31 ms·

A guide to difficult conversations

• roenxi 8y ago
  There are a fair few people in the world who would find a good video of Marshall Rosenberg life changing. His perspectives on how to use language are fundamentally superior to what people stumble into in everyday use. His framework is remarkable because it sets up a non-confrontational approach that lets you speak the truth without hurting or upsetting people. Being able to do that on demand is ... really quite a stunning skill. Certainly more useful than any technical trick I've ever learned.
  • nathell 8y ago
    Or his book, "Non-Violent Communication: A Language of Life". It's gotten me into NVC and it's been a game-changer.
    • prepend 8y ago
      This book was really helpful to me in changing how I speak with folks. I have not yet found a good way to recommend it in an effective way.
  • ThePadawan 8y ago
    I struggle a lot with communication, but have not found a panacea for the biggest issue I regularly face. Communication requires two people to be willing to talk. If one of them just doesn't want to listen, just hear themselves talk, what can I do? This includes them not listening to me telling them that I'm not willing to talk to them if they're not willing to listen (in more, or even fewer words than that).
    • roenxi 8y ago
      > If one of them just doesn't want to listen, just hear themselves talk, what can I do? There is no magic trick to make people do what you want them to do. > me telling them that I'm not willing to talk to them if they're not willing to listen Well, that attitude isn't going to fix any of your problems. Review the fine article; Heading 1, "Observations vs. evaluations". I might try ask them why what you are saying doesn't seem to provoke much of a response, but honestly you aren't going to get much joy out of an internet forum for solving communication problems.
      • ThePadawan 8y ago
        Thank you for your input. I want to point out though that you propose "I might try ask them". I want to point out that that would get no response. That is the whole issue which I'm trying to find an "out" for.
        • hopler 8y ago
          If it's someone who can cut your pay, then deal with it, for money, until you find a better option. Otherwise, tell them that you find that the meetings aren't adding value since you've already exchanged all the info that can be communicated, and excuse yourself.
        • SolaceQuantum 8y ago
          IMO You can't force people to behave in a manner that is most condusive to you- especially if the manner they're behaving is most advantageous to themselves (a previous example you provided is to be able to deflect blame by sharing tasks). There is no NVC strategy to force people to behave in manners you want them to, only to try and convince them that your goals are aligned- if they're simply not, then that's just how it goes.
          • ThePadawan 8y ago
            Thank you. I believe your final sentence has really helped me understand an actual issue I am currently facing, but hadn't realized yet.
            • SolaceQuantum 8y ago
              You're sincerely welcome and I wish you best of luck in the future.
        • roenxi 8y ago
          A communications problem described with 4 lines of text is not going to get solved. But I really like airing my views, so you can have a cold read on top of what the other commentators have written. This is generic stuff that I think about when I watch people make mistakes in conversation. Odds are pretty good that any problem is building up over a couple of conversations before it manifests, people are usually obviously walking into trouble, sometimes weeks before things get obviously bad. Often a presentation problem (always doing something that does a little damage but isn't important, like 'joking' insults or forcefully characterising the situation), sometimes an attitude problem (it is surprisingly easy to clearly perceive things that are not there, like the situation being extremely positive or negative - there are some unbelievable whingers out there), often an expectations problem (wanting something out of the conversation that just isn't going to be given, like firm commitment to a radical idea). When I see people who can't get a straight answer, or when it happens to me and I reflect carefully with hindsight, usually it is an expectations problem that leads to other issues. It isn't much fun accepting to that sort of problem though, so bad luck it that fits you. On rare occasions, I've identified expectation problems and then just abandoned a relationship because I don't want to change. One related addendum I make to the NVC framework is people make all decisions by copying other people who look successful. Expect no exceptions unless proven otherwise.
    • davesuperman 8y ago
      Someones we all need a vent. If you hold someone the space to say what they need to — and truly know they've been heard, that opens up space for them to hear. Frustrating sometimes? Definitely. But it works.
      • ThePadawan 8y ago
        Well that is something I can 100% relate to, but it's not the situation I was thinking of. A typical situation would be someone trying to deflect blame by ensuring they have talked to someone else before making a mistake, just so they won't take 100% of the fallout.
        • hopler 8y ago
          That sounds like not your problem. If A deflects blame to B, to escape C's judgement, then B can make their case to C separately. There's no reason to prevent A from having a conversation from B at all.
    • BeetleB 8y ago
      >If one of them just doesn't want to listen, just hear themselves talk, what can I do? Have not tried it, but the NVC book says to keep empathizing (without agreeing) until they stop. I think it works for most people. But for the pathological folks who just ramble on and on and keep changing topics, the book actually has a phrase along the lines of "I'm having trouble connecting with you in this conversation. Would you please ...?" (I don't remember the phrase, but the request is to explain the purpose of the conversation). I have not tried it. If your concern is they are not listening to you (i.e. you can talk but they don't process it), that's actually very normal. And the solution in the book is to empathize for a while, and then specifically point it out and request they reflect back what you have said to them. Now I can tell you from experience that this needs practice - most ways of saying it will trigger defenses.
    • tomjen3 8y ago
      In that case, let them talk and talk and talk. When they do so, listen. At the end (which will come eventually, especially if you only answer with yes and no, so there are no follow up possible) you suggest a great solution for some problem they mention, which you can do because a) you are detached and b) they talked a lot and you had ample time to figure things out...
  • toomim 8y ago
    Here is one of those videos: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7TONauJGfc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7TONauJGfc
• kreck 8y ago
  Very nice and concise writeup. For me it is always hard to deliver the feedback to the point (the 40 words rule), because i'm afraid it'll simply go under in all the other information people take in during the day. That's why i tend to keep pressing the matter. Has anyone some relevant experience to share on that?
  • davesuperman 8y ago
    Often, the most concentrated the message, the higher the impact. Sometimes a single sentence followed by silence is more powerful than a 1-hour talk. Counter-intuitive (but who said communication was straightforward).
    • kreck 8y ago
      You're right, it is far from easy. I will definitely give it a try.
• ochronus 8y ago
  Great article! Thanks for highlighting this often neglected aspect of communication!
  • davesuperman 8y ago
    Pleasure :)
• deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
• motohagiography 8y ago
  This is a valuable post. I have not taken an NVC course before, but I have done a lot of work in negotiations, writing, and was brought up to use this style of communication. One thing I would be interested in either from the OP or someone with experience with NVC, is how you recognize when you are being patronizing. Much of this communication style is the artifact of an implied power relationship, where the speaker already has the power, or is asserting power. In negotiations, there is the idea of appealing to shared principles and interests, and NVC can be a way to depersonalize the issue to focus on that. But the example of handling, "No," with empathy is to directly personalize the issue and address feelings, vs. the negotiation view which would be to ask, "if no, given we agree on X, let's leave my perceived solution aside for a moment and find out how we get X." I think empathy in business can often be zero sum, where it is just an expression of sympathy for someones lack of power in the situation, that is both psychologically horrible, and destroys value. I call that approach of fabricated empathy "seduce and smother," which is common in organizations today. This article provides an essential and valuable tool. However, this difference between empathy and principle, is that an accurate interpretation of the distinction?
