Greg McKeown:
Welcome, everyone. I’m your host, Greg McKeown, and I am here with you on this journey to learn how to truly understand each other.
Have you ever met a person who had a deeply profound effect upon you? And what was the relationship between that impact and the degree to which they listened, understood you, personally and uniquely?
Today, I have Jack Zenger back for the second part of this interview about what great leaders actually do. They don’t do what most people think listening is. They do something very different to that, and that makes all the difference. By the end of this episode, you will understand the difference between what average listeners do and what great listeners do, and that can be life-changing. So let’s begin.
And if you want to learn about great listening faster, understand it more deeply, increase your influence, be sure to share one idea from this podcast episode with someone else within the next 24 to 48 hours.
As we continue up this ladder of success, this hierarchy of competence, in understanding others as this level six. What is that?
Jack Zenger:
Well, level six was that behind most strong opinions, a person usually has either had some unique experiences which have developed within them certain assumptions and certain kinds of mindsets. And one thing that the really effective listener can do is to kind of get on their side of the table for a moment and say, let me see if I am understanding, you know, both your point and how you’re feeling about it, but also let me be certain that I understand what your assumptions are.
Apparently, some things have happened to you earlier in your career where this behavior led to that consequence. And so this current event makes you pretty anxious. You think we’re off in the wrong direction? And I think if you can help people understand that you are interested in their assumptions and that you would like to help them identify what those assumptions are, it often helps to clarify their thinking.
So this is that attempt to kind of now make the learning experience not just a sponge absorbing information from you, but it’s to help you understand why you are thinking the way you are. How you might think about it a little bit differently. If I can help you get in touch with your underlying experience or your underlying assumptions that form your opinion, that’s an extremely valuable process.
If you can help me understand why I’m thinking the way I am, then it gives me the choice of I can either maintain that or I can adjust that. But now I understand maybe how I got there and what are my reasons for thinking that.
Greg McKeown:
Well, you’re saying that in the process of listening at that level, you are actually helping somebody to unlock, unravel, make sense of the enormous invisible mess that exists inside of us, much of it unconscious, and yet still acting upon us and affecting us. So if you can help somebody unravel all of that, then it’s a really liberating gift. I would put it in the life-changing category to be able to do that with someone else.
Jack Zenger:
Exactly right. And I think that’s what really helpful therapists do, is that they not only help people understand their behavior and their emotions about that behavior but why have I gotten myself into this place in my life where I’m thinking that way? And can I just step back and examine the root causes of that? And that would really help.
Greg McKeown:
I came across a very interesting lecture that was given by a professor at Warwick University. He was speaking to everyone who’s ever had to do a doctorate or a Ph.D. In trying to understand this terminology, which won’t matter to most people, but as a method to my madness here, the difference between methods, methodology, ontology, epistemology, and underneath that, even somebody’s whole paradigm, their whole worldview, and so on. And, as soon as somebody is trying to do research of any kind, they are suddenly bombarded with all of these terms. And a lot of those are not familiar terms, certainly beyond methodology. They’re not familiar terms to people in everyday language. And so he expressed the relationship between all of them in this way. He said, it’s like an iceberg. He says, Above the iceberg, you have methods. These are the things most clearly known.
The methods in this case, in this research that you’ve just described, is this 360 data. And that’s the most visible part. But underneath, that’s methodology, and underneath, that’s the way you see yourself and the nature of being and the nature of knowledge. And underneath that, way, way below the surface where you can’t even see it from above is this deep, really important, effective, impactful realities, but you can’t see them from above the water. They’re there. They’re affecting things, but they’re invisible. And as you were sharing these levels, it seems to me that at least part of it is like going through these levels of the iceberg to help somebody eventually reveal to themselves and, of course, to you as well, these deep insights that they wouldn’t feel safe to share otherwise, they couldn’t even share otherwise. And all of this is available knowledge, insight, wisdom, even that only great listeners will ever get access to.
When you think about this research and the thinking you’ve done about this subject, did you ever try to name the type of leader you’re talking about here? Because I have, unfruitfully, so far. If you had to name this kind of leader, if you had to give it a name, what might that name be?
Jack Zenger:
You know, my friend Tom Peters recently published a new book, culminating his career, and he talks about it in the book and uses the term “extreme humanism.” And putting me on the spot right this moment, I can’t think of a better term than just being an extreme humanist, that if we really truly respect people, want to give them the highest dignity, that this leader that we’re talking about who really cares enough to put forth their full energy into wanting to listen to and truly understand and elevate the conversation they’re having, then maybe the term an extreme humanist would come as close as I can think of right now.
Greg McKeown:
Yeah, that’s a beautiful way of thinking about it. I think, if I understand the research that you did and the intent behind it, the distinctive point is we’re not talking about what you think listening is at the average level. Maybe you are right. Maybe that is what listening is at the average level, but that is in no way the summon bonum of what listening can be. And so, to judge whether to invest in listening based upon the average level of listening is not going to do it. There are, as you’ve described and laid out for as many layers, many levels in this competence. And as you go further up that ladder of competence, you find it much, much more fruitful than at the average levels.
