Reference no: EM132242204
T/F
1. When delivering an assertive confrontation message, it is generally best to include an adverse consequence you are prepared to implement if the individual does not change the inappropriate behavior.
2. When confronting an individual about gross misconduct, such as violating a clearly established safety rule, bullying, or sexual harassment, showing empathy as part of your assertive confrontation message is not only recommended but also essential.
3. When confronting a mature individual who is capable of responding proactively to your assertive confrontation message, you probably will not need to ask him or her if she intends to comply with your request.
4. Showing empathy when delivering the assertive confrontation message can be helpful to the individual you are confronting because it shows that you support the individual despite the behavior you wish him or her to change.
5. When the outcome of an investigation of misconduct is inconclusive, it is still appropriate to remind the parties involved of company policy and the consequences for violation.
. MC
1. All of the following examples illustrate elements of the supportive confrontation message, except
a. I would prefer that you no longer use such language around me.
b. When you tell dirty jokes, I feel embarrassed.
c. You’re boorish, rude, and condescending.
d. Over the past few days, I have overheard you telling offensive jokes in the break room.
2. The basic supportive confrontation message requires that you (1) describe the behavior, (2) explain the impact, and (3) state the desired change. However, you may want to also include other elements, such as show empathy, state a consequence, and check for understanding, because
a. the basic message does not provide the essential information that the individual needs to know in order to correct his or her behavior.
b. the basic message does not provide the essential information that the individual needs to know in order to correct his or her behavior.
c. evidence demonstrates that the individual may have engaged in the misconduct, as alleged; appro- priate discipline should be invoked.
d. evidence demonstrates that the individual did not engage in the conduct, as alleged; no discipline should be invoked.
3. At the conclusion of an investigation of alleged misconduct, the person conducting the investigation may appropriately draw any one of the following conclusions, except
a. evidence was inconclusive to determine whether the individual engaged in the misconduct; no discipline should be invoked.
b. evidence demonstrates that the individual engaged in the misconduct, as alleged; appropriate discipline should be invoked.
c. evidence demonstrates that the individual may have engaged in the misconduct, as alleged; appro- priate discipline should be invoked.
d. evidence demonstrates that the individual did not engage in the conduct, as alleged; no discipline should be invoke
4. Preparing a script and rehearsing it with a trusted colleague before approaching the individual to whom you must deliver the supportive confrontation message is helpful for all the following reasons, except
a. it allows you to memorize your message and state it verbatim, which will minimize the likelihood you will overlook an important element of your message.
b. it helps ensure that the delivery of your message will be as natural, supportive, and as direct as possible.
c. the trusted colleague can role-play the individual you must confront, allowing you to refine your message in a “real-world” simulation.
d. it allows you to receive an honest critique of your effectiveness in conveying the message in a manner that is least likely to create defensiveness in the other person.