20 ms·

How to deliver constructive feedback in difficult situations (2019)

302 points by ff7f00 5y ago

muntzy 5y ago
On the topic I often recommend the great book Hard Conversations, and another by the same authors Thanks for the Feedback. They give a detailed breakdown of how communication actually works so that my overly technical brain can apply it.
- sdoering 5y ago
  After searching a while for the first title I tried the second one (as the plural authors made me question my results). Did you mean: "Difficult Conversations: How to Discuss What Matters Most" by Douglas Stone, Sheila Heen, et al.? and: "Thanks for the Feedback: The Science and Art of Receiving Feedback Well" by the same authors?
  - BeetleB 5y ago
    Not the original commenter. Difficult Conversations is a great book for understanding the dynamics of communications. It has a lot of overlap with the NVC book, but it's very poor in terms of giving actionable advice. The NVC book has the opposite problem: Great in terms of giving actionable advice, but poor in explaining the "why" behind the advice.
- hanniabu 5y ago
  Willing to take a shot at a quick tldr?
  - muntzy 5y ago
    a google search turns up some thorough summaries. I would best sum it up with “The most common error made in communication is incorrectly assuming that it has occurred”. Communication is a skill that I see mostly taken for granted once people have a functional level, but it goes deep. It’s tied up with your self awareness, blind spots, etc. and so debugging your speaking and listening skills is a lifelong thing. These books lay out all the layers of assumption, bias, and miscommunication that happen by default in most conversations, and how to recognize them and take charge of a conversation and fix them.
- soared 5y ago
  Radical Candor is a very common recommendation along these lines as well.
kleer001 5y ago
Ah , non-violent communication, a great tool. I've copied an excellent summary by @BeetleB To add to the above: 1. Observations should be specific, not generic ("you are lazy" vs "you have not accomplished any of the tasks you've been assigned"). They should also be objective - third party witnesses should have consensus. We can agree that you've not accomplished your tasks for the week. We will likely disagree on whether that means you're lazy. 2. Feelings are internal and should not involve someone else. "I feel cheated" is really just saying "I believe I've been cheated" - it's accurately portraying your inner narrative (which may be OK), but it is not portraying your feelings. Instead, you may feel sad, depressed, upset, nervous, whatever. Another way to think of it: Feelings are always legitimate - they are never wrong. The narrative in your head, though, may well be wrong. If someone can reasonably dispute it (assuming he/she is not a jerk), then it probably was a narrative and not a feeling. 3. Needs: This, in my experience, is easy for tech people to state. If you think someone cheated you out of money, you probably need things like integrity, honesty, security, etc. If your report at work seems unreliable to you, you probably need consistency, peace of mind, etc. 4. This is making a request. A request is not a demand or a command (so yes, NVC is not appropriate/relevant in contexts where orders make sense). If the person declines your request and you're upset a fair amount by it, you probably were not sincere in making the requests. And finally, your request should also be precise. Not "Could you rephrase that in a respectful manner", but "Could you rephrase that and address me as Mister instead of Dude?" A few other tidbits from the book (also in Crucial Conversations): You are not responsible for other's feelings. Relieve yourself of that burden/guilt. However, if you want to take things to the next step and have better relations with people around you, do care about their feelings and use techniques to have them feel better - but out of empathy and not out of responsibility or guilt. In general, the book is about realizing that you have a choice in most things - even things like whether you want to earn money to feed your kids. Likewise, it's about eliminating the language of obligation from your internal dialogues. This may be offputting to people who have a strong sense of obligation. The above is likely about 90% of the book. The rest of the book are specific, concrete strategies related to the above. ---- Personally I've been studying this stuff for years yet still haven't been able to use it in real life. Not for want of trying or of opportunities. It's damn hard when the other person isn't playing along or interested in being understood or heard, when they just want to vent at you about you.
dejongh 5y ago
Good topic. Needs more focus.
ryeguy_24 5y ago
I very rarely focus on the person but rather on the output. I try hard to deliver feedback genuinely, respectfully, and with an interest in elevating our collective work product. I try to offer advice or potential resources for the improvement that needs to happen. In addition, if I ever had a similar issue with my own work product, I definitely share the story and what I did to improve it. What not to do? Make snarky comments, laugh, put down, say "dude...". Things my current boss does. :)
