Zx BEYOND-PERSONALITY INVENTORY

zxINTERPERSONAL FEEDBACK:
PROBLEMS AND RECONCEPTUALIZATION

Raymond V. Rasmussen

In the field of cybernetics, the term ÒfeedbackÓ is used to describe an essential component of self-regulating devices (Ruben, 1972). A thermostat is a familiar example. In human relations, ÒfeedbackÓ has been used to refer to a process of information gathering and correction: One person feeds back his or her perceptions of another person so that the second person can make his or her social or work behavior more effective.

A number of writers have said that giving and receiving feedback is one of the most important processes in group dynamics (Devine, 1976; DiBerardinis, 1978; Hanson, 1973; Lundgren & Schaeffer, 1976). Schein and Bennis (1965) have stated that practically all human learning is based on obtaining information about performance (feedback) and then determining how far the performance deviates from a desired goal. According to these authors, feedback shakes up or ÒunfreezesÓ people by creating a perceived threat to their self-concepts. The unfreezing process elicits a need for change. Support for this notion comes from a review of the T-group literature by Campbell and Dunnette (1968), who found that the reception of negative feedback stimulates a group member to alter his or her level of self-satisfaction and to try new behaviors.

Feedback is also a widely prescribed strategy in the management literature (Hackman & Oldham, 1976; Luthans & Kreitner, 1975; Tosi & Carroll, 1970). The utility of interpersonal feedback in the organization has been explained by several writers. For example, Myers and Myers (1973) state that in order to be effective in an organization, people need to know how their behavior impacts others. Solomon (1977) has stated:

Feedback...can help an individual become more effective in his interpersonal relations, on-the-job behavior, and task accomplishment. If a personÕs behavior is not having desirable or intended effects, he can change it. Without feedback, the impact of his behavior on others may never be fully or accurately known. (p. 185)

Although feedback has many potential benefits, it also seems clear that it does not always work in practice. Pfeiffer and Jones (1972) have stated that unrestricted, untethered truth can create high levels of anxiety and can cause people to become less able to accomplish their goals; Solomon (1977) suggested that feedback can lead to long-term reprisals; Lundgren and Schaeffer (1976) found that negative feedback was 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, ÒFor 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.Ó

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 skillfuldelivery (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), ÒEver since Machiavelli, and perhaps before, there has been a fear of control and manipulation of one personÕs behavior for the benefit of another.Ó

The perspective of the behaviorist school also sheds light on why feedback may be a problematic process. According to the behaviorists, society primarily uses aversive or punishment-oriented control techniques (Luthans & Kreitner, 1975; Skinner, 1953). Thus, negative feelings that are associated with being controlled by aversive methods have become associated with any attempt to control behavior, even if the attempt is intended to be helpful.

POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE FEEDBACK

A second reason why change-oriented feedback may cause problems concerns the focus of the feedback. Although some writers emphasize that both positive and negative feedback can be given in a group context (Luthi, 1978; Solomon, 1977), the Schein and Bennis (1965) learning model clearly emphasizes that it is negative feedback that is disconfirming and causes unfreezing and the need for change to occur.

The emphasis on feeding back any negative information is strongly opposed by the behaviorists (Gambril, 1977; Luthans & Kreitner, 1975), who believe that the best way to create behavioral change is to focus on positive or desired behaviors and to ignore undesirable behaviors. In their view, negative feedback probably constitutes a punishing experience for most people and can lead to detrimental side effects (for example, anxiety, reduced performance, defensiveness, reprisal).

The counseling literature takes a similar view. Berenson and Mitchell (1969) have distinguished five major types of confrontation, including ÒstrengthÓ confrontation, focused on the resources of the person being confronted, and ÒweaknessÓ confrontation, focused on the pathology or liabilities of the person being confronted. Their research indicates that effective helpers use strength confrontations more frequently and weakness confrontations less frequently than ineffective helpers.

FEEDBACK AND VALUES

The difficulties of the feedback process can be understood further by considering the issue of values. A person who sets a thermostat decides on a ÒgoodÓ temperature. The thermostat does not care. However, in human systems, there often is more than one definition of the desirable state. Discussion and clarification not only of behaviors but also of conflicting values often are required. If, for example, there is consensus among group members that it is good to be assertive and members of the group provide feedback about certain behaviors of an unassertive member, the information could help the recipient to become more assertive. If, however, the values of those providing the feedback are not accepted as correct, the feedback may indicate a need to examine the system as a whole. It may be that the ÒunassertiveÓ personÕs values are of a higher order than those of the other members of the group. It also may be that the person who initiated the feedback could benefit from examining his or her reactions to ÒunassertiveÓ people.

HELPING OR CONFLICT MANAGEMENT?

