Time to Think: Listening to Ignite the Human Mind

by Nancy Kline

Eventually, I settled on the observation that everything we do depends for its quality on the thinking we do first. However determined or indefatigable or charismatic a person may be, their every action is only as good as the idea behind it. I could not get away from the fact that thinking comes first. It followed then that to improve action we had first to improve thinking.

the quality of a person’s attention determines the quality of other people’s thinking.

‘What do you really think, really?’ and then waited for you to answer at length?

often the unstated warning in the culture is: ‘Think the way others are thinking. Think to impress. Think to avoid ridicule. Think to get a promotion. Think to out-manoeuvre.’

The Ten Components of a Thinking Environment 1 Attention Listening with respect, interest and fascination. 2 Incisive Questions Removing assumptions that limit ideas. 3 Equality Treating each other as thinking peers. • Giving equal turns and attention. • Keeping agreements and boundaries. 4 Appreciation Practising a five-to-one ratio of appreciation to criticism. 5 Ease Offering freedom from rush or urgency. 6 Encouragement Moving beyond competition. 7 Feelings Allowing sufficient emotional release to restore thinking. 8 Information Providing a full and accurate picture of reality. 9 Place Creating a physical environment that says back to people, ‘You matter.’ 10 Diversity Adding quality because of the differences between us.

The best conditions for thinking, if you really stop and notice, are not tense. They are gentle. They are quiet. They are unrushed. They are stimulating but not competitive. They are encouraging. They are paradoxically both rigorous and nimble.

When you are listening to someone, much of the quality of what you are hearing is your effect on them. Giving good attention to people makes them more intelligent. Poor attention makes them stumble over their words and seem stupid. Your attention, your listening is that important.

because your ideas were not theirs, they were less likely to act on them than they would have been if the ideas had been their own.

Usually the brain that contains the problem also contains the solution – often the best one. When you keep that in mind, you become more effective with people.

And just when they say they can’t think of anything else, you can ask them the question, ‘What else do you think about this? What else comes to mind that you want to say?’

Tailgating in this way is an insult. When you finish someone’s sentence for them you are assuming 1 that they cannot finish it themselves before the world ends; 2 that your words will be their words or better; 3 that it won’t hurt them if you do and waiting another giga-second for them to finish will damage you.

In organizations people are often made to feel that they should not speak unless their idea is fully formed and acceptable before they open their mouth. They do not dream of taking people’s time and attention for the purpose of thinking something through as they speak. Their assumption is that people can’t talk about something until they have thought about it first. I believe it is more true to say that people can’t think about something until they can talk about it first. The human mind works best when it can hear itself, notice its inconsistencies, be reminded of its quality and take its time.

groups of about twelve (which, by the way, is about as big as you can make a group and still expect it to be safe enough for people to say what they think. Organizations that gather two hundred employees to announce policy changes and then open the floor to questions and comments from the audience are, in effect, not holding an open consultative forum at all. Most people will not stand up to speak in a group of colleagues that large).

The Staples manager poses two questions: ‘What have you noticed that needs attention or change in this company that I might not have noticed?’ and ‘What do you think should be done about it?’ Then she sits down and listens.

Being appreciated increases your intelligence. It helps you to think better. So don’t do what so many people do. Don’t utter a shuffly, hissing ‘humph’ that is intended to be modesty, but is actually saying, ‘I’ve been told I’ll get ego inflation if I don’t dismiss compliments like that, and anyway, someone else any second is going to insult me so I might as well insult myself before they get a chance.’ Those dismissive responses actually insult the person who paid you the compliment. And insults are a thinking inhibitor. Just say thank you. Think of it as a gift. It is decent manners to say thank you when you receive gifts.

Remember, too, that the higher up people are in an organization or family, the more appreciation they need and the less they get. Leadership, with its inevitable panoply of attack, sucks tender self-appreciation right out of people. Find ways to appreciate them. Don’t confuse that with flattery. Appreciation is real.

Notice what is good and say it.

Urgency keeps people from thinking clearly.

I suspect that the ease threshold in most executive pools is low. It is from this deficiency that people interrupt as a ritual of power. It is from this profound discomfort with the moment, with the self, with the easy beat of life as it actually is, that can make whole organizations seem, as Sara Hart of Hartcom put it, pathologically incapable of listening.

The Amy Question is: ‘What do you already know that you are going to find out in a year?’

The inevitable thing about the messages of superiority is that the non-dominant group is taught to revere the very group that is marginalizing it.