epicureanideal 5y ago
(By the way, I’m writing this from a place of exhaustion and disappointment with the industry, rather than just knee jerk negativity.) Although I do think it’s worthwhile to try to think and communicate as clearly as possible, over the years I’ve learned in this industry that 90% or more of coworkers and managers are not going to put the same effort into it. You can do everything right and the majority of the time it won’t matter. The only thing that (almost) guarantees good relationships with management is to just do whatever they want even when it is leading the company to ruin, never voice your objections, etc. There is no common goal with most managers because they don’t usually care about the success of the company, just their own personal success. And with most coworkers, few want to do things better more than they want to just have an easy ride. If anyone is aware of an environment where meritocracy exists in this industry I’d love to know about it. Where, where can I find a company that cares about making money by providing value? (Obviously some attention is paid to this to make enough money to keep the company going, but it’s second to the higher goal of accumulating their personal status and wealth, and there is misalignment between that and actually delivering value due to usually poor leadership at the top and poor investor oversight.) Maybe it’s all just a consequence of capital concentration. There are plenty of companies that could be out competed but competitors just won’t be funded, except if they are run by other connected people who don’t have the talent to out compete the existing ones.
- afarrell 5y ago
  > The only thing that (almost) guarantees good relationships with management is to just do whatever they want even when it is leading the company to ruin, never voice your objections, etc. This is correct but the implication is that a good career means having the courage to accept the risk of poor relationships with management and to be willing to end an unhealthy relationship.
  - mbrodersen 5y ago
    Not necessarily. Bad managers will simply pile work on top of you until you drown. You need to learn the subtle art of saying no and/or delaying things without seeming to.
xyzzy21 5y ago
"Sandwich Technique" All you ever need to know.
- chenmike 5y ago
  It's generally agreed that the Sandwich Technique is manipulative and condescending. If the purpose of a meeting/conversation is to deliver negative feedback, your reports/teammates will almost certainly be able to figure that out. If you're using this technique, I'd highly recommend spending some time figuring out if people actually appreciate this aspect of the conversations you're having with them.
- burnished 5y ago
  I think the sandwich technique is flawed. Probably not worse than many alternatives, mind, but in my mind it only serves to highlight the criticism. When I notice it I laugh because, well, its the sandwich technique, and this person is trying to be nice when what I need is for them to be critical. I think it has its place where you are giving feedback to many people sequentially to help ensure no one is going to get accidentally picked on. Like when teaching, you don't want to have only negative things to say to the slow student (whose work in comparison will appear even worse). The 'non violent communication' stuff feels useful as a pattern of conversation when you need to strengthen and clarify your own communication. It helps lead to statements that can't be quibbled with or creatively re-interpreted. Have you ever noticed some one making a big deal out of an offhand remark that wasn't really core to your point anyway? Sandwich technique can't help with that, but the meat of the article does. Anyway, thanks for the spring board! Hope you enjoy the soliloquy.
- BeetleB 5y ago
  I've yet to find someone who like receiving those sandwiches. Only those who give it tend to like it. I work with a nice person who gives feedback in sandwiches. The upshot is no one believes his praise even when given without a sandwich. Beware.
- Demonsult 5y ago
  I've gotten to the point where I wince at compliments because of the shit sandwich technique. When I get one, I know I'm dealing with a passive-aggressive person and limit my interactions from then on.
jdsampayo 5y ago
Maybe add a 2019 on the title? Feels strange to read on the title header: PRODUCTIVITY TIPS AND APPS by PRODUCTIVITY HUB like if it was an original article from the website but at the very end there is the note 'All Rights Reserved for Dave Bailey' without any link to the original source: https://medium.dave-bailey.com/the-essential-guide-to-difficult-conversations-41f736e63ccf https://medium.dave-bailey.com/the-essential-guide-to-diffic... which is taken from Dave Bailey website (https://www.dave-bailey.com/go https://www.dave-bailey.com/go)
