Half-empty and half-full communication: The client

A previous commentary explored the phenomenon called motivated reasoning, the tendency of humans to be biased by virtue of the way the brain processes incoming sensory data. Of the more general biases, those that cause people to take a more optimistic glass half-full or a more pessimistic glass half-empty view of events are the most familiar. However, just because both orientations are familiar does not necessarily mean that these are neutrally accepted by those who hold the opposite view. This first of a series of two articles will explore the up- and down-sides of these two orientations as they affect clients and quality communication with them. The second will explore the communication challenges posed by practitioners having one or the other orientation.

The glass half-full client

Mr. Rochert has earned a reputation at Dr. Shelby’s veterinary clinic because no matter what happens, he always views his glass as half-full. The staff often jokes that they could tell him the world will end tomorrow and he would grin and say, “Well, it could be worse.”

The good news about communicating with clients like Mr. Rochert is that their optimism will see them through problems with their animals that others might find overwhelming. When Dr. Shelby gives her client the results of a work-up that make it clear the etiology of the animal’s breathing problem is very serious, Mr. Rochert’s orientation leads him to take a more optimistic view of the potential results of any treatments the veterinarian recommends.

“Sure, he’s old and he’s been through a lot,” agrees Mr. Rochert. “But he’s always come through all right before.”

Other times, their natural optimism enables these clients to give weekly baths to animals with chronic skin problems, or to religiously medicate animals which resist handling without complaint.

This acceptance also extends to the practitioner and clinic staff. Even though Dr. Shelby strives to do her best at all times, mistakes do happen. When she forgets that she had scheduled an appointment to see Mr. Rochert’s mare and the client takes the afternoon off from work to wait for a veterinarian who never appears, Mr. Rochert graciously accepts the clinician’s apology.

“I know this is your busy time of year,” said the client. “No wonder you forget things.”

When it comes to the administrative side of practice, clients predisposed to see the good instead of the bad are less likely to get upset when an emergency wreaks havoc with the veterinarian’s schedule and long waits for service result. When it comes time to pay the bill, they may be more willing to accept charges that exceed estimates or which the veterinarian forgot to mention.

But while all of these benefits most certainly make it easier for veterinarians and staff to communicate with these clients, they can become communications nightmares if they use their orientation to block acceptance of truly worst-case scenarios. It is one thing for Mr. Rochert to express his complete optimism and faith in Dr. Shelby to see his animal through some dire condition for which a viable treatment exists. It is quite another for the client to do that in spite of all of the veterinarian’s attempts to communicate that a) no such treatments exists, and b) the animal is suffering and going to die.

“I have nothing against people who choose to see the bright side of things,” declares Dr. Shelby. “But when it crosses the line into denial, I have trouble accepting that.”

The glass half-empty client

When she must grapple with the communications problems posed by more optimistic clients, it is understandable why Dr. Shelby may see clients who focus on the downside of events as preferable.

“It’s a lot easier to confirm someone’s worst fears than convince them there’s a problem they don’t want to acknowledge,” she explains.

The veterinarian maintains that view until she recalls Ms. Antonelli. Because Ms. Antonelli is more pessimistic, she always prepared herself for the worst when she took her cat to the veterinary clinic. Whether she presented the animal for a routine physical, vaccination, or a specific symptom, she always was convinced that there was something terribly wrong with the animal. Eventually the day did come when the physical examination, history, and subsequent diagnostic tests proved that this was indeed the case. When Dr. Shelby gave this client the news, there was no denial.

Ms. Antonelli announced, “I knew it. I never have any luck with cats. Well, I guess you did your best.”

When Dr. Shelby expresses her regret regarding the diagnosis and offered that the cat had enjoyed 18 good years, her client did not share her view.

“When I was a child, all of our cats lived much longer than that and didn’t get half the care I gave this one,” she tells the veterinarian. “But nothing I did mattered.”

In such a way, the downside of communication with glass half-empty clients comes fast on the heels of the upside. Although Ms. Antonelli spared the veterinarian of having to deal with denial or teary outbursts, the veterinarian always felt as if she was working against the client instead of with her.

“No matter what I did, it always seemed like I failed to meet her expectations. At first I thought it was because I was the only woman in the practice, but she treated all of us the same way,” she describes her experience. “It got so bad I dreaded seeing her name on the schedule and yet her cat was really nice. I felt sorry for him. It can’t have been much fun living with her.”

Resolving the half-full half-empty dilemma

Even though most people may tip more in the glass half-full or half-empty direction by choice, most also can maintain a balance between the two. Unfortunately for practitioners, the one occasion in which the balance may shift toward one extreme or the other is in time of crisis. This is unfortunate because such times already are fraught with communication challenges.

Step one is to present any information relative to the animal’s condition, any treatment, and prognosis as objectively as possible. Without that shared foundation of knowledge, no meaningful communication regarding the animal can occur. Granted pure objectivity is not a normal perceptive state for the bulk of the human population. However, being cognizant of the motivation underlying communication can help practitioners surmount this obstacle. Consider these two scenarios.

Scenario I: Dr. Shelby provides Mr. Rochert and Ms. Antonelli with information regarding their respective animals with the goal of educating them about their animal’s condition and what lies ahead.

Scenario II: Dr. Shelby provides Mr. Rochert and Ms. Antonelli with information regarding their respective animals with the goal of getting each client to take a more realistic view of the situation. She wants the information to convince Mr. Rochert that the situation is worse than he wants to believe it is; and she wants Ms. Antonelli to believe that it is better.

In the first scenario, the veterinarian provides the information in a manner that does not presume to judge the client’s view of the situation, let alone find that view wanting. In the second, she is more interested in getting her clients to put the same emotional spin on the problem as she does than providing them with objective information about their animals’ conditions. She wants to sell her vision of reality more than she wants to educate.

Step two is to present the information in at least two and preferably three different forms verbally. In the case of complex problems, hardcopy or electronic handouts that reiterate the information can be extremely helpful.

“I don’t have time to say the same thing 2 or 3 different ways!” wails Dr. Shelby. “It would take me hours to see just one client!”

As it turns out, many practitioners automatically do this at least some of the time. It is just a matter of becoming consciously aware of the technique and routinely using it to enhance communication in difficult situations. For example, when Dr. Shelby works up a case she mentally notes those key elements that cause her to reach any conclusions regarding a particular animal’s condition. She usually opens her discussion with the client by saying that there are “X” number of circumstances that cause her to diagnose Y as the problem. She then lists those circumstances and discusses each one separately. If with the addition of each new component she notes how it relates to the previous ones, she will have referred to all of the information at least twice by the time she gets to the end of the list.

By adding a printed handout, if necessary, she can be as sure as possible under the circumstances that, regardless of their personal orientations, she has given her half-full and half-empty clients the most objective information she can. How they choose to perceive it is still up to them. But at least she did not contribute to their emotional biases.