It's funny because few things make me seethe like someone talking to me in this way during a high stress moment. The artifice is transparent and if the conversation is tense the tone is quite easy to read as condescension. I'm hardly dismissing NVC as a tactic, just that when done poorly it's worse than simply being direct.
But...you should be. The entire problem you relate is about NVC as an insincere, indirect tactic (most likely, to avoid an ultimatum in a situation where the speaker isn't seeking mutual understanding and accommodation but submissive compliance.) NVC as a tactic relied on an implicit lie about the relationship which forms the context of the communication.
As a honest tool in a relationship where the parties actually care about each others feeling, NVC is a useful communication tool for addressing that mutual concern. As a tactic in relationships where that isn't a mutual concern, and especially as a top-down tactic in a relationship where the speaker would not have the concern that is being called for in the listener, where it is a passive-aggressive way of framing commands, it's obviously toxic and manipulative.
You know, I was about to write a retort that disagreed vehemently, but I re-read and I think you’ve changed my mind.
In the presence of a power imbalance, combined with a lack of mutual respect, I think you’re absolutely right that NVC style observations are worse than a direct command. If there’s no explanation that would lead me, the more powerful person, to change my mind about the behavior, then offering conversational space for it is disingenuous.
I personally try to avoid situations where my direct managers, or my direct reports, don’t feel mutual respect, so I don’t think a power-imbalance is enough in and of itself to invalidate observation-request style discussions.
As it happens, if there’s no power imbalance, but also no mutual respect, I still tend to prefer NVC style communication; but I’ll admit that’s just a personal choice, it’s just a tool in the toolbox, and I tend to reach for it first, because I like the outcomes better. If my counterparty obviously hates it, “let’s get real” is next in the list.
Nothing poisons my respect for a manager faster than NVC style communication when they’re not actually listening to me, they’re merely trying to manipulate my emotions: it shows a deep contempt for me, as a person, and a view of me as a piece of equipment to be maintained rather than a partner in a collaboration.
Seeing through someone's half-assed attempts to use woo woo management strategy pablum is unquestionably infuriating. They don't have the integrity to just be wrong... they have to wrap it in passive-aggressive management talk. And then they do THAT poorly.
Meanwhile, putting in effort or even naturally just being someone that wants to empathize, find common ground and work towards a compromise is noble. When paired with good communication strategies and frankly when practiced through experience, you end up with highly likeable leaders who are the people you turn to in difficult times.
Don't hate the people who mean well but haven't learned to communicate like a pro. Save your anger for the people who are full of self-serving lies that don't even bother to manipulate you successfully because they don't really care how you feel.
The next time someone deploys Inexperienced Manager 101 aka "the shit sandwich" on you, ask yourself if they are malicious or just ignorant. It could be that they are just trying and failing.
I was taqught NVc as a quite cerebral language practice but I find it most productive to teach it as a body/emotional/somatic/language practice as the language becomes fake without full alignment.
Ultimately, use it as a tool to move the focus to what’s alive and what’s common in all participants. It is not a negotiation tool or a manipulation tool.
This is a good insight. NVC by itself is insufficient, you must also understand yourself and what you need, and you need to understand that regardless of how the conversation goes, if you do not get what you need, the underlying issue is not addressed and the conversation isn't over.
> most likely, to avoid an ultimatum in a situation where the speaker isn't seeking mutual understanding and accommodation but submissive compliance.
THIS IS IT!
This is exactly what the problem is with this bullshit; when it's not actually constructive, it's disingenuous. When you're not trying to come to a better understanding, you're trying to drag someone by the nose, it gives you a way to avoid the actual problem/conversation.
I supported my girlfriend throughout her grad studies to become a therapist. A huge part of her studies were in NVC. Even though I didn't go to school with her, I spent a lot of time with her classmates.
Nearly everyone's conclusion, after 3 years of being deeply embedded in NVC, was that they hated it. And for the same reasons you describe.
That's not really a reasonable question to ask. Even if I were still connected with those people, I'd have no idea how to rank their skills as professional therapists?
I can, however, speak to my girlfriend's skills. She's incredible. And when she talks about NVC, she's far less charitable than OP.
It's only after you have a few big unrecoverable screwups in life, will some of this stuff make more sense.
You are better off being aware and not understanding its value, than not being aware at all of NVC.
Once you hit an issue where you find yourself automatically avoiding things, attacking someone or defending yourself and producing all kinds of misery, just remind yourself that there is another tool available. And then pick up the book. You will find value.