- punnerud 5y ago
  The link should be changed. You can email Dang and the HN team on: hn@ycombinator.com
- questionQuest 5y ago
  Also found on this website... https://productivityhub.org/2021/07/28/do-not-date-marry-or-have-children-with-covid-19-vaccinated-gmo-people-they-are-dna-damaged-eternally/ https://productivityhub.org/2021/07/28/do-not-date-marry-or-...
willjp 5y ago
> great communication isn’t just about what you say, it’s about what other people hear This is very smart.
- kubanczyk 5y ago
  I don't know if conscious, but prima facie it is a direct complement of the famous thought: "The most important thing in communication is to hear what isn’t being said." Peter Drucker, interview with Bill Moyers (1989)
wombatmobile 5y ago
These methods for NVC are useful because (a) they decouple analysis from emotions, and (b) they protect the target from feeling attacked, so it is possible for the target to receive the analysis instead of going into defensive mode. Daniel Dennett takes the paradigm further by adding a prequel, which is to clearly articulate the other person's logic and state of mind empathically first, before going into the analysis. Done well, this enhances possibilities for cooperation because it elevates the status of the receiver through respect, even when, or especially when the parties views are not aligned. https://www.brainpickings.org/2014/03/28/daniel-dennett-rapoport-rules-criticism/ https://www.brainpickings.org/2014/03/28/daniel-dennett-rapo...
- camillomiller 5y ago
  This in turn feels quite manipulative, though.
  - kubanczyk 5y ago
    As much as it is manipulative per se, and might likely seem unnatural ("false"/"calculated"), it's at the same time quite effective. This form of communication accomplishes its stated goals, and being a natural, ummm, bloke is not it.
    - handoflixue 5y ago
      I've met quite a few other people who don't react well to NVC, so it seems at least worth giving NVC the caveat that it doesn't work universally. I'm not really sure what the difference is, but I expect tact filters (https://www.mit.edu/~jcb/tact.html https://www.mit.edu/~jcb/tact.html) probably play a big role. In particular, NVC seems fanatically about "speaker needs to apply tact", and geek culture is often deeply rooted in "listener needs to apply tact". That's just me guessing in the dark based on anecdotes, though.
  - PradeetPatel 5y ago
    On the contrary, I see it as good leadership. One could argue that getting a group of people aligned on a single objective manipulation, but knowing the right words to say to elicit actions from them is the hallmark of a good leader.
ChrisMarshallNY 5y ago
In my own life, I have spent many, many years, dealing with some of the most difficult people on Earth. Many, who have yet to learn the tools of nonviolent (as in "Not picking up a chair, and breaking it over your head" nonviolent) feedback. There's something to be said for trying to confront someone that could break you in two, has severe psych issues, and Bic-pen-ink tattoos. It sort of helps you to focus on outcomes. In my experience, starting by laying out a platform of common goals and achievements is always a great icebreaker. i.e. ME: "We've really made a lot of progress on the fundraising, but we still have to get the registration packets done, and the catering menus finished, in time for the conference." I've found that ignoring personal insults and blamethrowing is useful. BIG BUTCH: "Well, you were so busy riding your high horse, trying to impress Cathy, that you never checked on my team." ME: "You're right. I should have checked in to see if you could use help. So here we are, and I need your help to deliver the packets to Joe's committee. How can we get this done?" Note how I sidestepped horses and Cathy? She'd probably be crushed that I ignored her, but she was irrelevant to the conversation. Also, it always helps to give them some authority and "upper hand." Then, there is the firing conversation: ME: "I'm afraid that I can't work with your team, any longer. I've found that I can't be productive in our work. I'll need to find someone else to work with." There's really no need for "constructive feedback," since The Die Is Cast. If they want that, I am happy to give it, but the main subject needs to be made clear and unambiguous. The relationship is at an end. The time for negotiations and bargaining is over. I've learned that "weasel words" can be incredibly self-destructive. They leave the appearance of "gaps" that aren't actually there. They are dishonest, and paint me as a coward; which can be taken as weakness. If the decision has been made, then I can't allow it to be second-guessed or misinterpreted. Plain vernacular is worth its weight in gold. If I need to have a couple of bruisers with billy clubs available, then I can have them file in quietly, after we're settled. I think that treating people with respect, at all times, is really, really important. Choosing the venue (like not confronting them in front of others) can go a long way towards helping to reach my goals. Everyone deserves respect; even those that refuse to give me respect.
