Sustainability 2011 , 3
2145
Famous examples of the impact of truncated vertical communication include President Nixon’s
infamous Watergate team [92] and President Kennedy’s Bay of Pigs Crisis [93].
Applying general systems theory to Torrance’s research, which means assuming that the societal
level will be the same as the group level, we suggest that leaders of nations experiencing crisis
situations are likely to direct fewer communications to the lower status group: the general populace.
Those in positions of leadership will instead probably engage in lateral communication within a trusted
leadership group while simultaneously reducing vertical communications directed toward mainstream
society. The result will be that mainstream society will receive limited and delayed information
concerning details of the crisis situation. According to Torrance, the opposite is also true at the group
level; when lower group members perceive a large power distance between themselves and their
leader, those lower group members may not feel accountable or obligated to communicate pertinent
decision-making information with those in leadership positions [78]. To elucidate the severity of
consequences to truncated communication within groups, Torrance recounts a story of a lieutenant
colonel who was observed, by four crew members, to be sitting on his unattached dinghy during an
over-water bail-out. The lieutenant colonel perished as none of these crewmembers felt an obligation
to communicate his situation to him [78]. The combined effect of these diminished communication
processes at both the group and societal levels is miscommunication, poor judgment, and incorrect
decisions, sometimes with large consequences.
The establishment of effective communication among intergovernmental groups has, historically,
been a common problem in government. Historically, this issue has been exacerbated by the
propagation of competing objectives and personal agendas [94]. Recent United States Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and Pentagon failures to communicate on superfund sites [95] provide an
example. A second example of competing agendas and poor communication is the 2010 funding of a
600-megawatt wind energy production venture between U.S. and Chinese energy groups (U.S.
Renewable Energy Group, Cielo Wind Power LP, and Shenyang Power Group) in western Texas [96].
Designed to bring renewable energy as well as installation and managerial jobs to the area, this project
was stalled by negative press and congressional concerns regarding the manufacturing source (China)
of component parts for the $450 million (USD) grant [96]. Many of these communication and agenda
issues have been addressed through the formation of Federal government oversight taskforces and
workgroups intended to target specific policy and social issues perceived as having overlapping or
parallel agency efforts. Still, many groups seeking to maximize their own ability to receive “adequate
gratification” from and cope with the impending oil crisis continue to exploit existing divisions
amongst Federal, State, and regional agency efforts. Unless these communication and coordination
issues are purposefully addressed and a common thread of understanding is reached, communication
among groups will continue to be threatened by intra-group and inter-group stress.
6.2. Leadership and Power
According to Torrance, during times of perceived crisis, vertical communication tends to decrease
and leadership groups typically do not seek decision-making input from lower-status individuals
within the group [90]. There is constriction of control and limited downward informational
communication to those in lower levels of the social hierarchy, as this is deemed non-essential and