At the beginning: 1 Give everyone a turn to speak. 2 Ask everyone to say what is going well in their work, or in the group’s work. Throughout: 3 Give attention without interruption during open and even fiery discussion. 4 Ask Incisive Questions to reveal and remove assumptions that are limiting ideas. 5 Divide into Thinking Partnerships when thinking stalls and give each person five minutes to think out loud without interruption. 6 Go around intermittently to give everyone a turn to say what they think. 7 Permit also the sharing of truth and information. 8 Permit the expression of feelings. At the end: 9 Ask everyone what they thought went well in the meeting and what they respect in each other.

positive assessment of work, a blending of accurate thought and honesty of the heart is not touchy/feely. It is rigorous and professional – and a vital piece of good group thinking.

What might we be assuming that could be limiting our thinking here? If we assumed something more freeing, what new ideas might we have?

a) First reflect positively on the meeting. After the business is completed and negative issues have been examined, ask a question like: ‘What do you think went well in the meeting?’ Regardless of how difficult the meeting was and regardless of how low the spirits of the group might be at the close of business, to articulate what was good about the meeting, truthfully, will brighten the group, remind each person of what is true and good between them, and re-ignite the group’s energy.

b) Then appreciate each other. Follow the first question with this one: ‘What is one quality that you respect in the person sitting on your right?’ Give everyone a turn to say that to the person next to them. Insist that the recipient listen without interrupting the speaker and then merely say, without rebuttal or caveat, ‘Thank you.’

Thinking Environment structure for presentations. It goes something like this: 1 The chair welcomes the presenting team and mentions its successes so far. 2 The presenters make the entire presentation before there is any interruption or attack. (If you are confused about something, so confused you truly cannot listen to the next sentence, ask for clarification, but only if you are sure the question is not going to be answered in the next sentence or two.) 3 After the presentation is complete, the chair asks first for comments on what was useful from the presentation, demonstrating this by being first to speak. 4 Then the chair encourages questions and discussion, but always without interruption. 5 At the end of the meeting, regardless of how much legitimate criticism there has been of the presentation, the chair goes around the group to get honest answers to this question: What do you think has been good in this presentation, and what in particular do you respect in the presenting team?

You, their manager, for a long time, do the listening. Begin with the good things. Consider these questions: What do you think you have accomplished in this period? What has gone particularly well? What are you proud of? What have you discovered about yourself? What is the key thing that you want to improve? What might you be assuming that could stop you? If you assumed something more freeing, what would your first step be? What sort of support do you need from me in order to do it? What do you think your goals and targets for this next period should be? And what will your performance indicators be? What other issues do you want to raise with me? If it were entirely up to you, what would you like to see improve in our working relationship?

Prize the quality of your attention Listen as if your leadership life depended on it. It does. When you make mistakes, listen to the effects of them. Apologize. Correct them. Appreciate five times more than you criticize. Stop competing with your colleagues. Encourage their excellence. Trust that your own will be evident. Set up a Thinking Partnership with a colleague. Meet three times a week for fifteen-minute turns each. Run every meeting and presentation as a Thinking Environment (see Chapters 15 and 17

Become known for your Incisive Questions Ask these questions often of your team or staff: 1 What do you really think? 2 If you were in my position, what would you do with this company that I am not doing? 3 What do we as an organization assume that probably limits everything we do? If we were to assume something more freeing, what would change? 4 At the end of your career in this organization, what do you want to say you have achieved here when you look back? 5 What needs improvement in this organization that I haven’t noticed? If you had to take the lead suddenly, what would you do about it? 6 What are we not facing that is in front of our face? 7 How would your work have to change for it to be exactly right for you? 8 If you were not holding back, what would you be doing? 9 What do we already know now that we are going to find out in a year?

The Thinking Session at a Glance These are the effective questions: Part 1 What do you want to think about? Is there anything more (you think or feel or want to say about this)? Part 2 What do you want the session to achieve at this point? Part 3 What are you assuming (that is stopping your achieving that goal)? (To find the bedrock assumption:) That’s possible, but what are you assuming that makes that stop you? What is your positive opposite of that assumption? Part 4 If you knew that (new, freeing assumption) … , what ideas would you have towards that goal? Part 5 Write down the Incisive Question. Part 6 What quality do you respect in each other?

sometimes when things don’t get done it turns out that they didn’t need to be done. I wonder how you can figure out which ones those are ahead of time.’

‘Also, the assumption that a major political party must speak with one voice is insane. The media inflame this assumption by interpreting dissension as weakness. But we could easily handle the media by saying, “We are moving toward a decision; we are having a most interesting and varied debate. We will hear what everyone thinks and come to the best decision.”

From the time anyone knows there is a baby on the way, it is being categorized. People want to know whether it is a boy or a girl. They want to feel comfortable making assumptions about how it will behave and look and feel. Before the child has a chance it is already being defined by the world’s assumptions about what girls and boys should and should not be. And as you could see from Chapter 12, those gender assumptions have a dangerous impact on the way people treat each other and thus on the quality of a Thinking Environment.