- toosimplee 5y ago
  I like that conversation style when I see other people apply it, but in a specific situation it's hard for me to say what the main point is. In the Big Butch conversation, it can lead to totally different outcomes if you choose to do something for Butch (instead of "riding the high horse"), check in with Cathy, or focus the conversation on the topic you entered the conversation with. All are possible paths, all lead to different outcomes that might interest you. How do you know on the spot that the issue you came with is more relevant than the new information you just learned from Butch?
camillomiller 5y ago
I think the observation vs evaluation examples are sloppy (yes, that’s an evaluation). I understand this is not a general assessment of the value of observations over evaluations outside of the framework of NVC. Most of the examples would be perceived - at least by me - as impersonal and dishonest. Voicing observations such as “you were ten minutes late this morning” to someone who’s knowingly been late already before could be easily perceived as passive aggressive. Passive aggressivity is, I believe, the most subtly violent form of communication, and it really leads to nothing useful or constructive. Most of the examples read as passive aggressive to me, because you’re renouncing to a very direct evaluation that doesn’t require a specific knowledge framework and present instead your interlocutor with an emotionless remark about their actions.
- pmichaud 5y ago
  I think some missing context here is that the "observation" phase of an NVC communication: 1. Is in large part for you, the speaker. It forces you to get clear about what you really know to be true. I'm surprised at how often I'm trying to communicate some reaction I'm having, and it's really hard to even say what triggered it. In the process of figuring that out I get a lot of clarity about hat I was expecting or hoping for, what was missing, what the other person actually did, and just by virtue of the reflection, often some "free" insight into what they might have been thinking. 2. Is always followed by a feeling, need, or request (or some combo of those). This, I think is the key to making it not passive aggressive. If I start with "I need for you to not be late anymore," it's a bit disorienting in the conversation for the other person. What caused you to say that? Why now? Providing an objective observation as context for the rest of what you say allows both people to be on the same page about what the subject even is. Being late is a bit of a trivial example, but just like making the observation alone leaves a lot of work on the listener to infer what you expect to happen as a result of the observation, making the request alone leaves a lot work on the listener to infer what generated the request in the first place, ie. what you think has been happening, what matters to you, etc. I think the strongest move is actually: observation, then impact, then request. Like: > Hey, you were ten minutes late this morning. We had to push back the client meeting because you weren't there, and I'm afraid we looked disorganized and untrustworthy as a result. I need you to be on time from now on. It's quite direct that way. Also much like the observation step triggering useful self-reflection, the impact step requires you to know why the request matters to you at all. Like if there was no client meeting, what do you care if the other person was 10 minutes late? Maybe you still care, but you need to reflect enough to actually understand why, so that you can say it.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
lmilcin 5y ago
The best advice I can give is to start investing into it early on. For example, I try to make sure my team understand that I have always team's best interest in mind, that I am first to admit if I make a mistake and that I am always ready to evaluate my position as new information comes. It goes really a long way to help in a difficult situation but it also prevents a lot of difficult situations from happening in the first place. It also tends to make other team members and management to be on your side which may help in a lot of situations (but not always, not with the most stubborn people).
civilized 5y ago
There's something odd about communicating feelings without the thoughts that gave rise to those feelings. It seems like the assumption is that the "observations" directly give rise to the "feelings", which I don't think is accurate. It's just leaving steps out, which is kind of not as candid and forthcoming as a difficult conversation should be IMO. I think you should explain how the observation clashes with your expectations, so the person you're talking to isn't having to guess at that link between observation and feeling.
momentum_j 5y ago
This is awesome!
hieu229 5y ago
Not related to the topic but it would help if you (the website owner) make the font bolder a bit I think it's too thin, make it harder to read

