Marie-Claire Dwek, Chief Executive Officer, Newmark Security plc explores how effective listening ensures you get the message from your employees.
Every HR leader wants employees to speak up, whether that means challenging a decision, flagging a problem or suggesting a better way of doing something. Yet we rarely ask the more uncomfortable question: what happens when somebody does speak up and their manager interrupts before they have finished?
It may seem like a small thing, especially in a busy workplace where everyone is juggling meetings, deadlines and competing priorities. But repeated often enough, that habit sends a message. Your contribution is less important than my response. And eventually, people may decide it is easier not to say anything at all.
I see the temptation myself, whether I am sitting around a board table, running a shareholder meeting or walking the floor with our teams. As a CEO, I am expected to make decisions and find solutions. That makes it all too easy to listen for the point at which I can step in, rather than giving somebody the space to finish their thought.
That is why I have been practising a deceptively simple habit I call the “second listen”. When somebody finishes speaking, I try to wait three seconds before responding. In those seconds, I replay what I have heard and ask myself whether I have understood what they meant, rather than simply preparing what I want to say next.
It sounds almost embarrassingly basic. But for managers who have spent years being rewarded for speed, certainty and quick answers, it can be surprisingly difficult.
The hidden cost of an interrupted employee
We talk a great deal in HR about employee voice, engagement and creating environments where people feel safe enough to raise concerns. Those ambitions are important, but they are tested in ordinary conversations, not just engagement surveys or carefully worded values statements.
Imagine an employee trying to explain why a process is failing. They begin with what happened, perhaps hesitate while finding the right words, and their manager jumps in with a solution. The meeting ends quickly. The manager feels decisive. But the employee may never have reached the part that really mattered.
When we speak aloud, we are often still working through our thoughts, clarifying ideas, spotting flaws and finding our own answers. People do not always need us to fix their problem on the spot. Sometimes they need the space to explain it properly. Interrupt them, and we risk losing an insight before it has formed.
The cost is not always visible. It might be a missed warning about workload, an improvement that is never suggested, or a concern about team behaviour that remains unspoken. When HR teams wonder why employees are reluctant to share candid feedback, the answer may lie partly in how their managers respond when they do.
Listening is a management behaviour, not an HR slogan
We hear the phrase “we listen, and we don’t judge” often enough. I would make a more basic promise: we listen, and we do not interrupt. We respect the other person enough to let them finish.
I say that as somebody who has got this wrong countless times. I have caught myself leaning forward to ask what I thought was a helpful question, only to realise I had broken the speaker’s train of thought. It has taken years of deliberate effort to resist that instinct.
There is also a difference between listening and agreeing. Giving somebody your attention does not mean accepting every argument or avoiding difficult decisions. A manager can hear a concern fully, ask questions afterwards and still explain why a different course of action is necessary. People are more likely to accept an outcome when they believe they have been heard fairly.
And when you are the one being interrupted, silence can be powerful. Stop talking and allow the pause to reset the conversation. Sometimes it helps to say, simply, “I don’t need an answer right now.” That is not a refusal to engage. It is an invitation to listen first.
Respecting time does not mean rushing people
Of course, no business has unlimited time. HR professionals know the pressure on line managers to deliver results while supporting their teams, and I do not believe good listening requires endless meetings or rambling conversations.
For me, respecting time also means being concise, prepared and honest. Early in my career, I dealt with people who could change direction five times in a sentence and then blame others for not following. It taught me that clarity is a form of respect. There is no shame in saying, “I don’t know, but I will find out and get back to you.” There is little value in talking simply to conceal uncertainty.
"Three seconds will not solve every workplace problem, but they can stop a manager turning a conversation into a premature answer."
I protect boundaries, too. I do not drag tasks out or take routine calls late into the night. That space helps me arrive at the conversations that matter with enough attention to give. Sometimes, if I notice somebody is unusually quiet or upset, I will suggest leaving the desk and going for a walk. A change of setting can make it easier for them to open up.
None of this requires a new HR initiative. It requires managers to recognise that the quality of a conversation is not measured by how quickly it ends.
The three seconds that change the conversation
Our working lives are increasingly shaped by AI, notifications, dashboards and the pressure to react immediately. We can measure productivity and automate processes, but we cannot automate the feeling of being properly heard.
"Being a CEO does not make me a perfect listener."
The second listen is a small way of resisting that pressure. The first listen is hearing the words. The second comes in the pause afterwards, when we replay what has actually been said before we fix, defend, challenge or redirect. Three seconds will not solve every workplace problem, but they can stop a manager turning a conversation into a premature answer.
For HR teams, this is also a practical question to put to leaders: do your people get to finish what they are saying? Do you ask what they need before offering a solution? When somebody disagrees with you, do you listen to understand or simply wait for your turn?
I am still working on this myself. Being a CEO does not make me a perfect listener. If anything, it makes me more conscious of how easily the authority of a job title can close down a conversation without anybody intending it.
If more leaders listened once and then listened again, we might interrupt less, understand more and make decisions based on what employees actually mean, rather than what we assume they mean. For a profession concerned with trust, retention and giving people a genuine voice at work, that is a leadership habit worth taking seriously.