What is one really actionable thing that someone can do who thinks they might actually be an average to good listener that would help them to become a great listener? One specific thing, if they could only do one thing from the research you’ve done.
Jack Zenger:
I think it would be to recognize that, well, it seems contrary in initially that the really effective listener listens intently enough that they can formulate and, in a constructive way, ask good questions as the conversation proceeds. And I think it is that ability to construct and to ask good questions that lets the other person know that you really have been listening or you couldn’t have asked that question.
And so I think sometimes we believe that good listeners are, again, just more passive on keeping always on the receiving end. And I think that if I were to make one suggestion, it would be listen hard enough and intently enough that you can ask a few questions that truly elevate the conversation.
Greg McKeown:
I just love that answer, especially because questions can be utilized at every level of listening that we’ve been discussing. And at many more worse levels, we could probably create a sort of minus levels. Minus one, minus two, minus three, and way down to minus six. And I think at the minus six level, strangely, questions could also appear because there’s a way to ask questions that is so manipulative, is so about your own agenda that not only does it not show listening, it shows how deeply you do not understand the other person, how much you are judging them. And so much of the gotcha questions you see in media being modeled is of that kind of question anyway. So it’s striking to me that questions can be the worst thing to do and yet also illustrate the highest form of this kind of listening.
What’s the difference?
Jack Zenger:
Intent. What you were describing last, it’s all about me, and it’s making you look bad. What we were talking about earlier is it’s all about you, and it’s trying to be constructively helpful to you and your ability to see your world more clearly, to make a better decision than you would otherwise have made. And to help you in that process of implementing that decision.
Greg McKeown:
Does it, therefore, come down to just how enlightened a person is to whether they care about their own agenda, how they appear versus caring about the other person? Are we talking about that kind of maturity and development? And if the answer to that is yes, let me ask, let me see what your answer is first. Is that what the difference is?
Jack Zenger:
I think that’s a very appropriate way of defining what the difference is.
Greg McKeown:
Well, that leads to the next question then, and that is, if that is so, then how can this subject be presented to someone who is self-oriented? You know, they’re interested in their own agenda as many of us, if not all of us, are, and we’re at whatever stage we are in our development. How can this be expressed in a way that is attractive to that person?
Jack Zenger:
I’m a great believer in people’s ability to change. I’m a great believer that appropriately provided feedback can help individuals see more clearly that their line of questions or their line of responses were really self-centered rather than being focused on the other person. So I don’t know of any better way to help people change than to give them feedback from people that they trust. And that’s why I’m a fan of the whole 360-degree feedback process because it does provide people with feedback from people whom they trust on matters that are important, specifically tailored for them, and a goodly number of them pay attention to that often elect to make changes on their own. But certainly, with the help of a coach or some colleague can make some really important changes. Is it going to happen instantly, overnight? No, it’s not going to. But I think over time, they can mature and realize what they’re doing that’s all about them versus what they’re doing that’s truly focused on the other person.
Greg McKeown:
Something that’s just coming to mind now is my friend Adam Grant’s sort of preliminary book into the world, Give and Take. He posed a question, do nice guys finish last, or did they finish first? And the counterintuitive answer to his question was, yes, that nice guys finish last and first. And if you look at the data, it divides into those two outlying positions. And as we are talking, it seems to me at least plausible, if not probable, that the same can be said for this type of listening, that there are people who listen in this average way, and it’s not going to serve them especially well. It’s not going to elevate them, get them to the next position in their career, or help them build meaningful, important relationships. It’s just going to be, let’s say, something like a nothing. It’s just easy to ignore, pleasant to be around. It’s like a pleasant, it’s how to be a pleasant person, and maybe we’re okay with more pleasant people in the world, but it’s not going to elevate somebody to a higher point of contribution.
But there’s other kind of listening, the kind that you have researched and helped us to define and that we’ve been talking about in today’s conversation. That’s the kind that has paradoxically a hugely self-interested reason to be able to master this skill and ability because it will help you to accelerate in your career, to be able to make connections faster and deeper, to have people open up so that you can gather more insights to be able to help them with small amounts of effort to make a big impact. And in lots of ways, I wonder whether this is not part of the answer to the question, at least that I’m wrestling with as I read your research and as we have this conversation today. Is that possible in your mind that it could be that kind of extremity?
Jack Zenger:
Yeah. What strikes me is it’s a little bit about good guys finishing first or last. Obviously, it depends on what winning means. And so it’s a little bit like David Brooks talks about, are you after resume skills or obituary skills? You know, there may be some things that might help you on your resume that aren’t particularly ones you’d want to have on your obituary.
I happen to believe that we’re seeing more and more that the most effective leaders are working on their obituary skills and realizing that their resume skills will take care of themselves. Those who only focus on their resume skills often lead a pretty sad, tragic last few years of their life. So I’m a believer that the kind of listening we’ve been talking about really is not only virtuous, but it certainly has a long-term payoff. And I think increasingly we’re seeing, and especially in the world that we’re living in right now, that it has short-term benefits as well.