  • davesuperman 8y ago
    Great question. I use NVC frequently to people with a lot more power than me, and I'd actually suggest NVC is actually about putting yourself (and your needs) on the same level as those of the person your speaking with. The fundamental premise is that fundamental needs are shared by all humans... and the ideal strategy is one where all needs are met. So, you can avoid patronising someone by truly seeking to understand the other person's feelings and needs without judgement and taking those needs seriously. Again, easy to say, hard to do.
    • motohagiography 8y ago
      That's the key I think. Appreciated. By putting your universal needs on the same level (not your "self"), you are in effect appealing to principle, so there is likely a great deal of alignment between the methods as described. Looking forward to reading up more on this. Thank you.
• llamataboot 8y ago
  NVC has been a game-changer for me, not only in terms of my relationship with my partner, but my relationship with myself. Not only does it allow someone to communicate more effectively, it allows someone to be way more conscious of what they need and that they are ultimately responsible for meeting those needs. It definitely requires actual practice though. It is a skill to be grown, not just knowledge to be acquired or memorized.
• SCdF 8y ago
  The video linked at the bottom of the article doesn't work for me ("the video is unavailable <mock concern face>"). Is this a regional thing (I'm in the UK), or is it broken for everyone?
  • davesuperman 8y ago
    I fixed it. Great catch, thanks for letting me know :)
• rhn_mk1 8y ago
  What's the purpose of expressing the feeling? It seems like it's there only to underline the urgency of the unmet needs. At the same time, it implies an emotional investment in the issue at hand, which I would see either as unnecessary or insincere in a work environment.
  • davesuperman 8y ago
    Expressing our feelings is powerful way to connect with people, by helping to create empathic attunement. Forming a connection is critical when communicating in a difficult situation. It might seem like 'fluff', but I believe it's what separates the mediocre and great communicators. Sadly, logic is rarely enough.
  • zenpaul 8y ago
    What I always say is "speak what you know" in a confrontational situation. It is an authentic way of communicating that opens up conversations. For example, I can say that "I feel frustrated when you show up to the meeting 10 minutes late." instead of "You are so disorganized that you never show up to the meetings on time." The truth is what I know is my feelings and what I don't know is what is going on in their world.
  • BeetleB 8y ago
    >What's the purpose of expressing the feeling? It seems like it's there only to underline the urgency of the unmet needs. You answered the question. The NVC answer is that it's just a pattern of human behavior. If you speak only to the feelings and not the needs, you get labeled as sensitive. If you speak only to the needs, you get labeled as needy. If you speak to both, you are connecting the dots. People are more likely to empathize and help. >At the same time, it implies an emotional investment in the issue at hand, which I would see either as unnecessary or insincere in a work environment. An important point I read in a non-NVC communications book: If people are getting upset at work (raised voices, venting, whatever), emotions are very much at play. So why pretend they're not there? If people will insist on putting a pretense of objectivity without putting the feelings on the table, usually problems will not get solved well. Also, avoiding talking about emotions leads to the annoying artefact where the person starts invoking all kinds of principles, appeals to authority, morality, etc to justify their stance. These are all less effective than simply expressing their feelings. They often devolve to arguments on which principles the team should follow, etc. It's a lot easier to disagree to an objective standard than it is to tell someone their feelings are invalid (yes, yes, we all know someone who does it, but it is not the norm). It also leads to a lot of "should" phrases. "An employee should..." "A manager should..." "It is the responsibility of a ... to ..." "The customer should ..." "A programmer should ..." All of these statements have poor effectiveness. I've explained it in another comment, but on occasion I've told people that should is not in my vocabulary. They need to explain why they need something and not just hide behind "shoulds".
• weeksie 8y ago
  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.
  • davesuperman 8y ago
    I won't lie... NVC is really, really hard to achieve. But sometimes it's worth risking making mistakes to achieve your goal.
    • treis 8y ago
      These three examples: >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".
• acl777 8y ago
  I learned about Non-Violent Communication at a programming conference when the speaker said: "If you want to be a better programmer, read this book" Such a game changer in my pull request comments and life. Non-violent Communication is not easy, it takes continuous practice. I even blogged on each chapter: http://redgreenrepeat.com/2017/05/12/nonviolent-communication-chapter-1/ http://redgreenrepeat.com/2017/05/12/nonviolent-communicatio... and still feel I can improve my communication, especially when I get emotional.
  • ascar 8y ago
    I'm curious, if NVC goes for indirect instead of direct conversation. I was working in an American company (I'm German) and had to learn to adapt to the style of being too nice (in my opinion). E.g. an "it might be better to do it like this", wasn't really meant as a weak suggestion, but a strong one. Something completely counterintuitive to my German mindset. I took it as a "might" and was met with negativity that I didn't exactly follow the "suggestion". I much prefer language being direct at work. Treat the subjunctive as what it is: expressing uncertainty, not politeness. I know however that many people, especially outside of Germany, prefer the indirect language, even though they learned to understand it with the same meaning as the direct speech.
    • davesuperman 8y ago
      I must strongly disagree. NVC stressed the importance of specific observations — genuinely, I can't see how you can be more direct than that. Most people never get to specifics and stop at generalities. That would be my definition of indirect.
      • peteradio 8y ago
        It is a specific suggestion based on the language used. However it was found to be a specific demand. Super passive aggressive.
    • roenxi 8y ago
      Memory suggests NVC has some pretty nasty things to say about people who "suggest" things and they later turn out to be orders. Heading 4 of the fine article is the relevant one, bit it actually gets Requests vs. Demands wrong based on the telling of it I heard. My understanding based on a YouTube video I watched many years ago is that a request is either fulfilled or not fulfilled, and that is the end of it. A demand is backed up by some sort of threat, like threat of a negative reaction. The key was that to distinguish a request from a demand was impossible based on the language used. It was only detectable by the reaction if you don't act on it. So, ironically "Go get me a beer" can be a request but "do you think it is a good idea to open the window?" might be a demand, depending on what happens on a flat "No". Nothing in NVC says you have to be nice, and I'm not sure it takes a position on direct or indirect. But a negative response from not following a suggestion is exactly the sort of violence that NVC is trying to avoid.
