Paper due tonight...

Barriers and Gateways to Communication

Carl R. Rogers and F. J. Roethlisberger

Harvard Business Review

No. 91610

HBR NOVEMBER–DECEMBER 1991

Barriers and Gateways to Communication

Carl R. Rogers and F. J. Roethlisberger

Part I: Carl R. Rogers cation, or free communication, within or between people is always therapeutic.

It may seem curious that someone like me, a psy- Through my experience in counseling and psycho-

chotherapist, should be interested in problems of therapy, I’ve found that there is one main obstacle

communication. But, in fact, the whole task of psy- to communication: people’s tendency to evaluate.

chotherapy is to deal with a failure in commun- Fortunately, I’ve also discovered that if people can

ication. In emotionally maladjusted people, learn to listen with understanding, they can mitigate

communication within themselves has broken their evaluative impulses and greatly improve their

down, and as a result, their communication with communication with others.

others has been damaged. To put it another way, their unconscious, repressed, or denied desires have created distortions in the way they communicate with others. Thus they suffer both within them- selves and in their interpersonal relationships. Barrier: The Tendency to Evaluate

The goal of psychotherapy is to help an individual achieve, through a special relationship with a thera- We all have a natural urge to judge, evaluate, and pist, good communication within himself or herself. approve (or disapprove) another person’s statement. Once this is achieved, that person can communicate Suppose someone, commenting on what I’ve just more freely and effectively with others. So we may stated, says, ‘‘I didn’t like what that man said.’’ How say that psychotherapy is good communication will you respond? Almost invariably your reply will within and between people. We can turn that state- be either approval or disapproval of the attitude ex- ment around and it will still be true. Good communi- pressed. Either you respond, ‘‘I didn’t either; I

thought it was terrible,’’ or else you say, ‘‘Oh, I thought it was really good.’’ In other words, yourThe late Carl R. Rogers was a professor of psychology at the

University of Chicago when he wrote this article. His many books first reaction is to evaluate it from your point of view. include the groundbreaking Client-Centered Therapy (Houghton Or suppose I say with some feeling, ‘‘I think the Mifflin, 1951). The late F.J. Roethlisberger was the Wallace Brett Democrats are showing a lot of good sound sense Donham Professor of Human Relations at the Harvard Business

these days.’’ What is your first reaction? Most likely,School. He is the author of Man-in-Organization (Harvard Univer- it will be evaluative. You will find yourself agreeingsity Press, 1968) and other books and articles. This article origi-

nally appeared in HBR July-August 1952. or disagreeing, perhaps making some judgment about

Copyright q 1991 by the President and Fellows of Harvard College. All rights reserved.

me such as, ‘‘He must be a liberal,’’ or ‘‘He seems feelings of the previous speaker accurately and to that speaker’s satisfaction.’’solid in his thinking.’’

Although making evaluations is common in al- You see what this would mean. Before presenting your own point of view, you would first have tomost all conversation, this reaction is heightened in

situations where feelings and emotions are deeply achieve the other speaker’s frame of reference. Sounds simple, doesn’t it? But if you try it, you willinvolved. So the stronger the feelings, the less likely

it is that there will be a mutual element in the find it one of the most difficult things you have ever attempted to do. And even when you have been ablecommunication. There will be just two ideas, two

feelings, or two judgments missing each other in psy- to do it, your comments will have to be drastically revised. But you will also find that the emotion ischological space.

If you’ve ever been a bystander at a heated discus- dissipating—the differences are reduced, and those that remain are rational and understandable.sion—one in which you were not emotionally in-

volved—you’ve probably gone away thinking, ‘‘Well, Can you imagine what this kind of approach could accomplish in larger arenas? What would happen tothey actually weren’t talking about the same thing.’’

And because it was heated, you were probably right. a labor-management dispute if labor, without neces- sarily conceding agreement, could accurately stateEach person was making a judgment, an evaluation,

from a personal frame of reference. There was noth- management’s point of view in a way that manage- ment could accept; and if management, without ap-ing that could be called communication in any real

sense. And this impulse to evaluate any emotionally proving labor’s stand, could state labor’s case so that labor agreed it was accurate? It would mean thatmeaningful statement from our own viewpoint is

what blocks interpersonal communication. real communication was established and that some reasonable solution almost surely would be reached.