302 points by ff7f00 5y ago

On the topic I often recommend the great book Hard Conversations, and another by the same authors Thanks for the Feedback. They give a detailed breakdown of how communication actually works so that my overly technical brain can apply it.

sdoering 5y ago
After searching a while for the first title I tried the second one (as the plural authors made me question my results). Did you mean: "Difficult Conversations: How to Discuss What Matters Most" by Douglas Stone, Sheila Heen, et al.? and: "Thanks for the Feedback: The Science and Art of Receiving Feedback Well" by the same authors?
- BeetleB 5y ago
  Not the original commenter. Difficult Conversations is a great book for understanding the dynamics of communications. It has a lot of overlap with the NVC book, but it's very poor in terms of giving actionable advice. The NVC book has the opposite problem: Great in terms of giving actionable advice, but poor in explaining the "why" behind the advice.
hanniabu 5y ago
Willing to take a shot at a quick tldr?
- muntzy 5y ago
  a google search turns up some thorough summaries. I would best sum it up with “The most common error made in communication is incorrectly assuming that it has occurred”. Communication is a skill that I see mostly taken for granted once people have a functional level, but it goes deep. It’s tied up with your self awareness, blind spots, etc. and so debugging your speaking and listening skills is a lifelong thing. These books lay out all the layers of assumption, bias, and miscommunication that happen by default in most conversations, and how to recognize them and take charge of a conversation and fix them.
soared 5y ago
Radical Candor is a very common recommendation along these lines as well.

kleer001 5y ago

Ah , non-violent communication, a great tool. I've copied an excellent summary by @BeetleB To add to the above: 1. Observations should be specific, not generic ("you are lazy" vs "you have not accomplished any of the tasks you've been assigned"). They should also be objective - third party witnesses should have consensus. We can agree that you've not accomplished your tasks for the week. We will likely disagree on whether that means you're lazy. 2. Feelings are internal and should not involve someone else. "I feel cheated" is really just saying "I believe I've been cheated" - it's accurately portraying your inner narrative (which may be OK), but it is not portraying your feelings. Instead, you may feel sad, depressed, upset, nervous, whatever. Another way to think of it: Feelings are always legitimate - they are never wrong. The narrative in your head, though, may well be wrong. If someone can reasonably dispute it (assuming he/she is not a jerk), then it probably was a narrative and not a feeling. 3. Needs: This, in my experience, is easy for tech people to state. If you think someone cheated you out of money, you probably need things like integrity, honesty, security, etc. If your report at work seems unreliable to you, you probably need consistency, peace of mind, etc. 4. This is making a request. A request is not a demand or a command (so yes, NVC is not appropriate/relevant in contexts where orders make sense). If the person declines your request and you're upset a fair amount by it, you probably were not sincere in making the requests. And finally, your request should also be precise. Not "Could you rephrase that in a respectful manner", but "Could you rephrase that and address me as Mister instead of Dude?" A few other tidbits from the book (also in Crucial Conversations): You are not responsible for other's feelings. Relieve yourself of that burden/guilt. However, if you want to take things to the next step and have better relations with people around you, do care about their feelings and use techniques to have them feel better - but out of empathy and not out of responsibility or guilt. In general, the book is about realizing that you have a choice in most things - even things like whether you want to earn money to feed your kids. Likewise, it's about eliminating the language of obligation from your internal dialogues. This may be offputting to people who have a strong sense of obligation. The above is likely about 90% of the book. The rest of the book are specific, concrete strategies related to the above. ---- Personally I've been studying this stuff for years yet still haven't been able to use it in real life. Not for want of trying or of opportunities. It's damn hard when the other person isn't playing along or interested in being understood or heard, when they just want to vent at you about you.

dejongh 5y ago

Good topic. Needs more focus.

