7 ms·

Your workplace sounds toxic and full of backstabbing jerks. Am I misunderstand you? I can't imagine why you seem proud to work in such a place.

CapricornNoble 7y ago
>>>Your workplace sounds toxic Well, it's the Marine Corps. It ain't a rose garden.[1][2] >>>full of backstabbing jerks Actually quite the contrary. If anything we are well-known for our solidarity.[3] Assuming there aren't issues due to rank/the command hierarchy, most personal disagreements are handled face-to-face. People try to stiff-arm work responsibilities off to other offices but I think that is endemic to any ridiculously large and sluggish bureaucratic organization. >>> Am I misunderstand you? I think so. It's a work culture that is optimized for conditions of 100% stress, where people's lives are at stake. We have a communication system and culture that is built to support the worst conditions, and honed over 225+ years. Even though we spend 99% of our time at, say, 10% stress levels in an office environment, it's easier to "dial down" our methods rather than "dial up" something less robust. NVC strikes me as the sort of methodology designed and tested for a 5% stress office environment. If you attempted to employ it in the most critical communications scenario (arguably a contested beach assault), it would be an utter failure. Based on the OP's link, Steps #2 and #4 are the biggest failure points IMO. "How do you feel about NOT retreating away from your objective?" "What are your thoughts on possibly doing a frontal attack on that machinegun nest?" We would end the day all face-down in pools of our own blood trying to communicate like that. Now, one might be inclined to retort that as our organization has a selection process that weeds out those who can't handle 100% stress, there is an inherent bias in the viability of our methods to integrate with the regular civilian workforce. But the counter-examples are our on-site contractors, some of which have NO military experience. Most of them still integrate just fine. Not all though: IT Contractor A: A direct speaker. About 40yo. Also a jiu-jitsu purple belt. Kinda a "quiet badass". Fits in well. IT Contractor B: A smarmy, weaselly character. Late 20's. Can't handle people speaking harshly. These two had an exchange that essentially went like this: Contractor A: "Hey I need X. And it's a time-sensitive priority." Contractor B: "Could you possibly ask nicer next time?" Contractor A: "Could you possibly do your job next time?" Then Contractor A came back to the office and shared the story, to which pretty much everyone, from the 19yo Lance Corporals to 35+ guys felt "OMFG, sometimes I wanna throat-punch that dude (B). Ask nicer? WTF? Like people are gonna be asking nice for things if Chinese ballistic missiles are ever raining down on us? Does he not know where he is? If he can't handle it he should go back to hiding in an office in Northern Virginia." We would go on to have numerous problems with Contractor B, most of them stemming from his "feelings". I'm not gonna go onto a rant about direct-vs-indirect counseling methods and some additional leadership anecdotes/case studies though. Hopefully that added some clarity. [1]https://donshomette.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/rose1.png?w=611 https://donshomette.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/rose1.png?w=... [2]https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQJOCLU3tko6oTAKUQa3XHeCLYOEf1_rIEHbmIrPRPgjVTkYgwP https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQJOCLU... [3]https://www.forbes.com/sites/donesmond/2014/11/13/marines-take-care-of-marines/#1d3e78d97064 https://www.forbes.com/sites/donesmond/2014/11/13/marines-ta...
- watwut 7y ago
  > Assuming there aren't issues due to rank/the command hierarchy, most personal disagreements are handled face-to-face. It is easy to keep clear communication when there are no real stakes and positions at stake. Learned that hard way, in teams where communication looked good and mature and direct until power vaacuum happened.
- jimkleiber 7y ago
  I greatly appreciate your perspective here. Makes me think about whether certain communication styles work better in different contexts. I remember asking a vet what the communication style was in the military and he said, "Someone who outranks you tells you what to do and there is always someone who outranks you." Now, I don't know how representative that is of the military as a whole, but it got me thinking: how would that vet respond if he were to tell his wife what to do and she said no? I say this because maybe in the high-stress, high-urgency situation with a hierarchical organizational structure, NVC doesn't work well, but perhaps it would work better in the lower-stress, lower-urgency situation with a flatter organizational structure, and that it could be useful to speak the two languages, so to say. -- However, I think something like NVC could work in your workplace, as it seems like you showed it in that example. > Contractor A: "Hey I need X. And it's a time-sensitive priority." Sounds pretty much like NVC to me, just a much more efficient version of it. The thing you need (X), when you need it (~now), with an implicit ask of will you do it. > Contractor B: "Could you possibly ask nicer next time?" This sounds pretty far from the style of NVC. Jumps straight to the request step and buries the feelings and wants in the "possibly ask nicer" phrase. If I were Contractor B, I would love if Contractor A spoke to me like that and would only wish Contractor A added, "Will you do it now?" at the end of it, so that I could close the transaction in the affirmative. If A didn't ask (or directly tell me to do it) and I felt unsure if A wanted me to do it and when exactly to do it, then I might reply with, "I'm a bit confused, do you want me to do this and if so, by when do you want it done?" However, depending on how well I know the person and how they communicate, this may be unnecessary. Anyway, I love this—thank you for writing all that you did and for bringing your perspective to the conversation :-)
  - CapricornNoble 7y ago