Another difficulty in the feedback process has to do with whether feedback is perceived as part of a helping or conflict-management process. In most group situations, the people who are sending feedback probably see themselves in helping roles whereas, in reality, their position may be better described as being in conflict with those of the other people. That is, if one person experiences a drive to send feedback to another person, it usually is because he or she feels that there is something bothersome or wrong with the other personÕs behavior. It is probably for these reasons that Rogers (1970) prefers to use the term ÒconfrontationÓ for encounter situations in which people give each other feedback and why EganÕs (1970, p. 295) definition of confrontation is so similar to what others have called feedback: ÒConfrontation takes place when one person, either deliberately or inadvertently, does something that causes or directs another person to reflect upon, examine, question, or change some aspect of his behavior.Ó

When conflict-oriented feedback is sent in the guise of a helping gesture, there is a problem for both sender and recipient. The sender-helper is certain that the problem rests with the other and that the solution is for the other to change. Thus, the sender fails to examine his or her own values and behavior. The problem is compounded because the would-be helper is frustrated when the recipient-helpee indicates an unwillingness to accept the information and to change his or her behavior.

On the other side, the recipient may feel grateful because of the attention or intention to help, but probably also feels hurt and resentful because of sensed criticism and the impression that a comfortable behavior is being attacked.

A skilled helper should be able to distinguish between conflict and helping feedback. According to Egan (1975), conflictual feedback stems from a discrepancy between the senderÕs values and the values and behaviors of the recipient. Helping feedback is based on the discrepancies between the recipientÕs values and behaviors. People who attempt to give feedback in either group or organizational contexts are unlikely to be operating at this level of sophistication. In fact, they simply accept the trainerÕs implicit suggestion that feedback is ÒhelpfulÓ and, thus, think of themselves as helpers.

In summary, little attention has been paid to the willingness of the recipient of feedback to change his or her behavior. Unwillingness may stem from several factors: whether the recipient perceives the feedback as control, whether the feedback is positive or negative, whether the feedback is based on the senderÕs or recipientÕs values, and whether the feedback is described as ÒhelpÓ when it would better be described as Òconflict.Ó

RECOMMENDATIONS

If the points made in this article are accepted, prescriptions that have been suggested elsewhere for making the feedback process more effective can be expanded and, in some cases, should be modified.

First, people giving feedback should be able to distinguish between conflict-based feedback and helping-oriented feedback. If the feedback is conflict based, a conflict-resolution process should be utilized. Then the feedback would be merely the start of an examination by both the initiator and the recipient to examine the behavior in question with respect to their different value systems. The resolution could entail a change of attitude or behavior on the part of either the initiator or the recipient or both. Although accuracy of transmission is important, it is less important than the recognition that the situation is conflictual. GordonÕs (1970) system of Parent Effectiveness Training, GibbÕs (1961) Problem Orientation, and HarrisÕs (1969) Transactional Analysis model are examples of conflict-management processes based on these premises.

Second, some behaviors that would be appropriate in a helping situation would be inappropriate in a conflict situation. For example, consensual validation by others in a conflict situation would be likely to be thought of as interference and could hinder the resolution of the conflict.

Third, in either a conflict or a helping situation, an effort to reinforce desired behaviors and ignore undesirable behaviors would probably be more effective than describing, and thus implicitly criticizing, undesirable behaviors.

Fourth, in any feedback situation, it should be acknowledged that the feedback is likely to evoke negative affect and feelings of resistance. The message that feedback can lead to growth and therefore is something that one should gracefully accept denies the reality of the situation and compounds the problem by placing pressure on the recipient.

Fifth, in a conflict-based situation, the sender of the feedback may well use the urge to send feedback as the beginning of a self-examination that may lead to a change in his or her own attitudes or behavior. This person then may or may not choose to send the feedback.

In summary, problems with the use of feedback in human systems stem from two sources: the difficulty in transmitting messages accurately and the degree of willingness of the recipient to use the transmitted information. The literature deals primarily with techniques for transmission and largely ignores the issue of the willingness of the recipient. The suggestions in this article for modifying and adding to the prescriptions for users of the feedback process provide an area for further exploration of the use of feedback in group and organizational settings.

REFERENCES

Argyris, C. (1962). Interpersonal competence and organizational effectiveness. Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press.

Berenson, B.C., & Mitchell, K. (1969). Confrontation in counseling and life. Unpublished manuscript, American International College, Springfield, MA.

Blumberg, H.H. (1972). Communication of interpersonal evaluations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 23, 157162.

Budd, R.W. (1972). Encounter groups: An approach to human communication. In R.W. Budd & B.D. Ruben (Eds.), Approaches to human communication. Rochelle Park, NJ: Hayden.

Campbell, J.D., & Dunnette, M.D. (1968). Effectiveness of T-group experience in managerial training and development. Psychological Bulletin, 70, 73104.

