Monday 26 July 2021

Are You Listening?

The world of probation here in England has changed so much, I'm not at all sure what's a 'given' any more for people joining and indeed the training they are given. The gap between those leaving and those joining seems ever wider. This slightly edited extract from the Guardian at the weekend serves to highlight something pretty fundamental to me, but I wonder how far it resonates below decks aboard the new HMS Probation?   

‘Be interested, be curious, hear what’s not said’: how I learned to really listen to people

Being a good listener isn’t just about shutting up and not interrupting – it’s about really taking in what someone is telling you.

When I was a young girl, a fabulous woman called Pam who lived opposite us would come to do my mum’s hair once a week. Pam was a retired hairdresser and beautician who had been taught partly by Vivien Leigh’s mother.

I knew this because I listened as she and my mother talked. My mum would sit under the stand hairdryer with wads of cotton wool curling out from under her hairnet to protect her ears from the heat, and Pam would talk and talk: about Margaret Thatcher (my mum wasn’t a fan); their early lives (Pam’s in Yorkshire, my mum’s in Naples); and about life up and down the London street where we all lived.

This arrangement started when I was about eight and continued until I left home aged 22. I would sit at the dining-room table reading the Woman’s Own problem pages, stealing the biscuits my mum had put out for Pam, all the while observing how, so often, neither woman really listened to the other. My mother would wait for gaps in the conversation so she could say, “Exactly”, and then launch into her own, often unrelated, anecdote. I saw all the information missed like dropped balls: wasted opportunities for further exploration. My father was rarely present at these meets, but on the occasions he was there, he’d raise one eyebrow towards me in a knowing look.

Throughout my teens, I noticed how rarely people asked questions. Over many meals and catchups, I would watch as family members interrupted and road-blocked conversations, sending the chat on a detour that became all about them. We have one well-known culprit in the family: I can count on the fingers of a mitten how often, in the two decades we’ve known him, he asks anybody anything about themselves. As a child, I lacked the words to explain the way I felt, and was often shut down. Thus observing how not to do it, I resolved to be different.

It was only when I was appointed the Guardian’s agony aunt in 2008 that I realised I still had a lot to learn. As part of the process of replying to readers’ letters, I would invite specialists (usually therapists) to work with me on compiling the answers. I was greedy for their insights into human behaviour, and soon learned that the basis of every problem I received was communication in some shape or form.

Listening, I discovered, wasn’t just about waiting for the other person to stop talking, or asking good questions, or even not interrupting. It was about really hearing what the other person was saying, and why they were saying it. Being interested, but also curious. Sometimes that means looking for what’s not said, what’s left out, which words are used to mask emotions that are hard to acknowledge. Likewise, good listening is about approaching what has been said as if you’ve never heard it before. Put simply, it’s about paying attention.

Listening is a skill that we could all do with sharpening. After all, for the past year, many of us have been conducting friendships and relationships entirely via social media or text message and email. It’s not like real life. You don’t have to concentrate as much; you can switch off and return to things when you want: it’s an intermittent transmit and, you hope, receive. Real-time listening is different. For a new podcast series, I revisited trusted experts who have been part of my column for the last 13 years, asking them to distil their wisdom in a series of intimate conversations. At the core of all of them? The art of listening.

---///---

The psychotherapist I’ve spoken to most often for my columns is Chris Mills, a specialist in relationships. I’ve always been impressed with his ability to hear not simply what I’m saying, but what I can’t hear myself (or, in the case of the column, what the reader is saying but hasn’t acknowledged). He taught me that allowing a tiny silence after someone has spoken can enable them to say that bit more. Try it: resist saying something immediately after someone has stopped speaking and just do a gentle, mental, count to 10.

But listening is not about remaining resolutely silent. If it goes on too long, silence can make things awkward. The mistake a lot of people make (myself included) is filling the silence with their own anecdotes, offering platitudes or, worse, cliches (“Everything happens for a reason” should be struck from the annals of mankind. Ditto: “What doesn’t kill you makes you stronger”). Offering up the, “Oh, that happened to me/someone I know, too” stories seems empathic, and they do have their place if they’re short, reinforcing the point your companion was making before you return to the original subject. But doing this without thought is called “shifting”, because you hijack the conversation and turn it on to you. The other person can feel shut down.