Greg McKeown:
I remember towards the end of the pandemic when the first tensions started to erupt between, are we all going back to work, or is it now work from home? Or is it a hybrid, or what’s going to happen with that? I remember that there were a couple of very high-profile examples of CEOs who went bold on the idea, you’ve got to be back in work. If you’re not, it’s because you’re lazy. I remember the WeWork CEO got into some hot water with that position. Or if you don’t come back into the office, you’re going to be fired. And what struck me about those moments was how tone-deaf they seemed. And that doesn’t mean that they meant to do that. Of course, they didn’t mean to do that. But that, to me, is one of the most immediate costs of not taking research like this seriously, is that, yeah, you can get everything else right, but you’ll be dead wrong if you don’t actually understand with some precision, the people you’re trying to lead into inspire. How are you doing with this in your own life?
Jack Zenger:
I would jokingly say it depends on who you talk to. My wife wouldn’t say I’m always doing it well, but she would say that I can do it well, and then I do it well with some frequency. But do I, is every conversation level six? Absolutely not. I think that as I have gotten older, and I just turned 91, so I’ve had a chance to look at some lifespan a bit, I think as I’ve gotten older, I’ve gotten better at it, and I continue to work at it.
Greg McKeown:
This is definitely true for me. There are times in the same day that I can do this. I don’t know, I don’t want to be presumptuous saying level six, but at a high level, and sometimes even in emotional circumstances, but on the same day with a slightly different circumstance or literally that I’m hungry or get fatigued or something has been shared with me, that’s triggering in some way.
Suddenly I’m not level one. I’m at the minus levels that we’ve been talking about in the same day. And so that makes me think this is beyond skill development because it’s not just the ability to do it, it’s creating routines, it’s creating a lifestyle that allows this to happen more frequently than less.
Jack Zenger:
Yeah, I think it’s building good habits. It’s you can certainly move in this direction generally, but I don’t know that every conversation I have with the person at the service station or the grocery store has to be a deep, deep conversation. But I can always treat people with respect. I can do a lot to make every conversation generally positive and move up that scale.
Greg McKeown:
This comes close to the experiment that I am in right now because I’m doing this new research, and I’m writing this book, and that’s not enough. If you want to write a good book, okay, do good research and have a clear intent and structure the ideas well and be surprising along the way. I mean, there’s a long list of things, but if you want to write a great book, if you want to write something, maybe even phenomenal, you know, that sort of aspiration. You have to live it. You have to try to live it. And I’m saying that as someone who I don’t think I have written anything that’s phenomenal. So I’m trying to go beyond what I know how to do, and as I try to live this, as I try it as an experiment, I’m very conscious about how rubbish I am at it often, but I’m also discovering that there is the potential for this as a lifestyle, not just as a skill set. The continual pursuit of understanding.
Yes, with the person. Yes, with the Uber driver. That’s a little unfair because you get a few more minutes with them, but maybe yes, with the person in checkout with you. I remember one of Steven Covey’s sons telling me that he watched his mother and father listen deeply to their server in the restaurant, and by the end of the dinner, they had had this meaningful, impactful conversation with them, exchanged telephone numbers determined to help them in a very particular way. I agree with you that not every interaction calls for this because there’s all sorts of information that can be very surface level, and so if it’s surface level information, okay, I’m picking up, I’m picking up Jack at this time. Okay, you’re going to do this. There is surface-level listening for surface-level information. I agree with that. I accept that, and I also wonder whether there isn’t a way of living that is extremely rich where every person we are meeting with, we are trying to build this muscle of rapid understanding. Go ahead.
Jack Zenger:
No, I believe that. Absolutely.
Greg McKeown:
Yeah, but it’s a bear. It’s surely, especially for someone like you, right? Like I’m saying that presumptuously because I think that I would assume that you and I share similarities with this when there’s a lot going on in your head, when there’s worlds of ideas and how they relate to each other. When, at least for me, if I don’t write or teach or get those things out of me, I don’t, I’m not very well, I don’t even function especially well. I don’t want to overdramatize it, but you know what I’m talking about. I think that makes it that you’ve got a lot to shelve when Goman says, oh, shelve your agenda. There’s a lot of agenda up there.
Jack Zenger:
Yeah. Yeah.
Greg McKeown:
Jack, it has been such a pleasure to have the excuse to have this conversation with somebody who’s thought deeply about this. For someone who’s been in this world of caring about working with executives all over the world for beyond 50 years now. What an honor for me, and what a gift to everyone who’s been listening here about what it means to listen. Thank you for being on the show.
Jack Zenger:
I’ve enjoyed it very much, Greg. Thank you for those kind words.
Greg McKeown:
Thank you. Really, thank you for listening to this conversation with Jack Zenger and I. If you haven’t yet, go back and listen to part one of the interview.
Now, what is one idea you heard today that caught your attention? Why does this matter so much to you, and who can you share that idea within the next 24 to 48 hours?
If you found value in today’s episode, please write a review on Apple Podcasts. The first five people to do that will receive access to the Essentialism Academy. Just go to essentialism.com/podcastpromo.
Remember to subscribe to this podcast and invite other people to do the same episodes come out, as you know by now, on Tuesdays and Thursdays. I’ll see you next time.