So why is this ‘‘listening’’ approach not more widely used? There are several reasons.

Lack of Courage. Listening with understandingGateway: Listening with Understanding means taking a very real risk. If you really understand another person in this way, if you are willing to enterWe can achieve real communication and avoid this

evaluative tendency when we listen with under- his private world and see the way life appears to him, without any attempt to make evaluative judgments,standing. This means seeing the expressed idea and

attitude from the other person’s point of view, sens- you run the risk of being changed yourself. You might see things his way; you might find that he has influ-ing how it feels to the person, achieving his or her

frame of reference about the subject being discussed. enced your attitudes or your personality. Most of us are afraid to take that risk. So insteadThis may sound absurdly simple, but it is not. In

fact, it is an extremely potent approach in psycho- we cannot listen; we find ourselves compelled to evaluate because listening seems too dangerous.therapy. It is the most effective way we’ve found to

alter a person’s basic personality structure and to Heightened Emotions. In heated discussions, emo- tions are strongest, so it is especially hard to achieveimprove the person’s relationships and communica-

tions with others. If I can listen to what a person the frame of reference of another person or group. Yet it is precisely then that good listening is requiredcan tell me and really understand how she hates her

father or hates the company or hates conservatives, if communication is to be established. One solution is to use a third party, who is ableor if I can catch the essence of her fear of insanity

or fear of nuclear bombs, I will be better able to to lay aside her own feelings and evaluations, to lis- ten with understanding to each person or group andhelp her alter those hatreds and fears and establish

realistic and harmonious relationships with the peo- then clarify the views and attitudes each holds. This has been effective in small groups in whichple and situations that roused such emotions. We

know from research that such empathic understand- contradictory or antagonistic attitudes exist. When the parties to a dispute realize they are being under-ing—understanding with a person, not about her—is

so effective that it can bring about significant stood, that someone sees how the situation seems to them, the statements grow less exaggerated andchanges in personality.

If you think that you listen well and yet have never less defensive, and it is no longer necessary to main- tain the attitude, ‘‘I am 100% right, and you are 100%seen such results, your listening probably has not

been of the type I am describing. Here’s one way to wrong.’’ The influence of such an understanding catalysttest the quality of your understanding. The next time

you get into an argument with your spouse, friend, in the group permits the members to come closer to seeing the objective truth of the situation. This leadsor small group of friends, stop the discussion for a

moment and suggest this rule: ‘‘Before each person to improved communication, to greater acceptance of each other, and to attitudes that are more positivespeaks up, he or she must first restate the ideas and

106 HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW November–December 1991

and more problem-solving in nature. There is a de- cally defined, the problem is almost certain to yield to intelligent attack; or if it is in part insoluble, itcrease in defensiveness, in exaggerated statements,

in evaluative and critical behavior. Mutual commu- will be comfortably accepted as such. nication is established, and some type of agreement becomes much more possible. Part II: F. J. Roethlisberger

Too Large a Group. Thus far, psychotherapists When we think about the many barriers to per-have been able to observe only small, face-to-face

sonal communication, particularly those due to dif-groups that are working to resolve religious, racial, ferences in background, experience, and motivation,or industrial tensions—or the personal tensions that it seems extraordinary that any two people can everare present in many therapy groups. What about try- understand each other. The potential for problemsing to achieve understanding between larger groups seems especially heightened in the context of a boss-that are geographically remote, for example, or be- subordinate relationship. How is communicationtween face-to-face groups that are speaking not for possible when people do not see and assume the samethemselves but simply as representatives of others? things or share the same values?Frankly, we do not know the answer. Based on our

On this question, there are two schools of thought.limited knowledge, however, there are some steps One school assumes that communication betweenthat even large groups can take to increase the A and B has failed when B does not accept what Aamount of listening with and decrease the amount has to say as being factual, true, or valid; and thatof evaluation about. the goal of communication is to get B to agree withTo be imaginative for a moment, suppose that a A’s opinions, ideas, facts, or information.therapeutically oriented international group went to

