COMMUNICATION: A PAIRED ROLE PLAY

Goals

^? To examine the dynamics of defensive and supportive communication in supervisor/subordinate relationships.

^? To develop skills in listening to and understanding a contrasting point of view.

^? To explore the concept of synergy in paired communication.

^? To examine the expectations that defensive communication creates for a
continuing relationship.

Group Size

Any number of pairs, preferably with an equal balance between the sexes.

Time Required

Approximately one and one-half hours.

Materials

^? A copy of the appropriate Defensive and Supportive Communication Background and Role-Description Sheet for each participant.

^? Two copies of the Defensive and Supportive Communication Discussion Guide for each participant.

^? A pencil for each participant.

Physical Setting

A room large enough to allow pairs to interact without disturbing one another.

Process

1. The facilitator introduces the experience by presenting a lecturette on defensive and supportive communication, covering the following points:

^? Communication becomes defensive when the sender’s goal is to persuade the receiver to agree with his or her opinions, ideas, facts, or information.¹

^? Defensive communication is characterized by evaluation, control, strategy, superiority, and certainty.²

^? Communication becomes supportive when the goal is to actively hear and understand the other’s opinions, thoughts, or feelings.

^? Supportive communication is characterized by empathy and spontaneity; it promotes problem solving and synergy.

3. A Defensive and Supportive Communication Background and Role-Description Sheet is given to each participant (Case 1, 2, or 3 may be used). The facilitator notes that specific instructions for each round are described on the role-description sheet. Players are given time to study their roles.

4. The facilitator initiates round 1. He or she allows five to seven minutes for
the interaction.

5. After stopping the role play, the facilitator distributes one copy of the Defensive and Supportive Communication Discussion Guide and a pencil to each participant. Each participant fills out the form by placing a “1” in the spaces provided to indicate his or her feelings about round 1 (three minutes). The round is then discussed by the partners (five minutes).

6. The facilitator initiates round 2. At the conclusion of round 2, participants once again fill out the same Defensive and Supportive Communication Discussion Guide, this time by placing a “2” in the appropriate places. They then discuss round 2 with their partners. They are told to focus on the differences between rounds
1 and 2.

7. For rounds 3 and 4, the pairs of participants reverse roles. The facilitator distributes different versions of the Defensive and Supportive Communication Background and Role-Description Sheet, and steps 4 through 6 are repeated with new role-play situations. Following round 3, another copy of the Defensive and Supportive Communication Discussion Guide is distributed to each participant. It is filled out (three minutes) and discussed (five minutes) as before.

8. At the conclusion of round 4, participants once again fill out their discussion guides and briefly discuss the differences between rounds 3 and 4. They then are instructed to think about the differences between their two different role-playing situations.

9. The facilitator assembles the total group and leads a discussion of the different modes of communication. He or she may ask the group:

^? What were the differences between the defensive and supportive modes of communication? (Reactions to questions on the Defensive and Supportive Communication Discussion Guide can be reviewed at this point.)

^? What were the differences between sending and receiving the two types of communication?

^? How did the power relationship of the supervisor and subordinate roles affect the communication processes?

^? How were the outcomes of rounds 1 and 2 different? To what degree were the outcomes of round 2 synergistic? (The facilitator explains the concept of synergy.)

^? What are the implications of the two modes of communication in real-life settings?

^? Role-play situations can be invented by the facilitator, the total group, or individual pairs.

^? A demonstration role play in front of the total group can precede the paired role play.

^? Rounds 3 and 4 can be eliminated.

^? A group discussion of rounds 1 and 2 can precede rounds 3 and 4.

^? Participants can change partners for rounds 3 and 4.

^? Supportive communication can be used first in round 1. Differences between rounds 1-2 and 3-4 (in which defensive is used first) can be processed in terms of different expectations for the next communication.
DEFENSIVE AND SUPPORTIVE COMMUNICATION BACKGROUND
AND ROLE-DESCRIPTION SHEET

Case 1: The Performance Appraisal System

Background: This case focuses on the development of a system to appraise employee performance. Dale Clark, personnel director, has asked to meet this afternoon with Robin Smith, director of administrative services, to discuss Robin’s proposal for such a system. They are meeting at 2 p.m.

Role-Description Sheet 1 (Supervisor)

Robin Smith: You are director of administrative services for an organization that has tripled its size since its creation two years ago. This rapid growth has led to a need to develop an appraisal system that will foster the development of employees for managerial positions and furnish data for maintaining an inventory of employee talent and for making promotion and transfer decisions.
Early last week, you wrote a memo to the company personnel director, Dale Clark—who is your subordinate—describing the need for such a system and outlining your thoughts for its design. As soon as a design is agreed on, you expect Clark to implement and administer the system.
Under your plan, supervisors would use a standard form to appraise employees every twelve months. The appraisal would be discussed with the employee and signed by both the supervisor and employee. Copies of the appraisal would be retained by the personnel department and the appraising supervisor, as well as the employee.
Your proposed system is based on the assumption that it is important for supervisors to let employees know those areas in which they need to develop. For purposes of record keeping, you also feel that it is important that a standardized form be used for performance appraisal. Two days ago, Dale Clark requested a meeting to discuss your proposal and, you think, probably to raise some questions about your design.

