroneously helieve that business communication is ahout pre-sentation and not interaction (Gray & Robertson, 2005). To interact, people mustinclude listening in the process. They must remem her that one of the hest ways toenhance understanding is to stop talking (Adler, 2000). Being a good listener meansnot interrupting (you may miss something important hecause you stopped thespeaker's train of thought or cause a communication breakdown), being an activelistener (nodding, taking notes, making comments when appropriate), giving yourfull attention and blocking out the hackground noise, keeping an open mind, takingtime to think ahout what's been said hefore responding, and asking for clarificationwhen something is unclear (Hughes, 2002). Attentive listening can put an organiza-tion in front of emerging issues and allow for a proactive response (P lati, 2005).


2/11

7 4 BRUNNER

An operational definition of effective listening is hearing what a speaker says,interpreting accurately, and responding appropriately (Galanes & Brilhart, 1997).It is the process that shapes and controls information processing with perception,interpretation, attention, and response (Purdy, 1991;Imhof 1998). Listening isthe foundation of effective communication in all social environments (Bommelje,Houston, & Smither, 2003). Listening, therefore, is a vital part of business andorganizational communications; however, it is rarely a suhject that is taught inschools (Brownell, 1996;Imhof 1998). Som e suggest that listening is a forgottencomm unication skill (Golhy & L ewis, 2000).

WHAT IS LISTENINGTo he a good communicator as well as a good manager and leader, one must lis-ten actively and empathetically, and also pay attention to the feedback received(Gray & Robertson, 2005). Business leaders should want to hecome effective lis-teners because it leads to sensitivity and tolerance to interaction with key publicssuch as employees, customers, and suppliers (Lucia, 1997; Timm & Schroeder,2000). A business' success might just depend on how well communicatorsengage in conversation and listening (Gray & Robertson, 2005).Better listening means better employee relations and customer relations,which means listening makes for hetter relationships and better bottomlines(Bentley, 2000). It can also improve morale and productivity and help to achievegoals (Harris, 1989). A good listener is hard to find in the husiness world, but ifyou become one you're likely to gain the trust of those with whom you communicate(Hughes, 2002).

BUSINESS COM MUNICATION ANDORGANIZATIONAL RELATIONSHIPS

Many husiness comm unicators pride themselves on the personal touch the rela-tionship between clients, the med ia, and the practitioners the perfected hum ancon tact (Cap ps, 1993, p. 24). This perfected human contact can be attained onlyif a mutual, strong relationship hetween the organization and its constituenciesexists.To better understand this phenomenon some researchers have suggested waysto measure and define business relationships. Grunig and Huang identify trust


3/11

LISTENING, COMM UNICATING TRUST 7 5

Trustis widely accepted as a critical part of interpersonal, organizational, andorganization-puhlic relationships (Grunig and Huang, 1998). It is the cornerstoneof successful relationships and can only be built with time (Davidson Kapelianis,1996;Dum oulin Boyd , 1997). In fact, Vercic and Grunig (1995) go so far as tostate that trust is the characteristic that allows an organization to exist (GrunigHuang, 1998). Trust is also an important element of listening (McGarvey, 1996).

ontrol mutuality is similar to the concept of power (Grunig Huang, 1998)and refers to the degree of agreement that exists hetween an organization and itspuhlics about who has the power to influence the other (Hon and Grunig, 2000).Grunig and Huang state that some imbalance of power is unavoidable in manyrelationships and that control mutuality recognizes this asymmetry. However, ifone party attempts to have total control over the relationship, the other outcomefactorstrust, satisfaction, and commitmentwill suffer (Hon and Grunig,2000).

