Order Instructions
In this assignment, you will develop an understanding of how good listening is crucial to effective communication and career success. In addition, you will perform a personal assessment of your communication skills and style. As a student studying healthcare administration and leadership in healthcare, you should be developing your own personal development plan to include a personal assessment of your communication skills. Listening is an integral part of the communication process. Communication in the healthcare setting is vital. This includes communication between doctors and patients, doctors and nurses, clinicians and administrators, and so on.
Which topic of conversation makes you uncomfortable? What is the topic? Do you know why you find it difficult to talk about this topic?
What do you do when you become uncomfortable during a conversation? Do you withdraw? Do you try to change the topic? Do you speak louder or softer? Do you begin to gesticulate?
Have you had an occasion to talk to a very persuasive or very aggressive person? If you and this person hold different opinions, can you hold to your position? Are you easily “led” in a conversation?
Are you flexible in a conversation? If a comment made by someone takes the conversation in an unexpected direction, can you adjust quickly? Can you assimilate new information, reassess your position, and continue the conversation?
When entering into a conversation, do you attempt to eliminate potential distractions and interruptions?
Do you have an understanding of body language gestures and posturing?
In a self-assessment summary, provide a list of your communication strengths and weaknesses. Also, provide a plan to address the weaknesses identified.
Title: Mastering leadership: A Vital Resource for Healthcare Organizations
Author: Alan T. Belasen, Barry Eisenberg, & John W. Huppertz
Ed/Year: 1st / 2015
Publisher: Jones & Bartlett Learning
ISBN: 978-1284043235
Active listening crucial for better communication
Authors:
White, Ken
Source:
Winnipeg Free Press (MB). 08/25/2012, pH2.
Document Type:
Article
Abstract:
Many professionals and executives focus their energies on improving their communication skills. For most, that means concentrating on speaking skills. After all, we’ve been told since college that we need to be polished public speakers if we expect to have a successful career. Unfortunately, countless professionals forget the importance of active listening.
ISSN:
0828-1785
Accession Number:
7BS2447502411
Database:
Canadian Reference Centre
Translate Full Text:
Choose Language
Active listening crucial for better communication
This content may contain URLs/links that would redirect you to a non-EBSCO site. EBSCO does not endorse the accuracy or accessibility of these sites, nor of the content therein.
Full Text
Listen
Section: Careers, pg. H2
~~~~~~~~
By Ken White
Many professionals and executives focus their energies on improving their communication skills. For most, that means concentrating on speaking skills. After all, we’ve been told since college that we need to be polished public speakers if we expect to have a successful career. Unfortunately, countless professionals forget the importance of active listening.
Active listening is more than just hearing. Hearing is much like driving down the highway, hands on the wheel without incident, but without actually remembering the last 20 kilometres. Active listening is truly paying attention to every road sign and kilometre-marker, keeping tabs on your speed limit at all times, and knowing exactly where you happen to be.
To be an effective listener, you need to pay attention to not only the words being said, but you also must be cognizant of non-verbal cues, too. So much of communication is non-verbal.
Active listening skills are extremely important if you want to be a better leader, a better employee or a better partner. There are two ways to do improve your active listening skills:
— Make listening a priority. You have to want to develop your listening skills. Many professionals want to be better speakers, but the great communicators, those who truly connect with people, know how to listen. Instead of always focusing on what you are saying, focus on what the other person is saying.
— Practice. Put yourself in situations where you can practise. Go into a conversation with the goal that you will talk half the time and listen half the time. That will get you on the right path. Test your skills at a networking event — you’ll be way ahead of the small-talk game. You may still have trouble remembering the names of the new people you just met. But if you were actively listening, you’ll be able to reflect on your conversations and file that information away for when you might need it (think potential client relationships, sales opportunities, future career opportunities).
On the flip side, it’s important to acknowledge the difficultly many people have in listening and take that into account when you are doing the talking, whether you’re giving a presentation or having a business conversation. Make it easier for other people to hear what you have to say:
— Be engaging. Not everyone is excited to hear what you have to say, unfortunately. Recognize this and incorporate ways to add to your words to hammer your message home. Use inflection and vary the rate and pace of your speech. Raise the bar while you’re communicating to help pull your listeners in by varying the tone and volume of your voice. Record yourself talking to determine if you have poor speaking habits. If, for instance, when you speak, you sound like you end every sentence with a question mark, then you have an issue with an ending pattern. That particular habit makes you sound like you lack confidence. Fix that quickly.
