'''Accurate communication is only possible between equals.''' -  RobertAntonWilson 

In any situation of Authority and Submission, the Superior is in a position to punish or ignore subordinates who report information that does not fit their preconceived notions, and reward those who report information which does. As a result, those in the subordinate position are discouraged from accurate representation of awkward facts to avoid punishment, and encouraged to report only those facts for which they will be rewarded.

A classic example of this was General MacClellan and the Pinkerton agents, during the US Civil War. In virtually all his campaigns, MacClellan believed that the Army of Virginia under Lee outnumbered the Army of the Potomac by at least three to one. Whenever agents of the Pinkerton Security Company (who served as paid spies for the Union) reported that the actual Confederate forces were much smaller, MacClellan invariably dismissed the claims as inaccurate, while those who presented wildly inflated figures were recommended for promotion. As a result, MacClellan, who had numerical superiority in nearly every battle he fought, consistently acted as if he were about to be routed, and usually was. Even when he had a copy of the enemy plans and roll (as happened at Antietam), he still assumed that there were more forces than he had information about waiting in the wings.

''Certainly that sort of thing is common, but "Accurate communication is only possible between equals" doesn't follow. I think the better point is that this is one reason why there are so very '''few''' truly competent superiors, from the PointyHairedBoss up to the CEO. Their number is not zero, though.''

I would concur.  Just because inaccurate communication is possible between a subordinate and a superior does not imply that accurate communication is impossible, nor does it address the possibility of accurate communication between peers.  Perhaps a supporter of the initial assertion can provide some additional justification?

''I will grant that there is a certain amount of hyperbole in this, like with all folklore 'laws'. Still, the main argument is simple: no matter how benevolent the superior is, or how loyal the subordinate, the relationship between them is inevitably colored by the fact that the subordinate is in the superior's power, and conversely, that the superior is endebted to the subordinate to complete goals and provide information. This will cause most subordinates to try to present any bad news in the best possible light, to avoid angering the superior, which tends to skew the viewpoints of the superiors. Conversely, the superior, being in a position of power, invariably tends to see themselves as more informed of the 'big picture' than the subordinates, and thus tends to discount anything that does not match their expectations. Even if one subordinate has sufficient bravery or ambition to accurately report problems, and the manager sufficiently competent to set aside personal assumptions, the manager is still likely to discount those reports since they contradict those from other subordinates. Furthermore, the interdependence of the superior on the subordinates can in a highly competitive situatin cause them to approach each other from a position of paranoia, and view any information from others as intentionally distorted for the sake of self-promotion. - JayOsako''

----
As an aside, the following is a widely distributed piece of FaxLore which is often associated with the SnafuPrinciple. While it does not make an argument for it's universality, it does demonstrate the phenomenon quite well.

 '''The Plan'''

 In the beginning was the plan,
 and from the plan came the specification;
 And the plan was without substance,
 and the specification was void.

 And darkness
 was on the faces of the workers;
 And they spake unto their leader,
 saying:
 ''"It is a crock of shit,''
 ''and it stinks of the sewer."''

 And the leader took pity on them,
 and spoke to the project leader:
 ''"It is a pot of excrement,''
 ''and none may abide the odor thereof."''

 And the project leader, troubled at this news,
 spake unto his section head, saying:
 ''"It is a container of manure,''
 ''and it is very strong, such that none may abide it."''

 The section head then hurried to his department manager,
 and informed him thus:
 ''"It is a vessel of fertilizer,''
 ''and none may abide its strength."''

 The department manager carried these words
 to his general manager,
 and spoke unto him
 saying:
 ''"It containeth that which aideth the growth of plants,''
 ''and it is very strong."''

 And so it was that the general manager rejoiced
 and delivered the good news unto the Vice President.
 ''"It promoteth growth,''
 ''and it is very powerful."''

 The Vice President rushed to the President's side,
 and joyously exclaimed:
 ''"This powerful new product''
 ''will promote the growth of the company!"''

 And the President looked upon the product,
 and saw that it was very good.

 This is how Shit Happens.
----