Round 1: Your goal is to get Dale Clark to agree with the tenets of your design. You should explain as best you can the rationale supporting the design. You are determined that your way shall prevail.

Round 2: Your goal is to create a climate to explore the differences between yourself and your personnel director. You should encourage Clark to express his or her position and search for a resolution that achieves your objectives as well as those of the personnel director.

DEFENSIVE AND SUPPORTIVE COMMUNICATION BACKGROUND
AND ROLE-DESCRIPTION SHEET

Case 1: The Performance Appraisal System

Background: This case focuses on the development of a system to appraise employee performance. Dale Clark, personnel director, has asked to meet this afternoon with Robin Smith, director of administrative services, to discuss Robin’s proposal for such a system. They are meeting at 2 p.m.

Role-Description Sheet 2 (Subordinate)³

Dale Clark: You are the personnel director for an organization that has tripled its activity since its creation two years ago. Last week you received a memo from your boss, Robin Smith, director of administrative services, noting that the organization’s growth has led to a need to develop a performance-appraisal system. The purpose of the system is to foster the development of employees for managerial positions, furnish data for maintaining an inventory of employee talent, and aid in making promotion and transfer decisions.
Under the plan outlined in Smith’s memo, supervisors would use a standardized form to appraise employees once a year. The appraisal would be discussed with the employee and signed by both the supervisor and employee. Copies of the appraisal would be retained by the personnel department, the supervisor, and the employee.
You believe that this approach is detrimental to employee development. It places the supervisor in the role of judge and tends to bring about a defensive reaction from the subordinate. You favor a problem-solving approach in which the supervisor initiates an interview with the employee and elicits ideas for job improvement. The supervisor stimulates employees to self-diagnose their needs for development; the interview is not initiated by a written appraisal. Problems not addressed by the subordinate can be brought up by the supervisor after the employee has voiced his or her concerns. Such problems can be introduced by asking for the subordinate’s help.
You feel that this method of appraisal is superior to the traditional one suggested by Smith because it develops a climate of mutual interest and almost always leads to new ideas and improved performance. The employee is motivated to think constructively rather than defensively.
Two days ago, you requested a meeting with Robin Smith to discuss your ideas. You hope to achieve some modifications in your supervisor’s design.

Both Rounds: You are to interact with Smith, explaining your approach and its rationale.

DEFENSIVE AND SUPPORTIVE COMMUNICATION BACKGROUND
AND ROLE-DESCRIPTION SHEET

Case 2: Management and Organizational Behavior

Background: Gerry Thompson is a student in Professor Reilly’s management and organizational behavior class. The class is an introductory, graduate-level seminar that meets from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. on Wednesday afternoons. Each student is required to complete midterm and final examinations and a library-research paper on a topic of his or her own choosing. Each student is expected to submit a brief proposal (one-half to one page) noting his or her topic and objectives for research. The proposals are returned with comments and suggested bibliographic sources. When a proposal is deficient, Professor Reilly asks to meet with the student.

Role-Description Sheet 1 (Supervisor)

Professor Reilly: You are an associate professor of organizational behavior in a major university. You have been teaching for six years and have published several articles reporting your research. You teach a seminar in management and organizational behavior once a year; most of the people in the class are full-time students pursuing a master’s degree in administration.
Because this is an introductory seminar, you believe that it is important for students to become familiar with the research literature in organizational behavior. Students should develop their capacities to critically examine and compare major theories and ideas in the field and be able to present their analysis in a logical and coherent fashion. Because of these beliefs, you require students to complete a major paper based on library research. Gerry Thompson, a student in the seminar who works full time for a major organization in the area, wrote a proposal for a paper on organizational change. It would be a case study of the reorganization that recently occurred in the administrative-services division of Gerry’s organization. Because it is not based on library research, the paper, as far as you are concerned, is unacceptable. You have asked Gerry to meet you after class so that you can explain the proposal’s deficiencies.

Round 1: Your goal is to have Gerry revise the proposal so that it is based solely on library research. You should be friendly, patient, and explain as best you can your rationale for requiring a paper based on a survey of appropriate literature. You are determined that your way shall prevail.

Round 2: Your goal is to create a climate in which to explore the differences between your ideas and Gerry’s. You should encourage Gerry to express his or her position and search for a resolution that achieves both of your objectives.

DEFENSIVE AND SUPPORTIVE COMMUNICATION BACKGROUND
AND ROLE-DESCRIPTION SHEET

Case 2: Management and Organizational Behavior

Background: Gerry Thompson is a student in Professor Reilly’s management and organizational behavior class. The class is an introductory, graduate-level seminar that meets from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. on Wednesday afternoons. Each student is required to complete midterm and final examinations and a library-research paper on a topic of his or her own choosing. Each student is expected to submit a brief proposal (one-half to one page) noting his or her topic and objectives for research. The proposals are returned with comments and suggested bibliographic sources. When a proposal is deficient, Professor Reilly asks to meet with the student.