Devine, D. A. (1976). Interpersonal feedback as consensual validation of constructs. In J.W. Pfeiffer & J.E. Jones (Eds.), The 1976 annual handbook for group facilitators. San Diego, CA: Pfeiffer & Company.

DiBerardinis, J.P. (1978). The effects of videotape feedback on group and self-satisfaction. Group & Organization Studies, 3(1),108114.

Egan, G. (1970). Encounter: Group process for interpersonal growth. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Egan, G. (1975). The skilled helper. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Fisher, C.D. (1979). Transmission of positive and negative feedback to subordinates: A laboratory investigation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64(5), 533540.

Fitts, W.T.. & Ravdin, I.S. (1953). What Philadelphia physicians tell their patients with cancer. Journal of the American Medical Association, 153, 901908.

Gambril, E.D. (1977). Behavior modification: Handbook of assessment, intervention, and evaluation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Gibb, J.R. (1961). Defensive communication. Journal of Communication, 11(3), 141148.

Gordon, T. (1970). Parent effectiveness training. New York: Wyden.

Hackman, J.R., & Oldham, G.R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organization Behavior and Human Performance, 16, 250279.

Hanson, P.G. (1973). The Johari window: A model for soliciting and giving feedback. In J.E. Jones & J.W. Pfeiffer (Eds.), The 1973 annual handbook for group facilitators. San Diego, CA: Pfeiffer & Company.

Hanson, P.G. (1975). Giving feedback: An interpersonal skill. In J.E. Jones & J.W. Pfeiffer (Eds.), The 1975 annual handbook for group facilitators. San Diego, CA: Pfeiffer & Company.

Harris, T. (1969). IÕm ok, youÕre ok. New York: Harper & Row.

Keltner, J.W. (1973). Elements of interpersonal communication. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Kurtz, R.R., & Jones, J.E. (1973). Confrontation: Types, conditions, and outcomes. In J.E. Jones & J.W. Pfeiffer (Eds.), The 1973 annual handbook for group facilitators. San Diego, CA: Pfeiffer & Company.

Lundgren, D.C., & Schaeffer, C. (1976). Feedback processes in sensitivity training groups. Human Relations,29(8), 763782.

Luthans, F., & Kreitner, R. (1975). Organization behavior modification. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.

Luthi, J.R. (1978). Cards: Personal feedback. In J.W. Pfeiffer & J.E. Jones (Eds.), The 1978 annual handbook for group facilitators. San Diego, CA: Pfeiffer & Company.

McGinnes, E., & Ferster, C. (1971). The reinforcement of social behavior. Boston, MA: Houghton-Mifflin.

Mill, C.R. (1976). Feedback: The art of giving and receiving help. In L. Porter & C.R. Mill (Eds.), Reading book for human relations training. Washington, DC: NTL Institute for Applied Behavioral Science.

Morris, W.C., & Sashkin, M. (1976). Feedback: Helping others learn to share information. Organization behavior in action. St. Paul, MN: West.

Myers, G.E., & Myers, M.T. (1973). The dynamics of human communication: A laboratory approach. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Oken, D. (1961). What to tell cancer patients. Journal of the American Medical Association, 175, 11201128.

Pfeiffer, J.W., & Jones, J.E. (1972). Openness, collusion, and feedback. In J.W. Pfeiffer & J.E. Jones (Eds.), The 1972 annual handbook for group facilitators. San Diego, CA: Pfeiffer & Company.

Porter, L. (1974). A longer look at feedback: Skill building for senders and receivers. Social Change, 4(3), 122124.

Rogers, C.R. (1970). Encounter groups. New York: Harper & Row.

Ruben, B.D. (1972). General system theory: An approach to human communication. In R.W. Budd & B.D. Ruben (Eds.), Approaches to human communication. Rochelle Park, NJ: Hayden.

Schein, E.H., & Bennis, W.G. (1965). Personal and organizational change through group methods: The laboratory approach. New York: John Wiley.

Skinner, B.F. (1953). Science and human behavior. New York: Macmillan.

Solomon, L.N. (1977). Team development: A training approach. In J.E. Jones & J.W. Pfeiffer (Eds.), The 1977 annual handbook for group facilitators. San Diego, CA: Pfeiffer & Company.

Tesser, A., & Rosen, S. (1975). The reluctance to transmit bad news. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 8). New York: Academic Press.

Tesser, A., Rosen, S., & Tesser, M. (1971). On the reluctance to communicate undesirable messages: A field study. Psychological Reports, 29, 651654.

Tosi, H.L., & Carroll, S. (1970). Management by objectives. Personnel Administration, 33, 4448.

zxTHE LOST ART OF FEEDBACK

Hank Karp

The ability and the willingness to communicate effectively are the keys to supervisory success. Although communication effectiveness is based on the ability to make and maintain effective contact, regardless of the situation, specific areas of communications require some additional thought and planning.