^ This is what NVC does. Notice how this person is attempting to sound authentic, genuine, helpful, and hopeful.
But also notice that they are very subtly positioning themselves as someone who has learned some Very Big Life Lessons, whereas who they are talking to has not. And then they close off. With small sentences. For. Dramatic. Effect.
I'm not sure I follow. From my minimal understanding NVC is about expressing how things make one feel rather than telling someone else the direction in which their life will go. kodz4's comment didn't mention the word "I" and was all about "you". Thus I don't see what it has to do with NVC at all. Can you explain?
It was about NVC because that was explicitly the subject. It doesn't use NVC (which isn't really applicable to the context), though; the grandparent's reasoning seems to be:
1. kodz4 is advocating NVC
2. kodz4 is being arrogant and condescending;
3. Therefore, NVC makes you arrogant and condescending,
4. And so, finally, you should reject the recommendation to use NVC.
I think I understand what they were saying above, and I don't think it's the interpretation that dragonwriter makes in a sibling comment.
They weren't saying that kodz4 was using NVC. They were saying that the problem they have with NVC is that it has the potential to come off the same way that kodz4's comment has the potential to come off.
They were saying that kodz4's comment felt disingenuous to them because it asserts their opinion that NVC is good by stating it as fact, and that they would eventually realize this "fact" only once they have "a few big unrecoverable screwups in life" (thereby implying that since they don't like NVC, the only explanation is that they have never experienced such things in life).
The implication is that the reason for their disagreement on the value of NVC is because those who value it have learned more from life than those who don't value NVC.
And yet, the comment is worded empathetically, starting with, "It takes time." And it ends with the advice, "And then pick up the book," which could be interpreted as veiled condescension since it again assumes the person hasn't read the book, because if one knew the information contained in the book, there's no way they could disagree.
It re-frames the discussion of two alternate opinions, as an assumption of fact versus "haven't yet learned the fact." This is disingenuous, since it assumes one side must have more information than the other, instead of acknowledging the possibility that each side just has different information.
And I think they were simply saying that this disingenuous re-framing of discussions to further one's own goals or opinions in hopes the other side doesn't recognize the disingenuous re-framing of the discussion, is something that NVC and kotz4's comment had in common.
In the same way that the person using NVC may not be doing it disingenuously though, so to might kodz4 realize they're treating their own opinion as a fact. But that may also be the problem with such forms of communication, that they have the potential to be interpreted as disingenuous even when they're not.
I noticed I started taking NVC seriously only after my 'very big life lessons'. I had heard about NVC and never found any great reason to think about it deeply or apply it until my own screw ups. That is all I was trying to convey.
I have the same reading as the other person: that the implication of your comment is people who don’t agree with you are just ignorant.
I too have experienced big, unrecoverable losses: several were caused by manipulative people thinking NVC or similar allowed them to force resolutions to their misconduct by manipulating others’ emotions, while never engaging in direct discussion.
Many of these discussion frameworks are most often used by toxic and manipulative people, so they become associated with that behavior — though the framework itself is neutral to good.
This back and forth actually shows part of what's difficult with applying NVC: when a statement is made, another hidden meaning may be inferred by other participants in the conversation, even if such meaning was not intended or even considered by the speaker. It's worse given that some people specifically do say the same types of things with ulterior motives, so it isn't entirely unreasonable for other people to come to the conclusion that you are doing so as well.
This would work better if both parties practiced NVC, as they may reply with what your comment made them feel and that would help clarify the confusion. But it's going to be hard to find that type of situation given that NVC is not quite that widespread, so the NVC happening on only one side of the conversation truly make it difficult.
So we have to either be very careful with our wording and be aware of all possible misinterpretations, to make sure our wording only says what we want it to say, and/or we have to keep clarifying ourselves until our true meaning is clear and confirm with others what they've understood, which can be awkward. No wonder NVC is hard.
Whoa. Please don't take HN threads further in the direction of personal attack or name-calling, regardless of how bad another comment was or you feel it was. That makes this place worse, both obviously and subtly: obviously because it increases ill will and steers toward flamewar; subtly because it deprives readers of information you might have been able to convey.
If you want to post something like this, the thing to do is not stop with the initial version of the comment but iterate further: take out the personal swipes and replace them with detailed, neutral information about what you noticed. Then we all can learn something. If you don't want to do that, that's fine, but in that case it would be better not to post anything.
I did not like that in your comment you have assumed your opponent to be less experienced and less aware than you are just because he disagrees with your opinion.
I went to a course on how to negotiate with people delivered by a hostage negotiator for the (British) police that basically agreed with what you say.
