„‚ CONDITIONS THAT HINDER EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION

VALIDATION AND SUMMATION
The four-communication-styles approach is so obviously and immediately useful that
most practitioners’ energies have been directed toward evolving new and more powerful
ways of teaching or using it (see Carney, 1976; Parr, 1979). Little energy has been put
into validation and reports (see Slocum, 1978). Some observations, however, can be
made. First, breaking mental sets does not necessarily mean innovative thinking. With
thinker-analysts, it may involve criticism or mere negativeness. Second, fluency of ideas
does not necessarily mean novelty in thinking. Doers prove amazingly fertile in ideas for
ways of coping, but these ideas are remarkably commonplace or simply variations on
one theme: Doers are concerned with effectiveness rather than originality. Originality is
the predominant characteristic of the intuitors, as a group.
Third, feelers are not emotional in their thinking. They tend to ask, “How is this
going to affect people?” It is the intuitors who, if they become blocked (that is, if they
cannot produce their usual spate of novel ideas), evidence most emotion. If they are
producing well, they are very genial. The thinkers, too, if they cannot offer constructive
suggestions and begin to produce spates of negative criticism, soon become emotional in
the way they express their ideas.
Fourth, the most outstanding performance comes from a participant whose unique
balance of two strong suits is ideally suited to the twin demands—criticism and
originality—of the problem. This concept of balance may well be one of the most
important ideas involved in the four-communication-styles approach.
REFERENCES
Bolles, R.N. (1978). The three boxes of life. Berkeley, CA: Ten Speed Press.
Carney, T.F. (1976). No limits to growth: Mind-expanding techniques. Winnipeg, Manitoba: Harbeck.
De Bono, E. (1970). Lateral thinking: A textbook of creativity. London: Ward Lock Educational.
De Nike, L. (1976). An exploratory study of the relationship of educational cognitive style to learning from
simulation games. Simulation & Games, 7(1), 72-73.
Eisenstadt, J.W. (1969). Personality style and sociometric choice. Washington, DC: NTL Institute.
Hudson, L. (1970). Frames of mind: Ability, perception and self perception in the arts and sciences.
Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin.
Jacobi, J. (1968). The psychology of C.G. Jung. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Janis, J.L. (1972). Victims of groupthink. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Ornstein, R. (1978). The split and the whole brain. Human Nature, 1(5), 76-83.
Parr, B.P. (1979). Organizational communications: Working papers. Windsor, Ontario: Department of
Communication Studies, University of Windsor.
Slocum, J.W., Jr. (1978). Does cognitive style affect diagnosis and intervention strategies of change agents? Group
& Organization Studies, 3(2), 199-210.
Torrance, E.P. (1971). Four types of gifted adolescents. In W.M. Cruickshank (Ed.), Psychology of exceptional
children and youth. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
86 ❘❚
The Pfeiffer Library Volume 6, 2nd Edition. Copyright © 1998 Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer