From a Twitter thread:
Michael Villahermosa: What is a piece of advice a leader (civilian or military) has given you that has stuck with you?
Tom Barrett: Listen to understand, not to respond.
Notes:
(1) Cf. Farnham Street’s listen with intent to agree. This is better, because who says you should agree? The essence of listening is to take yourself out of the picture and focus on the other person.
(2) In To make meetings more effective, learn to listen, Emma Chilvers notes that “rather than listening in meetings, people spend the majority of their time either working out what they are going to say or defending what they are saying”. Listening to understand is the antidote to that.
(3) Note the similarity with How to listen when you disagree.
(4) Compare also to How to listen without judging — a guide for managers.
A Founder's Notebook 
I love this, and have been working to cultivate good listening as one of my strengths.
That said, I believe #2 is completely dependent on the type of meeting. If I’m in a 1-1 with a direct report, then listening to understand is probably the most critical job I can do. But if I’m in a meeting where I need to get other people to sign-off on a decision I want implemented, then listening to understand is only part of the game – it’s necessary but not sufficient, because figuring out how I’m going to also make sure my colleagues really hear me is equally important.
Perhaps the implication here is that listening-to-understand is a prerequisite to effectively getting a point across, and also simply a good in and of itself, depending on the context.
Pingback: Surprisingly, good listeners interrupt | A Founder's Notebook