Instead, try supporting them, using responses such as, “That sounds tough”, “How did that make you feel?” or, “What a lot you have on”. I used to think these were lightweight, until once, after a high-stress day during which people tried to be sympathetic but actually offered me lists of what I should do, my Italian cousin simply responded to my text with one word: “Capisco” (I understand). I felt seen, heard, understood. Ever since, I’ve never forgotten the power of the short answer.

In well-worn conversations, often between couples, listening can falter, because you think you’ve heard it all before (“Oh, not this again”). Learning to listen as if the information is new is useful for hearing things differently and even, perhaps, making progress. Remember: a person saying the same thing over and over again is probably doing so because they don’t feel heard.

The way information is delivered can also facilitate how well it’s heard. Anger often overshadows detail so it’s less about the message than the mode of delivery. If you make someone feel defensive they will rarely hear what you are saying, because little information is traded and certainly no progress is made when both parties are defending their positions. My very first (personal) therapist, the one I went to when I was barely out of my teens, was Gabrielle Rifkind. She’s now a non-conflict resolution expert. She taught me how to look at things afresh: it is about letting someone see your vulnerable side, and being receptive enough to allow your conversation partner to do the same. Compassion, it seems, is an ideal listening companion.

Listening, as the psychoanalyst Avi Shmueli taught me, is also about looking beyond catch-all, overused masking words such as “fine” and “horrible”. We use these words a lot, but they don’t actually describe feelings. Watch out for them in conversation and, if it’s appropriate, dig a little deeper. What does your partner mean when they say they’ve had a horrible day? What are you not saying when you say, “I’m fine”? What emotions could you replace those words with?

The child and adolescent psychotherapist Rachel Melville-Thomas taught me something else when we recorded a podcast episode called The Wonder Of The Teenage Brain. Teenagers interpret neutral faces as negative, she explained, no matter what’s coming out of your mouth. With that age group, it’s important not only to listen to them in all the ways described above, but to check on what they’ve actually heard. Teenagers also wait until you are busy doing something else to tell you important things – it’s done on purpose, so it’s not too intense. This is why big subjects can come out when you’re not making eye contact – such as when you’re driving, walking, or trying to cook dinner.

“This is all very well,” you may be thinking, “but who is listening to me?” I understand this. Not being listened to is to not be seen; after a while you feel stymied, shrunken. Unfortunately, you can’t make someone else listen to you. But I have learned that someone repeatedly not listening to you can be a form of control. As a child, I used to make adults look at me by physically moving their chins towards me. It’s not socially acceptable to do that as an adult, and, anyway, it’s no guarantee of being heard. If you do feel unheard, a good first step is to sit with the other person and say (always use “I” statements): “I feel we sometimes miss important details from each other. How do you feel about it?”

So has more than a decade of answering your questions and consulting the very best experts made me the mother of all listeners? Nope. But I do really try. Perhaps the most important thing I’ve learned is to listen to myself: that inner voice, my instinct, to listen to what I need and how someone makes me feel. I used to think that if I couldn’t tell someone they weren’t habitually listening to me, it was because I sensed a frailty in them. Mills taught me that, actually, it’s about frailty in the relationship itself. That alone was worth hearing.

The good news is that listening is catching. If you feel listened to, it connects you to that other person, and those bonds grow. They, one hopes, will listen to you in turn. It was only after my dad died that I realised just how much he listened to me, and how valuable that was. He never paid me compliments, but he heard me, which is perhaps the greatest compliment of all.

Conversations with Annalisa Barbieri, Series 1, is available here.

5 comments:

  1. Can I remind you of this Jim? Mainly because I like the comment it attracted.

    http://probationmatters.blogspot.com/2012/05/power-of-listening.html?m=1

    'Getafix

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Power of Listening

      One of the snags associated with going away is that you always seem to miss something important. I'm grateful to a reader for pointing me in the direction of this recent BBC Radio 4 programme in the Archive on 4 series entitled 'The Grand Listener'. Broadcast last Saturday, sadly it's only available on i-player for a remaining few hours today, but hopefully there will be a repeat airing in the not too distant future.

      The programme is dedicated to the pioneering work of author Tony Parker who died in 1996 and whom I'm embarrassed to say I was completely unaware of until this morning. Basically he was someone who undertook what we would now describe as oral histories of ordinary people, which he later transcribed into many books and plays. He is clearly someone long overdue for recognition and his work deserves re-visiting in my opinion.

