Have you ever stopped listening while someone was still talking because you were already preparing your answer? We have all done it more than once. We immediately go into this flight-or-fight mode and we believe finding arguments is more important than listening. The problem is, this makes everyone see you disappear from the conversation.
This is one of the quiet failures of a difficult conversation.
No one gets dramatic. No one raises their voice. No one loses their mind.
What simply happens is that one person simply begins drafting a rebuttal while the other is still speaking. The words keep coming, but they are no longer being received.
The personal and corporate cost here is palpable to everyone except the perpetrators. You stop being received and at the same time you systematically stopped listening. Your judgement now narrows. You start defending the version of the problem you arrived with, rather than testing it against what is now in front of you. A sound point not only becomes less convincing, but now is the whole thing that sinks you into darkness and defeat. Ok, maybe not that much. But at this point I know for sure you know exactly what I am talking about.
What we must do is to regain enough control of ourselves so we can disagree properly (although perhaps if you do improve at listening, you might find yourself agreeing more often).
Speed to logorrhea makes your point weaker
Ok yes, what the hell is logorrhea you might first ask! Well, this is the tendency to be excessively talkative in this case.
Picture the following scenario.
- Someone has a well-founded concern.
- They have thought about the risk
- They can see a consequence others may be missing
- They want the room to take it seriously.
Then someone pushes back.
Their pace changes. Their eyes move away. They start hunting for the next supporting argument before the challenge has been completed.
There is no space between hearing a sentence and answering it. Their point becomes a case to win rather than an idea to examine.
The irony is that they may still be right about the underlying issue. But the room now has to deal with two things at once: the issue itself and the defensive energy surrounding it. People begin protecting their own position in return. Questions sound like attacks. Clarifications become evidence for the prosecution. And not a single soul gives space to talk to the other.
The conversation turns adversarial, and everyone becomes less able to notice the useful part of the disagreement.
What’s worse? People notice things got a bit uglier, but they do not necessarily see what is going on.
This is why your presence as a leader matters.
A person who can hold a pause under pressure makes their point stronger.
They signal that it can withstand examination.
They also give themselves a chance to hear whether the objection exposes a blind spot, a misunderstanding, or a better way to state the same concern.
A 2024 meta-analysis by Kluger et al. examined 122 papers and 400,020 workplace observations; perceived listening had its strongest association with relationship quality.
Association is not a magic trick, and listening does not make every disagreement easy. But it is a useful reminder that people notice whether they are being listened to.
I’ve got three things for you: Pause, Breathe and Listen
The discipline is simple enough to remember in the moment: Pause. Breathe. Listen.
Pause before you respond. Not for theatrical effect, and not to manufacture authority. Pause because the first answer that arrives is often a defence of your identity, your preparation, or your prior experience. A few seconds can separate that reflex from the answer you actually want to give.
Breathe once, deliberately. It is a small physical interruption to the rush of proving yourself right. You do not need to become calm in some perfect sense. You only need to stop letting urgency choose your next sentence.
Listen before you speak. Look out for the actual full claim. What is the person actually saying? What evidence are they adding? What do they fear will happen? What would make their objection reasonable, even if you still reach a different conclusion? A challenge to one piece of evidence is not necessarily a challenge to the whole conclusion; keep the two separate before you answer.
The point is not you. A challenge to it does not have to become a challenge to you.
“For this a man would have to think before he spoke.”
— Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Controversy
That line lands because the defensive reaction runs in the opposite direction. We speak first to protect the point, then think afterwards about what the other person meant.
The pause reverses the order. Breathing removes the noise. Listening ensures you are truly leading.
When the room can see you leaving
I have seen this happen in a real difficult decision conversation. Someone met genuine opposition to a point they cared about. At first, it was only a slight drift of the gaze. Then it became apparent that they were looking at another monitor for documents and arguments while others (including myself) were still speaking. When it was “their turn”, their answer was delivered immediately. There was no pause to test what had been said just now. They were not listening.
Their stance had shifted from trying to solve the problem to defending the position. I could even see this in their eyes.
The more they searched for ammunition and rushed to reply, the less executive presence they had. Their argument became harder to hear because everyone also had to deal with the defensiveness surrounding it.
And you might be thinking the only thing that matters is the truth. However, as they were not listening to me or the rest, their voice stopped making sense altogether.
That is why these signs matter. They are not a checklist to perform or a way to diagnose someone else. They are small, human signals that any of us can notice in ourselves when a conversation becomes difficult:
- You do not pause.
- You feel as though you are in a fight.
- Your gaze leaves the people in front of you as you search for the argument.
- You prepare your rebuttal while waiting for the other person to finish—or signalling, with your body, that you want them to stop.
This is the exact moment that you need to stop. Pause, breathe, listen. You failed to listen? Ask the other person to repeat or rephrase. This is a sign of respect as well.
You are not required to concede the point, but it is your duty to understand it well enough.
Sometimes the honest response is still a firm no. Sometimes it is a sharper question. Sometimes it is, “Hey, I need a moment to think about that.”
None of these undermine your presence.
Conflict is not the problem
“Conflict with trust is the pursuit of truth or the best idea.”
— Patrick Lencioni, Stop Agreeing to Disagree
Listening does not turn conflict into agreement, nor should it. Good work needs people who can name a risk, challenge a comfortable assumption, and hold a different view when the evidence demands it. Listening (actual listening) is what makes that conflict more productive because it prevents disagreement from becoming a contest over who gets to be heard.
When you can hear the challenge without immediately building a counterattack, you preserve the useful friction.
You can still argue for your position. You can still ask for proof. You can still make a decision that another person dislikes.
But you do it with a fuller picture of the problem and without asking the room to manage your defensiveness first.
The next time you feel yourself reaching for an answer before the other person has finished, do not optimise yourself for speed.
Do not leave the room.
Pause. Breathe. Listen.
And then and only then dare to answer.
