26.10.2014 Views

„‚ CONDITIONS THAT HINDER EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION

„‚ CONDITIONS THAT HINDER EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION

„‚ CONDITIONS THAT HINDER EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

intent is to enlarge the freedom of the feedback recipient, the message should increase<br />

options.<br />

Ideally, openness should be both strategic and constructive. It should enlarge the<br />

range of the recipient’s options without shutting him or her down emotionally. It<br />

requires demanding self-appraisal of motives on the part of the person who chooses to<br />

be open because he or she must assume responsibility for that openness as well as for<br />

imposing the results of his or her behavior on another. A person’s openness must be<br />

dealt with, in some fashion, by those with whom he or she has chosen to share feelings<br />

and ideas or to give feedback. Therefore, openness should never exceed the system<br />

expectations to the extent of reinforcing closed behavior in others; rather, it should<br />

become a growth experience for both the open person and the system with which he or<br />

she is interacting.<br />

IMPLICATIONS<br />

The group facilitator needs to be aware of both the problems and possibilities with<br />

regard to openness, collusion, and feedback. A number of these implications are<br />

suggested by the points of view expressed in this article. Feedback criteria can be taught<br />

rather easily in small group meetings either experientially or didactically. Building and<br />

maintaining the norms implied in these “standards” can result in constructive openness<br />

and trust.<br />

The facilitator should be careful in surfacing evidence of collusion in a human<br />

system. He needs to find a nonthreatening way of helping the colluders to “own” and to<br />

deal with their complicity. It is equally dangerous to generate or focus on more data than<br />

the system can process. One example of generating too much data would be calling<br />

attention to the feelings of task-group members who have not voluntarily committed<br />

themselves to studying their interpersonal process. Another example is a facilitator who<br />

“models” openness in the initial session of a growth group but expresses so much<br />

feeling that participants become unduly anxious. Hypotheses about a system’s readiness<br />

for increased openness need to be tested. The facilitator should be wary of a tendency to<br />

project his or her own position onto others or to be party to the collusion that may exist<br />

in the system. The facilitator needs to check out his or her assumptions about the client<br />

system and to find out the assumptions that people in the system are making about him<br />

or her.<br />

Openness and trust grow in a nurturing environment; they cannot be expected to be<br />

engendered instantaneously. The level of openness in growth-group meetings usually<br />

cannot automatically be reproduced in “back-home” settings. The facilitator needs to<br />

negotiate (and renegotiate) the level of openness that is to be expected in his or her<br />

relations with others.<br />

160 ❘❚<br />

The Pfeiffer Library Volume 6, 2nd Edition. Copyright ©1998 Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!