4 ms·

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 observatio

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.
BeetleB 5y ago
I think you're being needlessly downvoted. Sorry. > 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. I can see your concern, because it's not clear from the article. It is passive aggressive if you leave it at that. NVC does not recommend leaving at that - you have to state all 3: Observation, Need and Feeling[1] - and the book explicitly calls out what happens if you omit any one. In that sense, your position is in line with the NVC book. A more complete NVC approach is: > You were ten minutes late this morning. I was annoyed at having to wait for you and lose productivity. Could you explain why you were late? And no, I should never assume you know you were late, or how late you were. Because I may well be wrong to begin with (my clock is wrong, got you confused with someone else, etc). Without stating this fact, you would be confused. Or in this conversation we may discover that your watch was off, and the simple correction is to fix your watch. Or you may know you were 10 minutes late, but you also know that others tend to be 15 minutes late and you may want to bring up with me that I hold them to the same standard as I'm holding you. If any of these is true, the conversation is tougher if I don't mention that you were late by 10 minutes. > 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. Definitely true if you merely make the observation. Edit: Another commenter raised a very good point. One of the benefits is to make the observation (without judgment) clear in your own head. It's quite easy to have your brain quickly jump to "lazy" or "tardy" - particularly for repeat offenders. And if you do that, it becomes equally easy to vocalize it, which would be a very big mistake. In most cases, there is no good reason to make that judgment. If someone is always late, it's quite fine to fire him because he cannot be on time, without having to portray him as a "tardy" person. You and your business have your needs and he couldn't meet them. What he is need not enter into the discussion or narrative. [1] In this case there is also a fourth: Request
- spawarotti 5y ago
  > You were ten minutes late this morning. I was annoyed at having to wait for you and lose productivity. Could you explain why you were late? Honestly, this sounds even worse to me than just the observation. IMO a good test is "Would I say this to my boss? If not, then probably I shouldn't say it at all.". I would not say this to my boss. Not even close. How about instead: "Hey, I noticed you were a little bit late, which is unusual for you. Is everything OK?" And if the pattern continues: "Hey, I noticed you were a bit late in the last couple of meetings. I think it is somewhat important to be on time. Is there anything I can do to help you avoid being late next time?"
pcurve 5y ago
Glad I'm not the only one who feels that way. While the article had good nuggets of information, I didn't find it credible enough for me to take a chance on applying in real life. Maybe it's the general negative tone.

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.

BeetleB 5y ago

I think you're being needlessly downvoted. Sorry. > 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. I can see your concern, because it's not clear from the article. It is passive aggressive if you leave it at that. NVC does not recommend leaving at that - you have to state all 3: Observation, Need and Feeling[1] - and the book explicitly calls out what happens if you omit any one. In that sense, your position is in line with the NVC book. A more complete NVC approach is: > You were ten minutes late this morning. I was annoyed at having to wait for you and lose productivity. Could you explain why you were late? And no, I should never assume you know you were late, or how late you were. Because I may well be wrong to begin with (my clock is wrong, got you confused with someone else, etc). Without stating this fact, you would be confused. Or in this conversation we may discover that your watch was off, and the simple correction is to fix your watch. Or you may know you were 10 minutes late, but you also know that others tend to be 15 minutes late and you may want to bring up with me that I hold them to the same standard as I'm holding you. If any of these is true, the conversation is tougher if I don't mention that you were late by 10 minutes. > 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. Definitely true if you merely make the observation. Edit: Another commenter raised a very good point. One of the benefits is to make the observation (without judgment) clear in your own head. It's quite easy to have your brain quickly jump to "lazy" or "tardy" - particularly for repeat offenders. And if you do that, it becomes equally easy to vocalize it, which would be a very big mistake. In most cases, there is no good reason to make that judgment. If someone is always late, it's quite fine to fire him because he cannot be on time, without having to portray him as a "tardy" person. You and your business have your needs and he couldn't meet them. What he is need not enter into the discussion or narrative. [1] In this case there is also a fourth: Request

spawarotti 5y ago
> You were ten minutes late this morning. I was annoyed at having to wait for you and lose productivity. Could you explain why you were late? Honestly, this sounds even worse to me than just the observation. IMO a good test is "Would I say this to my boss? If not, then probably I shouldn't say it at all.". I would not say this to my boss. Not even close. How about instead: "Hey, I noticed you were a little bit late, which is unusual for you. Is everything OK?" And if the pattern continues: "Hey, I noticed you were a bit late in the last couple of meetings. I think it is somewhat important to be on time. Is there anything I can do to help you avoid being late next time?"

pcurve 5y ago

Glad I'm not the only one who feels that way. While the article had good nuggets of information, I didn't find it credible enough for me to take a chance on applying in real life. Maybe it's the general negative tone.