Air University Review, May-June 1985
Commanders and supervisors pride themselves on announcing an open-door policy, feeling that this policy conveys their willingness to listen to subordinate concerns on a one-to-one basis. Such policies are frequently announced at meetings, written into operating instructions, and emphasized through informal gatherings in the workplace. Despite such policies, supervisors become frustrated when subordinates do not avail themselves of the open door. These supervisors and commanders may not realize that the perspective of the open door differs, perhaps, depending on one's position in the organization. A junior officer in a large organization once remarked somewhat sarcastically: "If they have to announce an open-door policy, it probably means that there really isn't one!"
There may be an element of truth in this statement, but the situation does not necessarily mean that the organization chiefs announce such a policy out of bad faith. Commanders and supervisors may legitimately want to be open and sincerely wonder why this intended openness is not perceived throughout the organization. The problem may arise from the type of communication climate established in the organization.
Jack Gibb postulates a theory of communication that can give military supervisors some insight.1 His structure of communication climates resulted from a U.S. Navy study of group discussions. In general, Gibb believes that communication climates may be organized on a continuum ranging from supportive to defensive, where supportive exchanges invite openness but where defensive remarks cause resentment or breakdowns in communication. On such a continuum, traditional principles of supervision can unintentionally initiate or reinforce defensive climates. If supervisors become aware of the elements involved in both supportive and defensive climates and how these affect communication, they can then understand subordinates' reactions and try to promote genuine open communication.
The U.S. Air Force has continually stressed the need for improved communication, including writing and speaking ratings on personnel effectiveness reports and providing numerous courses to improve communication skills. On a wider organizational scale, we in the military focus on information systems, base newspapers, and professional journals in areas ranging from engineering to driver's education. But within the organizational work setting, communication between supervisor and subordinate should receive increased attention. Such communication determines whether specific tasks are accomplished or neglected, affects employee motivation and satisfaction, promotes or reduces productivity, and, ultimately, ensures or impedes mission accomplishment.
Subordinates who are comfortable with their supervisors on the job are willing to question procedures or orders they do not understand and to make innovative suggestions that may help their organizations to improve. To encourage such constructive contributions, managers and supervisors need to develop and use an "effective and mature method ... to create a climate in which all employees feel comfortable asking questions."2 Ultimately, a strong relationship exists between good communication skills and good leadership.
Obviously, good communication skills are important for the first-level supervisor, but they become even more important with increasing rank. As some studies indicate, higher-level managers spend up to 80 percent of their time engaged in communication––communcation that is frequently essential to organization success.
Commanders and supervisors need a practical way to fill the need for improved communication. One approach is focus on a climate of communication––the overall background for communication encounters.
Jack Gibb identified two extreme climates of communication: those that are supportive and those that are defensive. Supportive climates encourage individuals (particularly subordinates), while defensive climates put individuals on guard, resulting in a defensive reaction to the words and tone of the speaker. By breaking down the overall communication climate into six categories or dichotomies, Gibb explains the general concept of climate, a concept that can be clarified with examples from typical military situations.
These examples illustrate Gibb's theoretical framework and the range of communication climates in the military setting. Supportive climates derive from attitudes of equality, description, spontaneity, problem orientation, provisionalism, and empathy. Defensive climates evolve from superiority, evaluation, strategy, control, certainty, and neutrality.
superiority-equality
As Gibb indicates, the superior/equal dichotomy is the most significant distinction that affects the communication climate. Since the commander or supervisor is in the "superior" position, the communication attitude that he or she manifests may vary from "I'm in command here; do it or else" to "we're in this together." This latter attitude reflects equality of importance––the subordinate is recognized for making a valuable contribution to the mutual task. A subordinate who has experienced an "I'm in command" attitude will be reluctant to approach the supervisor with a problem or even a recommendation, constantly expecting a rebuff under the guise of "Yes, but I'm the boss."
The management-by-objectives (MBO) approach initially developed from a desire to change this basic position of superiority. MBO strives to enhance the climate of equality, letting the employee determine individual goals and objectives and participate in decision making. Such recognition, conveyed honestly, respects the knowledge and talent of the subordinate.
Indeed, in technological areas the supervisor may well know less about specific matters than those accomplishing the "hands-on" tasks of the organization. Frequent changes in assignment for the military supervisor, particularly in organization structures manned by talented, long-term civilians, may reinforce this perception even further. Such supervisors placed "in charge" of a unit may feel inadequate for the job of supervising.
