„‚ CONDITIONS THAT HINDER EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION

often rejected by the recipient; and Gibb (1961) found that the ways in which messages
typically are delivered in interpersonal situations tend to evoke defensiveness.
There are problems in transmitting as well as in receiving feedback. For example,
substantial evidence shows that people try to avoid transmitting unpleasant messages
(Blumberg, 1972; Fitts & Ravdin, 1953; Oken, 1961; Tesser & Rosen, 1975) and that if
they cannot avoid giving feedback, people tend to distort it or make it more positive
(Fisher, 1979; Tesser, Rosen, & Tesser, 1971).
A good deal of the literature on feedback is prescriptive in nature and not
empirically validated (Argyris, 1962; Egan, 1975; Gibb, 1961; Hanson, 1975; Kurtz &
Jones, 1973; Mill, 1976; Morris & Sashkin, 1976; Pfeiffer & Jones, 1972; Solomon,
1977). It suggests that there are certain rules for delivering feedback that will make the
feedback more effective. The majority of these prescriptions concern the accuracy,
focus, timing, objectivity, and validation of the transmission, that is, ensuring that the
recipient receives the correct message. Keltner (1973, p. 97) stresses, “For any change to
occur not only is feedback essential, but the synonymous meaning of the message must
be shared by the generator and the receiver.”
It seems likely, however, that accuracy of transmission is not the major cause of
problems with the feedback process. Several writers have acknowledged that feedback
can hurt people and lead to defensiveness and reprisals despite skillful delivery (Porter,
1974; Solomon, 1977). A second, largely unaddressed, problem with the feedback
process has to do with the willingness of the recipient to utilize the feedback. Until this
problem is resolved, feedback may remain underutilized and problematic in human
systems. Therefore, this paper will now address the problem of willingness.
FEEDBACK AS PART OF A CHANGE PROCESS
Most of the literature views feedback as an input to help direct behavioral change (Budd,
1972; Hanson, 1975; Mill, 1976). However, the implication that change is necessary or
desired evokes feelings about being controlled. According to Gibb (1961), a continual
bombardment of persuasive messages from politicians, educators, special causes,
advertising, religion, medical experts, and industrial relations and guidance counselors
has resulted in cynical and paranoidal responses to messages that contain an element of
control. Gibb also states that change messages convey implicit, esteem-reducing
information that evokes defensive reactions:
Implicit in all attempts to alter another person is the assumption by the change agent that the
person to be altered is inadequate. That the speaker secretly views the listener as ignorant, unable
to make his own decisions, uninformed, immature, unwise, or possessed of wrong or inadequate
attitudes is a subconscious perception which gives the latter a valid base for defensive reactions.
(p. 143)
Such resistance to change messages is not a new phenomenon. According to
McGinnes and Ferster (1971, p. 432), “Ever since Machiavelli, and perhaps before, there
The Pfeiffer Library Volume 6, 2nd Edition. Copyright ©1998 Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer ❚❘ 213