When clients reject the drawn genogram — "That's not who we are": four strategies from systemic practice. Re-reading, polyphony, iteration and holding silence.

An uncomfortable but common situation

You have built a genogram together. The client looks at it and says: "No. That's not who we are." Or, harder still: "That's not right. That's not me, that's not my family."

This reaction is more common than the textbooks suggest. It is not a failure of the method or of the counsellor — it is itself information. But it needs a methodical response that does not reflexively fall back on "you don't want to see it".

What rejection can mean

Sheer discomfort with visibility. Some clients are not used to seeing their family from the outside. The drawn genogram is an image — and images have a directness that conversation does not. The rejection is then a first reaction, not a final verdict.

A discrepancy between self- and other-description. The client described what they see in the conversation. The counsellor drew what they understood. These two versions are never identical. The rejection may be a legitimate correction.

Defending family loyalty. "That's not who we are" can mean "you mustn't show us like that". Boszormenyi-Nagy's concept of loyalty is helpful here: the client protects the family image, even if it contradicts their own experience.

Shock at the clarity. Some patterns are blurred in conversation but sharp in the image. That can overwhelm the client. The rejection is then protection.

Strategy 1: Re-reading

"Let's read together what's here. Where doesn't it fit?" This strategy takes the rejection seriously and invites correction. The client becomes a co-author — and can show concretely what is off.

Advantage: the corrections are often more precise than the original description. The rejection produces diagnostic sharpness.

Caution: this strategy takes time. If a re-reading attempt starts at the end of a session, it becomes hectic. Better to defer to the next session.

Strategy 2: Polyphony

"Who in your family would confirm this picture, who would contradict it?" This question loosens the image from the idea that it must be the one true version of the family. Instead it becomes clear: there are multiple readings — the client's is one of them.

Michael White's concept of "re-authoring" is related here: clients become authors of their own story, not recipients of an expert-diagnosed truth.

Polyphony is particularly useful in families where conflicts revolve around the right narrative — divorce genograms, inheritance disputes, multigenerational rifts.

Strategy 3: Iteration

"Let's leave the picture standing for a week. You look at it at home, I will too. Next week we'll talk about how it sat with you."

This strategy uses time as a collaborator. Some images rejected in the session are accepted or differentiated a week later. The client has space to digest the image.

Caution: iteration only works if the next session is firmly arranged. With one-off sessions or uncertain appointments this strategy is difficult.

Strategy 4: Holding the silence

Sometimes the best response to a rejection is: not to react. Not to explain, not to defend, not to correct. "Mhm. I see." — and then to hold the pause.

This strategy looks counterintuitive at first but is often healing. It shows the client: your perception is taken seriously, without the counsellor going into repair mode. Out of the silence the next sentences often come.

Caution: this is the most demanding strategy — it requires the counsellor to tolerate their own reactive impulses. Breaking the silence out of insecurity ("But I thought…") tends to make things worse.

Practice vignette

Client, mid-50s, comes to the third session. In the first two sessions we had built the genogram, his father as the central figure, the relationship marked as "domineering". Today he says: "I think the picture isn't right. My father wasn't domineering. He just didn't know any different."

I stay silent, look at him, nod slightly. A minute of stillness. Then he says: "It's hard to see him like that in the picture. He was also very caring, in his own way."

We extend the picture. The father gets a second relationship line to him — not only the conflictual one, but also one that carries its own quality. The picture becomes more differentiated, the relationship more alive.

The rejection wasn't refusal but a mandate to expand.

What does not work

Defending. "But you said in our last session…" — such sentences invalidate the client and defend an image that does not belong to the counsellor.

Glossing over. Ignoring the rejection and pressing on with the programme is methodologically fatal. The client doesn't feel seen — and the image loses its effectiveness.

Immediate complete redrawing. Reacting to every rejection with "let's redo it" signals: the image was worthless. That, too, undermines the process.

When the rejection persists

Some clients reject the picture permanently — even after re-reading, polyphony and iteration. In this case an honest meta-question helps: "What would be a picture you could keep working with? And if there isn't one: can we work without a picture too?"

Genogram work is a tool, not an end in itself. When the tool doesn't fit, you switch tools. That is not defeat but professional methodological flexibility.

Further reading