CapricornNoble 7y ago

>>>Your workplace sounds toxic Well, it's the Marine Corps. It ain't a rose garden.[1][2] >>>full of backstabbing jerks Actually quite the contrary. If anything we are well-known for our solidarity.[3] Assuming there aren't issues due to rank/the command hierarchy, most personal disagreements are handled face-to-face. People try to stiff-arm work responsibilities off to other offices but I think that is endemic to any ridiculously large and sluggish bureaucratic organization. >>> Am I misunderstand you? I think so. It's a work culture that is optimized for conditions of 100% stress, where people's lives are at stake. We have a communication system and culture that is built to support the worst conditions, and honed over 225+ years. Even though we spend 99% of our time at, say, 10% stress levels in an office environment, it's easier to "dial down" our methods rather than "dial up" something less robust. NVC strikes me as the sort of methodology designed and tested for a 5% stress office environment. If you attempted to employ it in the most critical communications scenario (arguably a contested beach assault), it would be an utter failure. Based on the OP's link, Steps #2 and #4 are the biggest failure points IMO. "How do you feel about NOT retreating away from your objective?" "What are your thoughts on possibly doing a frontal attack on that machinegun nest?" We would end the day all face-down in pools of our own blood trying to communicate like that. Now, one might be inclined to retort that as our organization has a selection process that weeds out those who can't handle 100% stress, there is an inherent bias in the viability of our methods to integrate with the regular civilian workforce. But the counter-examples are our on-site contractors, some of which have NO military experience. Most of them still integrate just fine. Not all though: IT Contractor A: A direct speaker. About 40yo. Also a jiu-jitsu purple belt. Kinda a "quiet badass". Fits in well. IT Contractor B: A smarmy, weaselly character. Late 20's. Can't handle people speaking harshly. These two had an exchange that essentially went like this: Contractor A: "Hey I need X. And it's a time-sensitive priority." Contractor B: "Could you possibly ask nicer next time?" Contractor A: "Could you possibly do your job next time?" Then Contractor A came back to the office and shared the story, to which pretty much everyone, from the 19yo Lance Corporals to 35+ guys felt "OMFG, sometimes I wanna throat-punch that dude (B). Ask nicer? WTF? Like people are gonna be asking nice for things if Chinese ballistic missiles are ever raining down on us? Does he not know where he is? If he can't handle it he should go back to hiding in an office in Northern Virginia." We would go on to have numerous problems with Contractor B, most of them stemming from his "feelings". I'm not gonna go onto a rant about direct-vs-indirect counseling methods and some additional leadership anecdotes/case studies though. Hopefully that added some clarity. [1]https://donshomette.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/rose1.png?w=611 https://donshomette.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/rose1.png?w=... [2]https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQJOCLU3tko6oTAKUQa3XHeCLYOEf1_rIEHbmIrPRPgjVTkYgwP https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQJOCLU... [3]https://www.forbes.com/sites/donesmond/2014/11/13/marines-take-care-of-marines/#1d3e78d97064 https://www.forbes.com/sites/donesmond/2014/11/13/marines-ta...

watwut 7y ago
> Assuming there aren't issues due to rank/the command hierarchy, most personal disagreements are handled face-to-face. It is easy to keep clear communication when there are no real stakes and positions at stake. Learned that hard way, in teams where communication looked good and mature and direct until power vaacuum happened.
jimkleiber 7y ago
I greatly appreciate your perspective here. Makes me think about whether certain communication styles work better in different contexts. I remember asking a vet what the communication style was in the military and he said, "Someone who outranks you tells you what to do and there is always someone who outranks you." Now, I don't know how representative that is of the military as a whole, but it got me thinking: how would that vet respond if he were to tell his wife what to do and she said no? I say this because maybe in the high-stress, high-urgency situation with a hierarchical organizational structure, NVC doesn't work well, but perhaps it would work better in the lower-stress, lower-urgency situation with a flatter organizational structure, and that it could be useful to speak the two languages, so to say. -- However, I think something like NVC could work in your workplace, as it seems like you showed it in that example. > Contractor A: "Hey I need X. And it's a time-sensitive priority." Sounds pretty much like NVC to me, just a much more efficient version of it. The thing you need (X), when you need it (~now), with an implicit ask of will you do it. > Contractor B: "Could you possibly ask nicer next time?" This sounds pretty far from the style of NVC. Jumps straight to the request step and buries the feelings and wants in the "possibly ask nicer" phrase. If I were Contractor B, I would love if Contractor A spoke to me like that and would only wish Contractor A added, "Will you do it now?" at the end of it, so that I could close the transaction in the affirmative. If A didn't ask (or directly tell me to do it) and I felt unsure if A wanted me to do it and when exactly to do it, then I might reply with, "I'm a bit confused, do you want me to do this and if so, by when do you want it done?" However, depending on how well I know the person and how they communicate, this may be unnecessary. Anyway, I love this—thank you for writing all that you did and for bringing your perspective to the conversation :-)
- CapricornNoble 7y ago