The key they said was to work out what the person's motivation was and then adapt your communication to suit what was appropriate.
The general rule was to (at least appear to) match the emotional intensity of the person you were talking to. If you're negotiating with someone who's ready to jump off a bridge, rational argument and NVC is not as likely to help as an emotional appeal to their underlying concerns.
It's a great balance of story-telling and teaching. He teaches some simple rules then provides examples of how he actually used to practices to get the results he wanted.
Also, none of his suggestions felt fake or pandering. Just small tweaks to how you word and approach things can have a huge impact without necessarily being an expert.
What I've found - in high emotion situations people need express that emotion before they start listening, and they need to know that emotion is being heard.
This is tough. Sometimes people need a lot of prodding to start expressing a strong emotion because it invites judgement. It's kind of the end of artifice - 'this is who I am and what I'm really feeling'
Also, I find it exhausting to deal with high emotion.
But once that's over with, folks are more open to hearing the 'feeling statements' and observations.
--------------------
And can't resist old NVC joke -
Person 1 - "I'm really mad! This is so unfair!"
Person 2 - "I FEEL your anger"
Person 1 - "Everything's so chaotic, I don't know what to do!"
Person 2 - "I FEEL your confusion"
Person 1 - "I've got a lot of shit going down in my life!"
I think the one underlying thing that differentiates whether a person sees this as "fake" and ineffective or profound and valuable is one underlying attitude: whether you believe that the other person does or does not genuinely want to help you and whether you genuinely want to help them.
I like to think of NVC a little differently than most people. It is not a tactic or a strategy, it is a reframing of the problem in your own mind. Instead of the thinking "how can I get this person to do what I want" you should instead be thinking "I need something and can this person help me?". One is manipulative, the other is collaborative.
What I have found is that the person you are enlisting for help may actually have a better idea than you on how to solve the problem than you do. But for this to work, you genuinely need to believe that the person on the other side of the table wants to be a good person. If you don't believe that then you tend to see this as a way to manipulate them and it comes across in your words and actions.
Presenting this communication pattern as an effective "one size fits all" method is a pretty bad idea.
You have to "know your audience." This means you need to know your employees, bosses, or colleagues as people and work to understand what motivates them. This is challenging, risky, and requires an opening of the mind to not just understand different psychologies but to accept them as viable alternatives to your own.
NVC communication will be very effective for some and thoroughly ineffective for others, and if you know your audience you'll know which is which.
I'm an example of the latter: I absolutely despise the NVC communication pattern because very few people actually speak like this and when they do so it's an obvious deviation from their status quo. It feels fake because it is, and it feels fake because I know the pattern. It's like when I get "feel/felt/found"[1] from a salesperson...I know what they're doing and it's not going to work.
I honestly cannot connect the feel/felt/found with NVC.
>I absolutely despise the NVC communication pattern because very few people actually speak like this and when they do so it's an obvious deviation from their status quo.
After learning NVC, and then observing people who are effective at destressing others in the work place, I've found most speak like this. What's more, while it felt artificial in the book, no one in real life even notices.
More than anything, I'd say it feels threatening. I wonder what would happen if an employee said to the founder: "I've noticed this and that. I feel frustrated. I request that you do something. Can you please recap what I just said so it's clear you understood?"
>You have to "know your audience." This means you need to know your employees, bosses, or colleagues as people and work to understand what motivates them. This is challenging, risky, and requires an opening of the mind to not just understand different psychologies but to accept them as viable alternatives to your own.
I agree, but the trick is how to get them to be open with you about what is going in their mind, and I think NVC is a good way to get that to happen. But I would also add some people are sociopaths (or are stuck in a situation where they have to act that way), and NVC won't work there.
I absolutely despise the NVC communication pattern because very few people actually speak like this and when they do so it's an obvious deviation from their status quo. It feels fake because it is, and it feels fake because I know the pattern. It's like when I get "feel/felt/found"[1] from a salesperson...I know what they're doing and it's not going to work.
NVC is for when you genuinely want to respect both your own needs and those of the other person, which is not at all true for the salesman case.
The artifice is absolutely transparent, especially when it comes to business relationships, particularly employer-employee relationships. They are short-termist, interchangeable, and besides, the employer is a psychopath. Everyone has internalized that fact, and then they insist you express your feelings! It doesn't get more preposterous than that.