The other school of thought is quite different. Iteach of two countries involved in a dispute and said, assumes that communication has failed when B does‘‘We want to achieve a genuine understanding of your not feel free to express his feelings to A because Bviews and, even more important, of your attitudes fears they will not be accepted by A. Communicationand feelings toward X country. We will summarize is facilitated when A or B or both are willing to ex-and resummarize these views and feelings if neces- press and accept differences.sary, until you agree that our description represents

To illustrate, suppose Bill, an employee, is in histhe situation as it seems to you.’’ boss’s office. The boss says, ‘‘I think, Bill, that thisIf they then widely distributed descriptions of is the best way to do your job.’’ And to that, Bill says,these two views, might not the effect be very great? ‘‘Oh yeah?’’It would not guarantee the type of understanding I

According to the first school of thought, this replyhave been describing, but it would make it much would be a sign of poor communication. Bill doesmore possible. We can understand the feelings of not understand the best way of doing his work. Topeople who hate us much more readily when their improve communication, therefore, it is up to theattitudes are accurately described to us by a neutral boss to explain to Bill why the boss’s, not Bill’s, waythird party than we can when they are shaking their is the best.fists at us.

From the second school’s point of view, Bill’s replyCommunication through a moderator who listens is a sign of neither good nor bad communication; itnonevaluatively and with understanding has proven is indeterminate. But the boss can take the opportu-effective, even when feelings run high. This proce- nity to find out what Bill means. Let us assume thatdure can be initiated by one party, without waiting this is what she chooses to do. So this boss tries tofor the other to be ready. It can even be initiated by get Bill to talk more about his job.a neutral third person, provided the person can gain

We’ll call the boss representing the first schoola minimum of cooperation from one of the parties. of thought ‘‘Smith’’ and the boss subscribing to theThe moderator can deal with the insincerities, the second school ‘‘Jones.’’ Given identical situations,defensive exaggerations, the lies, and the ‘‘false each behaves differently. Smith chooses to explain;fronts’’ that characterize almost every failure in com- Jones chooses to listen. In my experience, Jones’smunication. These defensive distortions drop away response works better than Smith’s, because Joneswith astonishing speed as people find that the per- is making a more proper evaluation of what is takingson’s intention is to understand, not to judge. And place between her and Bill than Smith is.when one party begins to drop its defenses, the other

usually responds in kind, and together they begin to uncover the facts of a situation.

Gradually, mutual communication grows. It leads ‘‘Oh Yeah?’’ to a situation in which I see how the problem appears to you as well as to me, and you see how it appears to Smith assumes that he understands what Bill

means when Bill says, ‘‘Oh yeah?’’ so there is nome as well as to you. Thus accurately and realisti-

HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW November–December 1991 107

Retrospective Commentary Reading ‘‘Barriers and Gateways’’ today, it is hard to Greater work force diversity, for example, can compli-

understand the stir the article created when it was first cate communication, as a common language of shared published. But in 1952, Rogers’s and Roethlisberger’s assumptions and experiences becomes harder to estab- ideas about the importance of listening were indeed lish. Indeed, if in 1952 Roethlisberger thought it ‘‘ex- radical. Not only did they stake out new territory that traordinary’’ that any two people could communicate, was anathema to the gray flannel ethic—namely, the given their ‘‘differences in background, experience, and idea that people’s feelings mattered. But they also chal- motivation,’’ he would surely have thought it a miracle lenged the sanctity of hierarchical relationships by sug- today. gesting that managers take their subordinates’ thoughts Checking the natural tendency to judge yields a bet- and feelings seriously. ter understanding of the person with whom you are

Today, however, these insights are so basic as to be communicating. Of course, greater diversity also makes obvious, which shows how much impact their ideas disciplined listening all the more important—because have had and how far management communication has the potential for misunderstanding is greater. This gate- come. Or has it? Contemporary managers do have a way, then, is more vital than ever. By suspending as- better grasp of how important listening is to good com- sumptions and judgments, a manager can get to the munication. Nonetheless, most still have a hard time heart of an employee’s feelings, a better signpost to what putting this lesson into practice. One reason could be the employee is saying than his or her words alone. their own sophistication: simple lessons can be easily A better understanding of the other person’s point of forgotten. Another reason, however, could be that this view in turn helps you communicate better. Effective lesson is not so simple after all, that what the authors communication is equal parts listening and expression; told us 40 years ago is more difficult to do than it appears the clarity of one depends on the clarity of another. A and is really only half the story. The benefit of revisiting manager with a clearer picture of whom he’s talking to R&R, then, is both to remind ourselves of still-relevant, is able to express himself more accurately. indeed powerful, insights and to find, from the vantage These insights have been the impetus behind a num- point of 40 years later, what R&R might have over- ber of progressive practices—corporate efforts to em- looked. power employees, for example. When a manager shows

