An intrascopic perspective is prevalent when we consider our neurophysiological and behavioral reactions when anticipating a threatening experience. There is “nothing there,” but we react as if there is something actually there to threaten us. The committee meeting and interview are likely to be much less damaging to our ego than we imagine it will be. As human beings, we are “gifted´–and cursed—with the capacity to imagine roaring lions, attacking bears, dreadful meetings, and challenging interviews. We can add something dreadful to the Void of anticipation and to the nothingness of present, unprocessed reality.
Dissonance-Redux: Leon Festinger’s cognitive dissonance is in full operation when we introduce an Intrascopic perspective. We begin with our beliefs, feelings, and self-concepts, and then adjust our behavior so that it is in accord with our beliefs and, especially, our image of self. If we reintroduce our narrative about giving feedback to a friend, the dissonance begins not with the request for feedback regarding a presentation. Rather, it begins with our reflections on the meeting where our friend made his presentation. I wince a bit when reviewing what he said and how he reacted to critical (and noncritical) comments made by others at the meeting. I wonder if I can somehow provide him with feedback that would be constructive. As in the case of the Exoscopic-based example I already offered, the self-perceptions of both honesty and caring come to the surface, out of “nothingness” (tacitly held senses of self).
I wonder if I “should” provide the feedback. And if I do provide it, how do I make it helpful to my friend—and present it in a manner that does not damage my cherished relationship with this friend? Perhaps I say nothing. Would this “ghost” of betraying my self-perception of honesty “haunt” my future relationship with my friend, especially if he is “wounded” by the outcomes of his presentation? I have been the firefighter who stood by while my friend’s house is burning! My inaction creates an untenable dissonance. So, I decide to take action.
Can I somehow “ease-in” to providing my friend with feedback. I tell him how wonderful his presentation was (which is a lie) but suggest that there are “a couple of things” he might consider. As Argyris and Schön (1974, 1978) have shown, easing-in rarely works. The recipient of our message will “know” that we are offering a “sandwich” message with the “real” feedback being the “meat” and the positive stuff being the unimportant bun that is presented before and after the “meat.” So, I have enough “emotional intelligence” to avoid the easing-in strategy.
Perhaps, I present my friend with a book about effective communication. I am doing an “end run” by offering a book rather than my own reactions. I can also lie and indicate that I “have heard” comments made by other attending the meeting and want to share these complaints with my friend. This alternative end-run is usually detected by other people and leads to mistrust of my feedback and resulting defensive behavior. Another self-concept comes to the surface out of nothingness. This self-concept concerns my interpersonal skills. I have a high EQ (Emotional Intelligence) (Goleman, 1995); but it doesn’t show up when giving indirect or sandwiched feedback to my friend.
What if I “try honesty” (favorite phrase used many years ago by Jack Gibb)? I provide not just a direct description of what I observed regarding my friend’s presentation, but also what I perceive to be the various forms of reactions he got to specific portions of his presentation. Without “sugar coating” my feedback, I try to introduce some of the strengths, as well as shortfalls, of his presentation (an appreciative approach related to “catching them when they’re doing it right’). I indicate what I believe are the positive outcomes associated with my friend “doing it right.” I don’t just say, “you did a good job at this point during your presentation.”
