>This style of communication is not supposed to be a tool for more efficient emotional manipulation / control.
In corporate environments, at least, "I feel [blah]" is a formula for manipulation and control. It allows people to make demands without ever acknowledging that they are making demands. It becomes a form of doublespeak. For example, "I feel frustrated and I need commitment to the project" means "start working overtime". Except now no one can say they're being asked to work overtime. And they can't even discuss working overtime, because it's phrased in terms of values and emotions. Suddenly saying "I will not be effective when working overtime" becomes an attack on other people's feeling and shared values, because the original demand is phrased in such terms.
> It allows people to make demands without ever acknowledging that they are making demands.
Oh for sure, if someone wants to use NVC-style language to make demands or manipulate people, there's nothing stopping them. People are too clever to stop them from hurting each other just by restricting them to certain words.
But if someone is coming across as manipulative despite their best intentions, and wants help with that, I think NVC has a lot of helpful things to say. The distinction between a "request" and a "demand" is very clear: A request is when it's ok for the person to tell you no, and a demand is when it not. That's not always easy to communicate with 100% clarity, but I think you can get a lot of work done by asking yourself (before you start making a request to someone else) "am I actually ok with them telling me no here?" Often we're not ok with no, and no matter what language we use to make the demand then, the demanded-ness of it is going to come across.
This is not non-violent communication. If the subtext is “figure out what unstated thing I want you to do and then do it or I will fire you”, then that is quite violent. Making both the demand and the threat explicit would probably be better.
I am not an expert in NVC, but my understanding is that avoiding unintentionally coercive language is one of the chief goals. I certainly wouldn’t claim that its title is rhetorically neutral.
Picking apart the fine distinctions between violence and coercion is something I’m happy to leave to the philosophers.
In corporate environments, at least, "I feel [blah]" is a formula for manipulation and control. It allows people to make demands without ever acknowledging that they are making demands. It becomes a form of doublespeak. For example, "I feel frustrated and I need commitment to the project" means "start working overtime". Except now no one can say they're being asked to work overtime. And they can't even discuss working overtime, because it's phrased in terms of values and emotions. Suddenly saying "I will not be effective when working overtime" becomes an attack on other people's feeling and shared values, because the original demand is phrased in such terms.