What speaks loudest to business today are three in- a willingness to listen to an employee, she is more likely sights that in fact transcend institutional and social to engender trust and thus honesty. And by encouraging boundaries: they are the communication barriers and the employee to talk straight, without fear of reprisal, gateways that, as the authors show, can occur between she boosts his self-confidence because he sees that the two nations as well as between two individuals. These organization values his input. What’s more, the manager insights have endured because they are basic truths stays tapped into a vital information source—the front about human interaction. lines.

The greatest barrier to effective communication is Or consider the technique of ‘‘active listening,’’ devel- the tendency to evaluate what another person is saying oped in the 1970s and still widely used in many man- and therefore to misunderstand or to not really ‘‘hear.’’ agement- and sales-training programs. A salesperson The Bill and Smith scenario, which vividly illustrates applying active listening, for example, reacts nonjudg- this process, rings true today because such communica- mentally to what a prospect is saying, rephrasing it to tion breakdowns still happen routinely. In fact, in to- make sure he truly understands the customer’s point day’s arguably more complex business environment, of view. The benefits are twofold. First, this process they may be more likely to happen. minimizes the likelihood that the salesperson is laying

need to find out. Smith is sure that Bill does not or (2) Bill is too stupid to understand. So he has to either ‘‘spell out’’ his case in words of fewer andunderstand why this is the best way to do his job,

so Smith has to tell him. fewer syllables or give up. Smith is reluctant to give up, so he continues to explain. What happens?In this process, let us assume Smith is logical,

lucid, and clear. He presents his facts and evidence The more Smith cannot get Bill to understand him, the more frustrated and emotional Smith becomes—well. But, alas, Bill remains unconvinced. What does

Smith do? Operating under the assumption that what and the more Smith’s ability to reason logically is diminished. Since Smith sees himself as a reason-is taking place between him and Bill is something

essentially logical, Smith can draw only one of two able, logical chap, this is a difficult thing for him to accept. It is much easier to perceive Bill as uncooper-conclusions: either (1) he has not been clear enough

108 HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW November–December 1991

his biases on the customer’s needs. Second, the prospect the Joneses of this world have good reason for not open- feels listened to and understood. ing up, especially when people believe that their true

Ultimately, though, R&R may have had too much feelings of beliefs may get them fired. faith in nonevaluative listening. Researchers doing Even so, these limitations don’t entirely explain why, work in this field, and, for that matter, managers trying some 40 years later, a salesperson can win over clients to apply these lessons, now realize how overly optimis- with active listening but a manager fails to have the tic the authors were. First, a fundamental but unarticu- slightest idea what makes his employees tick. This is lated premise is that understanding equals resolution, because managers face still another, more significant, but this is not the case. While understanding can im- barrier, one I call the managerial paradox: while it is prove the negotiation process—as various research, crucial that managers be able to listen nonjudgmentally from Richard Walton’s work in labor relations to Roger (to understand other points of view and get valid infor- Fisher’s in international negotiations, has shown—it mation), the essence of management is to do just the cannot by itself resolve conflict. opposite—to make judgments. Managers are called on

Second, the process of establishing trust is not as one- daily to evaluate product lines, markets, numbers, and, dimensional as R&R imply. Jones would probably not of course, people. And in turn, they are evaluated on be able to secure Bill’s trust merely by showing a com- how well they do this. The danger, then, is that this mitment to nonevaluative listening. Bill will assess bias for judging will subvert a manager’s inclination to many other aspects of Jones’s behavior and character in listen carefully and, in doing so, sabotage his or her deciding whether to talk openly with her: her motives, ability to make accurate business and people judgments. her discretion, the consistency of her behavior, even Managers may be tempted to resolve this paradox as her managerial competence. Only if this assessment is an either/or. And for good reason: rarely in their training positive will Bill respond candidly to Jones’s overtures. have the two mind-sets been reconciled. Business Thus, as a rule, a minimum baseline of confidence is schools, for the most part, still reinforce evaluative lis- needed to evoke the kind of trust that honest communi- tening; they teach students to defend their own posi- cation requires. This is especially true where there is a tions while scoring points against others’. And those power imbalance, which tends to foster greater initial behavioral experts who do focus on nonevaluative lis- distrust. (This dynamic works both ways: an employee tening tend to focus almost exclusively on the impor- may distrust her manager for fear of reprisal; but a man- tance of empathy. But if one thing has made itself clear ager may distrust his employee for fear that she’ll say in the past 40 years, it is that managers must have the only what he wants to hear.) capacity to do both. They must recognize that to make

