Instead, a better type of question to ask is one that follows up on what was just said. If someone says they’re a foodie, for example, asking them what types of food they like to eat. If someone says they’re concerned a new project isn’t working, asking them why they feel that way. And if someone says they can’t wait for the weekend, asking them what they are looking forward to.

Follow-up questions encourage conversation partners to elaborate further. To say more, provide more detail, or give more texture.

And whether talking to friends or strangers, clients or colleagues, people who ask follow-up questions are perceived more positively.

The key is asking a related question that shows interest. Signaling that we are seeking relevant information rather than hiding it.

But for someone to feel heard, three things have to happen. First, they have to feel like the other person paid attention to what they said. Second, they have to feel like the other person understood what they said. And third, the other person has to demonstrate that they listened.

Consequently, it’s not enough just to listen. To make people feel heard, we have to show them that we listened. We have to respond in a way that demonstrates that we attended to and understood what they said.

And this is why concrete language is so valuable. A customer service representative may have paid attention, and understood the problem, but without some outward signal of understanding, there is no way for the customer to know.

Concrete language provides that signal. Using specific, concrete language shows that rather than just going through the motions, someone went to the effort to attend to and understand what was said. Or, said differently, to listen.

Concrete language boosted customer satisfaction, and purchase, because it showed customers that employees were listening to their needs…

So while attending to and understanding needs are key facets of listening, using concrete language takes it one step further. It shows listening.

Linguistic similarity even helped distinguish between employees who stayed at the firm and those who left to pursue better options. Not because they got fired, but because they were offered something better elsewhere. These folks assimilated early on, but at some point, their language started to diverge. While clearly capable of adapting, eventually they stopped trying, foreshadowing their intention to quit.