— Use non-verbal cues to your advantage. Use hand gestures and facial expressions to engage the other person or the audience. If you’re making a presentation, move around the room. Approach your audience. If it’s a one-on-one conversation, lean forward occasionally to show interest.
— Be a good example. Be sure to display good listening habits, especially while playing the presenter role. Be in tune with your audience’s non-verbal cues and respond to them. You can’t expect others to really listen if you’re not.
It’s rare to have a boss, client or colleague who listens intently to everything you say. Many executives spend their conversations not listening, but rather forming their next question while the other person is talking. Imagine how happy people would be if they knew their boss, client or colleague was actually listening, cutting out all of the noise that can interfere with a conversation and focusing directly on that person and what they have to say. Actively listening can lead to great working relationships. While you continue to work on your speaking and presentation skills, it is at least as important that you develop your active listening skills as well.
— Special to the Washington Post
Copyright of Winnipeg Free Press (MB) is the property of Winnipeg Free Press (MB). The copyright in an individual article may be maintained by the author in certain cases. Content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder’s express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. Source: Winnipeg Free Press (MB), Aug 25, 2012, pH2
Item: 7BS2447502411
Although many have argued that listening is particularly important in organizations,
few studies have examined listening and listening skills in this context. This study examined relationships between listening, communication related abilities, employee
level in an insurance company, and upward mobility. The results indicated significant
positive relationships between listening and other social cognitive and communicative
abilities. While findings suggested that nonsupervisors tended to possess better listening abilities than supervisors, there was some evidence that better listeners were in
higher levels ofthe organization and were more upwardly mobile.
Listening, Conununication Abilities,
and Success at Work
Beverly Davenport Sypher
University of Kansas
Robert N. Bostrom
University of Kentucky
Joy Hart Seibert
The University ofTulsa
E
ven though listening plays an important part in the communication
process, it has received comparatively little attention from communication researchers. This is somewhat surprising given the attention
it receives in standard textbooks across a variety of disciplines. Some
argue that we spend almosthalf of our communicative day listening, and
it is often considered one ofthe most important forms of communication
behavior (Hirsch, 1979; Steil, Barker, & Watson, 1983; Weaver, 1972;
Wolvin & Coakley, 1982). Yet we know less about listening than other
communication abilities. While listening has been related to a variety of
other communication abilities, few, if any, studies have examined the
relation of listening to relevant social cognitive abilities. Still less attempt has been made to link listening to employees’ success at work even
though practitioners continually point out its importance te individuals
and organizations.
Bostrom (1988) argues that our imderstanding of listening has increased very little in the last 20 years because researchers in speech
communication have shown little real interest in listening. Much about
the process “has eluded clear definition and understanding” (Bostrom &
Waldhart, 1980, p. 221). Moreover, there is no one generally accepted
definition of listening. Wolvin and Coakley (1982) argue that listening
research is still in an exploratory state even though it spans the past four
decades.
293
294 The Joumal of Business Communication 26:4:Fall 1989
According to Bostrom (1988, p. 2), “early resesirch assvmied that the
retention of information presented orally was the obvious operational
definition of successful listening.” Nichols (1957) challenged this idea
and argued that, in fact, retention was dependent upon a number of
variables (e.g., intelligence, motivation). A turning point in listening
definitions occurred in the 1960s when Kelly (1967) charged that listening is not a unitary skill. He argued that previous listening tests had
simply been mezisuring aspects of intelligence.
Weaver (1972, p. 12) took Kelly’s ideas into consideration and defined
listening as “the selection and retention of aurally received data.” Following Weaver’s lead there were numerous attempts to broaden the
definition of listening, but most listening research continued to use the
lecture-retention model (Watson & Barker, 1984). Bostrom (1988, p. 4)
challenged: “if this activity is wholly dependent upon intelligence, as we
would conclude from Kell^s data, the use of lecture-retention as a
dependent variable in listening research cannot be defended.” The
conclusion, however, is that listening is not wholly dependent upon
intelligence, it has come to be seen as a series of related skills.
