Unpacking perceptions of selective and inclusive listening in a government context

Abstract

Current literature has consistently found the significance of organizational listening for generating positive organizational outcomes. Meanwhile, organizations are being chastised for failing to listen even when they have listening practices in place. Therefore, this study examines how people perceive organizational listening (i.e., selective listening versus inclusive listening) and tests a framework that consists of bridging and buffering, organizational justice, responsibility attribution and information seeking. In the context of government listening, a nationally representative sample of 400 Australian citizens completed an online survey. The results demonstrate that publics’ pre-conceived notions about the government’s bridging or buffering strategies affect how they perceive the government’s listening efforts, including whether they are selective or receptive to the opinions of various stakeholders. When publics believe that the government employs a bridging approach in its communication, they also believe that they are being treated fairly by the government and that it is listening to a variety of viewpoints. The view therefore affects whether publics hold the government accountable for the issue of high-rise overdevelopment and seek out more information about the issue. Implications for theory and practice are discussed.