Finally, managers today come up against a few more judgments, you must suspend judgment. communication barriers than R&R envisioned. One is the pressure of time. Listening carefully takes time, and managers have little of that to spare. In today’s business culture especially, with its emphasis on speed (over-

John J. Gabarro is the UPS Foundation Professor of Human night mail, faster computers, time-based competition),

Resource Management at the Harvard Business School. He is already pressed managers may give short shrift to the the author or coauthor of five books, including Interpersonal slower art of one-on-one communication. Behavior with Anthony G. Athos (Harvard Business School

Another barrier in this era of mergers, acquisitions, Press, 1987) and The Dynamics of Taking Charge (Prentice and delayering is insecurity and the fear that is breeds. Hall, 1978), which won the 1988 New Directions in Leadership When downsizing and layoffs loom, both the Bills and Award.

ative or stupid. This perception will affect what to Bill why this is the best way to do his job,Smith is trying to be helpful. He is a man of goodwill, andSmith says and does.

Under these pressures, Smith evaluates Bill more he wants to set Bill straight. This is the way Smith sees himself and his behavior. But it is for this veryand more in terms of his own values and tends to

treat Bill’s as unimportant, essentially denying Bill’s reason that Bill’s ‘‘Oh yeah?’’ is getting under Smith’s skin.uniqueness and difference. He treats Bill as if he had

little capacity for self-direction. ‘‘How dumb can a guy be?’’ is Smith’s attitude, and unfortunately Bill will hear that more thanLet us be clear. Smith does not see that he is doing

these things. When he is feverishly scratching hiero- Smith’s good intentions. Bill will feel misunder- stood. He will not see Smith as a man of goodwillglyphics on the back of an envelope, trying to explain

HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW November–December 1991 109

trying to be helpful. Rather he will perceive him as I grant that my two orientations do not work in practice quite so neatly as I have worked them outa threat to his self-esteem and personal integrity.

Against this threat Bill will feel the need to defend on paper. There are many other ways in which Bill could have responded to Smith in the first place. Hehimself at all cost. Not being so logically articulate

as Smith, Bill expresses this need by saying, again, might even have said, ‘‘OK, boss, I agree that your way of doing my job is better.’’ But Smith still would‘‘Oh yeah?’’

Let us leave this sad scene between Smith and Bill, not have known how Bill felt when he made this statement or whether Bill was actually going to dowhich I fear is going to end with Bill either leaving

in a huff or being kicked out of Smith’s office. Let his job differently. Likewise, Bill could have re- sponded to Jones differently. In spite of Jones’s atti-us turn for a moment to Jones and see how she is

interacting with Bill. tude, Bill might still have been reluctant to express himself freely to his boss.Jones, remember, does not assume that she knows

what Bill means when he says, ‘‘Oh yeah?’’ so she Nevertheless, these examples give me something concrete to point to in making the following general-has to find out. Moreover, she assumes that when

Bill said this, he had not exhausted his vocabulary izations. 1. Smith represents a very common pattern of mis-or his feelings. Bill may mean not just one thing but

several different things. So Jones decides to listen. understanding. The misunderstanding does not arise because Smith is not clear enough in expressing him-In this process, Jones is not under any illusion that

what will happen will be a purely logical exchange. self. Rather, Smith misevaluates what takes place when two people are talking together.Rather she is assuming that what happens will be

primarily an interaction of feelings. Therefore, she 2. Smith’s misunderstanding of the process of per- sonal communication is based on common assump-cannot ignore Bill’s feelings, the effect of Bill’s feel-

ings on her, or the effect of her feelings on Bill. In tions: (a) that what is taking place is something logical; (b) that words mean something in and ofother words, she cannot ignore her relationship to

Bill; she cannot assume that it will make no differ- themselves, apart from the people speaking them; and (c) that the purpose of the interaction is to getence to what Bill will hear or accept.

