The authors suggest that in this academic atmosphere critical evaluation

The authors suggest that in this academic atmosphere critical evaluation rather than

agreement or acquiescence was the more highly regarded. It may also be the case that

comments to do with the work in hand are more often directed to high-power individuals

in the hope that suggested changes are adopted-the assumption being that low-power

individuals are ‘powerless’ to implement changes even if they agree with them.

To sum up, many writers suggest that powerful superiors are not likely to receive

information about their errors or mistakes. Other writers believe that work¬oriented

executives might be expected to communicate especially about their adverse and

difficult problems to individuals who can advise or assist them. As one manager in the

study put it: ‘An influential boss is the only one worth having-it’s no use taking your

problems to a fellow who hasn’t the authority or resources to solve them.’

Table shows that in this study superiors with greater power received more accurate

information about their subordinates’ problems than their less influential colleagues. The

background of the managers may be an important factor in this finding. Like the students

and academics of Perlmutter and Hymovitch’s study, the managers involved were well

educated and many had received technical or science degrees. It may be that among

these managers constructive comment and criticism