• zomg 8y ago
  Great article and very timely as I need to have a difficult conversation with a co-worker today! :)
• l1n 8y ago
  Great article, thanks for the concise and actionable NVC intro! Non-Medium reformatting: http://download.nova.anticlack.com/nvc.txt http://download.nova.anticlack.com/nvc.txt
• AmazingAtalanta 8y ago
  It's interesting, because I believe as a child we learned a simplistic version of this in elementary school. The basic construct was the "I feel ______, when ______." Obviously, this was for child-level conflict resolution, so unlike the guidance provided in NVC it most likely left it open to making accusations ("I feel hurt when you pull my hair"). But it's possible that children might do better with that sort of directness compared to adults in more complicated situations. But I have continued to use that approach as a manager and had never heard of NVC before I saw this article. I really appreciated the expanded guidance and a better way to plan the conversation. I also found the section on Consequences to be helpful as well. When you are in an authority position, I believe it is important to help people understand that there might be consequences to their actions or continued in-action.
• bitxbit 8y ago
  I highly recommend Celeste Headlee’s We Need To Talk. A good audiobook as well.
• realradicalwash 8y ago
  There seems to be quite some overlap between NVC and I-messages [0], which are constructed in a similar manner: 1. I feel... (Insert feeling word) 2. when... (tell what caused the feeling). 3. I would like... (tell what you want to happen instead). (from [0]) I learnt about I-messages about 10 years ago in a seminar on conflict resolution and have tried to use them eversince. My personal impression is that they have really helped me - in solving conflicts, but also in growing as a person. Because, again purely subjective, my impression is that once you give others your I-messages, they are more likely to also respond with I-messages. Which again helps me to understand others and their needs better. That said, NVC looks like a great addition, by making things more explicit with those four distinctions (observations vs. evaluations, etc.). [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-message https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-message
  • treis 8y ago
    >I learnt about I-messages about 10 years ago in a seminar on conflict resolution and have tried to use them eversince. My personal impression is that they have really helped me - in solving conflicts, but also in growing as a person. Because, again purely subjective, my impression is that once you give others your I-messages, they are more likely to also respond with I-messages. Which again helps me to understand others and their needs better. I've also found the pattern: You have [Problem]. Lots of people feel [how you feel] about [Problem]. If I did [X] would it solve [Problem]? To be helpful in every relationship: "I get that you're mad that I didn't take out the garbage. The kitchen stinks now and everyone hates that. Do you think it'd help if I added a reminder to my phone?"
    • tomjen3 8y ago
      My answer to that would be "I don't give a shit what you do, as long as you take out the garbage" and I would _still_ be mad at you (plus annoyed that you asked me for a solution to something that shouldn't be my problem in the first place).
  • funfunfun 8y ago
    If you read the book you'll notice that I-messages are a rough approximation of the tools. Sometimes I think this summary does more harm than good by presenting it without the richness of the book
• nicpottier 8y ago
  I read the Nonviolent Communication (https://www.amazon.com/Nonviolent-Communication-Language-Marshall-Rosenberg/dp/1892005034 https://www.amazon.com/Nonviolent-Communication-Language-Mar...) book at the recommendation of a counselor a decade or so back and it really changed my life and how I interact with people. I think as a programmer I am not atypical in that I sometimes struggle with empathy or how people reacted to things I said, but NVC gave me a framework to communicate in a healthier way. This wasn't just something that helped at work, it had an enormous effect on my personal life as well and I credit it to having strong relationships now. I think the only frustrating piece is sometimes dealing with other who have not read (or do not subscribe) to the same philosophies. It can be very trying to respond to attacks with empathy but in the end that's still always the best strategy. Highly recommended and not just if you are a manager, if you deal with other human beings at all, read it.
• stadeschuldt 8y ago
  Is this article paywalled? Medium presents me with a box saying: You read a lot. We like that. You’ve reached the end of your free member preview for this month. Become a member now for $5/month to read this story and get unlimited access to all of the best stories on Medium.
  • m52go 8y ago
    I got the same thing...immediately exited. Surprised there isn't more of a brouhaha about it in the comments.
  • totololo 8y ago
    Yeah same for me. Forced to open in incognito mode. I wouldn't be surprised that the writer has no clue his content is being paywalled.
  • ranie93 8y ago
    That showed up for me as well but there was an X icon on the top right to close the pop-up and continue to the article.
• 86carr 8y ago
  This seems pretty great!!
• DoofusOfDeath 8y ago
  I've also heard good things about "The Art of Hard Conversations: Biblical Tools for the Tough Talks That Matter" [0] and "Difficult Conversations: How to Discuss What Matters Most" [1]. Can anyone comment on the relative merits of these articles' / books' approaches? [0] https://www.amazon.com/Art-Hard-Conversations-Biblical-Matter/dp/0825445558 https://www.amazon.com/Art-Hard-Conversations-Biblical-Matte... [1] https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0143118447/ref=oh_aui_search_asin_title?ie=UTF8&psc=1 https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0143118447/ref=oh_aui_sear...
  • funfunfun 8y ago
    Read them all. The ROI is so high you may as well
• tomp 8y ago
  Another interesting idea: apparently, positive motivation (reward) works much better than negative motivation (punishment). Allegedly it's "scientifically proven" (for some definition of "scientifically") which I haven't yet taken the time to research, but I plan to. I've been thinking about how to apply this in two of the most important areas of interpersonal interaction in our lives, in our careers and in interpersonal relationships. We often discuss on HN why it's difficult in careers (conflicting interests, hard to measure results, under-specified goals, etc.). In relationships, I think the main difficulty is that we enter relationships with so many expectations (i.e. "my partner should love me and spend time with me and give me gifts" or similar) that these can't really be used for positive motivation, instead we interpret the absence of them as negative motivation. One idea I had, though, is to explicitly verbalise rewarding in addition to the actual reward (i.e. instead of just spending time with them, say "I really liked that you did X yesterday" and spend time with them).
  • snarf21 8y ago
    It all really depends though. This speaks to concepts like the 5 love languages (time, words, acts, touch, gifts) but words mean nothing to me personally. Words are easy, show me instead. But each person has their own needs and bias.
  • el_cujo 8y ago
    I know I'm being pedantic here, but in psychology, negative motivation is when you take away something averse as a reward for a certain behavior. Negative here relates to the fact you're negating or removing something to act as motivation, whereas if something is positive, you're adding something (like a treat for a dog). What a lot of people refer to as "negative motivation" is actually positive punishment because you are adding something aversive (like a spanking) in response to a behavior you want to decrease. It's important to keep this in mind when looking at scientific literature so that you know exactly what they're talking about.
    • tomp 8y ago
      Ah, useful to know. So I guess what my post was about, was preffering to scale the rewards between positive and negative ends of the spectrum, instead of punishment.
• baud147258 8y ago
  I prefer the actual title of the article (How to Deliver Constructive Feedback rather than A guide to difficult conversations); a difficult conversation could be about anything and the object of the article seems very vague, whereas delivering feedback is something most of us would have to do and so is something of interest (and is more precise). I nearly didn't read the article because of this, which would have been a shame since it was an interesting read.
