„‚ CONDITIONS THAT HINDER EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION

internal resource people (consultants) who can aid in feedback meetings. These people,
while not normally members of the group actually conducting the feedback meeting, are
still internal to the total system receiving feedback; and their continued presence in that
system combined with system-level diagnosis provides support for the feedback activity.
The focus of the feedback activity is on issues related to existing work units within
a hierarchy. The design is thus best used for work on within-group issues and also for
work on problems of communication up and down the hierarchy of the organization.
The waterfall concept is both a strength and a weakness. Although having feedback at
higher levels before having feedback at lower levels builds support for the activity, if a
breakdown occurs at any one level, it is highly likely that the activities at all levels
below that one may be less effective. Obviously, the training and skills of the internal
resource people are critical. They need to be familiar with the content of the feedback
data as well as to possess process skills.
Subordinate Group
Another variation on the family-group approach has been suggested by Schein (1976).
Using the family group has risks because of the possibility of conflict between the role
of the supervisor as the leader of the meeting and the role of the supervisor as the
possible focus of feedback. The supervisor may do things that hinder the group’s ability
to work with data. Schein offers an alternative to the “top-down” survey-guideddevelopment
approach: a “bottom-up” subordinate-group approach. In this case,
subordinates in the family group receive the feedback and work with it with the
assistance of a consultant before the supervisor ever sees the data. Only after
considerable work has been done is the supervisor given the data and asked to join the
meeting. Thus, by the time the supervisor does join the meeting, the data have been
validated, the group feels some ownership over them, and the process of using them as a
problem-identification and -solving tool has been started. Much of the initial anxiety,
fear, and defensiveness is defused by having the supervisor absent.
Although the subordinate-group feedback design makes use of existing work units
(the family group), it uses them in parts rather than as a whole (for example, part of the
unit—the subordinates—meets to work with the data before the whole unit meets).
Clearly the sequence of receiving data is bottom-up, and the design involves an external
consultant. As the bottom-up sequence runs contrary to the normal methods of
distributing information, it has consequences for power relations and may be very
threatening to the supervisor.
Thus, a competent and credible outside consultant is important; that consultant has
the significant role of helping the supervisor to avoid natural feelings of defensiveness
and of aiding the subordinates in using the data constructively. The design is particularly
useful for working on issues of power and on particular issues of superior-subordinate
relations and communications within the particular work unit. By removing the superior,
the design also may facilitate clearer and more open communication among work-unit
members about problems of relationships among themselves. The greatest risk,
206 ❘❚
The Pfeiffer Library Volume 6, 2nd Edition. Copyright ©1998 Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer