Skip to main content

Active Listening: The 5 Second Rule

Learning to listen is a difficult skill to teach. On the surface it appears to be a passive activity. It is the reflection portion of the listening activity that might need enhancement. Here is a group exercise that will strengthen your team's ability to listen. The 5 Second Rule. After a person speaks, everyone must count to 5 (5 seconds) before anyone speaks. If you wish to speak next, you must physically count on your raised hand via fingers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Practice this a few time, counting slowly (maybe extend it to 10 seconds if there are lots of fast counters). If two or more people raise their hands to speak next, then they (not the group) decide the speaking order. This pause in the immediate point, counter-point might allow the conversation to become multi-perspective, rather than percussive-discussion, like a ping-pong match. Most teams will expand their views and learn to be inclusive during dialogues with this technique. When multiple people want to speak to a point, a visual indicator of this, the raised hand, reminds the group that a discussion point has multiple perspectives. Expanding the number of speakers in the dialogue will reduce the myopic effect of a two person debate of the topic. Some Exceptions to the 5 Second Rule. If there is a facilitator in the meeting or group discussion, they should have an exception to the rule when they are using their facilitation skills to make process notes, points of order, make know violations of working agreements, etc. Direct questions from one individual to a named individual may be excepted from the rule. However, be careful, people will game this rule to turn the dialogue into a few person debate. See the facilitator exception.

Comments

Anonymous said…
I can already see the tempo of the pulsing blood vessels at the temples start to slow. This really needs to be coupled with a technique to limit filibusters; the tendency of some people to dominate conversations by speaking while barely pausing to breath. I've used a 2 minute warning. A raised hand automatically starts a 2 minute timer.

Another rule I've tried is if more than one person is waiting to speak, the one who spoke least recently gets the turn.

The limitation of these helpful techniques is that they mask the underlying problem. The desire to be understood is rarely offset by an equivalent desire to understand.
well, but the goal is
consensus
What technique would be recommended?

Most Popular on Agile Complexification Inverter

Collaboration Tools List

Here's my online collaboration tools list.  It is an ever growing and contracting list.  I'd love to collaborate with you on this list - leave a comment with your best tool.

Tools for collaboration on documents:
http://drive.google.com  Google Docs
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki
http://sync.in/
http://icloud.com - Apple's Pages, Numbers, KeyNote etc.
http://www.zoho.com/
http://codebunk.com  collaborative platform for online technology interviews (code & run)
http://usecandor.com/ - a better form of brainstorming (removes first in list bias)
http://jsfiddle.net a JavaScript development (IDE) collaboration tool on the web
https://www.hylighter.com/ enables intensive collaboration through a unique color-coding mechanism and linking capability.
https://cocalc.com Collaborative Calculation - a sophisticated web service for online computation; batteries included.
http://www.work-visual.com This App exists to help you make your words and ideas visible.

Tools for Agile/Scrum/Lean…

Situational Leadership II Model & Theory

Have you ever been in a situation where you thought the technique needed to move forward was one thing, yet the person leading (your leader) assumed something else was what was needed?  Did you feel misaligned, unheard, marginalized?  Would you believe that 54% of all leaders only use ONE style of leadership - regardless of the situation?  Does that one style of leading work well for the many levels of development we see on a team?

Perhaps your team should investigate one of the most widely used leadership models in the world ("used to train over 5 million managers in the world’s most respected organizations").  And it's not just for the leaders.  The training is most effective when everyone receives the training and uses the model.  The use of a ubiquitous language on your team is a collaboration accelerator.  When everyone is using the same mental model, speaking the same vernacular hours of frustration and discussion may be curtailed, and alignment achieved, outcomes …

Exercise:: Definition of Ready & Done

Assuming you are on a Scrum/Agile software development team, then one of the first 'working agreements' you have created with your team is a 'Definition of Done' - right?



Oh - you don't have a definition of what aspects a user story that is done will exhibit. Well then, you need to create a list of attributes of a done story. One way to do this would be to Google 'definition of done' ... here let me do that for you: http://tinyurl.com/3br9o6n. Then you could just use someone else's definition - there DONE!

But that would be cheating -- right? It is not the artifact - the list of done criteria, that is important for your team - it is the act of doing it for themselves, it is that shared understanding of having a debate over some of the gray areas that create a true working agreement. If some of the team believes that a story being done means that there can be no bugs found in the code - but some believe that there can be some minor issues - well, then yo…

Do You Put “CSM” After Your Name?

I’ve noticed a new trend—people have been gaining titles. When I was younger, only doctors had initials (like MD) after their names. I always figured that was because society held doctors, and sometime priests (OFM) in such high regard that we wanted to point out their higher learning. I hope it was to encourage others to apply themselves in school and become doctors also. Could it have been boastful?

The Wikipedia describes these “post-nominal initials”:
Post-nominal letters, also called post-nominal initials, are letters placed after the name of a person to indicate that the individual holds a position, educational degree, accreditation, office, or honor. An individual may use several different sets of post-nominal letters. The order in which these are listed after a name is based on the order of precedence and category of the order. That’s good enough for me.
So I ask you: is the use of CSM or CSP an appropriate use of post-nominal initials?
If your not an agilista, you may wonder …

Craftsman - is not the gender neutral term we men believe it to be

Pondering... why are gender "neutral" words such as craftsman are not as gender neutral as we men seem to think they are?
I've been personally trying to break myself from a bad habit... one that I've thought was not such a big  deal...  I use the term "guys" in mixed company to describe a group of people ... not yet a team.  In mentoring groups toward becoming a team, I reserve that term for groups that truly behave like a real team.  I was giving a presentation at a local special interest group and afterwards a person gave me some useful feedback... my usage of the term "guys" was distracting and verging on "off-putting" in the room of mostly females.  I needed to read the audience and the room - and choosing the proper term would help them to engage... what I truly desired.

I remember in the 1970s (yes this should date me) teachers in school told us that some words were considered gender neutral - I believe that "guys" was on…