Listen or Speak

What should leaders do more of?

When you think of a leader do you envision someone taking such as giving a speech or sitting and listening to others? If modern political debates are any indicator, listening is not such a valued skill in our leaders. For a scientific explanation of why this might be the case, we only need to look back to the 1950’s when Bernard Bass, an American scholar in the fields of leadership and organizational behavior, published his work on Leaderless Group Discussion. This was research based on a method of leadership selection in organizations in the 1940s. Bass concluded that in these groups, where there was no appointed leader, many tasks needed to be carried out for the discussion to progress. Some people took on these tasks and in doing so increased the amount of speaking time. Consequently these individuals were rated more highly as leaders by both observers and participants. These results have been replicated many times and the effect was named the “babble hypothesis” – people who talk more are seen more as leaders. 

As someone who believes that the best leaders speak last and that listening is an even more valuable skill than speaking, this whole notion is disturbing. However, there is a lot of other research and real-world application that supports my position. Simon Sinek, author of such books as Start With Why, used Nelson Mandela, the anti-apartheid revolutionary and President of South Africa, as an example of a leader who learned to speak last from watching Jongintaba, the tribal king who raised him. When Jongintaba held meetings, he would gather his men in a circle and let them speak first. Richard Stengel, the journalist who worked with Mandela on his autobiography, Long Walk to Freedom, recalls from the lessons Mandela shared: 

The chief’s job…was not to tell people what to do but to form a consensus. ‘Don’t enter the debate too early,’ he used to say. 

Stengel said Mandela would hear his colleagues’ opinions and end meetings by summarizing their points and then offering his own. “It is wise,” Mandela said according to Stengel, “to persuade people to do things and make them think it was their own idea.”

There are of course those that disagree with Sinek and argue that leaders need to speak first to set the tone of the meeting or debate and that speaking last is a privilege of leadership, not an indicator. Setting the tone, timeframe, and boundaries of a discussion are really important and I would agree, the leader’s responsibilities. However, that’s really just logistics and not an opinion on the topic unless you somehow use these to skew the discussion one way or another. The idea that speaking last is a privilege and not a leadership trait is more interesting to me as it is a classic case of correlation vs causation. Do leaders speak last because they can or do they do so because they are better leaders?

Most of you will be familiar with the quote from the 26th US President Theodore Roosevelt in a speech at the Minnesota State Fair in 1901, that goes, “speak softly and carry a big stick – you will go far.” He borrowed this from a West African proverb and intended it to describe his foreign policy positions during his administration. Whether or not you agree with this approach to diplomacy, I think we can glean something from this for an approach to leadership. To me, speaking softly doesn’t mean whispering but rather not getting overly emotional, especially with anger. When we demonstrate our frustration or anger, it tends to shut down conversation and cause others to feel the same way. There is a phenomenon known as emotional contagion where people tend to experience similar emotions as the ones they observe. Daniel Zhang, former CEO of of Alibaba Group and before that Taobao, stated in an interview:

In terms of my leadership style, I’m very nice to people. I tend to give people opportunities to try their own ideas, but I’m very tough once a decision has been made. Once I make up my mind, I want my teams to go ahead and get concrete results. That’s why people at Alibaba always say it’s very difficult to deal with me in business meetings, because [in that context] I am always trying to get to the substance of the matter and drive people to make progress.

So my leadership style is that, yes, while I speak softly, I always make the tough decisions. I think the most important thing [for a leader] is to lead the whole team forward. They need direction, and they need clear guidance. Leaders have to make the tough decisions, even if it may not be the perfect decision.

This notion of speaking softly but making the tough decisions is what I take from Roosevelt’s famous quote. Just because we speak softly doesn’t mean we act with hesitancy or indecisiveness. We can be a strong leader, setting the example, and making the tough decisions all the while communicating in a manner that keeps the conversation going and open to other people’s inputs.  

In this context, emotional intelligence (EI) is another critical element. Leaders with high EI are adept at recognizing their own emotions and those of others, using this awareness to guide their thinking and actions. They navigate the emotional undercurrents of group dynamics with finesse, ensuring that their message aligns not just with the logical but also the emotional needs of their audience. EI has become a cornerstone in the discourse of leadership development. 

Research by TalentSmart has positioned emotional intelligence as the strongest predictor of performance, highlighting its impact on an employee's ability to stay calm under pressure, resolve conflict effectively, and respond to coworkers with empathy​​. These components of EI are particularly influential in leadership roles, where the ability to maintain composure and empathy can significantly affect team dynamics and performance.

A Harvard Business Review study underscores that leaders with high emotional intelligence are more likely to foster a positive work climate and, consequently, achieve better business results​​. This assertion is critical as it ties the abstract concept of EI directly to tangible outcomes in the workplace. A leader's ability to understand and manage their emotions, as well as to recognize and influence the emotions of others, is instrumental in creating an environment conducive to success.

The other side of this listening more than we speak and speaking last is being brief. The difficulty but importance of succinctness can be found in a quote often attributed to Mark Twain but was earlier stated by Blaise Pascal in his Lettres Provinciales, “I would have written a shorter letter, but I did not have the time.” This sentiment, which was also expressed by John Locke, Benjamin Franklin and Woodrow Wilson, among other great thinkers, reflects both the value and the challenges of brevity. When you speak selectively and intentionally, you focus your message. You use a small number of words to get your point across. This is often easier to absorb and understand than a lot of unnecessary words.

The concept of brevity in leadership communication opens up a treasure trove of insights into the psychology of influence. Studies have shown that concise communication often carries more weight because each word used is perceived to be more considered and impactful. It's not simply about speaking less, but speaking with purpose. This is where the art of rhetoric, practiced by ancient Greek philosophers like Aristotle and modern-day orators, intersects with leadership. The ability to use language effectively and persuasively is a hallmark of great leaders. They understand the power of metaphor, storytelling, and the strategic use of silence to allow their messages to resonate.

Diving deeper into the psychological landscape, the concept of 'active listening' emerges as a cornerstone of effective leadership. This goes beyond simply hearing words; it's an engaged process where the listener is fully present, interpreting, and considering the implications of the message. It's a skill that fosters trust and respect, as it demonstrates a genuine interest in the perspectives of others. Leaders who master active listening can better navigate the complex web of human dynamics, from resolving conflicts to fostering a culture of openness and innovation.

While I still prefer a leadership style of listening before speaking, other than in emergency situations, the convergence of speaking and listening are complementary forces in leadership. The dynamic balance between the two crafts a leader who not only inspires but also empowers. Such leaders create environments where dialogue thrives, ideas flourish, and consensus is reached without compromising the vision or the drive needed for action. Therefore, the debate between speaking and listening as the primary skill of a leader is somewhat of a false dichotomy. Both are essential, each reinforcing the other. The leaders who leave a lasting imprint on their organizations and on history are those who master the dance between the two - listening to understand and empower and then speaking to inspire and guide. It is in the seamless integration of these skills that the true art of leadership is found, and it is this integration that future leaders should aspire to achieve.