      He started out interviewing offenders in the 1960's and although I recognise some similarities with my own modus operandi, I'm sure he was always able to get further towards the truth because he promised anonymity and of course was not a representative of authority. However, like Tony Parker, I've always rated the importance of just listening. I suspect this may have had something to do with my training in the Samaritans, long before I became a Probation Officer. To be honest I enjoy talking to people so much, I'm still amazed that I managed to find a job that paid me to do it.

      For any budding sociologist or criminologist there is a wealth of material in Tony's work. I was particularly struck by a comment from a prisoner in the 60's who graphically described how "prison slowly destroyed you". I'm sure he's right. The longer or more often you go to prison, the more damage it inevitably does to you.

      This truism chimes with something that's been bugging me for ages and came up in the pub the other day. Basically officers of my generation have a habit of talking fondly of the innovative work undertaken with offenders in the 70's, 80's and even 90's. A colleague from the south coast talked of taking guys with pretty serious offences to their name off on a sailing boat for a week and this type of thing was quite routine back then. Impossible now for all kinds of reasons, not least the public perception of 'treats for naughty boys', nevertheless we still feel it was worthwhile and bemoan its demise.

      However, in a world where measurement has largely replaced judgement and everything has to be 'evidence-based', what can be said to make a case for this kind of work? The difficulty is highlighted by my sailing colleague recounting the comment made by an offender sunning himself on deck in his swimming trunks 'it's funny ain't it - I hit a guy over the head with an iron bar - and here I am on holiday.' Another colleague chimes in with a story about young offenders on an outward bound course. The week included making printed T-shirts and they duly came up with 'Steal stuff - See Wales.'

      So, whilst pondering on the dilemma of how to prove that it was indeed A Good Thing by making up spurious re-offending rates, it made me smile to read about this open prison on an island in Norway. Looking and sounding every bit like a holiday camp, I notice that the Governor was reduced to claiming a 16% re-offending rate for released prisoners. It might be true, but hey, isn't it just a better way of dealing with offenders that doesn't just destroy them along the way? It just might make a difference and work too.

      Delete
    2. The world is complicated. People are complicated. What they wear on their t-shirts is not necessarily what they carry in their hearts and minds (otherwise, half the teenagers I know would be amongst The Walking Dead or at least worshipping the Devil over a flaming pentagram). What an offender says on the wing in a prison is rarely what they actually think when they are lying awake at night.

      When those with difficulties with their thinking skills are presented with opportunities to reevaluate their position, it is not remotely surprising that the process is not a straight route between process and results. Personalities, humour, egos, self image, context etc all play a part and we all know that something that you offer an offender today may not bear fruit for days, weeks, months or even years. It doesn't amtter how many times we say there is no magic bullet, society still searches for it. Send an offender to somewhere where he will experience 100 new sensations or ideas and he may walk away with 2 that change his life and 98 that were a 'bit of a laugh' or 'a waste ot time'. The superficial talk will always be about the 98 (as it is when these things are discussed and debated). The deep thinking will be about the 2. We are not treating broken bones, here. It is not easy to change a lifetime of dysfuntional coping strategies, especially when ther realisation is that the alternatives may not actually be that much better. Most people are reluctant to change things they have an investment in and offenders are no different. Give them something to think about, take them out of their comfort zones, whether that is up a tree, down a pothole or up to their necks in a river and, whilst they are not looking, build their trust.

      It was never about the sailing.

      Rob Palmer 21/05/2012

      Delete
  2. I don't have any problem.with these well written pieces of the importance to listen understand and possibly evaluate. The problem I do have is that most new staff don't see this as a core task of their work. The leavers are and have taken their skills and gone. Now new entrants don't have any regard for previous job skills as it is not the same job. Anybody can do it today as lo g as you have two irrelevant degrees you can be a deputy or a director. If your really just obtuse to staff you can get as high as gold command . As long as you listen to management nod at the right moment you will be promoted to a level you can stay at home point a finger and get paid covid dividend money. I'm applying asap for the role as it requires no people skills whatsoever just like management.

    ReplyDelete
  3. When it comes to listening on drug policy, our government choose to plug their ears I'm afrsid.
    Let's just keep doing the same old things, spend a bit more doing them, and eventually they'll work won't they?
    I'm not sure if I'm angered ar saddened by this initial response from government.
    If they're serious about solving the problem, they first need to change their attitude towards the problem. Same old, same old hasn't worked, and is never likely to work.

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/independent-review-of-drugs-by-dame-carol-black-government-response/government-response-to-the-independent-review-of-drugs-by-dame-carol-black

    'Getafix

    ReplyDelete