Rejected Plans Case
The following dialogue occurred between two employees in a large firm. The conversation illustrates several characteristics of supportive communication.
SUSETTE: How did your meeting go with Mr. Schmidt yesterday?
LEONARDO: Well, uh, it went ... aaah ... it was no big deal.
SUSETTE: It looks as if you're pretty upset about it.
LEONARDO: Yeah, I am. It was a totally frustrating experience. I, uh, well, let's just say I would like to forget the whole thing.
SUSETTE: Things must not have gone as well as you had hoped they would.
LEONARDO: I'll say! That guy was impossible. I thought the plans I submitted were very clear and well thought out. Then he rejected the entire package.
SUSETTE: You mean he didn't accept any of them?
LEONARDO: You got it.
SUSETTE: I've seen your work before, Leonardo. You've always done a first-rate job. It's hard for me to figure out why your plans were rejected by Schmidt. What did he say about them?
LEONARDO: He said they were unrealistic and too difficult to implement, and ...
SUSETTE: Really?
LEONARDO: Yeah, and when he said that I felt he was attacking me personally. But, on the other hand, I was also angry because I thought my plans were very good, and, you know, I paid close attention to every detail in those plans.
SUSETTE: I'm certain that you did.
LEONARDO: It just really ticks me off.
SUSETTE: I'll bet it does. I would be upset, too.
LEONARDO: Schmidt has something against me.
SUSETTE: After all the effort you put into those plans, you still couldn't figure out whether Schmidt was rejecting you or your plans, right?
LEONARDO: Yeah. Right. How could you tell?
SUSETTE: I can really understand your confusion and uncertainty when you felt Schmidt's actions were unreasonable.
LEONARDO: I just don't understand why he did what he did.
SUSETTE: Sure. If he said your plans were unrealistic, what does that mean? I mean, how can you deal with a rationale like that? It's just too general—meaningless, even. Did he mention anything specific? Did you ask him to point out some problems or explain the reasons for his rejection more clearly?
LEONARDO: Good point, but, uh, you know ... I was so disappointed at the rejection that I was kinda like in outer space. You know what I mean?
SUSETTE: Yeah. It's an incapacitating experience. You have so much invested personally that you try to divest as fast as you can to save what little self-respect is left.
LEONARDO: That's it all right. I just wanted to get out of there before I said something I would be sorry for.
SUSETTE: Yet, in the back of your mind, you probably figured that Schmidt wouldn't risk the company's future just because he didn't like you personally. But then, well ... the plans were good! It's hard to deal with that contradiction on the spot, isn't it?
LEONARDO: Exactly. I knew I should have pushed him for more information, but, uh, I just stood there like a dummy. But what can you do about it now? It's spilled milk.
SUSETTE: I don't think it's a total loss, Leonardo. I mean, from what you have told me—what he said and what you said—I don't think that a conclusion can be reached. Maybe he doesn't understand the plans, or maybe it was just his off day. Who knows? It could be a lot of things. What would you think about pinning Schmidt down by asking for his objections, point by point? Do you think it would help to talk to him again?
LEONARDO: Well, I would sure know a lot more than I know now. As it is, I wouldn't know where to begin revising or modifying the plans. And you're right, I really don't know what Schmidt thinks about me or my work. Sometimes I just react and interpret with little or no evidence.
SUSETTE: Maybe, uh ... maybe another meeting would be a good thing, then.
LEONARDO: Well, I guess I should get off my duff and schedule an appointment with him for next week. I am curious to find out what the problem is, with the plans, or me. (Pause) Thanks, Susette, for helping me work through this thing.
Categorize each statement in the case according to the supportive communication characteristic or type of response it represents. For example, the first statement by Leonardo obviously is not very congruent, but the second one is much more so.
Alligators are apex predators capable of killing large terrestrial prey. This large AAmerican alliga
The proboscis monkey demonstrates that large gut size contributes to a lower EQ.
J. P. Morgan, the financial genius, staved off ruinous competition among steel firms by combining mo
Firm handshake
The Scale of the Very Small and Very Large: Powers of 10