Bostrom and Waldhart (1980) called for a functional approach to
listening emphasizing situation and purpose. They argued for an incorporation of both short-term and long-term memory into listening definitions and research. Short-term memory “seems to consist of a brief
component that can last as long as 40 seconds if there is an opportunity
for ‘rehearsal'” (Bostrom, 1988, p. 7). This rehearsal system prolongs the
life of a stimulus in the short-term system (Weaver, 1972). Long-term
memory is “not activated till at least 60 seconds afler the presentation
of a stimulus” and is what one generally refers to as memory (Bostrom,
1988, p. 7).
In an initial study, Bostrom and Waldhart (1980) laid the groundwork
for The Kentucky Comprehensive Listening Test which examines
various aspects of listening including long- and short-term listening, and
comprehension. Their findings indicated that short-term listening
ability was more closely related to measures of oral performance, and
lecture-comprehension listening was more closely related to measures
of general mental ability.
As the test was refined and findings replicated, Bostrom (1988)
concluded that a comprehensive listening test should measure at least
five listening abilities. These are short-term listening, short-term listening with rehearsal, interpretive listening, lecture listening, and selective
listening. These are the components of The Kentucky Comprehensive
Listening Test (available from the second author).
Listening • Sypher / Bostrom / Seibert 295
So while a good deal of progress has been made in developing and
refining measures of listening ability, few investigations have linked
listening to other communication related skills, and almost no studies
demonstrate those relationships in perhaps the most obvious and
relevant context — the organization.
While a number of authors suggest that listening is important in the
organizational setting (Smeltzer & Watson, 1984; Steil et al., 1983; Wolff
et al., 1983; Wolvin & Coakley, 1982), few actual studies confirm this.
Most of what literature exists focuses on the relative proportion of time
executives spend listening. For example, Steil et al., (1983) contend that
executives spend 63 percent of their day listening while workers spend
just over 30 percent of their communication time listening (Wolvin &
Coakley, 1982). Of equal importance is the finding that listening was
mentioned most often in 25 studies focusing on critical employment skills
(DiSalvo, 1980; Smeltzer & Watson, 1984; Wolvin & Coakley, 1985).
Perhaps because of the amount of time employees spend listening,
organizations have become acutely aware ofthe importance of effective
listening (DiSalvo, 1980; Downs & Conrad, 1982; Harris & Thomlin,
1983; Hunt & Cusella, 1983; Muchmore & Galvin, 1983; Rendero, 1980).
Wolvin and Coakley (1985, p. 4), point out that managers “are beginning
to realize that inefficient listening is costly to corporations — costly in
wasted money, misused time, defiated morale, reduced productivity, and
alienated relationships.” This recognition by management has led to the
development of an assortment of training programs designed to improve
workers’ listening skills, and not surprisingly. Papa and Glenn (1988)
found that employee listening ability and listening training strongly
influenced productivity with new technology.
An individual’s listening ability has implications for the effectiveness
of his / her work group, the overall organization, and perhaps for the
individual’s own success. Based on the importance of listening in the
process of communication and estimates of its frequency, individual
success in communicating, and in the organization, likely rests in part
on possessing good listening skills. Listening, in addition to other communication abilities, is a likely predictor of who gets promoted, or who
receives other relevant rewards such as status and power. Past research
demonstrated a relatively strong relationship between various social
cognitive abilities and success in the organization (Sypher & Zom, 1986).
The relationship between these abilities and listening has received only
limited attention. In one study, Beatty and Payne (1984) reported a fairly
strong relationship between cognitive complexity and listening comprehension. But the relation of listening to other related abilities such
296 The Jourrtal of Business Communication 26:4:Fall 1989
as persuasion, perspective-taking and self-monitoring has not been
examined. Each of the latter abilities evidenced a rather strong relation
to the other in the Sypher and Zom (1986) study. Investigations of the
link between these abilities and listening £tnd between listening and
success at work, however, have been virtually ignored.
Thus, while listening has gained considerable recognition in discussions of communication behavior, particularly communication at work,
few studies have examined its predictive ability in explaining work-related outcomes. This is due, for the most part, to the lack of attention
listening abilities have received. The purpose of this study, therefore, is
to examine listening as it relates to other social cognitive and communicative abilities, and to explore the relationship between listening
and important organizational outcomes — the worker’s level in the
organization and upward mobility. The following research questions
were posited:
RQl: Is there a relationship between listening and other communication abilities?
RQ2: Is there a relationship between one’s listening abilities and one’s
job level in the organization?