That's not how I see it. Yes, the employer (the organization) may be psychopath but I am not interacting with an organization while having a difficult conversation. I would be interacting with a manager or a colleague or someone who reports to me. These are human beings who are not psychopath. These are also not short-termist. Sure, we would all change jobs sooner or later but I would sure like to maintain good relationships with them and hopefully work with them again in future. So it makes a lot of sense that while talking to them I talk to them with some empathy which I think they deserve.
I am a huge fan of NVC, and I agree most people are not psychopaths. Unfortunately, organizational structures can be such that decent people are forced to behave like psychopaths, and I don't think that NVC, at least not by itself, can fix that.
Part of communicating is also building a relationship. I should know if you respond to blunt and direct and lean more in that direction when communicating with you.
I have worked on remaining calm in high stress moments. In certain situations it drives my wife nuts that she is stressed/excited and I'm calm looking for a solution. What I learned is to reflect back some of her excitement from a stressful situation, but not quite to her level. This then calms her down.
Is it easy? No. Do I manage to do this 100%? I wish. Is is manipulation? I don't think so. It's building a relationship to better communicate. Too often people think about communication as what I say and not what do people hear and also say.
Glad to see someone else with the same issue. I've never thought about "putting on" a bit of stress as a way to calm her down. I suppose it's because they feel like they're in the wrong for being the only one who is expressing stress/excitement?
I think it might be something about the shared mental state and bonding... maybe releases serotonin and/or oxytocin - kind of a "monkey grooming" type thing.
I noticed this one time when I was in college: I had come home on a break and couldn't relax, I was super stressed out and felt generally bad. I went over my best friend's house down the street, bitched to her about some small stuff that had annoyed me that day, she mirrored me and I INSTANTLY relaxed. I remember it 15 years later because it was such a marked effect.
I don't think it's about feeling wrong, but more if someone is super calm it feels patronizing to the excited person. It is like their emotion or problem is not important.
I've sort of used NVC, but I put a lampshade on it:
"Look, fuckery abounds, and it's not time to pass judgement because I'm not ready to be hung, drawn and quartered myself. So for now, let's deal with the facts and only the facts: ..."
this a great response to so many situations. avoiding sugar coating turds and fubaridness is key to being a good boss. Acknowledge the fubar situation - let the team chime in - then get back to facts and actions.
I've experienced that artifice too, and it's unsettling. It's as if the NVC is adding an additional layer of inauthenticity on top of regular old inauthenticity.
The real skill, it seems to me, is to be able to know what one is feeling, stay connected to it, and take responsibility for it, especially in high-stress situations. If you can't do that, techniques only make things worse. And if you can do that, maybe you don't need so much technique.
(Not to dismiss NVC though. NVC is very interesting. But I have found it much more interesting and compelling to watch how Rosenberg did it than in the limited cases where I've run across it in the wild.)
>To a co-founder: ‘When you said, “I’m not happy with your work,” to me in front of the team, I felt embarrassed because it didn’t meet my need for trust and recognition. Please, could we set up a weekly one-on-one session to share feedback in private?’
>To an investor: ‘I haven’t received any responses from the last three monthly updates. I’m feeling concerned because I need input. Please, would you mind getting back to me with responses to my questions in the last update?’
>To a teammate: ‘You arrived 10 minutes late to the last three team meetings. I am frustrated because, as a team, we have a need for efficiency. Please, could you help me understand what’s happening?’
I have two problems with them. They're pretty passive aggressive and focus on feelings instead of consequences. Going one by one:
>To a co-founder: ‘When you said, “I’m not happy with your work,” to me in front of the team, I felt embarrassed because it didn’t meet my need for trust and recognition. Please, could we set up a weekly one-on-one session to share feedback in private?’
It gets the problem wrong. It's very unlikely the problem is a lack of opportunity for co-founders to provide one on one feedback. The solution is one that no one really wants and wouldn't fix the issue. The problem is the co-founder poorly choosing words and poorly choosing the venue to deliver them. I also don't think it focuses on the right negative consequence. The negative consequence is being undermined in front of subordinates. Not to mention the relationship dynamics. Co-founders should be equal and it's not really the place of one to be "not happy" with the other's work.
I'd say something like:
‘When you said, “I’m not happy with your work,” to me in front of the team, it undermines my authority and the way it's phrased is inappropriate. I want us to be able to give each other feedback, but it's important that it happens at the appropriate time and respectfully.
>To an investor: ‘I haven’t received any responses from the last three monthly updates. I’m feeling concerned because I need input. Please, would you mind getting back to me with responses to my questions in the last update?’
