6 ms·

Controlling someone else’s language and implying they are selfish for not changing is a lack of the social skills this framework purports to instill. You do not

Controlling someone else’s language and implying they are selfish for not changing is a lack of the social skills this framework purports to instill. You do not need to control someone’s language with a framework to enquire about their feelings. The majority of your comment is waffle littered with unsolved problems. This NVC is fundamentally predatory on another’s mindset by controlling language under the guise of caregiving. It is an attempt to prime people for being heavily micromanaged in a few years by clogging up language with identifying feelings whilst real decisions are made by the nvc practitioners.

BeetleB 7y ago
I'll bite. > Controlling someone else’s language and implying they are selfish for not changing is a lack of the social skills this framework purports to instill. This is explicitly false. Please tell me where in the NVC book this is recommended. It never suggests criticizing someone else's language. In fact, quite the opposite - it puts the burden on you not to be upset at how people phrase things - even if they're shouting at you. Of course, if you are upset at the general communication approach with a coworker, it does give you a way to express it. It doesn't mandate it, though. The NVC book is quite clear that there should be no judgment from you if the other party doesn't change. To the extent that part of NVC is defined that way. I mean, you can dislike it and disengage with the person (quit, divorce, etc). But blame the other person for not changing after asking them to? That's a clear no-no in the NVC book. > You do not need to control someone’s language with a framework to enquire about their feelings. You and the NVC author are in complete agreement. > This NVC is fundamentally predatory on another’s mindset by controlling language under the guise of caregiving. It is an attempt to prime people for being heavily micromanaged in a few years by clogging up language with identifying feelings whilst real decisions are made by the nvc practitioners. I must mirror a sentiment expressed in another comment. Has anyone who is critical of NVC over here actually read the book? The impression we who have are getting is that this thread is full of people who have little to no understanding of NVC and yet are quite critical of it. None of what you wrote here is advocated for in the NVC book. There is an NVC cult out there who take things further, and while they annoy me, I have yet to hear anything like what you say from them either. It's certainly quite possible there are manipulative managers (i.e. assholes) at work who exploit it for their own gains, but a more likely prior is that people are entirely misinterpreting their efforts and in those people's world view such language is triggering. I cannot alter a person's world view if he is not willing to discuss it. I do wonder which alternate universe these people are from where NVC is about labeling people for their refusal to change. It's like criticizing Gandhi's nonviolence movement for aiming to increase beheadings. It's just so antithetical to the concept that the criticism is so ... bizarre. I stand by my comment above: It's totally OK with me if you don't like NVC. However, in a thread of over 100 comments, no one has pointed to an alternative that works when dealing with a wide variety of people. Sure - you can always filter people for "culture fit" and get a group where such language is not necessary. As your company grows in size, though, this becomes impossible.
- friendlybus 7y ago
  The nature of pushing a packaged book with ideas about elevating a certain type of language with a certain type of goals over anything else and expecting people to conform in the work place, is controlling someone else's language. You have the opportunity to create an individual approach that works well in most situations. That is your social advantage in the workplace that on the whole you don't need or want to share because it dilutes the advantage. It is also tuned to your identity, your past, your needs and your goals that are not the same for everyone. Why are you changing other people's worldview? The enterprise seems predatory, it depends on others changing to a framework that privileges it's proponents. It demonstrates a lack of skill in the speaker. It's politicking under the guise of caregiving, a negative act.
  - BeetleB 7y ago
    > The nature of pushing a packaged book with ideas about elevating a certain type of language with a certain type of goals over anything else and expecting people to conform in the work place, is controlling someone else's language. So can we agree that your problem is not with NVC but with a few people? The scenario I can think of where what you are witnessing makes some sense is if someone (perhaps management?) is saying that people are not effectively communicating when there are problems and they're recommending NVC as an alternative. That makes sense, and is not at all problematic. If, OTOH, they are saying "We're picking NVC as a style of communication", then it's problematic if the employees don't agree with this. As an example, my workplace used to have a 2 day workshop on effective communication (not NVC, but more or less the same[1]). But it was purely voluntary and no one called out on someone if they didn't take the workshop or practice it. If management is pushing you to communicate this way and you don't want to, change your job. But don't knock NVC for things unrelated to it. I do get the sense from a number of comments (not necessarily yours) that people think they should be able to express themselves at work however they feel most comfortable. That's an unrealistic expectation at any sizable workplace. How you choose to communicate does impact team productivity and is definitely a factor in promotions, continued employment, etc. I don't hire you to do solo work - I hire you to produce results while collaborating with other people. And communication styles do impact how well you will collaborate with people. [1] It's more or less the same because most books on effective communication are the same.