To cover feelings of inadequacy, a supervisor may convey a tough image to ensure that he or she is indeed "in charge." A put-down remark such as, "Haven't you figured out that problem yet?" might be tempting to put subordinates "in their place." On the other hand, the supervisor who approaches the situation with "Perhaps we have a problem here; can we work it out?" indicates mutual concern and may move more effectively toward achieving a solution. In such a manner, the climate of equality could overcome the defensiveness set up by the position of command or supervisor authority.
evaluation-description
Evaluation that involves passing judgment, blaming, or questioning standards, values, and motives puts others on the defense. In contrast, description supports individuals by asking questions to obtain information, presenting feelings and perceptions, and participating in a process without implying that the receiver must change behavior. Subordinates are often reluctant to approach the supervisor for fear of "looking bad," performing in a way that might reflect negatively on an evaluation report. In fact, organizational theory abounds with descriptions of the filtering phenomenon, whereby subordinates send "up the chain" only such information that makes the employee look good. While such behavior is prompted by a variety of motives, perhaps the effect of the "evaluation" climate explains the basic rationale for such limited communication.
When approached with a problem, commanders and supervisors may react instinctively with their own perceptions, often without understanding the context of the operation or the specific project that an employee is working on at a given time. For example, the supervisor might say, "This repair project is behind schedule; when are you going to get caught up?" Conversely, the supervisor could ask, "What is the status of this repair?" 'The first expression puts the receiver on the defensive, whether the project is actually behind schedule or not. The second asks directly for information. An accusing tone, however, will still create a defensive climate regardless of the words used.
strategy-spontaneity
A climate of strategy usually involves overt or covert manipulation of people. When using strategy, a speaker attempts to appear open, yet many times actually has a preconceived direction or a hidden agenda. Often the listener hears leading questions and wonders what the final objective is. Again, the situation places the listener on the defensive. People generally resent being manipulated and seldom communicate openly with those whom they recognize as manipulators.
Conversely, honest and straightforward communication conveys a different message: the supervisor realizes the individuality of each worker and respects each as a person. For example, in an organization that has a policy of flexitime, the supervisor who asks "Don't you think nine o'clock is a little late to start work tomorrow?" is manipulating; this loaded question is not open to yes and no responses. The supervisor who conveys openness acknowledges an agenda with a statement like, "I'd like you to come to work at eight o'clock tomorrow so that we can work on this budget; do you think that you can make it?" Such a request is honest, openly states the desires of the supervisor, and avoids game playing.
control-problem orientation
In a climate of control, a supervisor attempts to influence subordinates by using status or coercion to change their attitudes or behavior. In contrast, problem orientation defines mutual challenges and seeks solutions without inhibiting the receivers' goals, decisions, and progress. Too often, the supervisor may approach the employee with the question: "Why haven't you tried this method?" This approach belittles the subordinate for not acting, when perhaps the person has already considered the idea and discarded it for good reason. A climate of control implies that the supervisor's view is the only valid operational alternative. In another instance, the commander might propose a solution prior to asking subordinates for alternatives. Although the commander may believe that asking for alternatives shows openness to new ideas, the tone of voice and overall attitude (part of climate) have already communicated that the subordinate should say yes to the commander's already proposed solution.
On the other hand, the commander could say, "There seems to be a snag here; what can we do in this case?" This problem-oriented emphasis conveys an attitude of openness. The commander appears willing to consider various options, presents a climate of mutual support in trying to achieve the ultimate objective, and promotes a cooperative work atmosphere. Especially in solving complex technical problems in mission-essential areas, such an approach is more likely to achieve results with less friction, accusation, or resentment than a control approach will. It also offers subordinates a sense of work satisfaction as they realize their contribution to task completion.
certainty-provisionalism
The climate of certainty appears in the dogmatic, "need to be right" type of supervisor. This person will often remain adamant in an initial decision, regardless of the adequacy of the idea. In contrast, a provisional person is willing to experiment with alternatives, explore ideas, and even adopt new behavior patterns. The attitude of certainty prevents a subordinate from raising an issue with the supervisor, breeding subordinate feelings that "they never listen to us anyway––they think that we don't know anything." Given such a climate, it is understandable that a supervisor's door remains open but few subordinates cross the threshold.