• leshow 8y ago
  I have a feeling people will read this blog post and implement it by stating some of those observations are going to come across really passive aggressive.
• sidlls 8y ago
  Some of the things in there are incredibly condescending and foster ambiguity. For example, the observation "three of the numbers in your report were inaccurate" is an observation of a mistake made, which people do. It only means "you are sloppy" if it's a regular occurrence without signs of improvement. Using that as a stand in for "you are sloppy" is itself sloppy, and also lazy and unhelpful.
  • tome 8y ago
    I don't think that the "observations vs evaluations" section was literally suggesting replacing the evaluation line with its corresponding observation line.
    • sidlls 8y ago
      He does exactly that further down in the article, although those examples further down are a little better than the one I highlighted.
  • wjn0 8y ago
    OK, but that's not a problem with NVC. "You are sloppy" is an evaluation. An observation would be "the reports you produce consistently have errors" or something like that.
  • thanatos_dem 8y ago
    Isn’t that the point tho? It’s very confrontational and generalizing to say “your numbers are always wrong”. Instead, even if it’s a recurring pattern, stick to hard facts and actual examples you can point to. If there has been a history of issues, the person will identify that pattern themselves, unless they’re a complete idiot. And if they fail to identify that, the next hard conversation to have is “you aren’t excelling here and it’s time for a change”.
  • mercutio2 8y ago
    Is it possible you’re misreading that section? The point is to deliver the observation, not the evaluation. You seem to be saying that those evaluation statements are lazy/unhelpful. And NVC advocates agree! That’s why they recommend observations, not evaluations!
• malvosenior 8y ago
  It's funny, his very first paragraph hints at what I've found to be the most effective way to handle difficult conversations: "All my biggest regrets as a founder are around not having difficult conversations sooner. I could have helped team members improve faster, fired people with the wrong fit earlier, had so many more productive meetings. I could have created a more open company culture." "Sooner". Give difficult information out in small bit immediately. Waiting and letting things bottle up only makes it harder. You also build a relationship with the person receiving the bad news of honesty and openness from the get go. If I'm managing a report that did something wrong, I address it immediately. They get used to me being honest and prompt with my feedback. Addressing a single issue immediately also mean things don't build up and you're not forced to "bundle" bad news together. Of course you should also do this with positive feedback but I think you'll find that when you regularly and openly address negative issues, it becomes much easier on all parties involved.
  • jillesvangurp 8y ago
    Depends on culture and formality of the relationship. I noticed some key differences working with people in the US, Scandinavia, Netherlands, India, Germany, Russia, and other places. In the US, people will insist everything is awesome and great right until they get fired. Reason, they can be on the street in under 15 minutes and that kind of puts some filters in place. It also means that you need to follow up with some questions to get a real feel for what is going on. A peculiar thing with Indians I've worked with (superiors even) is that they seem reluctant to say no even when they mean to. So if you ask a direct question and you get an evasive answer, more questions are needed.
• MadWombat 8y ago
  So, a tutorial on "how to be a greedy, hypocritical, toxic asshole without sounding like one" :)
• rsweeney21 8y ago
  The formative years of my career were spent as a software engineer at Microsoft where communication was direct and sometimes harsh. Code reviews could be particularly harsh with comments like "this code is bad because..." or "this is unreadable." At first it was really hard, but eventually my skin got pretty think. I even came to love the efficiency of direct communication in programming. When I became a founder, the communication style I had developed as an engineer DID NOT work for communicating with other disciplines like sales, marketing or customer success. At first I thought it was the people I hired just being overly sensitive. After some time I realized that it wasn't them, it was me. I needed to unlearn many of my engineering communication habits and adopt a different style.
  • gowld 8y ago
    It's an anti-pattern to call abrasiveness an "engineering" habit. It's an orthogonal axis. "saying things are 'unreadable' or 'bad'" is not efficiten -- that's not actional feedback. Skip the "this code is bad", and the unsupported univeral claims of "unreadable" (obviously the author and the compiler could both read it, and get directly to the point of your concern with the code -- this code has a logic bug, or is inneficient, or you can't follow the changing state or don't know what this variable refers to, or what have tou.
    • tashian 8y ago
      I agree. I think talking about code is a critical skill, but not everyone has a strong practice of doing it. When I was first learning to code I never had anyone to talk to about my code, so I didn't get to learn the vocabulary until later.
  • jdsully 8y ago
    Microsoft of the 90s/early 2000s was a much different place then it is now. The closest example today would be a trading floor (but not quite as aggressive). It took a certain type of person to do well there - but if you survived your first few months the open communication was amazing. You were allowed to express negative emotions instead of pretending everything is great all the time. If you thought a decision was bad you could say so. There's nothing quite like seeing someone who rarely gets angry say, "If we don't fix this we might as well not fix another F'ing bug ever again" to make you reconsider your triage decision.
• codeape 8y ago
  So if I understand the article, one should use the communication pattern: When ____[observation], I feel ____[emotion] because I’m needing some ____[universal needs]. Would you be able to ____[request]? For instance: When [you're acting like a dickhead], I feel [the urge to punch you] because I'm needing some [fking professionalism]. Would you be able to [stop acting like a dickhead]?
  • gowld 8y ago
    Reading your post, I feel that you don't understand the article. I come to HN for substantive commentary that engages and expands upon the source material. Would you be able to read it again with a fresh perspective, and share your criticism in a less sarcastic and more informative way?
  • mercutio2 8y ago
    There are several sentences in the piece dedicated to explaining that treating the [emotion] section as a synonym for [attack that happens to be prefixed with the word feel] is a corruption of the practice. There’s also a section explaining the difference between requests and demands. But your formulation does tend to highlight why people get incensed at amateurish imitations of NVC.
  • quickthrower2 8y ago
    "you're acting like a dickhead" is not an observation, it is a characterisation. "the urge to punch you" could be phrased as "angry" perhaps? "fking professionalism" isn't what you need, it is a trait you want the other person to show. What is it that you need?
• leesalminen 8y ago
  I’m generally a good conversation participant, but this week has made me second guess myself. My father-in-law is currently hospitalized after his heart stopped this weekend. He’s currently in an induced coma. Brain damage is a foregone conclusion at this point and they’re unsure if he will ever regain consciousness. My wife and I happened to be on vacation in Costa Rica when this happened. We hopped on the next available flight and were at the hospital 21 hours later. Because we were unavailable, my younger brother-in-law was given Power of Attorney. This “power” went to his head within minutes. He’s now decided that he is the sole arbiter of information. Nobody but him is allowed to talk to the doctors or ask questions. I spent over 2 hours with him trying to talk it through. I never insulted or condescended him. My goal of the conversation was to allow his sister (both are the patients children) to participate in conversations with the medical staff. At the end of the 2 hours, he attempted to assault me so I left. I felt like a failure. I’ve never not been able to talk someone down from an irrational position before. I think I subconsciously used some of these NVC tactics, but failed miserably. Is there an online course one can take on having these difficult conversations? I need to up my skills.