This one is a bit odd because typically updates don't require responses. That aside, if it's something you need input on:
"Can you please weigh in on X? We can't do Y without your go ahead and it's causing Z problems. I understand that you have a lot on your plate, but this is important and we need an answer by next week."
>To a teammate: ‘You arrived 10 minutes late to the last three team meetings. I am frustrated because, as a team, we have a need for efficiency. Please, could you help me understand what’s happening?’
This one is super passive aggressive. Your intention is to communicate a problem but instead of just doing that this is asking a question. I think this example shows the problem most clearly. These should be statements and not questions. I mean, do you really want or expect an honest answer to the question? Because it's probably something along the lines of "I think these meetings are a waste of my time".
> >To a teammate: ‘You arrived 10 minutes late to the last three team meetings. I am frustrated because, as a team, we have a need for efficiency. Please, could you help me understand what’s happening?’
> This one is super passive aggressive. Your intention is to communicate a problem but instead of just doing that this is asking a question. I think this example shows the problem most clearly. These should be statements and not questions. I mean, do you really want or expect an honest answer to the question? Because it's probably something along the lines of "I think these meetings are a waste of my time".
+1 to this. I get the point that the OP was trying to make and think it's valid, but the specific phrasing provided would likely cause more harm than good in many cases. Specifically, it comes across more as "you better come up with a good excuse or you're in trouble" than "I care about you and hope everything is OK, and am here to help if there's a fixable problem at the root of your lateness".
I don’t get it. There are two (harsh! Direct!) statements, followed by a relatively low-emotional-intensity question. So the “these should be statements” angle doesn’t make any sense to me, they’re already statements. Are you expecting people to just say “cut it out”, with no conversational room for a discussion?
I think it’s true that many people would prefer to get scolded in silence, but in actual fact, what the other people involved in a rude behavior that needs to stop need, is for you to discuss it with them. If there’s a need for discussion, I don’t see how this approach would cause more harm than alternative ways of insisting that the rude person discuss their rudeness.
>I don’t get it. There are two (harsh! Direct!) statements, followed by a relatively low-emotional-intensity question. So the “these should be statements” angle doesn’t make any sense to me, they’re already statements. Are you expecting people to just say “cut it out”, with no conversational room for a discussion?
Depends on the situation. A reliable employee that suddenly starts showing up late would get the "Is everything ok?" talk. A perpetually late employee on there last strike would get the "cut it out" talk without a lot of need for discussion. The point is that you need to pick one. A "cut the crap but is everything ok?" message doesn't work.
Depends on how you deliver the lines. I can easily imagine saying this with sincerity and without anger. It sticks to facts, it doesn't make any judgments about them or their intent, it invites them to share their side of the story.
It is also pretty direct and far from passive-aggressive behavior in my opinion.
>It is also pretty direct and far from passive-aggressive behavior in my opinion.
The message is "Stop being late for meetings because it's making the team ineffecient". That's an 'aggresive' statement but you're delivering it in a 'passive' way because it makes it look like you're asking to see if everything is ok.
If you want to deliver the "Stop being late" message then say that.
If you want to ask what's going on, then do it without pointing out the problems they are causing.
Agreed, and I think an unintended consequence of 'focusing on feelings' is that it basically ensures that future interactions will also be all about feelings. (ie. we get more of what we reward)
As an aside: Early in my career I had a manager who was really tough. He was quick to point out problems and was very direct in his language. At first I hated it and was fairly intimidated by him. However I noticed a few things: It was never personal, no personal language was used. It was always factual and consequential. Second, he was good a making decisions and sticking with them. In the end I enjoyed working with him because I knew were he stood on virtually every issue, so it was easy to adjust my work to his expectations.
Next in my career, I worked for a very very different manager. She was very nice, but passive aggressive. That was actually not much of a problem, but her biggest fault is she didn't like making decisions. She would refuse to commit and want everything to be as fluid as possible. In the end, I hated my time there. I normally felt that any meeting with her was totally pointless because she refused to produce any actionable decisions from the meeting. It may sound like a dream job to some to have a boss that "never tells me what to do", but after a year or so it becomes a soul-grinding nightmare.
I don’t think your definition of passive aggressive matches with mine. None of those engagements read as even slightly passive aggressive to me.
Passive aggression is about saying one thing, but doing something that doesn’t match your words. All of these examples are about stating what you perceive as facts, then stating what you’d like to go differently.
I think many people use “passive aggressive” to mean “you said something in a way/tone/phrasing that irritated me”, and by that definition, I can imagine anyone getting annoyed by any of these: the recipient is being put in an uncomfortable position.