Having satisfactionmeans that the organization and its publics feel positivelytoward each other and the benefits of keeping the relationship outweigh the costsof maintaining it (Hon and Grunig, 2000). ommitment examines the degree towhich both the organization and its publics helieve that the relationship is worthspending time and resources on to maintain and promote (Hon and Grunig,2000).However, do communication and listening have a role in building and main-taining relationships? The current literature does not explicitly list these conceptswhen discussing husiness/organizational relationships. To investigate this phe-nomenon, the researcher decided to ask public relations and communicationemployees and managers about what makes for successful business/o rganiza-tional relationships.The following research questions were posed:

R l : What is a business/organizationa l relationship?R2: How do you descrihe a good business/organizational relationship?R3: How do you descrihe a had business/organizational relationship?R4: How is a successful business/organizational relationship built?R5: How is a successful business/organizational relationship m aintained?

M THO OLOGYQualitative methods are most useful and powerful when they are used to discover


4/11

7 6 BRUNNER

and that purpose of the interview is to elicit the exact language used hy the partic-ipants Lindlof,1995). Such imagery is personal and involved, and the researchershould not attempt to fit participants' experience into predetermined categoriesLindlof,1995; Patton, 1987). Therefore, although the researcher must have a setof research questions, it is important to let the participants speak with their ownvoices and expe riences. Interviews therefore hecom e a conve rsation with apurpose Lindlof,1995, p. 164).

Sampling and ProceduresConvenience and snowhall sampling methods Lindlof, 1995) were used to iden-tify 10 public relations practitioners w ho were w illing to participate in this study.Participants were chosen, in part, by their jobs so that a mix of agency, corporate,and nonprofit practitioners were interviewed. This selection was made to ensureall facets of puhlic relations work were included in this study. Five women andfive men were participants. Two participants were African American, one His-panic, and seven Caucasian. In addition, five of the participants represented man-agement positions.

All interviews were done over the phone since the participants were spreadthroughout the United States; each interview lasted 45 minutes to one-and-a-halfhours. The interviews w ere recorded with the participant's approval and an inter-view guide was used to provide structure. An interview guide is a list of ques-tions that are explored in the course of an interview (Patton, 1987; Lindlof,1995). The researcher chose to begin each interview with the same broad ques-tion: How do you define the term relationship in the context of hus iness? andfollowed up with a variety of types of questions to make the interview as rich aspossible. The researcher then used Patton's suggested categories of questions toadd depth and breadth to the interviews. Patton's question categories includeexperience and behavior, and opinion and helief and knowledge. By asking thesame general questions, the researcher hoped to find the responses highly com pa-rable Lindlof, 1995). However, the questions were not asked in the same orderbecause the researcher did not want to censor the participants' thought processes.

nalysisAfter the interviews were finished, the researcher labeled each tape with adate and topic . Tra nscrip tion soon followed and the resea rcher faithfullydetailed the conversations as they happened, keeping all dialect and language


5/11

LISTENING, COMM UNICATING & TRUST 7 7

Data from the interviews were compared and contrasted across segment linessuch as gender, race, and experience level. However, these demographic vari-ables did not seem to influence participants' responses. The responses then werecoded hy the researcher and some common themes arose from them. More spe-cifically, the themes that emerged were the listening process is a part of relation-ships and active listening and communication are essential for successfulhusiness/organizational relationships to be built and maintained.After themes were determined, the researcher categorized responses to R2 andR3 based on how well they fit or did not fit with the definitions of relationshipoutcomes provided by Grunig and Huang (1998). The researcher hoth reduced

and expanded these categories by further analyzing what they represented andcollecting examples of them Lindlof, 1995; Coffey & Atkinson, 1996).

FIN INGSThe Listening Process is a Part of RelationshipsThe term relationship is not uniformly defined in the literature or by the partici-pants.From the responses gathered in these in-depth in terviews, many definitionsfor relationship exist and respondents were not always comfortable suggesting adefinition for the term. For example, some participants avoided the question alltogether and instead described how a relationship was built and maintained. Oth-ers gave their hest try at defining the elusive term and many prefaced their defini-tions with hedges like this may he different at other organiza tions or in thecontext of my jo b.Three participants summed their thoughts up neatly by defining the term, as it's everything you do in hus iness, interaction fostered hy respect from bothsides and prom oting goodwill, trust and confidence. Most of the other respon-dents listed elements they helieved were necessary for a relationship to exist. Forexam ple, the other seven participants suggested: shared decision mak ing,achieving the same outcom e, partnering that is mutually beneficial, manag-ing expectations, com municating, listening, and understanding. Based onthese respondents' descriptors and definitions, listening is a part of the process ofbuilding and maintaining relationships, yet it is absent from the outcome factorsof a relationship offered by Grunig and Huang (1998). It seems, therefore, thatlistening is not only forgotten in instruction, bu t also in research.Active listeningand com mun ication are essential for successful business/organizational relation