  • ndynan 8y ago
    I'm sorry to hear about your situation, that sounds particularly challenging. I've found this book very helpful at facilitating communication and it might be of help: https://www.amazon.com/Say-What-You-Mean-Communication/dp/161180583X https://www.amazon.com/Say-What-You-Mean-Communication/dp/16...
    • leesalminen 8y ago
      Thank you for the link. I will check it out!
  • blowski 8y ago
    I'm sorry to hear that, must be a really difficult for time for all of you. I doubt there's anything you could have done differently to get a better outcome. When people are in such weird situations, there's no "guaranteed method" to help. They're having a shit time, and they want to take it out on people - and you were there.
• vfinn 8y ago
  It seems his teachings are based on the teachings of Jiddu Krishnamurti. There are some good audio books by him on Youtube, like Freedom from the Known. On a slightly related note, Jonathan Blow also has a talk called Techniques for dealing with lack of motivation, malaise, depression (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7kh8pNRWOo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7kh8pNRWOo), where he also talks about the importance of observational skills as a means of understanding / "putting out" your (negative) emotions and thoughts.
  • bergerjac 8y ago
    Standing on the shoulders of giants... I've found most "new" teachings are based on past geniuses, with a modern-day twist to compensate for slang or technology... I took a 10-day meditation course, originally developed by Buddha, and many of the guidelines run through to today's principles... Such as "Observe sensations, without judging, without reacting, without getting excited. Observe."
  • __blockcipher__ 8y ago
    I was shocked when I saw that Krishnamurti quote. J Krishnamurti's talks are some of the most insightful and clear-headed that I've ever encountered. And yet it's very rare to encounter references to him in the wild. Sounds trite to say but some of "his" teachings (he hated that phrasing) got me through some very difficult times in my life. There was a time when I realized that my relationship with my parents was twisted; that they were hurting me by being oppressive/overbearing/controlling. Hearing his thoughts on love and the relationship between perception and action (namely, that perceiving a problem without running away from it _is_ the act of fixing the problem) gave me the insight and clarity I needed to cut my parents off [ASTERISK], pay my way through college and build a life that I was happy with. [ASTERISK] This sounds weird or callous when you have to say it "out loud", but to be clear, I had very good reasons to do so. I did it to protect myself, not to hurt them. edit: how the hell do I escape an asterisk? I tried single asterisk, triple asterisk, backslash asterisk before giving up and just putting [ASTERISK]
    • vfinn 8y ago
      True about the rarity of Krishnamurti. Not sure how Krishnamurti would feel about Rosenberg, though, since he seems to be offering template solutions. What comes to your asterisk issue, the help says: "Text surrounded by asterisks is italicized, if the character after the first asterisk isn't whitespace."
• excepttry 8y ago
  As someone who has never heard of NVC, I recall echos of such tactics in the language a former teammate employed at work. However, nobody found him sincere or honest. Instead, he cam across as mechanical even though it was clear that he was trying to foster a transparent and open environment. There was always a disconnect between this noble goal and the hostility he made everybody feel when he talked with them. I think this proposed quote from the article represents it well: >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 comes across as very aggressive. First off - they are peers. The author makes a power grab by immediately painting the coworker in a negative light. I don't put a lot of stake in hierarchies, but I am sensitive to power dynamics. If I were witnessing this, I would immediately see that author conquered the high ground. This puts the coworker on the defensive from the get go. Second - it's fair to assume the coworker simply had back-to-back meetings. But now the coworker has to explain this in the author's terms. The conversation feels hostile and I don't believe the author has his peer's interests in mind. Instead the author should trust that peer has a good reason for being 10 minutes late and talk through a strategy that can help the peer arrive on time. But the author needs to give something away.
  • FooBarWidget 8y ago
    I don't get it. What part of that question is aggressive? Arriving late is a fact. The author requests helping him understand what's happening -- not an unreasonable request, unless you think that author magically understanding the situation without any communication counts as reasonable. The author feels an emotion -- again, not unreasonable because emotions are private and are not a choice. The author does not give an evaluation, so it sounds like you think having the emotion is the evaluation. It sounds like you expect people to give you the benefit of the doubt all the time, without needing to expend any effort communicating.
    • excepttry 8y ago
      > It sounds like you expect people to give you the benefit of the doubt all the time, without needing to expend any effort communicating. I am saying there should be a culture of trust. What do you lose by trusting that your peer coworker did not intend to be late? If you don't trust your peers, you will create a hostile environment where everyone is on the defensive. I trust that my former coworker did not intend to raise tensions by interrogating his peers and I trust that he really thought he was helping and creating a culture of radical transparency. I agree that arriving late thrice is a fact. Calling it out can be done in a fair and neutral way. Where I disagree is that as peers we have the expectation for a full explanation for banal coworkers actions. I have seen this exact scenario play out with my former coworker. > "can you help me understand why you were late?" > the cross team sync ran 10 minutes late and I needed to present - i notified slack) > "could you have left the meeting early?" > No, i needed to present and I was at the end. > "could you have reordered the meeting?" > No, other people also needed to present and were late to meetings. . . . What a pointless conversation. Nothing of value is gained! Instead, we can trust our coworkers - ask to diagnose the problem and help work towards a solution. "hey, _____, you have been late to the last three meetings, and we need to have you present. I am frustrated that we have lost 30 minutes of the team's time. Can we sync up after to adjust our timings so this works better for everyone?" Here, we make clear that we are going to do a blameless postmortem to find a solution. I don't need to know exactly why my coworker is late, all I want to understand is if there are process inefficiencies that we can fix. I trust my coworker, first.
• chroma 8y ago
  Calling it "nonviolent communication" is a brilliant marketing move, as it implies that not conversing in this manner is violent. I've seen this style many times in my career, and it always comes off as patronizing. It also tends to be used far more often than recommended. Instead of being deployed in difficult conversations, it gets used in every one-on-one. My guess is that NVC ends up like power posing[1]: pop-psych that fails to replicate and continues to be espoused long after it has been shown not to work. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_posing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_posing
  • noobiemcfoob 8y ago
    NVC perhaps is often employed in situations that don't quite require that degree of formulation, but when parties have been bickering so much that even simple "Hello" courtesies get interpreted as passive aggression, the structure of NVC allows the building of communication. Anything that gets and keeps both parties talking in these situations, even by marginal degrees, is worth everything.