But being put in an uncomfortable position is the whole point, here; the situation demands it.
I’m very receptive to the idea that NVC has an emotional tone that frustrates people, but I think it’s very inaccurate to call it passive aggressive.
It's passive aggressive if the person doesn't really give a shit about the underlying cause and just wants the tardiness to stop. Putting on fake empathy is disgusting. If they actually do care that's great and hopefully it comes across as genuine.
>It gets the problem wrong. It's very unlikely the problem is a lack of opportunity for co-founders to provide one on one feedback. The solution is one that no one really wants and wouldn't fix the issue. The problem is the co-founder poorly choosing words and poorly choosing the venue to deliver them. I also don't think it focuses on the right
I don't know - to me that was clear from the statement.
>When you said, “I’m not happy with your work,” to me in front of the team, it undermines my authority and the way it's phrased is inappropriate.
This is what NVC calls an evaluation. The other person can simply disagree about it undermining the authority.
There's a reason negotiations books (not just NVC) emphasize talking about how you felt. It is because few ordinary people would deny your feelings. The cofounder is not going to jump in and say "No, you did not feel embarrassed". It is, however, very easy for them to say "You're overreacting. People know you're the boss. Nothing is being undermined."
Also, your phrasing is clearly blame oriented. That'll automatically set up the defenses.
>Co-founders should be equal and it's not really the place of one to be "not happy" with the other's work.
Even before I read the NVC book, I started telling people "should is not in my vocabulary" (I told my last manager this). And not surprisingly, it's a "forbidden" word in NVC (with a few exceptions, of course). In my experience, should statements make conversations go downhill. Should is often a lazy word. It is often used as an excuse not to explain something. My former manager had a habit of "The team should ..." and "An employee should ...". The team often disagreed, but without her giving a well thought out rationale that people could discuss, there were just should statements. It is intellectually lazy.
(And of course, in reality, many cofounding relationships are not equal).
>I mean, do you really want or expect an honest answer to the question? Because it's probably something along the lines of "I think these meetings are a waste of my time".
I'm surprised you say this, given how often I've been through this and observed managers go through this. One of my former bosses had a meeting with our team and a team across the globe who dialed in (one meeting with all of us in the "room"). Few people from our team attended. So after a few weeks, instead of expressing frustration, he said he noticed many people weren't attending, and inquired as to why. And he did get variants of "waste of my time", but since he was inviting in his query instead of complaining, he got valuable feedback on why it was a waste of time. As a result, he alone met with the remote team, and then would summarize the outcomes of the meeting to our team during one of our other meetings. It also allowed for a better time for the remote team since there were fewer people to satisfy.
There have been plenty of times where using the NVC style for people who are late to meetings has resulted in fruitful outcomes. Sometimes the person who is late has stuff going on with his health, and we move the time to accommodate his medical needs. In my experience, telling someone he is always late and needs to shape up under these circumstances will usually mean he will never express why he is late.
>This is what NVC calls an evaluation. The other person can simply disagree about it undermining the authority.
>There's a reason negotiations books (not just NVC) emphasize talking about how you felt. It is because few ordinary people would deny your feelings. The cofounder is not going to jump in and say "No, you did not feel embarrassed". It is, however, very easy for them to say "You're overreacting. People know you're the boss. Nothing is being undermined."
It's true that people are less likely to openly disagree with your feelings but that doesn't mean they agree with you. So yes, a person is unlikely to say "No, you did not feel embarrassed" but that doesn't change that they're actually thinking "You're overreacting. People know you're the boss. Nothing is being undermined". It depends on what your goal is. In a negotiation you want them to sign the deal and you don't really care about their true feelings. With a co-founder relationship you want them to express their true feelings. The point isn't to manipulate them into doing what you want. The point is to get to the root of the issue and resolve it.
>So after a few weeks, instead of expressing frustration, he said he noticed many people weren't attending, and inquired as to why.
So he didn't do what the article said he should do:
"I am frustrated because, as a team, we have a need for efficiency."
I'm confused about what you are saying, because the word "undermined" was introduced by you. The article suggests saying
> ‘When you said, “I’m not happy with your work,” to me in front of the team, I felt embarrassed because it didn’t meet my need for trust and recognition. Please, could we set up a weekly one-on-one session to share feedback in private?’
Are you suggesting that the other party would think "You're overreacting. People know you're the boss. Nothing is being undermined"? If so it sounds like it would be an evaluation on their part, and I guess it would be dealt with as such.
It sounds like you're missing the point entirely. I think you have a lot to learn from this style of communication.