6/11

7 8 BRUNNER

into the outcome factors identified hy Hon and Grunig (1998). For example, shared decision making, close and frequent contact, and having no turfwars could he collapsed under the umbrella of control mutuality. Similarly, trustcould encompass the elements trust, honesty, sincerity, open ness, and personal ties. Com mon goals, clear understanding, under-promising, andover-delive ring, and having interests other than the husiness at hand seem tofit with the factor satisfaction and know ing the market, working extra ho urs ,having new ideas, and following through suggest comm itment.

However, since nearly all the respondents listed listening and communicationas necessary to foster positive puhlic relations relationsh ips, it seems that they area theme for a good relationship. Several participants also mentioned parts of thelistening and com munication processes such as feedback, interaction, and discussion. Seven respondents were also quick to mention that direct, face-to-face communication was especially important to building strong relationships.For examp le a female em ployee relations coordinator said

I just really have to say that you build a relationship with communication and lis-tening . . . The interaction, you have to have the interaction to have the relationshipand the commun ication and listening are going to be core elements . . . The relation-ships we build . . . include t r u s t . . . but we have to comm unicate w ith and listen tothem to build that trust.Participants seemed unable to describe a good relationship without using the

terms listening, trust, and communication. Trust is clearly identified by Grunigand Huang (1998) as an outcome factor of relationships; however; listening andcommunication are merely implied. Again it seems that the current research onbusiness/organizational relationships might be missing key elements necessaryfor a successful relationship.In addition participants identified 24 descriptors of bad relationships. Again,most of these descriptors can he collapsed and assigned to Hon and Grunig'sidentified outcome factors. A lack of control mutuality seems to cover self-interest, turf/control wars, weak leade rship, not following the rules , and undefined role s, while a lack of trust and a lack of honesty seem to fit withnonexistent trust. U nclear goals, had service, unclear expectations, view-ing public relations as a vendor and not a partne r, negativity, expecting toomuch , an inability to work with othe rs, lying ahout capa bilities. and not

providing outcom es suggest dissatisfaction. No follow-up, not knowing themarket, an inahility to see heyond the imm ediate, and laziness seem to con-


7/11

LISTENING, COMMUNICATING & TRUST 7 9

listening. If you don't have trust, the common goals, you're having a hadrelationship. You hav en't done anything to foster that relationship. Anotherparticipant descrihed a had relationship in this manner: On e that is not based onhonesty or trust. One that is . . . disorganized and lacks personal comm unicationand listening (female. Director of Special Events). A male, comm unicationsmanager simply stated a bad relationship was one where you haven 't been ableto build that trust because there is not com munication or feedback . From theseresponses, it seems that even if participants do not use the exact terminology pro-posed by Grunig and Huang (1998), they do agree that the outcome factors thatthey have identified are important when discussing husiness/organizational rela-tionships. However, it is also obvious that these participants have identified aweakness in this researchthe lack of a direct mention of listening and commu-nication, without which a relationship is impossible.

IS USSIONThis research can serve as a preliminary qualitative investigation into the role oflistening in huilding and maintaining husiness relationships. Although the practi-tioners interviewed in this study were reluctant to offer definitions for the termrelationship, they did seem comfortable describing them. Often listening or ele-ments of the listening process were mentioned in these descriptions as were com-munication and its process elements. Although these answers did not provide theresearcher with one definition for the term relationship, these findings are hy nomeans unsuccessful. They suggest that the outcome factors developed hy Grunigand Huang (1998) need expansion; specifically, an outcome factor that addresseslistening and comm unication needs to be add ed.