RQ3: Is there a relationship between listening abilities and upward
mobility?
RQ4: Are there listening differences between supervisors and nonsupervisors?
The goal of this research is to expand our limited knowledge on
listening in organizations. The study is a follow up to Sypher and Zom’s
(1986) longitudinal examination of communication related abilities and
individual success at work.
METHODS
Participants and Organization
The participants in this study included 36 employees of a large
insurance corporate headquarters located in the Northeastern United
States. They were employed in a variety of jobs from maintenance and
technical areas to system analysis and law. These individuals are a
sub-sample of a larger group participating in an ongoing line of research
(see Sypher & Zom, 1986, for additional details). Study participation was
voluntary and done on company time. The listening test was administered on site to employees in small groups of eight to ten people.
Listening • Sypher / Bostrom / Seibert 297
Measures
Listening. The Kentucky Comprehensive Listening Test was used to
measure listening. As previously discussed, this test measures five
aspects of listening ability — short-term listening, short-term listening
with rehearsal, lecture or long-term listening, interpretive listening, and
listening with distraction (Bostrom, 1983). Results were examined for
each component.
Cognitive Differentiation. A modified version (Sypher, 1981) of
Crockett^s (1965) Role Category Questionnaire (RCQ) was used te assess
employees’ level of cognitive differentiation. In this free response
measure, study participants described a liked and a disliked coworker
and total scores were generated from the number of distinct constructs
embedded in each description. Employees with higher scores are considered more cognitively differentiated in that they have a more
developed cognitive system for perceiving others. Intercoder reliability
for this subsample was .97.
Self-Monitoring. Snyder’s (1974) Self-Monitering Scale, a 20-item
true-false check list, was used te measure self-monitering ability. Results
in this study refiect scores on the overall measure, rather than scores on
particular subscales. Higher scores indicate persons are more able to
attend to social contexts when planning behavior. According te Snyder,
they are more sensitive and responsive to situationally appropriate
interpersonal cues than low self-moniters. Snyder reported internal
reliabilities ranging from .60 to .70.
Perspective-taking. This communication related ability was assessed
using Sypher’s (1981) version of previous perspective-taking measures.
In this measure, participants indicated the perspective (i.e., thoughts,
feelings, and attitudes) of interactants in a hypothetical work situation.
Each response was given a score ranging from 0 to 4 depending on how
well the participant could maintain the requested perspective-taking
level and provide complex and integrated descriptions of others’ perspectives. Intercoder reliability for this measure was .90.
Persuasive Arguments. O’Keefe’s and Delia’s (1979) persuasive arguments task was used te measure employees’ persuasive ability .This task
required employees to write a letter convincing a rich Texas businessman
to donate money te a needy group. Scores on this task refiect the tetal
number of arguments generated by each employee. Intercoder reliability
for this measure was .97.
OrganizationcU Level. As part of a questionnaire, employees indicated
their level in the organization; a subset of these responses were verified
by company records. Within the organization, job levels ranged from 36
298 The Joumal erf’Business Communication 26:4:Fall 1989
to 59. Salary, rank, and te some extent, status in the organization were
dependent upon one’s job level.
Upward Mobility. Study participants were asked te report the year
they joined the organization and their initial job level. An upward
mobility score was obtained by dividing the number of levels each
participant had advanced by the number of years each had been
employed by the organization. Calculating the score in this manner
reflected the rate of movement up the organizational hierarchy. Thus, if
two persons advanced the same number of levels, the one who had done
so in the fewest number of years would get the higher score.
Supervisor. Respondents also indicated whether they held a supervisory role in the organization. This information was solicited by the
question, “Are you a supervisor?”
RESULTS
These data suggest that listening is related te various other communication and communication related abilities. The results of Pearson
product moment correlations revealed moderately strong positive correlations between various aspects of listening and each of the communication and communication related abilities (see Table 1, next page).
Selective listening produced significant positive correlations with all
of the communication measures: cognitive differentiation (r = .36),
perspective-taking (r = .38), persuasive ability (r = .49), and selfmonitoring (r = .49). Lecture-listening correlated positively with cognitive differentiation (r = .33), persuasive ability (r = .48), and
self-monitoring (r = .52). Short-term listening with rehearsal correlated
significantly and positively with cognitive differentiation (r = .45) and
the ability te generate persuasive arguments (r = .39). The strongest
relationship was found between short-term listening and persuasive
ability (r = .64). Short-term listening was less strongly, but significantly,
correlated with self-monitering. Interpretive listening evidenced the
weakest relationship with all four measures of communicative ability.
