Everyone, thank you for your hard work on the role-play.
It must have been challenging to figure out how Pip should respond to a sudden and aggressive critique from a junior colleague.
This situation is a turning point that can either escalate into an emotional conflict or be transformed into an opportunity for self-growth.
The assertiveness required here is the conversational skill to calmly and sincerely probe the core of the issue, rather than submitting to the other person's attack (passive) or fighting back (aggressive).
This role-play required you to use all three skills from the "Socratic Toolkit" introduced in the commentary, in sequence.
Questions for Clarification: The skill of breaking down the other person's vague words ("no sense") into concrete facts.
Questions that Probe Reasons and Evidence: The skill of exploring the other person's way of thinking and judgment criteria ("why" they think so) behind that fact. (e.g., "there are too many colors in the graph").
Summarize to Confirm Understanding: The skill of restating the other person's revealed thoughts in your own words to confirm if your understanding is correct.
By using these three skills in stages, you can turn an emotional critique into a concrete action for improvement.
This is NG.
"You're only saying that to me, but this document you made the other day honestly has no sense, does it?"
"Huh?"
"What do you mean 'no sense'?"
"I'm giving you feedback, isn't that rude?"
"I don't think your document is perfect enough for you to be criticizing others."
Why is this NG?
This response is an "aggressive" reaction, the opposite of assertiveness.
It is a direct enactment of the phrase from the commentary, "Our natural reaction is to get defensive."
Changing the subject: The issue is shifted from Sara's critique of Pip's document to a personal attack on Sara ("Isn't that rude?") and a critique of her own work. ("I don't think your document is perfect").
Rejecting dialogue: It treats the other person's opinion as an "attack from an enemy" rather than an opportunity to "search for truth as a partner," shutting the door to dialogue.
This permanently loses the chance to know what Sara is feeling and what useful perspectives might lie behind her criticism.
Deteriorating the relationship: Such an emotional rebuttal will provoke further backlash from the other person and significantly damage the trust within the team.
It will make Sara think, "I'm never giving my opinion to Pip again."
This is OK example.
"I see, so this document of mine seemed like it had 'no sense.'"
"Thanks for telling me."
"I'd like to use it as a reference for the future, so could you tell me in a bit more detail which specific part you felt had 'no sense'?"
"For example, the way the graphs are made, or the overall use of color."
"Ah, so the use of color in this pie chart is hard to understand."
"If it were you, Sara, for what reason and in what way would you improve it to make it 'easier to understand'? I'd like to hear your thoughts."
"Thank you, that's very clear."
"So, if I'm understanding correctly, the 'sense' you're talking about isn't just about whether it looks fashionable, but is based on the logic of 'designing information to be visually organized so that the intended message is instantly conveyed to the recipient.'"
"Is that right?"
Why is this OK?
This response perfectly puts into practice the assertive stance from the commentary: "face criticism without getting defensive" and "act as a curious partner."
Emotional control and gratitude:
In the first line, Pip calmly accepts the fact that he was criticized ("I see") and first expresses gratitude ("Thanks for telling me").
This lowers Sara's guard and builds a foundation for dialogue.
Step-by-step deep dive: He breaks down the vague term "no sense" into a concrete fact ("the use of color in the pie chart"), then draws out her logic and values behind why that color usage is bad. ("guides the eye and makes the message clear")
Finally, he redefines it in his own words for confirmation.
Building the relationship:
Through this process, Pip can learn concrete design knowledge from Sara, and Sara feels that her opinion was respected and properly heard.
Their relationship deepens from a simple senior-junior one to that of "partners who work together to improve the quality of their work."
In this way, even aggressive criticism can be turned into a valuable source of information for the growth of yourself and your team if you use the "Socratic Toolkit."