Listening is one of the most important relational activities that maintain andbuild relationships (Halone, 2001). Yet it is not currently a part of the literaturethat examines the huilding and maintaining of business/organizational relation-ships. Although som e scales developed to measure the Grunig and H uang (1998)outcome factors imply that listening and communication are a part of buildingrelationships, these concepts are never specifically mentioned. This literatureseems to neglect the fact that relationships are developed by not only communi-cation but also by listening (Pecchioni & Halone, 2000). Scholars contend thatbringing listening into the study of relationships adds a new perspective that issomewhat forgotten in the literature (Rhodes, 1993; Gergen & Walter, 1998).Therefore, to better understand listening and relationships, scholars must address


8/11

8 0 BRUNNER

as sensitivity, tolerance, attention, empathy, and morale. It also could encompasspersonal communication as well as mass communication. A new scale to mea-sure this factor would need to he added to those that measure the pre-existingoutcome factors developed hy Grunig and Huang (1998). Some suggestions foritems to be included in this scale are:This organization listens to what I have to say;This organization interacts with me on a personal level;This organization is sensitive to my concerns;This organization responds to my requ ests; andThis organization is empathetic.

In addition, the definitions for the existing outcome factors could be expandedto show how communication and listening processes are a part of them. After all,without listening and communicating are trust, satisfaction, commitment, andcontrol mutuality even possihle? For example, trust could be redefined as a will-ingness for hoth parties to com mu nicate and listen with an open mind. Con trolm utuality's definition could he reworked to state that it is the degree to whichparties agree on who has the rightful power to influence based on interaction andresponse. Sim ilarly, satisfaction 's definition could read: it is the extent towhich one party feels favorahly toward the other because positive expectationsabout the relationship are reinforced with active listening and communication.Co m m itm ent's definition could read: the extent to which one party helieves andfeels that the relationship is worth spending energy to maintain and promotebased on previous commu nicative interaction. By adding a new listening/com-munication outcome to those already developed by G runig and H uang (1998) andreshaping the definitions of the existing outcome factors to encompass listeningand communication more explicitly, the concerns of Rhodes (1993), Gergen &Walter (1998), Pecchioni & Halone (2000), and Halone (2001) would headdressed, and the developing literature on listening and relationships wouldcontinue to build.

It is important to note that these participants were savvy enough communica-tors to recognize that listening was a part of the communication process on theirown. Not only that, but they also seemed to understand that listening was funda-mental to huilding and maintaining successful husiness/organizational relation-ships. Therefore, it seems that at least some business communicators know howto incorporate active and effective listening into their practice. Perhaps this is asignal that listening is no longer a forgotten husiness skill (Golby & Lewis,


9/11

LISTENING, COMM UNICATING & TRUST 8 1

LimitationsSince this research is based on qualitative data and a small sample, the findingscannot be generalized; they merely represent the opinions and thoughts of a par-ticular group of business communicators at a particular point in time. However,this research does suggest that a key element of building successful business/organizational relationships has been excluded from the outcome factors devel-oped by Grunig and Huang (1998). The current literature fails to address listen-ing and communication, two concepts necessary for relationships to exist.Future research could use the suggested listening/communication scale for aquantitative study. This study could be conducted with employees and managersat various organizations to determine if listening and communication are per-ceived as more important by certain employees or hy employees in certain indus-tries.This research could also be expanded to help determine the role of listeningand communication in huilding morale, creating tolerant workplaces, andincreasing productivity.

ON LUSIONRelationships, communication, and listening are part of our daily existence. Asresearchers continue to develop the literature in these areas and draw lines to con-nect them, it seems that all levels of society will benefit greatly. For example,students would benefit from leaming how to becom e effective listeners. With thisknowledge, they could be better equipped to build successful personal and busi-ness/organizational relationships, which could lead to hetter workplace environ-ments, better customer relations, and better community relationships.