A moderate positive correlation was found between one’s level in the
organization and short-term listening with rehearsal (r = .35). Correlations between level and two other subscales of the listening test approached but did not reach appropriate significant levels. Short-term
listening with rehearsal and lecture listening also correlated significantly with upward mobility (r = .43 and .32 respectively).
The results also revealed significant differences between supervisors’
and nonsupervisors’ listening abilities. It was nonsupervisors, however.
Listening • Sypher / Bostrom / Seibert 299
Correlation Matrix for Listening, Communication Abilities,
and Level in the Organization
S n
ja
Cognitive
Differentiation .08 .45* .07 .33* .36*
Persuasive
Arguments .64* .39* .05 .48* .49*
PerspectiveTaking .23 .20 .04 .23 .38*
SelfMonitoring .35* .29 .26 .52* .49*
Level in the
Organization .24 .35* -.08 .19 .09
Upward
MobiUty .18 .43* .06 .32* .19
p<.05
Note: Coefficients are Pearson product-moment correlations
who evidenced significantly better scores on short-term listening with
rehearsal (t = .3.51, p < .005) and lecture-listening (t = .3.51, p < .002)
than supervisors.
DISCUSSION
On numerous occasions, Bostrom has pointed out that listening has
a variety of components. Its relation te the various communication
abilities examined in this study help support this nonunitary perspective. While various aspects of listening correlated significantly and
positively with both the cognitive and behavioral aspects of communication, short-term listening was more strongly related te the behavioral
skills examined (i.e., the ability te generate persuasive arguments and
self-monitering ability). This finding is somewhat consistent with
Bostrom and Waldhart’s (1980) earlier results which showed that shortterm listening was more strongly related to oral performance. A similar
300 The Joumal of Business Communication 26:4:Fall 1989
finding resulted from the recent study of King and Behnke (1989). In
their examination, compressed speech had much less infiuence on shortterm listening than any ofthe other components of listening. The authors
implied that interpersonal performance is more closely associated with
short-term than long-term listening. Our data however, do not support
this assumption. We found that lecture listening or comprehension also
was positively related te the various behavioral and cognitive measures
of communication, all of which are related te effective interpersonal
functioning.
Bostrom and Waldhart (1980) also concluded that interpretive listening may be more strongly related to general intelligence. This assumption may be true based on our data. Interpretive listening consistently
failed te correlate positively with any ofthe other communication related
and communication abilities examined. Since interpretive listening is
not related to cognitive differentiation, and cognitive differentiation is
not related te intelligence (Sypher & Applegate, 1982), interpretive
listening and intelligence may be linked. However, investigations of this
sort are in order before any conclusion can be drawn.
This investigation produced somewhat mixed findings regarding the
relationship between listening and job level. Only one listening subscale
correlated significantly with job level; although other correlations were
in the expected direction. Since the other communication skills examined
in this study have evidenced predictive ability in terms of organizational
level (see Sypher & Zom, 1986), it was expected that listening would be
yet another addition te this list. However, there is only limited evidence
that employees in higher levels have better listening skills. But once
again, it was short-term listening with rehearsal that was related te
performance. Since employees’ initial job level was determined in large
part by training and education, how often employees are promoted may
be a better indicater of how listening contributes te success at work.
A look at promotions over time helped us sort out this relationship.
Two ofthe listening subscales (i.e., short-term listening with rehearsal
and listening with distraction) were positively correlated with one’s rise
through the corporate hierarchy. These findings, in addition te those
regarding listening and level in the organization, suggest that some
aspects of listening can make a difference in who gets promoted. In effect,
better listeners were more successful.
Even though better listeners tended te be in higher levels and were
more upwardly mobile, they were not necessarily in supervisory positions. In fact, the results of this study suggest that nonsupervisors had
better listening abilities than supervisors. Nonsupervisors may be better
Listening • Sypher / Bostrom / Seibert 301
listeners simply because they have to spend more time listening; supervisors are more used to being listened to, despite the findings which
suggest executives spend more of their communicative day listening than
employees. It seems we need te reexamine this finding. Replications of
this study would give us more confidence that better listeners can reach
higher levels in the organization faster. Such replication is especially
necessary due te our relatively small sample size.