Therefore, Jones will be paying strict attention to Bill to see things from Smith’s point of view. 3. These assumptions set off a chain reaction ofall of the things Smith has ignored. She will be ad-

dressing herself to Bill’s feelings, her own feelings, perceptions and negative feelings, which blocks com- munication. By ignoring Bill’s feelings and rationaliz-and the interaction between them.

Jones will therefore realize that she has ruffled ing his own, Smith ignores his relationship to Bill as an important determinant of their communica-Bill’s feelings with her comment, ‘‘I think, Bill, this

is the best way to do your job.’’ So instead of trying tion. As a result, Bill hears Smith’s attitude more clearly than the logical content of Smith’s words.to get Bill to understand her, she decides to try to

understand Bill. She does this by encouraging Bill to Bill feels that his uniqueness is being denied. Since his personal integrity is at stake, he becomes defen-speak. Instead of telling Bill how he should feel or

think, she asks Bill such questions as, ‘‘Is this what sive and belligerent. And this frustrates Smith. He perceives Bill as stupid, so he says and does thingsyou feel?’’ ‘‘Is this what you see?’’ ‘‘Is this what you

assume?’’ Instead of ignoring Bill’s evaluations as that make Bill still more defensive. 4. Jones makes a different set of assumptions: (a)irrelevant, not valid, inconsequential, or false, she

tries to understand Bill’s reality as he feels it, per- that what is taking place between her and Bill is an interaction of sentiments; (b) that Bill—not his wordsceives it, and assumes it to be. As Bill begins to open

up, Jones’s curiosity is piqued by this process. in themselves—means something; and (c) that the object of the interaction is to give Bill a chance to‘‘Bill isn’t so dumb; he’s quite an interesting guy’’

becomes Jones’s attitude. And that is what Bill hears. express himself. 5. Because of these assumptions, there is a psycho-Therefore Bill feels understood and accepted as a

person. He becomes less defensive. He is in a better logical chain reaction of reinforcing feelings and per- ceptions that eases communication between Bill andframe of mind to explore and reexamine his percep-

tions, feelings, and assumptions. Bill feels free to Jones. When Jones addresses Bill’s feelings and per- ceptions from Bill’s point of view, Bill feels under-express his differences. In this process, he sees Jones

as a source of help and feels that Jones respects his stood and accepted as a person; he feels free to express his differences. Bill sees Jones as a source of help;capacity for self-direction. These positive feelings

toward Jones make Bill more inclined to say, ‘‘Well, Jones sees Bill as an interesting person. Bill, in turn, becomes more cooperative.Jones, I don’t quite agree with you that this is the

best way to do my job, but I’ll tell you what I’ll do. If I have identified correctly these very common patterns of personal communication, then we canI’ll try to do it that way for a few days, and then I’ll

tell you what I think.’’ infer some interesting hypotheses:

110 HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW November–December 1991

▫ Jones’s method works better than Smith’s not be- ent from their own, little is done to help them learn to apply this intellectual appreciation to simple, face-cause of any magic but because Jones has a better

map of the process of personal communication. to-face relationships. Students are trained to be logi- cal and clear—but no one helps them learn to listen▫ Jones’s method, however, is not merely an intellec-

tual exercise. It depends on Jones’s capacity and will- skillfully. As a result, our educated world contains too many Smiths and too few Joneses.ingness to see and accept points of view that are

different from her own and to practice this orienta- The biggest block between two people is their in- ability to listen to each other intelligently, under-tion in a face-to-face relationship. This is an emo-

tional and intellectual achievement. It depends in standingly, and skillfully. This deficiency in the modern world is widespread and appalling. We needpart on Jones’s awareness of herself, in part on the

practice of a skill. to make greater efforts to educate people in effective communication—which means, essentially, teach-▫ Although universities try to get students to ap-

preciate, at least intellectually, points of view differ- ing people how to listen.

HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW November–December 1991 111