Blog
The Forgotten Art of Actually Listening: Why Most Supervisor Training Gets It Wrong
Related Resources:
The bloke sitting across from me in the hotel conference room had that glazed look I'd seen a thousand times before. Day two of a three-day supervisory training program, and he was already mentally back at his desk, probably thinking about the seventeen emails that had accumulated since breakfast. Classic mistake number one: thinking supervision is something you do rather than something you are.
I've been running workplace training programs across Australia for the better part of two decades now, and I'll tell you what nobody wants to admit – most supervisor training completely misses the point. We're so busy teaching people how to conduct performance reviews and navigate HR policies that we forget the most basic human skill of all.
Listening. Properly listening.
Not the kind of listening where you're formulating your response while the other person is still talking. Not the kind where you're checking your phone every thirty seconds. The kind where you actually hear what someone is saying, process it, and respond like a functioning human being rather than a management robot.
Here's the thing that drives me absolutely mental about most supervisory courses – they treat communication like it's a tick-box exercise. "Active listening: check. Provide feedback: check. Set expectations: check." Meanwhile, Sarah from accounts is trying to tell you that her workload has tripled since the restructure, but you're too busy following your newly-learned "feedback sandwich" technique to notice she's about to have a complete breakdown.
I learned this the hard way about fifteen years ago when I was managing a team of twelve in Brisbane. Thought I was doing everything right – regular one-on-ones, clear objectives, all the textbook stuff. Then one of my best performers handed in his resignation on a Friday afternoon. Completely blindsided me.
"Why didn't you say anything?" I asked him.
"I did," he replied. "About six times in the last three months."
Ouch.
That's when I realised I'd been listening to respond, not listening to understand. There's a world of difference between the two, and it's the difference between being a supervisor who people actually want to work for versus being the reason they start job hunting.
The problem with most business supervisory training is that it assumes supervision is about control. It's not. It's about connection. You can't supervise someone effectively if you don't understand what makes them tick, what challenges they're facing, and what they actually need from you to do their job well.
I remember running a session in Melbourne last year where a participant – let's call her Janet – was adamant that her team members were "just making excuses" when they raised concerns about deadlines. Turns out, after some proper conversation, that her team was covering for a colleague who'd been off on extended sick leave, but Janet had never actually asked about their current workload. She'd just assumed they were complaining.
Classic supervisor trap: assuming you know what's going on without actually finding out.
Here's what I tell every supervisor I train, and it's probably worth about $50,000 more than whatever they paid for their last leadership course: The next time someone comes to you with a problem, resist the urge to immediately start problem-solving. Instead, ask them three questions:
- "Tell me more about that."
- "How is this affecting you?"
- "What do you think might help?"
Then – and this is the crucial bit – actually listen to their answers. Don't interrupt. Don't start mentally composing your response. Just listen.
You'd be amazed how often people already know what they need; they just want someone to hear them out first. And you'd be equally amazed how often what they actually need is completely different from what you initially thought they needed.
I've seen supervisors transform their entire team dynamics just by learning to pause for five seconds before responding to questions or concerns. Five seconds. That's all it takes to shift from reactive management to thoughtful leadership.
But here's where it gets interesting – and where most training programs fall flat on their faces. They teach you to listen for problems so you can fix them. Wrong approach entirely.
You should be listening for opportunities.
When someone tells you they're struggling with a particular process, that's not just a problem to solve – it's intelligence about how your systems actually work in practice. When someone mentions they've found a quicker way to do something, that's not just nice-to-know information – it's potential innovation for your entire team.
I once had a supervisor in Perth tell me that one of his team members was "always complaining about the invoicing system." When I dug deeper, it turned out this team member had identified three specific improvements that could save the company about four hours of work per week. But because the supervisor had labelled her as a "complainer," he'd never actually listened to what she was saying.
That's four hours per week. Multiply that across a year, and you're looking at serious productivity gains that were sitting right there, waiting for someone to actually listen.
The other thing that gets me fired up about traditional supervisory training is this obsession with being the person who has all the answers. Mate, if you're the smartest person in your team, you've hired wrong. Your job isn't to know everything; it's to create an environment where people feel comfortable sharing what they know.
And that starts with listening. Properly listening.
I'm not talking about nodding along while someone talks. I'm talking about asking follow-up questions that show you're actually processing what they're saying. "What else?" is probably the most powerful question a supervisor can learn. Not "anything else?" which suggests you're ready to wrap up the conversation, but "what else?" which invites them to go deeper.
Here's something that might surprise you: the best supervisors I've worked with are often the ones who say "I don't know" more frequently than their peers. Not because they're incompetent, but because they're genuinely curious about their team members' perspectives and experiences.
Compare that to the supervisors who always have an immediate answer for everything. They might seem more competent on the surface, but they're usually the ones with higher turnover rates and lower team engagement scores.
There's actually some fascinating research about this – though I can't remember the exact source – that suggests teams perform better when their supervisors ask more questions than they answer. Something like a 3:1 ratio of questions to statements in team meetings correlates with higher productivity and job satisfaction.
Makes sense when you think about it. Questions engage people's brains. Statements just require them to absorb information.
But here's the catch – and this is where a lot of well-intentioned supervisors trip up – asking questions without actually listening to the answers is worse than not asking questions at all. It signals that you're going through the motions rather than genuinely interested in what people have to say.
I've sat in on team meetings where supervisors ask "Does anyone have any questions?" then immediately start packing up their papers. Message received: this is performative, not genuine.
The real test of whether you're actually listening comes in follow-up conversations. Can you reference something someone told you last week? Do you remember the details of the challenge they mentioned? Have you thought about their suggestion and come back with a response?
These are the things that separate supervisors who people actually trust from supervisors who people just tolerate.
And here's the final piece that most training misses entirely: listening isn't just about work stuff. The supervisor who knows that Dave's kid made the soccer team, or that Sarah's mum is recovering well from surgery, isn't being nosy – they're building the kind of human connections that make work actually bearable.
You don't have to be best mates with everyone on your team, but you do have to see them as complete human beings rather than just function-performing units.
The bottom line? Everything else you learn about supervision – delegation, performance management, conflict resolution – all of it depends on your ability to actually hear what people are telling you. Get that right, and most of the other stuff sorts itself out.
Get it wrong, and it doesn't matter how many training courses you've attended.
Explore More: