Kevin’s Quad One would enlarge. If Sheila finds this disclosure to be acceptable (I will say more about this later), then she might either share some of her own concerns about Kevin’s competence (moving information from her Quad Three to Quad One) or share more about how she appreciates working with people who are candid about their skills (Sheila’s Quad Three information that is not specifically about Kevin). The first strategy could backfire, because Kevin’s Quad Two might not (and probably does not) contain information about Sheila’s suspicion regarding his competence (though, as I noted above, he might be at least partially aware of this suspicion, given Sheila’s nonverbal expressions).
Given this shock to his second quadrant, Kevin could begin to close up about his lack of experience or regroup by telling a half-truth about how his software expertise will enable him to quickly learn about financial matters (“since so much is now being done by computers”). Thus, Kevin’s Quad One gets smaller as Sheila’s Quad One gets larger (movement from Quad Three to Quad One), when this first strategy is engaged:
Sheila Kevin
If Sheila engages a more appreciative strategy and suggests how much she admires Kevin’s candor (move of Quad Three information to Quad One), then Kevin’s Quad One might also expand:
Sheila Kevin
Kevin is more likely to share his concerns (and hopes) openly with Sheila. In this way, both Sheila’s and Kevin’s Quad One grow larger. They have created a more “open” relationship, with neither having to cut off disclosure of their Quad Three material—nor do either have to offer half-truths or full-blown lies.