BeetleB 7y ago

I'll bite. > Controlling someone else’s language and implying they are selfish for not changing is a lack of the social skills this framework purports to instill. This is explicitly false. Please tell me where in the NVC book this is recommended. It never suggests criticizing someone else's language. In fact, quite the opposite - it puts the burden on you not to be upset at how people phrase things - even if they're shouting at you. Of course, if you are upset at the general communication approach with a coworker, it does give you a way to express it. It doesn't mandate it, though. The NVC book is quite clear that there should be no judgment from you if the other party doesn't change. To the extent that part of NVC is defined that way. I mean, you can dislike it and disengage with the person (quit, divorce, etc). But blame the other person for not changing after asking them to? That's a clear no-no in the NVC book. > You do not need to control someone’s language with a framework to enquire about their feelings. You and the NVC author are in complete agreement. > This NVC is fundamentally predatory on another’s mindset by controlling language under the guise of caregiving. It is an attempt to prime people for being heavily micromanaged in a few years by clogging up language with identifying feelings whilst real decisions are made by the nvc practitioners. I must mirror a sentiment expressed in another comment. Has anyone who is critical of NVC over here actually read the book? The impression we who have are getting is that this thread is full of people who have little to no understanding of NVC and yet are quite critical of it. None of what you wrote here is advocated for in the NVC book. There is an NVC cult out there who take things further, and while they annoy me, I have yet to hear anything like what you say from them either. It's certainly quite possible there are manipulative managers (i.e. assholes) at work who exploit it for their own gains, but a more likely prior is that people are entirely misinterpreting their efforts and in those people's world view such language is triggering. I cannot alter a person's world view if he is not willing to discuss it. I do wonder which alternate universe these people are from where NVC is about labeling people for their refusal to change. It's like criticizing Gandhi's nonviolence movement for aiming to increase beheadings. It's just so antithetical to the concept that the criticism is so ... bizarre. I stand by my comment above: It's totally OK with me if you don't like NVC. However, in a thread of over 100 comments, no one has pointed to an alternative that works when dealing with a wide variety of people. Sure - you can always filter people for "culture fit" and get a group where such language is not necessary. As your company grows in size, though, this becomes impossible.

friendlybus 7y ago
The nature of pushing a packaged book with ideas about elevating a certain type of language with a certain type of goals over anything else and expecting people to conform in the work place, is controlling someone else's language. You have the opportunity to create an individual approach that works well in most situations. That is your social advantage in the workplace that on the whole you don't need or want to share because it dilutes the advantage. It is also tuned to your identity, your past, your needs and your goals that are not the same for everyone. Why are you changing other people's worldview? The enterprise seems predatory, it depends on others changing to a framework that privileges it's proponents. It demonstrates a lack of skill in the speaker. It's politicking under the guise of caregiving, a negative act.
- BeetleB 7y ago
  > The nature of pushing a packaged book with ideas about elevating a certain type of language with a certain type of goals over anything else and expecting people to conform in the work place, is controlling someone else's language. So can we agree that your problem is not with NVC but with a few people? The scenario I can think of where what you are witnessing makes some sense is if someone (perhaps management?) is saying that people are not effectively communicating when there are problems and they're recommending NVC as an alternative. That makes sense, and is not at all problematic. If, OTOH, they are saying "We're picking NVC as a style of communication", then it's problematic if the employees don't agree with this. As an example, my workplace used to have a 2 day workshop on effective communication (not NVC, but more or less the same[1]). But it was purely voluntary and no one called out on someone if they didn't take the workshop or practice it. If management is pushing you to communicate this way and you don't want to, change your job. But don't knock NVC for things unrelated to it. I do get the sense from a number of comments (not necessarily yours) that people think they should be able to express themselves at work however they feel most comfortable. That's an unrealistic expectation at any sizable workplace. How you choose to communicate does impact team productivity and is definitely a factor in promotions, continued employment, etc. I don't hire you to do solo work - I hire you to produce results while collaborating with other people. And communication styles do impact how well you will collaborate with people. [1] It's more or less the same because most books on effective communication are the same.