Why Don't They Listen?

“But she just doesn't listen to anyone!  She is continually in broadcast mode!  I, on the other hand, try to listen – I really try to hear what she says – but hearing what she says doesn't mean I necessarily agree – I mean she changes her mind all the time!”

“Well you may be listening but you're clearly not hearing me! If you were really hearing me then you would realise the stupidity of your position!”

“If I’ve told you once, I've told you 1000 times – are you deaf, dumb or stupid? Will you just shut up and do it!”

“Don't just stand there – say something!” “Yes, well it would be good if you would stop saying everything for just one moment and just stand there!”

“I thought we were having a conversation – I've been talking into silence for several minutes – now you say something!” “What do you want me to say?”

“We discussed this several months ago and you agreed to change your behaviour – has there been a sudden loss of memory on your part?” “I have no recollection of that agreement!”

Communication takes place on a number of levels – the words, the vocals, and the body language. So more often than not we are sending mixed messages, or tuning in to only one part of what is being communicated. And it follows that if we could get all of those levels communicating the same message then we would be broadcasting with much more power. But we could still be wrong!

Perhaps you’ve heard the lament, “If a man speaks words in the forest, and no woman hears him, is he still wrong?”

Courses on communication talk about framing the message – creating a kind of package – sending it across the space and checking that it has been received and understood.  A logical framework for sure - but what if there's nobody home when the mailman arrives?  Some say it's all a matter of intention on the part of the sender and all about attention on the part of the receiver.  Again, it sounds good but you don't know my boss/partner/child/neighbour!  If the methodology of communication is so well-known, why do we have so many failures to communicate?

So I'm not going to give you any ‘10 tips for better communication’ as such.  That might help you play the game better, but what interests me is why we play the game in the first place.  So I'd like to offer some deeper insights that may help change the game.

When you sift it all down to the essence, regardless of the words and the methodology and the intention and the attention, there is really only one message at the grass roots level of everything we communicate – “This is me”.  Weird maybe, but in essence we can only communicate “who we are”.  The most common reply is also “This is me”, but the optimum reply is “Yes it is”. 

If there is a failure on that level, then we tend to add more power by whatever means we can – even if it has an effect opposite to what we desire. 

Why is it so important for us to get this essential message across and even more important for us to have it acknowledged?  The only truthful answer is that we don't feel confident about who we are in these circumstances.  In other words, I’m not confident of my own value here – so I need someone else to reassure me of that value.  By some quirk of nature, human beings seem to have a need to feel that they are of some value, especially to other human beings.  It's probably a design fault! 

So, for example, why would Qantas workers set out to deliberately cause pain and suffering among so many of the travelling public?  Could it be that they don't feel respected by Qantas management – record profits, records CEO salary, moving business overseas and shedding 1000 jobs?  Surely not – after all they’re only workers, not shareholders.

Could it be that all human communication failures stem from a little voice that says “I'm worth more than this!”  And if I don't get that acknowledged in kind then I’ll demand it in cash.

Perhaps we are all truly worthless!  Would that be so bad?  My guess is that it would be okay – so long as we were all equally worthless!  Basic self-esteem is established in the first couple of years of life, where some mothering-type person must have seen some intrinsic value in who we were.  The fact that most of us survived due to that person’s good graces evidences that.  But most of us remain vulnerable at that deep level – we have just learned different ways of protecting that vulnerability – and often the best defence is a good offence.

Next time you experience a communications failure, try to hear that little voice saying “I'm worth more than this!”  So if your boss just doesn't listen, then what he is saying is “I'm worth more than this!”  If your union calls a strike, then they’re saying “We’re worth more than this!”  If your partner calls the divorce lawyer she is saying “I'm worth more than this!”  If your child doesn't clean up his room he is saying “I'm worth more than this!”  Then consider your energetic response to those voices.  Does your evaluation of their worth grow larger or smaller?  And if you are in a position of power, will you narrow that sense of inequality in kind – or pay in cash?

One of the latest TED talks, by Richard Wilkinson, is about “How economic inequality harms societies”.  His research worldwide shows that social dysfunction of all types is up to ten times worse in countries with the highest income inequality, but is not directly related to the actual levels of income.   My take on it is that it’s the feelings of inequality stirred by seemingly unjustifiable economic differences that determine the degree of dysfunction. 

Perhaps what today’s level of global dysfunction is saying to us is “We’re all worth more than this!”

I've studied people quite intensively for many years and come to the conclusion that there is an almost perfect correlation between stupid people and people who don't agree with me.  Now why don’t they listen!

Your own VitallyMe Report can help you improve your "hearing"… www.vitallyme.com