Charlie: Through this discussion with Jean, you've once again illustrated that old attribute found in many a successful professional...genuine curiosity and the ability to listen & hear the response. Isn't it amazing how something so simple can be so effective? Consider all the money professional services spend in "screening tools " for the "right candidate" in recruitment and then in development and yet, I don't know of one that  screens for curiosity and listening. Curiosity is a key attribute that can't be "learned" - you're either  curiosity about the world around you or your not.  Without that attribute how can one see the entire picture  and determine how  components connect to each other or as in many cases, don't ?

Needless to say, one then needs to be able to Hear & Listen to the response. Can Listening  be taught? Well, there are techniques, of course, that can assist people in being better listeners. But I'm of the camp that believes that if you aren't naturally curious enough to begin with, no amount of "skills training" will enable you to be "skilled" enough (non-judgemental) to actually hear the response correctly. And it will be apparent to the other person exactly how insincere the attempt is. That lack of insincerity and lack of effective communication, as both you and Jean state, is a deal breaker.

All that said, I'd be curious to hear if there are any firms using screening tools for either curiosity  and/or effective listening?  

Hi, Charlie,

You say, "I think in part it’s because they simply do not know how to listen...Maybe it’s because they can’t get out of the adversarial mode.  Maybe that comes with maturity."

For me, curiosity,  coming to a situation with a "beginner's mind" , from a place of "it's OK, not to know" is possible when one is secure in one's own skin...when one has no need to "defend" one's (insecure) self by being "out front" in some way, shape or form...judging, interjecting, telling, one-upping, hijacaking a situation, teaching, telling, interpreting...all a form of ego-driven reactivity that stems from some fear of feeling that "I'm not being seen or heard; I feel invisiable. I seen to be seen as 'somebody' ." The feeling that comes with defering, being quiet, and asking instead of telling to too much to bear for such folks...who, inisde, equate that feeling to being 'nobody."  

Related to Barabara's suggestion, a behavioral-based interview might include questions such as: "Tell me a time you felt OK with not knowing. What was that like for you? How did you react/respond(there is a difference)?" Tell me a time you felt compelled to jump in and "fix", tell, teach... someone else when they took time to be silent during a conversation and you were uncomfortable with the 'void'?" Tell me a time when you were able to not be adversarial and reached a mutual resolution." Etc.

The maturity you point to is emotional and spiritual maturity...some folks have been curious since they were children and bring this child-like quality to their daily life; others cannot bring their curiosity to bear, have tamped it down, and so bring their child-ish needy self to their daily life. What is the culture of the firm/organization that supports one or the other way that folks show up? And, why?

> [Jean] "...If I can understand their full story from their perspective, then I can understand where their case is weak, and where it’s strong.  Then in court I have no danger of taking things out of context—I know their context."

Customer Innovations has a great post today that likewise illustrates the role of context in listening:

> "The Heaths illustrate the “Curse of Knowledge” using an experiment conducted in 1990 by Elizabeth Newton.  In that experiment, people were assigned to be either “tappers” or “listeners.”  Tappers were asked to select from a list of 25 well-known melodies and to tap out the selection’s rhythm on the table.   The listeners would then have to guess the song the tapper was tapping.  Tappers predicted that the listeners would guess correctly one out of two times (50%).  It turns out that the listeners were only able to guess one out of about forty times (2.5%).   The tappers thought it would be easy to communicate their “message” to the listener because, as they were tapping, they were hearing the song in their head.  However, the listener wasn’t hearing that song; they were just trying to decipher the message from what sounded like Morse code.  I don’t know how many times I’ve seen people try desperately to get their customers to understand when the underlying issue is that the customer just doesn’t have the same background music playing in their heads."

It sounds like Jean listens so well, and with such curiosity, that she goes to trial with a pretty good idea of "the background music playing in their heads."