ryeguy_24 5y ago

I very rarely focus on the person but rather on the output. I try hard to deliver feedback genuinely, respectfully, and with an interest in elevating our collective work product. I try to offer advice or potential resources for the improvement that needs to happen. In addition, if I ever had a similar issue with my own work product, I definitely share the story and what I did to improve it. What not to do? Make snarky comments, laugh, put down, say "dude...". Things my current boss does. :)

epicureanideal 5y ago

(By the way, I’m writing this from a place of exhaustion and disappointment with the industry, rather than just knee jerk negativity.) Although I do think it’s worthwhile to try to think and communicate as clearly as possible, over the years I’ve learned in this industry that 90% or more of coworkers and managers are not going to put the same effort into it. You can do everything right and the majority of the time it won’t matter. The only thing that (almost) guarantees good relationships with management is to just do whatever they want even when it is leading the company to ruin, never voice your objections, etc. There is no common goal with most managers because they don’t usually care about the success of the company, just their own personal success. And with most coworkers, few want to do things better more than they want to just have an easy ride. If anyone is aware of an environment where meritocracy exists in this industry I’d love to know about it. Where, where can I find a company that cares about making money by providing value? (Obviously some attention is paid to this to make enough money to keep the company going, but it’s second to the higher goal of accumulating their personal status and wealth, and there is misalignment between that and actually delivering value due to usually poor leadership at the top and poor investor oversight.) Maybe it’s all just a consequence of capital concentration. There are plenty of companies that could be out competed but competitors just won’t be funded, except if they are run by other connected people who don’t have the talent to out compete the existing ones.

afarrell 5y ago
> The only thing that (almost) guarantees good relationships with management is to just do whatever they want even when it is leading the company to ruin, never voice your objections, etc. This is correct but the implication is that a good career means having the courage to accept the risk of poor relationships with management and to be willing to end an unhealthy relationship.
- mbrodersen 5y ago
  Not necessarily. Bad managers will simply pile work on top of you until you drown. You need to learn the subtle art of saying no and/or delaying things without seeming to.

xyzzy21 5y ago

"Sandwich Technique" All you ever need to know.

chenmike 5y ago
It's generally agreed that the Sandwich Technique is manipulative and condescending. If the purpose of a meeting/conversation is to deliver negative feedback, your reports/teammates will almost certainly be able to figure that out. If you're using this technique, I'd highly recommend spending some time figuring out if people actually appreciate this aspect of the conversations you're having with them.
burnished 5y ago
I think the sandwich technique is flawed. Probably not worse than many alternatives, mind, but in my mind it only serves to highlight the criticism. When I notice it I laugh because, well, its the sandwich technique, and this person is trying to be nice when what I need is for them to be critical. I think it has its place where you are giving feedback to many people sequentially to help ensure no one is going to get accidentally picked on. Like when teaching, you don't want to have only negative things to say to the slow student (whose work in comparison will appear even worse). The 'non violent communication' stuff feels useful as a pattern of conversation when you need to strengthen and clarify your own communication. It helps lead to statements that can't be quibbled with or creatively re-interpreted. Have you ever noticed some one making a big deal out of an offhand remark that wasn't really core to your point anyway? Sandwich technique can't help with that, but the meat of the article does. Anyway, thanks for the spring board! Hope you enjoy the soliloquy.
BeetleB 5y ago
I've yet to find someone who like receiving those sandwiches. Only those who give it tend to like it. I work with a nice person who gives feedback in sandwiches. The upshot is no one believes his praise even when given without a sandwich. Beware.
Demonsult 5y ago
I've gotten to the point where I wince at compliments because of the shit sandwich technique. When I get one, I know I'm dealing with a passive-aggressive person and limit my interactions from then on.

jdsampayo 5y ago

Maybe add a 2019 on the title? Feels strange to read on the title header: PRODUCTIVITY TIPS AND APPS by PRODUCTIVITY HUB like if it was an original article from the website but at the very end there is the note 'All Rights Reserved for Dave Bailey' without any link to the original source: https://medium.dave-bailey.com/the-essential-guide-to-difficult-conversations-41f736e63ccf https://medium.dave-bailey.com/the-essential-guide-to-diffic... which is taken from Dave Bailey website (https://www.dave-bailey.com/go https://www.dave-bailey.com/go)

punnerud 5y ago
The link should be changed. You can email Dang and the HN team on: hn@ycombinator.com
questionQuest 5y ago
Also found on this website... https://productivityhub.org/2021/07/28/do-not-date-marry-or-have-children-with-covid-19-vaccinated-gmo-people-they-are-dna-damaged-eternally/ https://productivityhub.org/2021/07/28/do-not-date-marry-or-...

