I've written previously about Aristotle's concept of understanding.  I often think of this concept in meetings:  "After this person is finished explaining, do I know what they said?  Could I restate their point and maybe offer an example or two of my own."

My experience is that misunderstandings often come from poor listening.  People who do one of the following:

Listen until their next point comes to mind, after which any additional points made by the speaker might as well be tossed because they certainly weren't heard.

Listen until a point that fits either a major disagreement point or a major worldview alignment, after which each additional point falls on deaf ears.

Listen until a distraction comes along (let's check the blackberry, what else do I need to do today? I wonder what the market is doing?) after which speaking is pointless.

Fade in and out of listening.  Catch a few points but miss other key pieces of information which were critical to the discussion.

There are other variations.  They are all frustrating to me.  As a speaker, I try to set signposts out:  "I have three things to go over with you."  "Here are my four concerns."  Additionally, I watch for nonverbal cues from my listeners.  When the eyelids droop, that's a bad sign.  But there is only so much the speaker can do.

I know decent people who are sporadic listeners.  It is to their own detriment that they fail to pay attention.  Others in the room get annoyed.  The speaker tends to think that he or she is speaking to an idiot, meetings last longer, misunderstandings are more common.  The dangers are many.

My solution:  An outline of key points.  Can we skip the meeting?  If we must meet, lets agree on what I will cover, agree that I have covered it and give me buy-in as we move along.  If I miss a buy-in, I review the issue, make sure we have disagreement and move on.

When on the listening side, leave the devices outside of the room or off.  Listen to understand.  After the speaker finishes, can you make a path?