What we can conclude from this study is Uiat listening is related te
other communication abilities and te success at work. Better listeners
held higher level positions and were promoted more often tiian those
with less developed listening abilities. Short-term listening with rehearsal appeared te have the greatest effect on level and mobility.
Certainly attaining higher rungs on ihe organizational ladder is one
indication of success. We argue that the organizational realm is a
particularly good place te study listening not only because it has been
neglected for so long, but also because listening in tiiis context seems
especially relevant It can enhance one’s job performance, and perhaps
promotions, raises, status, and power are more attainable for the better
listener. Developing an understanding ofthe role of listening in organizations can only serve te increase our knowledge of organizational communication in general and its relation te important individual and
organizational outcomes.
REFERENCES
Beatty, M. J., & Payne, S. K. (1984). Listening comprehension as a function of
cognitive complexity: A research note. Communication Monographs, 51,
85-89.
Blewett, T. T. (1951). An experiment in the measuring of listening at the college
level. The Journal of Communication, I, 50-57.
Bostrom, R. N. (1988) Input! The process of listening. Northbrook, IL:
Waveland Press.
Bostrom, R. N., & Waldhart, E. S. (1980). Components of listening behavior:
The role of short-term memory. Human Com.munication Research, 6, 221-
227.
Oockett, W. H. (1965). Cognitive complexity and impression formation. In B.
A. Maher (Ed.), Progress in experimental and social psychology. Vol. 2. New
York: Academic Press.
DiSalvo, V. S. (1980). A summary of current research identifying communication skills in various organizational contexts. Communication Education,
29, 283-290.
302 The Joumal of Business Communication 26:4:Fall 1989
Downs, C. W., & Conrad, C. (1982). Effective subordinancy. The Joumal of
Business Communication, 19(2), 27-38.
Erickson, A. (1954). Can listening efficiency be improved? The Joumal of
Communication, IV, 128-132.
Goss, B. (1982). Listening as information processing. Communication Quarterly, 30, 304-307.
Harris, T. E., & Thomlison, T. D. (1983). Career-bound communication education: A needs analysis. Central States Speech Journal, 34, 260-267.
Heilman, A. (1951). An investigation in measuring and improving the listening
of college freshmen. Speech Monographs, XVIII, 302-308.
Hirsh, R. O. (1979). Listening: A way to process information aurally. Dubuque,
IA: Gorsuch Scarisbdck.
Hunt, G. T., & Cusella, L. P. (1983). Afield study of listening needs in organizations. Communication Education, 32,393-401.
Kelly, C. M. (1967). Listening: A complex of activities—and a unitary skill?
Speech Monographs, 34, 455-466.
King, P. E., & Behnke, R. R. (1989). The effect of time compressed speech on
comprehensive, interpretive, and short-term listening. Human Communication Research, 15, 428-444.
Muchmore, J., & Galvin, K. (1983). A report of the task force on career
competencies in oral communication skills for community college students
seeking immediate entry into the workforce. Communication Education, 32,
207-220.
Nichols, R. G. (1957). Are you listening? New York: McGraw-Hill.
O’Keefe, B. J., & Delia, J. (1979). Construct comprehensiveness and cognitive
complexity as predictors of the number and strategic adaptation of arguments and appeals in a persuasive message. Communication Monographs,
46, 231-241.
Papa, M. J., & Glenn, E. C. (1988). Listening ability and performance with new
technology: Acase study. The Journal of Business Communication, 25,5-15.
Rendero, T. (1980). College recruiting practices. Personnel, 57, 4-10.
Smeltzer, L. R., & Watson, K. W. (1984). Listening: An empirical comparison
of discussion length and level of incentive. Central States Speech Communication Journal, 35,166-170.
Snyder, M. (1974). The self-monitoring of expressive behavior. Joumal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 30, 526-537.
Steil, L. K., Barker, L. L., & Watson, K. W. (1983). Effective listening: Key to
your success. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Sypher, H. E. (1981). Amuldmethod investigation of employee communication
abilities, communication satisfaction and job satisfaction. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation. University of Michigan.