>I'd say something like: ‘When you said, “I’m not happy with your work,” to me in front of the team, it undermines my authority and the way it's phrased is inappropriate. I want us to be able to give each other feedback, but it's important that it happens at the appropriate time and respectfully.
Okay, but that's very similar to the way it's originally phrased, but it makes a mistake because your definitions of "undermines my authority" and "inappropriate" might differ from those of your cofounder. By using the universal needs of trust and recognition, you avoid that miscommunication. Your cofounder might ask in response, "How was that inappropriate? I didn't think it was." What do you reply? "It didn't meet my needs of trust and recognition"?
>Your intention is to communicate a problem but instead of just doing that this is asking a question. I think this example shows the problem most clearly. These should be statements and not questions. I mean, do you really want or expect an honest answer to the question? Because it's probably something along the lines of "I think these meetings are a waste of my time".
I think this analysis shows your problem most clearly. The problem is communicated (with statements, even!): the teammate was 10 minutes late three times and it is negatively impacting team efficiency. The question at the end is purposeful, and to just assume that you already know the answer completely defeats the purpose of communicating. YES, the answer should be honest! Maybe there's a legitimate unknown problem. Asking a question instead of making another statement would clear this up. And if the answer is "I think these meetings are a waste of my time", that's even more valuable! You can then communicate about how to waste less time, whether that's changing the style or frequency of the meetings, excusing that particular person from the meeting, or canceling it all together.
Your analysis of these examples is just baffling to me. Complete backwards and missing the point.
It's possible to do NVC well, and it's possible to do it poorly. It makes me wonder if this means that NVC is not inherently more useful. (ie, other methods may of communication may also be useful, and so NVC can't be called an inherent good.)
Someone using NVC can still be forceful and rude. I'm struggling with how to describe this. I suppose all it does it remove unrestrained emotion and moral blame from the interaction. Unrestrained emotion and moral blame are not a given. (ie, they may not be injected into a conversation, even if NVC is not implemented) And further, I suppose, it's possible to push somebody around and refuse to listen to their concerns while employing NVC. For example, under the guise of empathy a boss may "feel" your perfectly valid concern, equivocate it to the concern of others in the room, and then simply ignore your recommendations. It's possible that your recommendation was actually best, but instead of understanding the value of your idea, the boss has simply made sure not to trample your emotions.
I can think of plenty of situations where I don't care if someone tramples my emotions, but I'd be pretty distraught if they adopted a flawed idea, or couldn't understand why one idea was superior and another was inferior.
[edit]
Just to clarify, I think I talked myself into a conclusion I feel comfortable with. Empathy is not inherently useful. An approach that focuses on the feelings a person might demean them (since their feelings are not actually so fragile) while also equivocating all the ideas in the room. (all ideas might not be created equal, but it is necessary to treat everyone -- and their feelings -- with the same respect.)
> I suppose all it does it remove unrestrained emotion and moral blame from the interaction.
That's not all it does, and is arguably opposed to something important it does. It keeps honest emotion in and displaces the injection of description of “thoughts” that are really rationalizations for emotional responses.
OTOH, in formalized transactional relationships, the assumption of mutual concern for the emotional state of the other that it rests on is not given.
> I can think of plenty of situations where I don't care if someone tramples my emotions, but I'd be pretty distraught if they adopted a flawed idea, or couldn't understand why one idea was superior and another was inferior.
Almost any situation where we're trying to design a functional solution to a technical problem. I actually used to have a phrase for this: "You can't build a rocket ship with emotions." If my goal were really to successfully build a rocket ship (as noted in the maxim) then I'd be delighted to be proven wrong. Every correction would get us closer to our goal.
Alternately, if someone were interested in empathizing with the team and protecting egos, we might navigate towards a worse solution. One which took into account everyone's feelings, instead of a cold calculation of method and results.
You seem to be conflating "delivering criticim" with "hurting feelings", and I don't understand where that's coming from.
Would you be delighted to be proven wrong if for every mistake your boss or peer told you that you were an incompetent idiot who doesn't belong on the team? Would that make you want to do more work? Would that make you feel comfortable proposing an idea that you aren't 100% sure ir correct and already known to your teammates to be correct?
Nothing about respecting teammates and their emotions says you have to accept their pull request.
I think this is a fair criticism, and I agree that if my boss publicly called me out and insulted me, I'd be pretty discouraged. I might not have made my point very well, but I certainly didn't mean to imply that being outright caustic was ok, either. I only meant to say that it's still possible offend and arrive at the wrong decision by employing NVC.