willjp 5y ago

> great communication isn’t just about what you say, it’s about what other people hear This is very smart.

kubanczyk 5y ago
I don't know if conscious, but prima facie it is a direct complement of the famous thought: "The most important thing in communication is to hear what isn’t being said." Peter Drucker, interview with Bill Moyers (1989)

wombatmobile 5y ago

These methods for NVC are useful because (a) they decouple analysis from emotions, and (b) they protect the target from feeling attacked, so it is possible for the target to receive the analysis instead of going into defensive mode. Daniel Dennett takes the paradigm further by adding a prequel, which is to clearly articulate the other person's logic and state of mind empathically first, before going into the analysis. Done well, this enhances possibilities for cooperation because it elevates the status of the receiver through respect, even when, or especially when the parties views are not aligned. https://www.brainpickings.org/2014/03/28/daniel-dennett-rapoport-rules-criticism/ https://www.brainpickings.org/2014/03/28/daniel-dennett-rapo...

camillomiller 5y ago
This in turn feels quite manipulative, though.
- kubanczyk 5y ago
  As much as it is manipulative per se, and might likely seem unnatural ("false"/"calculated"), it's at the same time quite effective. This form of communication accomplishes its stated goals, and being a natural, ummm, bloke is not it.
  - handoflixue 5y ago
    I've met quite a few other people who don't react well to NVC, so it seems at least worth giving NVC the caveat that it doesn't work universally. I'm not really sure what the difference is, but I expect tact filters (https://www.mit.edu/~jcb/tact.html https://www.mit.edu/~jcb/tact.html) probably play a big role. In particular, NVC seems fanatically about "speaker needs to apply tact", and geek culture is often deeply rooted in "listener needs to apply tact". That's just me guessing in the dark based on anecdotes, though.
- PradeetPatel 5y ago
  On the contrary, I see it as good leadership. One could argue that getting a group of people aligned on a single objective manipulation, but knowing the right words to say to elicit actions from them is the hallmark of a good leader.

ChrisMarshallNY 5y ago

In my own life, I have spent many, many years, dealing with some of the most difficult people on Earth. Many, who have yet to learn the tools of nonviolent (as in "Not picking up a chair, and breaking it over your head" nonviolent) feedback. There's something to be said for trying to confront someone that could break you in two, has severe psych issues, and Bic-pen-ink tattoos. It sort of helps you to focus on outcomes. In my experience, starting by laying out a platform of common goals and achievements is always a great icebreaker. i.e. ME: "We've really made a lot of progress on the fundraising, but we still have to get the registration packets done, and the catering menus finished, in time for the conference." I've found that ignoring personal insults and blamethrowing is useful. BIG BUTCH: "Well, you were so busy riding your high horse, trying to impress Cathy, that you never checked on my team." ME: "You're right. I should have checked in to see if you could use help. So here we are, and I need your help to deliver the packets to Joe's committee. How can we get this done?" Note how I sidestepped horses and Cathy? She'd probably be crushed that I ignored her, but she was irrelevant to the conversation. Also, it always helps to give them some authority and "upper hand." Then, there is the firing conversation: ME: "I'm afraid that I can't work with your team, any longer. I've found that I can't be productive in our work. I'll need to find someone else to work with." There's really no need for "constructive feedback," since The Die Is Cast. If they want that, I am happy to give it, but the main subject needs to be made clear and unambiguous. The relationship is at an end. The time for negotiations and bargaining is over. I've learned that "weasel words" can be incredibly self-destructive. They leave the appearance of "gaps" that aren't actually there. They are dishonest, and paint me as a coward; which can be taken as weakness. If the decision has been made, then I can't allow it to be second-guessed or misinterpreted. Plain vernacular is worth its weight in gold. If I need to have a couple of bruisers with billy clubs available, then I can have them file in quietly, after we're settled. I think that treating people with respect, at all times, is really, really important. Choosing the venue (like not confronting them in front of others) can go a long way towards helping to reach my goals. Everyone deserves respect; even those that refuse to give me respect.

