understandable temptation to encourage processes

The organisational point to be made is, of

course, that there is an understandable temptation to encourage processes which bring

good news and a reluctance, if only subconscious, which can still be just as critical, to

discourage processes which bring bad news.

It is important to recognise that any manager is going to prefer to hear good news than

bad news and the temptation for colleagues and subordinates is to tell people what they

want to hear. In the long term this can of course be disastrous, and managers and

political leaders alike need consciously to recognise the distortion that can occur in

channels of communication and beware of succumbing to it. This can be checked if the

danger is consciously recognised and if the ancient Greek tradition of slaying the

messenger who brings news of defeat in battle is avoided. It may also be necessary to

take independent checks to evaluate the information that is received. It was

comprehension of this point which led some Generals, at the time of the First World

War, to say that ‘if you want to know what’s going on you have to go to the trenches.’

The conclusion we came to that one was likely to lose much more

The conclusion we came to that one was likely to lose much more respect if one simply hid from criticism.

The route we chose did at least enable me to get advice before decisions were

finalised. There is a much greater danger of losig respect if one cannot accept critical

but helpful advice, especially if that is then compounded by decisions that are incorrect.

The importance of these points is sadly illustrated by the problems that the advisers to

the late President Lyndon Johnson had in explaining to him that the war in Vietnam was

not progressing as favdurably as he imagined. President Johnson was not renowned for

his senstive handling of people, particularly those who voiced

criticism. Consequently he was more psychologically available to those who reported

favourably on the progress of the war, and who suggested that a military solution was

possible. than to those who. suggested the reverse. It was apparently not until the

spectacular Tet offensive by the Viet Cong in 1968 that President Johnson realised that

all was not as well as he had imagined.

Resistance to criticism

There may be occasions when feedback is sought but resisted if \it turns out to be

unfavourable. One vividly remembers an occasion when one explained to a

subordinate personnel officer that one would always welcome suggestions if she thought

there were ways in which the running of the department could be improved. She took at

the word and one day somewhat hesitantly started to explain how a change we were

pla.l1ning was, in her view, ill-judged. Our immediate response was one of irritation, but

fortunately one was just able to hide this and found to our chagrin ‘that she was right and

one was wrong. One was relatively new in the job and realised in retrospect that in the

moments. when one was seeking to control irritation the future working relationship was

being determined. One was able to show, at least with this person, that one would not

bite her head off if she expressed views that were contrary to mine. After this incident the

personnel officer concerned came when she thought that there was a likelihood of

committing other errors. This meant the occasional swallowing of pride when she picked

up points that one had missed. There is a strong temptation in situations like this to

block off criticism for fear of losing respect amongst subordinates

The culpability of the authority figure can be even

The culpability of the authority figure can be even

worse, than we have so far suggested. Some people may contrive to go through the

motions of obtaining feedback when in fact what they want is simply the pretence and

alibi that people have had a fair opportunity to raise queries. Rhetorical questions may

be used such as ‘is that clear?’ which do not really invite responses. There was

amazement when a person sought to take up a Company’s Managing Director’s written

offer, issued in a standard letter to all new employees, to have an appointment with him

concerning a grievance. The technique can be observed with lecturers, or after-dinner

speakers, who leave the opportunity for questions .until an impossibly late stage in the

proceedings. And also recollect it being used in the services, when orderly officers had

to go through the routine of asking if there were complaints about the food. Some

mastered the technique of asking if there were any queries in such a way that

servicemen would deserve a medal if they actually did make a complaint. This of course

enabled the orderly officer to maintain the fiction that people had been given an

opportunity to complain about the food if they were dissatisfied. The authority figure can

of course use his rank to put the blame firmly on subordinates if things do go wrong.

girl was asked to give the patient a ‘hot pot cit’

As is so often the case, an abbreviation was

used and the girl was asked to give the patient a ‘hot pot cit’. Unfortunately her

interpretation of this instruction led to the patient being sat upon a bedpan of boiling

water! In these cases the students’ guesswork fortunately just led to comic results. That

will of course not always be the case and such errors in the communication process may

be picked up too late or not at all. The errors in the previous examples may be seen as

stupidity or feebleness on the part of the student nurses, but such an interpretation is to

miss the point The fault really lies with the person who gave the instruction not ensuring

that he had made himself properly understood. Either he needed to make a positive

check that the instruction was understood or have a working relationship with the student

nw’se such that queries would be raised if necessary. Tb.e objective with communication

needs to be to see that it is effective rather than being able to lay the blame at someone

else’s door if things go wrong.Nursing examples have been given to illustrate the need to

get accurate feedback. This is not to suggest that nursing is more prone to this type of

problem than other occupations; it is simply that examples come easily to mind from my

experience with nursing. groups.

If discussing this issue with nursing groups

been deluged with examples of when this has happened. One example concerned the

student nurse who was asked to give a patient an airing. She apparently wasn’t quite

sure what to do but guessed that the appropriate interpretation was to move the patient’s

bed on to the verandah and remove the bedclothes. She had in fact been expected to

get an airing so that the patient could sit on it and receive a blanket bath. Another

stude,nt nurse was given te same instruction but with slightly different phraseology-she

was told to go and get an airing. Allegedly she returned three-quarters of an honr later

saying how much she had enjoyed her walk! Pride of place of the many examples we

have been given goes to the case of the student nurse who was expected to give a

patient a warm drink of potassium citrate

You can be very aware of situations when you are on

You can be very aware of situations when you are on

the receiving end of an instruction that you do not understand. It can be very tempting, for

the sorts of reason outlined above, to create the impression by silence that you have

understood something when you in fact know that you have not. The problem is that the

initiator may be left with quite a false impression o his effectiveness. If a message

is particularly important it is up to him to search for more ¬

positive corroboration than mere silence that communication has been effective. He will

need to consider ,other forms of feedback and to. distinguish betwee accurate and

bogus feedback.

Silence is not the only way in which people give false impressions about having

understood explanations. There are occasions when people actually say they have

understood when they have not. A common situation when this arises is when you ask

the way and are so baffled by the instructions on how to get to a particular place that you

may meekly say that you have understood when you have not. This type of breakdown

can happen within organisations and for a variety of reasons. These reasons may be the

same as those given for people remaining silent when they have the opportunity to ask

necessary questions during the rectangles exercise. Another reason can be the fear of

admitting ignorance, to authority figures in particular.