There is no contradiction between the two. You absolutely can emphathize with team and protect egos while also discuss efficacy of solutions or correctness.
It is not even hard. Just keep it factual instead of using words like "stupid", "shitty", "crap" or passive aggressivity. Discuss issues before they become big. Listen when they disagree with your assessment - they might have reasons.
I already met enough people who claim to criticise while actually venting their emotions and settle scores with those they dislike.
That's an interesting maxim. Do you think NASA ran the Apollo program by ignoring the emotions of everyone on the project? If it didn't, should it have?
I just think this is more of pendulum sort of thing. You can go too far in either direction. If I'm erring at all, it's because I've been in circumstances where a complex project suffered due to social agreement.
But for certain, you could go too far in in the other direction: completely ignoring everyone's emotions.
Specifically, if you're in an environment that's swung too hard in the direction of totally ignoring people's emotions, then my advice probably sounds awful.
Programming can be done well, or poorly. Speaking English can be done well, or poorly. Agile methodology can be done well, or poorly. Cooking can be done well, or poorly. The possibility that something can be done poorly is not a strong argumetn that the thing should never be done.
You're right about the tone. If someone has not sincerely committed to believing the NVC framing of the problem is accurate then the tone comes off as incredibly condescending. You have to believe that the emotional component of the issue is a real problem and not just that you're caring about the emotions of other's as a chore to get what you want.
NVC isn't a deescalation technique, so its' not that surprising that you've observed that. It is a communication technique, to make sure a message gets through without baggage attached.
In a sense, someone using NVC for deescalation and resorting to the actual formula of Saw [x], felt [Y], request [Z] is likely to not be very good at NVC. People who are really good at that style of communications are going to separate it out so they tell you needs up front, well before you need to know about them, make requests at the moment they want something, and then observations as things become apparent. All 3 at once usually means a surprise has emerged.
There is a pretty basic tell here - it isn't at all obvious why you'd be seething if someone observed a fact, felt strong emotion about it and bought it to your attention, even in a high stress situation. So either you've misinterpreted something (possible) or they aren't communicating - they are pressuring (pretty likely). It isn't called Non-Violent Get People To Do What You Want and trying to use it that way isn't going to work.
Do you have an example of a specific situation in which it felt artificial?
Perhaps I'm missing something, because I'm not familiar with NVC. After reading the article, it seems that having empathy and curiosity are necessary for NVC to work, and if someone doesn't approach it that way, then they aren't really engaging in NVC.
In these comments, there seems to be many people who dislike it, and I'm wondering why. If someone in a powerful position, like my boss, sought me out to discuss something and expressed empathy and wanted to find out why I did something the way I did, I would feel impressed and appreciated.
I think some of that internal seething is because of previous experience where you might have ended up losing control or power and you are able to see through to what might happen if the other party is not truly empathetic (i.e. trying to get towards a common shared goal vs using this tactic as yet another way to get what they want). Unfortunately the conclusion is that it only will work if the other party then handles the subsequent resulting behavior nicely (whatever that "nicely" might mean -- you shouldn't end up feeling having given up or lost something).
I agree with what the article says about needing a concise opener for a difficult conversation, and for that the madlibs-style script may be useful, but beyond that opener I think more natural language will come off as more genuine. I think the article may be in favor of this as well, as its kind of framed as NVC helping to get a hard conversation started instead of putting off forever.
I suspect sampling bias. When you're upset, direct confrontation can be upsetting too! NVC isn't a perfect magic trick that always works, but that's not enough reason to dismiss it.
I’m not sure why you’re getting downvoted, this is my reading, as well.
People hate being called to task. In many ways it makes it harder for me, in my distress, when the person pointing out my flaws does so in a way that doesn’t leave a lot of room for me to blame others for my failures, or to blame others for my distress.
So the actual experience of NVC (regardless of whether it’s wielded as a subtle tool of manipulation) is often very frustrating.
The only way the recipient of an NVC confrontation will perceive the experience as positive is if the recipient legitimately cares about the person calling them to task, AND also cares about doing better next time.
In the absence of these prerequisites, the recipient will just be annoyed that they weren’t able to get away with whatever they did.
But the recipient’s annoyance doesn’t seem to me like an indictment of the conversational tactic. The point of NVC is to hold people’s feet to the fire; people complaining that having their feet held to the fire is uncomfortable doesn’t seem like a reasonable critique.
Having read through this I think NVC is leveraging power dynamics and social conditioning to leave the victim helpless to fight back. This is essentially something out of a sociopaths tool box.