toosimplee 5y ago
I like that conversation style when I see other people apply it, but in a specific situation it's hard for me to say what the main point is. In the Big Butch conversation, it can lead to totally different outcomes if you choose to do something for Butch (instead of "riding the high horse"), check in with Cathy, or focus the conversation on the topic you entered the conversation with. All are possible paths, all lead to different outcomes that might interest you. How do you know on the spot that the issue you came with is more relevant than the new information you just learned from Butch?

camillomiller 5y ago

I think the observation vs evaluation examples are sloppy (yes, that’s an evaluation). I understand this is not a general assessment of the value of observations over evaluations outside of the framework of NVC. Most of the examples would be perceived - at least by me - as impersonal and dishonest. Voicing observations such as “you were ten minutes late this morning” to someone who’s knowingly been late already before could be easily perceived as passive aggressive. Passive aggressivity is, I believe, the most subtly violent form of communication, and it really leads to nothing useful or constructive. Most of the examples read as passive aggressive to me, because you’re renouncing to a very direct evaluation that doesn’t require a specific knowledge framework and present instead your interlocutor with an emotionless remark about their actions.

pmichaud 5y ago
I think some missing context here is that the "observation" phase of an NVC communication: 1. Is in large part for you, the speaker. It forces you to get clear about what you really know to be true. I'm surprised at how often I'm trying to communicate some reaction I'm having, and it's really hard to even say what triggered it. In the process of figuring that out I get a lot of clarity about hat I was expecting or hoping for, what was missing, what the other person actually did, and just by virtue of the reflection, often some "free" insight into what they might have been thinking. 2. Is always followed by a feeling, need, or request (or some combo of those). This, I think is the key to making it not passive aggressive. If I start with "I need for you to not be late anymore," it's a bit disorienting in the conversation for the other person. What caused you to say that? Why now? Providing an objective observation as context for the rest of what you say allows both people to be on the same page about what the subject even is. Being late is a bit of a trivial example, but just like making the observation alone leaves a lot of work on the listener to infer what you expect to happen as a result of the observation, making the request alone leaves a lot work on the listener to infer what generated the request in the first place, ie. what you think has been happening, what matters to you, etc. I think the strongest move is actually: observation, then impact, then request. Like: > Hey, you were ten minutes late this morning. We had to push back the client meeting because you weren't there, and I'm afraid we looked disorganized and untrustworthy as a result. I need you to be on time from now on. It's quite direct that way. Also much like the observation step triggering useful self-reflection, the impact step requires you to know why the request matters to you at all. Like if there was no client meeting, what do you care if the other person was 10 minutes late? Maybe you still care, but you need to reflect enough to actually understand why, so that you can say it.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

lmilcin 5y ago

The best advice I can give is to start investing into it early on. For example, I try to make sure my team understand that I have always team's best interest in mind, that I am first to admit if I make a mistake and that I am always ready to evaluate my position as new information comes. It goes really a long way to help in a difficult situation but it also prevents a lot of difficult situations from happening in the first place. It also tends to make other team members and management to be on your side which may help in a lot of situations (but not always, not with the most stubborn people).

civilized 5y ago

There's something odd about communicating feelings without the thoughts that gave rise to those feelings. It seems like the assumption is that the "observations" directly give rise to the "feelings", which I don't think is accurate. It's just leaving steps out, which is kind of not as candid and forthcoming as a difficult conversation should be IMO. I think you should explain how the observation clashes with your expectations, so the person you're talking to isn't having to guess at that link between observation and feeling.

momentum_j 5y ago

This is awesome!

hieu229 5y ago

Not related to the topic but it would help if you (the website owner) make the font bolder a bit I think it's too thin, make it harder to read