R F R N SAdler, S. (2000, January 17). Conv ersation, comm unication and the lost art of listening.TW ICE: This

eei in Consum er Electronics 15 p.16.Bentley, S. C. (2000). Listening in the 21st century. International Journal of Listening 14 129-142.Bomm elje, R., Houston, J. M., & Smither, R. (2003). Personality characte ristics of effective listeners:

A five factor perspective.International Journal of Listening 17 32-46 .Brownell, J. (1996).Listening: Attitudes principles and sicills.Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.Capps, I. (1993). What the new technology really means for communications professionals. Public

Relations Quarterly 38 24-25 .Coffey, A., & Atkinson, P. (1996). Concepts and coding. In Making sense of qualitative data.Thou-


10/11

8 2 BRUNNER

Elman, C. B. (2001). Sometimes it's all in what you're listening for. Wom en in Business, 53, 5.Galanes, G. J., & Brilhart, J. K. (1997). Communicating in groups: Application and skills (2 ** ed.).

Madison, WI: WCB Brown & Benchmark.Gergen, K., & Walter, R. (1998). Realizing the relational. Journal of Social and Personal Relation-ships, 15,110-126.

Golby, V. P., & Lewis, J. H. (2000). The key role of listening in business. A study of the Singaporeinsurance industry.B usiness Comm unication Q uarterly, 63,41-48 .

Gray , R., & Robe rtson, L. (2005). Effecttive internal comm unication starts at the top.Communication orld22 ,26-28 .

Grun ig, J. E., & Huang, Y. (1998). From orga nizational effectiveness to relation.ship indicators: Ante-cedents of relationships, public relations strategies and relationship outcomes. In J. A. Ledingham& S. D. Bruning (Eds.), Relationship management: A relational approach to public relations.Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Halone, K. K. (2001). Relational listening. A grounded theoretical model. Communication Reports,14 ,59-72 .

Harris, T. W . (1989). L isten carefully. Nation s Business, 77, 78.Hon, L. C., & Grunig, J. E. (2000). Measuring relationships in public relationships. Manu.script pre-

pared for Relationship Task Force/Measurement Commission. Institute for Public Relations andKetchum Public Relations.

Hughes, L. (2002). How to be a good listener. Wom en in Business, 54, 17.mhof M. (1998). What makes a good listener? Listening behavior in instructional settings. Intema-

tional Journal of Listening, 12,81-105.Lindlof T. R. (1995).Qualitative communication research methods.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Lucia, A. (1997). Leaders know how to listen.HR Focus, 74, 25.McC racken, G. (1988).The long interview.Newbury Park, CA: Sage.McGarvey, R. (1996). Now hear this: Lend your employees an ear and boost productivity. Entrepre-

neur, 24,87-90.Morse, J. (1994). Emerging from the data: The cognitive processes of analysis in qualitative inquiry.

InCritical issues in qualitative research methods. Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage.Patton, M . Q. (1987).How to use qualitative methods in evaluation.N ewbury Park, CA: Sage.Pecchioni, L. L., & Halone, K. K. (2000). Relational listening II: Form & variation across social and

personal relationships. International Journal of Listening, 14,69-93 .Plati, C. (2005). Listen.Social Policy, 35,49-50 .Purdy, M. (1991). What is listening? In D. Borisoff & M. Purdy (Eds.), Listening ineveryday life:A personal and professional approach(pp. 3-19 ). Lanham, M D: University Press of America.Rhodes, S. C. (1993). Listening: A relational process. In A. D. Wolvin & C. G. Coakley (Eds.).

Perspectives on listening,(pp. 217-240). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Timm, S., & Schroeder, B. L. (2000). Listening/nonverbal communication training. International

Journal of Listening, i4, 109-128.Vercic, D., & Grunig, J. E. (1995). The origins of public relations theory in economics and strategic

management. Paper presented to the 2 '' International Public Relations Research Symposium, Bled,Slovenia.


11/11

Date post:	04-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	sagar-bansal
View:	221 times
Download:	0 times

ListeningCommunication&Trust

Documents