  • BadassFractal 8y ago
    In general I'm also not a fan of changing definitions of words for the extra pathos and marketability. I also would be surprised if Rosenberg has any sort of malicious intent here in his choice of wording. Violence is, by definition, physical, and claiming that "speech is violence" seems like a trivialization of actual physical violence. While there is evidence that certain types of psychological abuse can cause a physical reaction akin to that experienced by victims of physical violence, those cases are extremely rare and shouldn't be used as justification for this sort of rebranding.
    • jacobolus 8y ago
      Emotional manipulation is absolutely violence. Often language which is itself not explicitly violent is backed by implicit threats of violence. Labeling and judgment feed both emotional and physical violence, not only among individuals but also more systematically. The most brilliant book I know about this is Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness, which explores in great depth the myriad ways in which language is violent and perpetuates violence, while being narrated by a completely dispassionate narrator who sticks to pure observation. > [...] can cause a physical reaction akin to that experienced by victims of physical violence, those cases are extremely rare If by “extremely rare” you mean experienced by nearly everyone occasionally throughout their lives (and by many on a daily basis), then sure. An attack doesn’t need to leave someone hospitalized to be “violent”.
• edoloughlin 8y ago
  When [you use NVC on me], I feel [patronised] because I'm needing some [respect as a fellow human being]. Would you be able to [drop the insincere MBA bullshit and treat me like an adult]?
  • degenerate 8y ago
    I never heard of NVC until today, but I'm realizing many of the "fake" people I've communicated with in my business career have been using this type of speaking, and it makes sense why they couldn't give me direct answers - they were hyper-focusing on how their reply should be crafted as NVC instead of simply answering my questions. It's infuriating when you are simply trying to get something done and the other person is more concerned with the alignment of their spoken words than actually giving you the information you need. Just tell me what I did wrong so I can fix it ffs.
    • milkytron 8y ago
      That's most likely an over usage of NVC. I can see how this format of conversation could be useful for difficult conversations. Applying it to all your professional communications not only seems like a lot of effort and burdensome, but for the reasons you mentioned, might actually be counterproductive.
  • tashian 8y ago
    That's really the worst. When people copy and paste something like NVC insincerely. It's not a "tool" that you "implement" in your speaking style. But, when people are taking on things like this at first, it is awkward. I remember my first one-on-ones as a manager were super awkward, because I hadn't internalized a sincere way of doing it, I was following a recipe I learned on a podcast. And, for someone to learn to be a good manager, there's likely to be some awkward recipe-following along the way. We're all learning as we go. I think for things like NVC there's the stated technique, and then there's the art of it. The art takes a pretty major shift in mindset for a lot of people, and managers can still be in very high-level roles while still being super insincere robots, usually because they're really good at other stuff.
  • 8y ago
• davesque 8y ago
  I went through a phase where I was pretty interested in NVC. I learned some useful things mostly have to do with the distinction between observation and evaluation and emotion and thought. However, I feel the system can't justify its particular choice of words used to describe universal needs and also can't justify the notion that those concepts would apply in any situation. I remember seeing Marshall Rosenberg speak in person once at Naropa University in Boulder, CO. During the question and answer part, one person asked where the universal needs came from and why Rosenberg chose those particular needs instead of others. At first, he acted confused by the question. Then he paused for a moment and finally answered, "I'm not sure. God I suppose. The universe. Whatever you want to call it." What I felt he had done, perhaps unintentionally, in that moment, was to give every person in the room a method to make righteous requests with NVC, not just requests. It made me realize that there's easily a debate to be had about what needs apply in what situation. A person might not be reasonable in suggesting that their needs aren't being met and may develop a really wrong attitude on top of that in viewing their needs as universal (i.e. being righteous and requiring no justification).
  • ehsanu1 8y ago
    Based on that answer, and given the initial confusion, I can't help but speculate that Marshall took the question to literally mean "where do needs originate", to which the obvious literal answer is a creator or the Universe. I think the question was meant to understand how the list of needs was determined, to which I would imagine Rosenberg may have had a different answer. I can't know this for sure, but my understanding is that these needs were identified via some sort of introspection, and probably seemed somewhat obvious to Marshall. This is clearly subjective in some way, but it does seem that most humans do share many of the same needs, so I'm not sure that your criticism holds much weight. The idea behind calling needs universal is to ensure we are talking about the same kinds of needs. eg. I don't need you to accept whatever I do and say it's ok no matter what. But I do need autonomy. The need should not reference specific people, things, times or situations. It should be very general, which helps frame the conversation in a less combative way and makes sure we are talking about the underlying values that motivate all our actions. It's very hard for me to try to think of something that follows those rules of generality and that may be characterized as a need by someone, but is not a real universal need and is overly righteous. Could you help me by giving an example of such a mis-characterized need?
• patjenk 8y ago
  Maybe I am misunderstanding empathy, but the following paragraph sounds more like sympathy: "But when it comes to difficult conversations, I’ve found that empathy has a side-effect. I can get so focused on how the conversation might affect the other person’s feelings that I lose sight of why the conversation is needed in the first place." In the above circumstance, I thought empathizing with the person would be understanding they (may) benefit from the information you're providing. Sympathizing with them would be reacting to their feelings, which seems to be the approach here. Am I wrong? An analogy could be made to a person who recently had a friend die. Sympathizing would be reacting to their sadness and feeling bad for them. Empathizing would be understanding how they're feeling and taking steps to support them (e.g. spending quality time with them).
• soheil 8y ago
  At the risk of getting a lot of heat for this, I find this type of thinking more of a plague that has cast its ugly web on tech as a whole. An analogy would be anti-something drugs to damp down people who are hyper, might have ADHD and have so much energy and short attention span. As a society if we try to normalize all things and people we're only left with the mediocrity almost by definition and boring middle of the bell curve. This type of communication damps down powerful human interaction that a lot of us are capable of in favor of a much more passive style of communication and muted way of making a point so you don't offend anyone immediately. It's ok if they're offended later because they thought about what you said and read what NVC is and then found out what you "really" meant to tell them, but didn't have the audacity to say it. If we were to truly believe points made in NVC (dogmas?) that would probably be even worse as we would be modifying the way our brain was evolved to reason about things and may be making an un-natural change that may have drastically negative individual and societal impacts in the future. If my manager tells me "You arrived ten minutes late to the meeting this morning" I would have to be an idiot to think next time he's not going to fire me if I'm late so this is more passive aggressive and nerve racking than if he just told me "don't be late or else!"
