3 ms·
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
by 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 agoI don't think that the "observations vs evaluations" section was literally suggesting replacing the evaluation line with its corresponding observation line.
- sidlls 8y agoHe does exactly that further down in the article, although those examples further down are a little better than the one I highlighted.
- wjn0 8y agoOK, 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 agoIsn’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 agoIs 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!
- britch 8y agoI think the point is to never communicate in evaluations. Observations are not codes for evaluations. Observations force discussion of concrete actions, which have a bunch of benefits over evaluations. Let's say X and Z are coworkers. Z messed up some report numbers. X could say "Z, you are sloppy." Z could easily respond "No I am not, how could you say that?" By focusing on a concrete example, X and Z can both discuss the actual problem (inaccurate report numbers) instead of bickering about whether or not Z is sloppy. NVC is also a check on the person initiating the communication. It's possible X's view of Z as a slob is not based in reality. If X can't find a specific thing, but just thinks Z is a slob, NVC makes it hard for X to say anything until they can point to a specific event/action. It's not perfect (X can just look for the first example that proves their belief) but it does prevent totally baseless claims of "you are a slob."