Sypher, B. D., & Zom, T. E. (1986). Communication related abilities and
upward mobility: A longitudinal investigation. Human Communication
Research, 12, 420-431.
listening • Sypher / Bostrom / Seibert 303
Sypher, H. E., & Applegate, J. L. (1982). Cognitive complexity and verbal
ability: Clarifying relationships. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 42, 537-543.
Tbussaint, I. H. (1960). A classified summary of listening — 1950-1959. The
Journal of Communication, X, 125-134.
Watson, K. W., & Barker, L. L. (1984). Listening behavior: Definition and
measurement. In R. N. Bostrom (Ed.), Communication Yearbook 8. Beverly
Hills: Sage.
Weaver, C. H. (1972). Human listening: Processes and behavior. IndianapK)lis:
Bobbs-Medll.
Wolff, F. I., Marsnik, N. C, Tacey, W. S., & Nichols, R. G. (1983). Perceptive
listening. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Wolvin, A. D., & Coakley, C. G. (1982). Listening. Dubuque, IA: Wm. C. Brown.
Wolvin, A. D., & Coakley, C. G. (1985). Listening (2nd ed.). Dubuque, IA: Wm.
Education for Primary Care (2013) 24: 298-99 2013 Radcliffe Publishing Limited
How to … be an Active Appraiser
Trevor Austin
Lecturer in Medical Education, School of Postgraduate Medical and Dental Education, Cardiff
University, Wales, UK
OVERVIEW
The introduction of re-validation presents additional
challenges and opportunities for doctors appraising
the work of other doctors, making appraisals more
significant and demanding than ever. It is crucial
that appraisers are well prepared, plan ahead and
are ‘active’ through the appraisal process.
Being active is about influencing the form and
content of an appraisal meeting through good
preparation, a facilitative approach and the
effective use of questioning and feedback skills.
Being an active appraiser also means balancing
the ‘judgemental’ and ‘developmental’ aspects of
appraisal to produce outcomes that are worthwhile
for the appraisee and for those they work with.
During their appraisals, doctors will discuss
their practice and performance with their
appraiser and use supporting information to
demonstrate that they are continuing to meet
the principles and values set out in Good
Medical Practice.’^
BACKGROUND
Re-validation will mean that all doctors will need
to be appraised to meet the requirements set out
in Good Medical Practice (2006). Deaneries will
provide materials and tools to support the process
overall but appraisers will need to be clear how the
GMC requirements can be demonstrated and how
they can structure and facilitate a good appraisal.
An appraisal is defined as a formal, regular,
developmental process, providing an opportunity
to review and reflect upon performance in the
workplace, to identify development needs and to set
objectives. The need for an appraisal to encompass
both the performance and the further development
of a doctor^ means managing the tensions between
these aspects but also seeing how each informs the
other. An active appraisal should also be seen as a
process rather than an event and be sustained by
‘two-way’ rather than ‘one-way’ communication. It
is different from work planning and is not a form of
assessment. It is evidence-based.
PREPARING TO APPRAISE
A successful appraisal rests on sound preparation.
Appraisees prepare a portfolio around the domains
identified in the framework for appraisal in Good
Medical Practice. The framework consists of four
domains:
1 Knowledge, skills and performance.
2 Safety and quality.
3 Communication, partnership and teamwork.
4 Maintaining trust.
An active appraisal also requires appraisees to
think about the context of their practice as well
as the practice itself. Appraisers should be asking
what has helped or hindered the appraisee’s work;
what are they proud of and explore any difficulties
they may have faced in their work. Preparation
also requires the appraisee to become familiar with
an online appraisal toolkit and to start collecting
supporting information in line with the domains
set out above. It is also useful for the appraiser to
ensure that their appraisee actively reviews their job
description, current work, previous developmental
objectives and how they have developed personally
and professionally over the review period. An active
appraisal follows when the appraiser gives good
guidance on how the appraisee should prepare for
the appraisal meeting.
STRUCTURING THE APPRAISAL
There is no set template with which to plan and
structure an appraisal. The model suggested by
the London Deanery (Figure 1) can help in thinking
through the performance and developmental
aspects of an appraisal. Appraisers might start
with the achieverhents of an appraisee and work
towards areas that may have gone less well before
completing with future professional development.
Starting with ‘good news’ will make the rest of
the discussion more open and honest. The whole
cycle would be followed for each of these aspects.
Different questioning strategies will be required at
each stage of this cycle with open questions at the
start and more closed ones to check understanding
later on.