  • Loughla 8y ago
    It seems like your line of reasoning implies that threats are a necessary part of being an adult in the working world. And that's just not the case. That should never be the case. This style of communication isn't angled at 'normalizing' anything. It's meant to give you a framework to identify what the real problem is, to communicate it clearly and efficiently, and to work with the other person to move past the problem. If you don't say exactly what you're trying to say, and someone later 'found out what you "really meant to tell them' - you 100% did it wrong. It's not a way to get out of having a difficult conversation. It's a framework to help you remove your personal beliefs, remove values judgments, and instead rely on the facts of the situation. Your whole post comes across as you believe, genuinely believe, that being awful to other people via threats is a natural human state of being. It isn't. If my boss ever told me "don't do 'x' or else", it would be the last day I ever worked for that a-hole.
    • 8y ago
• mevile 8y ago
  > move them on When I see these disingenuous alternative ways to say that you've fired someone I just think that person is being an asshole. Why is it so hard to say you fired someone? Why is it always some bullshit like "we transitioned them out" "we moved them on" and no bullshit, "they graduated". Using these euphemisms makes you come across as tone deaf and dishonest. Your audience can take hearing that you fired someone. If you have a hard time using the words required to effectively describe what you're doing maybe you're in the wrong line of work and shouldn't be coaching others.
  • ozim 8y ago
    Because you are not in target audience. Target audience is not top 20% of Gauss distribution or probably not even top 40% of confident people. It is all those people who fear they will be fired but are still needed (you still can have top performers with anxiety). If they hear someone "graduated" it becomes OK in a day or two, but "fired" will trigger them and all anxiety will make them think not about working harder but about what they will do when they are next. "Your audience can take hearing that you fired someone", that is situation specific, company specific, yes audience specific. If you think we are all adults and should treat everyone who is over 21 as perfectly reasonable person, you are in world of surprise.
• ancarda 8y ago
  If anyone is interested in an IRC channel for NVC, a few friends and I run ##nvc on freenode. It's small, but we'd love to grow it and spread NVC.
• andyidsinga 8y ago
  Corollary (to the whole article): act/do the way you expect others to act/do in a small set of areas that are very important to you. I've often seen leaders/managers get upset about the little shit while not acting the way they expect others to act in the areas they care about. My step dad and a few bosses I've had over the years are great at this; they jump in and start doing the work and its amazing to see others jump right in along side them. Also, and this is key: they jump in and work along side their own reports who are doing the right things (this is a powerful message to a team). One boss and mentor (and now a good friend) - would write documents/presentations and share them with an employee: "hey, I'm doing this presentation to _______ , check it out. I'd like you to ramp up and next month take it over. I'll be happy to help if required" One time, some people were arguing one day about how to test some software and hardware. Boss observes the argument and comes in the next day with a little circuit board he made to help complete the tests. The model within the team from then on was often "hey I built this thing to help with the _____ ..what do you think, will this help?" Another example, eng boss in a standup : "hey, I like how you did that thing with ____ in the code, I'm going to fork that and try an experiment". Comes back a few days later "hey check out this branch.. its a way to do _____; You can see what I'm getting at - and maybe figure out how something like this can work in the main codebase ..food for thought".
• funfunfun 8y ago
  There are a lot of bad communicators on this thread
• funfunfun 8y ago
  I've personally found this book more valuable than any other mentioned in the thread and I challenge skeptics to read it.
• mef51 8y ago
  The way NVC has helped me the most is ironically not with conversations with other people but with conversations with myself, and helping me explain to myself why I'm feeling a certain way in response to something. Specifically, what has helped me were the distinctions between feelings and thoughts, and needs being universal while wants are just the ways you try to fulfill a need in a certain moment. Applying NVC with myself is also a lot less awkward -- with people early on I often overdid it and got a lot of funny looks :) But over time, using NVC primarily to understand a situation, I can pick and choose the way I say it to a person so that person trusts that I'm being genuine instead of just applying a formula. In my case, the ideas in NVC probably saved my life by giving me a tool to work through several personal crises. In my social group no one really knows NVC or that it's important to me, I often try to be subtle about it. It's fascinating to see it on the front page of HN. I'd be happy to share my experience with NVC, which I primarily use with myself but often guides my approach to problems at work or with friends.
• mgamache 8y ago
  Nonviolent Communication? Words are not violent. There are better ways and worse ways to say things. You can be more empathetic and use words that result in less "triggering", but calling words violence is dangerous. It erodes the distinction between thoughts and opinions and real physical action.
  • mgamache 8y ago
    and a downvote with no comment? I see that you were afraid to express your opinion.
    • dang 8y ago
      Please don't break the HN guidelines by going on about downvotes: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. I'm just guessing, but probably it was downvoted for being a shallow dismissal (also in the guidelines). Had you made your argument a little less strident and a little more informative, it could have been a fine comment, but as it was it sounds more like a shallow reaction to the name "Non-Violent Communication" that doesn't consider what they might have meant by it. Therefore this guideline is also probably relevant: "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize."
      • mgamache 8y ago
        I accept that my second response was not of the highest standard, but came from frustration that i felt a down-vote needed explanation (which your comment provided unlike other anon person). My original dismissal was not shallow. The article makes some valid points on how best to approach some interpersonal communication. However, the equivocation of words to violence is part of the postmodern attack on science. This article may not have written from that perspective and just using that as a pithy title, but I maintain it's wrong. I felt the need to point out the title's hyperbole. https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/07/why-its-a-bad-idea-to-tell-students-words-are-violence/533970/ https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/07/why-it...
• davesque 8y ago
  The NVC system has some useful insights but suffers from a fatal flaw. It punts on the question of where the universal needs come from and the important task of distinguishing between true needs and simple desires. For example, an NVC practitioner could come to you complaining that a particular need is not being met. But by seeing that need as "universal", they've already potentially given up any leverage they might have in a conversation with a rational person. It seems perfectly healthy (indeed essential in some ways) to develop an ability to distinguish between thoughts and emotions or observations and evaluations. But it's highly suspect to apply an ill-defined term like "universal need" to what could just as easily be described as a "personal preference." It's not surprising to me that, in this day and age, I would start seeing people regain interest in things like NVC. In these times when everyone has an opinion and everyone is angry, people probably want a quick way to categorize people or ideas as good or bad. Ironically, by relying on vague concepts like "universal needs", NVC ends up being a pretty good system for making blanket judgements. But the real world is not that simple and takes more adaptability and agility to make sense out of.
  • mnsc 8y ago
    >NVC ends up being a pretty good system for making blanket judgements Could you give an example of this?