Role-Description Sheet 2 (Subordinate)

Gerry Thompson: You are a middle manager in the data-processing section of your organization. Your college degree is in mathematics. Your organization’s flexible time program enables you to go to school two afternoons a week to obtain your master’s degree in administration. By returning to school you hope to become a better manager and improve your chances for promotion.
For your term project, you wrote a proposal for a paper on organizational change. The paper will be based on an analysis of the reorganization that recently occurred in the administrative-services division of your organization. From the analysis you intend to extract a number of principles regarding organizational change. You feel that this approach will be of more benefit to you than a paper based on a review of
research studies.
Professor Reilly has asked to meet with you after class. You assume that the professor wants to make some suggestions about your proposed project.

Both Rounds: You are to interact with Professor Reilly to explain your rationale for doing an analytical case study instead of a paper based on library research.

DEFENSIVE AND SUPPORTIVE COMMUNICATION BACKGROUND
AND ROLE-DESCRIPTION SHEET

Case 3: Internal Auditing

Background: The setting is the internal auditing division of a large governmental insurance organization. Lee Black is the administrator of the division; it includes five units charged with reviewing the work of field claims examiners. Black has asked Pat Fisher, one of the unit supervisors, to meet to discuss a specific problem.

Role-Description Sheet 1 (Supervisor)

Lee Black: You have worked for this organization for twelve years, seven of them at the administrative level. You have been the division administrator for three years. Your bachelor’s degree is in psychology; in addition, you have completed several courses
in administration.
The problem concerning you is that total work production in the unit that Pat Fisher supervises is lower than that of other units. Fisher’s unit completes approximately fifty audits a week; the other units average eighty audits a week, with some completing as many as one hundred a week. The quality of work completed in Fisher’s unit, however, is superior to that completed in the other units.
You have thoroughly evaluated the situation and its implications for the divisions. Because of pressures for production from your boss and complaints from the other unit supervisors that Fisher’s unit is giving the division a bad reputation, you feel that you must insist on higher production. You have decided to impose a quota on the unit of seventy-five audits per week, even though there might be a temporary decline in the quality of work produced. This seems to you to be more than fair, since it is still below the average production of the other units.
You are meeting with Pat Fisher this morning at 10 a.m. to explain your plan and
its rationale.

Round 1: Your goal is to have Fisher implement a quota of seventy-five audits per week. You should be friendly, patient, and explain as best you can the rationale supporting your decision. You are determined that your way shall prevail.

Round 2: Your goal is to create a climate for exploring the problem of low production; Fisher should be encouraged to express his or her position. You should discuss your idea for a quota system, but be open to other ways of resolving the problem.

DEFENSIVE AND SUPPORTIVE COMMUNICATION BACKGROUND
AND ROLE-DESCRIPTION SHEET

Case 3: Internal Auditing

Background: The setting is the internal auditing division of a large governmental insurance organization. Lee Black is the administrator of the division; it includes five units charged with reviewing the work of field claims examiners. Black has asked Pat Fisher, one of the unit supervisors, to meet to discuss a specific problem.

Role-Description Sheet 2 (Subordinate)

Pat Fisher: You have worked for this organization for sixteen years. You have had supervisory responsibilities for ten years and have had your present position of unit supervisor for three years. You have a B.S. degree in accounting and have had several in-service training classes in supervision.
You believe that quality work is important and take pride in the fact that your unit’s work is generally of a higher quality than that of other units. To achieve high quality, you insist that each case be fully examined regardless of the size or importance of the claim. This frequently entails researching the latest interpretation of government regulations and consulting with others outside the division. You encourage those who work for you to help each other and frequently hold staff meetings to discuss problem cases. Lee Black, your supervisor, has asked you to meet this morning at 10 a.m. One of your subordinates has informed you that, according to rumor, Black is going to impose a quota on your unit. Although you are aware of the fact that your unit’s production is somewhat lower than that of the other units, you feel that this is compensated for by the higher quality of work within your unit.
You are willing to listen to Black’s arguments, but you are dead set against quotas. It has been your experience that quota systems are easily subverted and inevitably lead to a lower quality of work.

Both Rounds: You are to interact with Black, expressing your position and its rationale.

DEFENSIVE AND SUPPORTIVE COMMUNICATION
DISCUSSION GUIDE

Use these scales to guide your discussion after each round of interaction. Place a “1” on each of the scales to indicate your experience in round 1, a “2” on each scale at the end of round 2, etc.

1. How well did you listen to the other person’s point of view?

Not Well ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ Very Well

2. What kind of feeling climate was stimulated by the interaction?

Competitive ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ Cooperative

Judging of the
Other Person ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ Empathetic

Superior ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ Equal

Positive ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ Provisional

Defensive ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ Supportive

3. How satisfied are you with the interaction?

Very Dissatisfied ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ Very Satisfied

4. How satisfied are you with the outcome or product of the discussion?

Very Dissatisfied ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ Very Satisfied

COMMUNICATION A PAIRED ROLE PLAY