Air University Review, September-October 1985
Lieutenant Colonel Carl R. Huebner
IT is easy to believe that an "open" communication environment is necessary (and perhaps, even sufficient) for organizational success. However, this is not necessarily the case, and Major Charles Beck's article overlooks the nuances of organizational dynamics that belie the black and white prescriptions he suggests.*
Major Beck's thesis is built on a model, attributed to Jack Gibb, which I believe to be biased and fundamentally flawed. Beck imagines organizational communication climates to be ranged along a continuum between the extremes of "supportive" to "defensive." It is curious that one of these extremes is given a positive-sounding label while the other is defined negatively. One could, with no greater connotative bias, have labeled the respective ends of the continuum "permissive" and "firm. " The point is that the ends of continua are, by definition, extremes and often are not desirable or rational choices of behavior. In the case of the Beck/Gibb model, I imagine "lax" or "indifferent" to be an appropriate name for the communication climate opposite "defensive."
Similarly, the six "dichotomies" described by Beck are not dichotomies at all but, rather, only six pairs of arbitrary alternatives that ignore many other possible courses of action. As in the basic model, Beck gives one alternative in each set a positive-sounding name and burdens the other with a pejorative term. Again, the terms are not really antitheses of one another. By so biasing his model, Beck easily concludes that supportive communication climates are good and that defensive ones are bad. I believe that the problem is much more complex than that.
Let's look at some of the situations portrayed in Beck's article. The "superior-equality" case is inappropriately titled and gives the impression that a manager has only one of two choices. Moreover, the "equality" choice seems to be the one preferred by Beck. Personally, I have never been particularly comfortable working for a boss whom I considered an "equal." I may know more about my technical specialty than he or she, but my boss is the leader presumably because he or she has a broader view of the picture, greater expertise, superior judgment, or a combination of these or other qualifying characteristics. Certainly, the boss ought not to "put down" subordinates whenever they propose new ideas, but patronizing his or her subordinates is not the answer either. By definition, in a hierarchy, supervisors and subordinates are not equal--period.
Major Charles E. Beck, "The Open-Door Policy: Communication Climate and the Military Supervisor," Air University Review, May-June 1985, pp. 45-51.
Beck's second situational example, "evaluation-description," provides a similarly false dilemma. A major part of supervision is, in fact, evaluation--there is nothing intrinsically shameful or distasteful about that. Beck seems to suggest that subordinates will become disheartened if they perceive that their boss is evaluating them and that consequently they will be "reluctant to approach the supervisor for fear of 'looking bad'." Since when should subordinates not feel responsible for their performance? I have difficulty imagining an effective organization where the workers don't feel some discomfort when they haven't measured up to the boss's expectations.
Similar comments may be addressed to the other four "dichotomies." My observations over the years, as well as some management theories more current than Gibb's 1961 analysis, suggest that "open" communication is not the end-and-be-all for organizational success. Unfortunately, many theoretical and practicing managers seem to accept the desirability of "open" communication without question. I believe that they do so because they have accepted the temptingly simple argument that if subordinates believe they can communicate freely with management, their morale will soar and, in turn, organizational effectiveness will improve.
My view is that such a philosophy puts the cart before the horse. Specifically, high morale is just as likely a result of a highly effective, well-regarded organization as it is a cause. High morale and esprit de corps result from people's awareness that they have been challenged, have excelled, and have contributed to the accomplishment of the organization's goals.
Several years ago, morale was high in a section of a unit that I commanded, but, unfortunately, what little work was being produced by the section was of poor quality. When an opportunity arrived for some of the people of the section to participate in an extracurricular activity (involving several weeks' permissive TDY), I had to say no. Indeed, we all began working six-day weeks to correct the section's deficiencies. Initially, morale plummeted. However, as the quality and quantity of the work products improved, the pride, and therefore the morale, of the people of the section improved commensurately. Once performance reached the satisfactory level, there was time for the extracurricular activities.
In some situations, a relaxed communications climate is simply not desirable. To ferret out the dead wood, focus the effort, and instill a sense of responsibility in complacent employees, the most constructive management approach may, in fact, be to create a "defensive" communications climate, at least temporarily.
Throughout my comments here, I have used the words situation and situational. It seems obvious that a management model ostensibly constructed to apply to all situations is doomed to failure. Different circumstances call for different management approaches. A so-called supportive communication climate may be helpful in sustaining an already healthy organization but may be inadequate to turn around an organization in trouble.
Washington, D.C.
Contributor
Colonel Huebner is Chief, Tactical C3, Navigation and Automation Division at Hq USAF.
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