• steve_avery 8y ago
  This is a very timely article for me. I just ended a romantic relationship due to, in my perspective, a failure of communication in our disagreements. I had generally thought of myself as someone who was able to communicate clearly, in recognition of whatever emotion triggered a disagreement but without letting that emotion color the discussion. To at least to keep it in check while discussing our needs. But I consistently failed with my partner, and I found it so incredibly frustrating. I got more exasperated and upset in our conversations than I ever been, and it spiraled out of control. I had been seeing a therapist, and he instructed me briefly in NVC, and I suddenly saw that I had been unable to say things without inherently assigning blame. I felt cowed. But the thing is, my partner had always reacted negatively to my calm approach to the disagreements. I had gone so far as to demand her to get on my level (which I acknowledge was an over-the-top condescending statement) to which she rejected as being sanctimonious. It was more than just that statement that she was rejecting, though. And now, I can't help but feel that NVC would be just another crutch to approaching difficult conversations, and possibly even counter to my goals. My synthesis of these experiences is that I am practically blind to my emotions, and I am only barely better at recognizing motivations and emotions in others. Once I've built up the ability to recognize what the hell is going on, then I have to figure out what to say. It's all about the audience.
• Wizek 8y ago
  If anyone wants to have some real-time chat about NVC, or ask questions of people who have years of experience using the technique, you can come here: https://webchat.freenode.net/?channels=##nvc https://webchat.freenode.net/?channels=##nvc It's the ##nvc channel on Freenode.
  • tome 8y ago
    Thanks! I joined and I'm glad I did :)
  • milkmiruku 8y ago
    aside; https://nvc.neocities.org/nonviolent-communication-a-language-of-life-marshall-b-rosenberg.pdf https://nvc.neocities.org/nonviolent-communication-a-languag...
• ne_jo 8y ago
  Imho just beat him: imho again if it's my father, and laws are specific so dumb, there are no questions denying me to talk to my father, would it be a brother in law or natural brother. It is not a matter of choice that he has to take by himself (other than think he "has the possibility to feel responsible", but that's also not a question and not an option, imo). I would make him understood that it is not a choice, nor me that I'm asking him if he will allow me, he has to understand (imho) within goods or bads: if it's for my father, he will come after, on a different level of importance. Really to me allowing him to take responsability as to "help" himself, or make him to feel this experience, is something that might even be silly, like what: "have a solace try?", whitin the life of another person? Because hospital's laws are dumb? Imho no way, and no no fight if needed (you also older).
• webwanderings 8y ago
  Book is here: http://web.archive.org/web/20050308042540/www.algonet.se/~johnnyfg/books/noviolnt/index.htm http://web.archive.org/web/20050308042540/www.algonet.se/~jo...
• system2 8y ago
  While this looks very nice and fun to read, in the real world we deal with very emotional people. There are times I use these subconsciously when needed but I know there are many clients I dealt with would reject me the moment I start talking like this. I personally find people using NVC tactics very insincere. It is very obvious they are using some "you can't use this sentence against me later" tactics.
  • marshray 8y ago
    Sometimes what people really want is old-fashioned give-and-take, or to engage you in open conflict. When you make it clear by your actions you're not interested in that game, it will throw them off balance. Not many people are prepared for this and the only tactic they know is to escalate. "You're being an insincere prick" is all they've got. The key is that you know that you, yourself are sincerely open to making a connection, and you go the extra mile to avoid condescension. At a basic level, you are indeed pushing them to confront something about their own feelings that they'd rather not deal with at that moment. Sometimes folks just don't want to connect with you when they're feeling vulnerable, and the best you can do is let them know that you're safe to be vulnerable around by respecting that.
• jaimex2 8y ago
  It just occurred to me while reading this that the entire job of counsellors is to usher non-violent communication between people. Fascinating.
• stackzero 8y ago
  "consequences should be protective, not punitive." - Couldn't have put this any better
• musicale 8y ago
  "When ____[observation], I feel ____[emotion] because I’m needing some ____[universal needs]. Would you be able to ____[request]?" The typical/traditional response to such a request is somewhere between "uh, no" and "absolutely not - and making such a request is itself an unforgivable offense; if you value your (job/career/life/relationship/etc.) you will never speak of it again." The only exception is if the requester is a boss or another person whose "requests" are actually orders.
• jeffdavis 8y ago
  The article begins with the need to fire people as an example of an important but difficult conversation, but then doesn't show us how that should be handled. The article seems more about correcting tardiness, which doesn't seem like it should be a very difficult conversation. I am not in a position to fire someone, nor would I want to be. But let's say that Jane really needs to fire Bill, what universal need should she express and how does that help the conversation? What observations would actually help such a conversation? How does expressing her feelings help? How is that different from a simple "Bill, you aren't the person we need on this team right now, and we have to let you go. Here's what I can do to make this transition as easy as possible." This post is very highly rated so there must be some gem here that I'm missing.
• suchire 8y ago
  I also highly recommend the book “Difficult Conversations”, which has a similar overall idea with a slightly different way of framing and breaking down the hard parts of these conversations.
• roel_v 8y ago
  The problem, as I've experienced with this, is that it requires cooperation of the other part; more specifically, it requires them to acknowledge these feelings as being pertinent to reality. Take this example from the article: "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?" What when the other party says 'well I didn't mean to make you feel embarrassed, and if you did, that's your problem - just change the way you feel about these things because this is just the way things go around here.' What then? And a similar response can be phrased for every statement that uses this terminology/method.
• truth_seeker 8y ago
  >> ‘The ability to observe without evaluating is the highest form of intelligence.’ — Jiddu Krishnamurti, Indian Philosopher First of all, he was a mystic than being a philosopher. The quality of observing is a by-product, a consequence. If you directly try to achieve this by using your mind based on some moral principles or disciplines mentioned through this article you are bound to get frustrated. It is like one thought fighting with other thought but in the end, it leads to the creation of a chain of many complex thoughts entangled. But because it appeals more many people fall prey. I see many such articles focus more on the mind and how to change thoughts. This article is nothing but an offshoot of a limited part of psychology. A real inner transformation happens when you experientially go beyond thoughts. Psychology is just a temporary cure. Vipassana can help you in a true experiential manner. Jobs such as software engineering and others which requires constant use of thinking and sitting at one place throughout the day makes the mind stronger than other faculties of a human being. it needs to be balanced with exercise (to remove physical and to certain extent mental blocks ) and proper meditation guidance.
• rejschaap 8y ago
  After reading the comments in this thread I feel there are two broad categories people seem to fall in. These categories are independent of whether they use it themselves or it is used on them. The first category is of people who think it is a tool to manipulate people into doing what they want. The second category is of people who think it is a tool for introspection and starting a meaningful conversation. I think that in human communication intent matters much more than the tool or framework you use.
• shanecleveland 8y ago
  I saw a similar article about workplace conversations that suggested a similar track. The gist was to make a request for help instead of a demand, while also being frank about what is happening and that there is a need for change. I can appreciate the idea of presenting it in a collaborative way. Instead of "I am telling you to do this because you made a mistake and I know better" you can present it as "I can understand the issue, and we can work as a team to come up with a solution that works for everyone."
• d0100 8y ago
  From the example dialog, NVC seems to my ears as extremely patronizing.