Likewise, with rapidly changing technology, a climate conveying attitudes of "we've always done it this way" or "back when I was on the line..." no longer suffices. The successful supervisor realizes that managing a complex process is more challenging than directing a fixed system; he or she must have enough self-confidence to realize that there is more than one way to accomplish a task. Provisionalism expresses a willingness to say, "Could we try this idea to see whether it helps? If not, we can certainly regroup." Again, the tone of voice must indicate a sincere provisionalism, not an attitude of but we'll end up doing it the traditional way!"
neutrality-empathy
In the neutrality-empathy dichotomy, neutrality connotes a lack of concern for the individuality of another person instead of a respect for the other's worth and an overall willingness to listen and share the feelings of others. Its counterpart, empathy, reflects the human relations schools of thought, emphasizing the insights of Mayo, Herzberg, and Maslow. In practical terms, it might mean a supervisor's taking time for the subordinate. A published open-door policy is meaningless if the supervisor does not take the time to be available or to demonstrate a true concern for his or her people.
When the supervisor's office receives few communicative subordinates because the supervisor has other commitments or pseudo-commitments, the "policy" is never actualized. The supervisor may also approach a communication situation with a "hurry up, state your problem, I've got to go" attitude, which is soon apparent to the employee. In another situation, the supervisor may sit behind a threatening desk, building a barrier to empathic communication. Until the "Hi, how are you?" greeting becomes a meaningful set of words, with the supervisor sincerely desiring to hear the answer, it remains little more than a formal conversational introduction or a mere cliché.
Gibb's six dichotomies plausibly show how the commander's or supervisor's approach in a situation can result in defensive reactions in the subordinate. A reason for these reactions, as well as for the failure of subordinates to perceive a genuine open-door policy, could be that traditional management principles tend to produce defensive rather than supportive climates. Thus, many persons who assume command or supervisory roles in established organizations may unintentionally promote counterproductive communication patterns.
Ultimately, responsibility for the communication climate of an organization rests with the commander who, in good faith, announces an open-door policy, sincerely wanting to listen to the subordinates who work in the organization. For open communication, the commander must progress through the main barrier, superiority. Although possessing the power and authority to act, the commander must be willing to express a common humanity in dealing with subordinates. The sense of concern must be genuine, not superficial. When subordinates perceive this humanity, they are no longer defensive because of rank differences. They become willing to use the open door, realizing that they can present ideas and questions without fear of negative judgments or evaluations. Above all, subordinates must feel a sense of personal worth and importance within the organization.
Once subordinates perceive that the commander is open to new ideas and genuinely wants input from individuals at all levels of the organization, subordinates usually offer their contributions. If the commander's sense of humanity pervades the daily dealings of people within the organization, there perhaps will be no need to announce open-door policies: management openness will be obvious to all within the organization.
Establishing and maintaining such a positive communication climate present a tall order for a commander or supervisor. Effective organizational operations will require some openness on the part of the commander, but the wealth of management theory and tradition militates against such openness despite an individual commander's good intentions. With increasing specialization and technological advances, managers will more frequently find themselves in positions of responsibility where subordinates are indeed the experts. Increasingly, commanders and supervisors will be managers of uncertainty rather than of standard, fixed operations.
Those commanders who see beyond all of the ingrained traditional perspectives, who take a "metamanagement" perspective, will increase the likelihood of open communication within their organizations. In the process, they will achieve not only increased subordinate satisfaction and motivation but actual improvements in organizational effectiveness. More than merely an announced abstraction, the open-door policy within such organizations will be an implemented reality contributing constructively toward mission fulfillment.
Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio
Notes
1. Jack R. Gibb, "Defensive Communication," The Journal of Communication, September 1961, pp. 141-48.
2. John F. Samaras, "Two-Way Communication Practices for Managers," Personnel Journal, August 1980, p. 645.
Major Charles E. Beck (B.A., University of Pittsburgh; M.A., St. Mary's University; Ph.D., University of Denver) is an Associate Professor of Research and Communication at the Air Force Institute of Technology, School of Systems and Logistics, Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio, and Adjunct Associate Professor of Management at Wright State University. In earlier assignments he served as an aircraft maintenance officer, an education and training advisor to the Iranian Air Force, Associate Professor of English at the USAF Academy, and Head of the English Department at the USAF Academy Preparatory School.
Disclaimer
The conclusions and opinions expressed in this document are those of the author cultivated in the freedom of expression, academic environment of Air University. They do not reflect the official position of the U.S. Government, Department of Defense, the United States Air Force or the Air University.
Air & Space Power Home Page | Feedback? Email the Editor