Something called 'non-violent communications' might be in order. Start with an observation - "You show up to standup 5 minutes late". Then a personal reaction - "I'm frustrated". Third, the goal - "I want our group to move forward efficiently". Finally, the 'ask' - "Can you show up on time for each standup?"
I've been practicing this for years, I think I'm pretty good at it, and I've come to believe it's actually incredibly toxic. I think that the primary effect of this communication style is actually to inhibit real discussion of the issues at hand, by making the needs/wants of the various parties the center of the conversation and immediately moving away from an open dialog and into a negotiation.
I think that there are two uses of this type of communication:
- One or more of the parties doesn't really give a shit about the other party's opinions, so a negotiation is the only conversation to be had.
- One or more of the parties is generally incapable of having a disagreement with somebody without it upsetting them.
I think that one or both of these describes a large percentage of workplace conversations, which is why 'non violent communications' is so useful, but they are both bad situations that we should strive to fix, not work around.
(I treat separately a third case where NVC style is useful - one or more of the parties is an asshole - since I think it's pretty generally understood that this is a situation that needs to be fixed.)
> Start with an observation - "You show up to standup 5 minutes late". Then a personal reaction - "I'm frustrated". Third, the goal - "I want our group to move forward efficiently". Finally, the 'ask' - "Can you show up on time for each standup?"
[...] I think that the primary effect of this communication style is actually to inhibit real discussion of the issues at hand, by making the needs/wants of the various parties the center of the conversation and immediately moving away from an open dialog and into a negotiation.
Hmm, would a simple fix be to pause at one of the earlier steps and ask for clarification? For example, after step 2: "Does that seem like a reasonable or understandable reaction?"; after step 3: "What do you think of all the above?" Is it really taught to always deliver it all in one go?
(Background: I've heard several people describe NVC and have read a bit, but haven't taken an official class. I also wouldn't be surprised if there is wide variance between "NVC in theory", "NVC as taught by this or that person", and "NVC in practice".)
NVC in practice is quite useful for a boss to address behavior without escalation. In that case, its not important to enable discussion. Its important to get the job moving forward. And to find out if that's not going to happen, so alternatives can be selected (moving the person to a different task; providing resources so they can succeed; or even letting the person go).
Remember its a business with business goals. Not to be heartless but to earn pay, some performance is required.
This aligns with one of the few good takeaways I had from some unavoidable "agile coaching" I was subject to. The thought was that you can look at a person as a set of concentric zones from inner to outer, inner being "core values", outer being "behaviour" with maybe stuff like "attitudes", "beliefs" and "principles" between.
The details aren't important so much as the idea that as you go from outer to inner you go from objective and observable to subjective and hidden, and that in any critique of a colleague you should as far as possible stick to the concrete and observable (as per the "late-to-standup" observation) and strictly avoid as far as possible the temptation to make statements about the more "inner" zones such as "I feel you have a casual attitude about punctuality" where endless and unresolvable recrimination and debate can ensue, often mistaken for real and valuable discussion by those doing the criticising, since reduced visibility in these zones can easily lead to facile assumptions and insufficient comprehension on the part of the critiquer.
I have had decent success with telling people how certain behaviors affected me. “When you do X it comes access to me as Y and makes me feel Z or affects me in this way. I don’t know how other people are affected by this but this is how I feel. Just my personal opinion”. I try to avoid generalized comments. I just talk about what it does to me.
So: "I noticed that your email had a slightly sarcastic ring to it, I feel a bit unhappy about this, I want communications with external contacts to remain professional, can you review tone and content for anyone outside of our company"
In that case, rather than bringing my feelings into it which implies that you interpreted it that way I would suggest something like this:
"Your email had appeared to have a slightly sarcastic ring to it, while everyone interprets sarcasm differently I found it to be unprofessional towards the clients, can you please ensure that you review the tone of your emails such that they're not misunderstood?
Saying you're unhappy about it sounds weak and emotional in this context. Happiness isn't expected from an email in this context.
As a note: Grammarly says this is 4/5 in terms of formality (very strong intensity) and dishearting 2/5 (moderate intensity).
Happiness isn't expected from an email in this context
What I mean to say is that I, personally would be unsatisfied (unhappy) with sarcasm as a tone towards a client.
I found it to be unprofessional towards the clients,
It is not always understood that it is bad to be "unprofessional towards the clients", do not take it for granted that everyone knows that. In fact this person in the original example probably did not.
In my experience, while internally, one can be informal, even joke a bit and still be respected for technical ability, it is necessary to take a more formal approach outside of the org in order to be taken seriously.
Comments
Something called 'non-violent communications' might be in order. Start with an observation - "You show up to standup 5 minutes late". Then a personal reaction - "I'm frustrated". Third, the goal - "I want our group to move forward efficiently". Finally, the 'ask' - "Can you show up on time for each standup?"
I've been practicing this for years, I think I'm pretty good at it, and I've come to believe it's actually incredibly toxic. I think that the primary effect of this communication style is actually to inhibit real discussion of the issues at hand, by making the needs/wants of the various parties the center of the conversation and immediately moving away from an open dialog and into a negotiation.
I think that there are two uses of this type of communication:
- One or more of the parties doesn't really give a shit about the other party's opinions, so a negotiation is the only conversation to be had.
- One or more of the parties is generally incapable of having a disagreement with somebody without it upsetting them.
I think that one or both of these describes a large percentage of workplace conversations, which is why 'non violent communications' is so useful, but they are both bad situations that we should strive to fix, not work around.
(I treat separately a third case where NVC style is useful - one or more of the parties is an asshole - since I think it's pretty generally understood that this is a situation that needs to be fixed.)
Hmm, would a simple fix be to pause at one of the earlier steps and ask for clarification? For example, after step 2: "Does that seem like a reasonable or understandable reaction?"; after step 3: "What do you think of all the above?" Is it really taught to always deliver it all in one go?
(Background: I've heard several people describe NVC and have read a bit, but haven't taken an official class. I also wouldn't be surprised if there is wide variance between "NVC in theory", "NVC as taught by this or that person", and "NVC in practice".)
NVC in practice is quite useful for a boss to address behavior without escalation. In that case, its not important to enable discussion. Its important to get the job moving forward. And to find out if that's not going to happen, so alternatives can be selected (moving the person to a different task; providing resources so they can succeed; or even letting the person go).
Remember its a business with business goals. Not to be heartless but to earn pay, some performance is required.
The problem is that it can be and is used in other contexts. It's a dark conversational art.
This aligns with one of the few good takeaways I had from some unavoidable "agile coaching" I was subject to. The thought was that you can look at a person as a set of concentric zones from inner to outer, inner being "core values", outer being "behaviour" with maybe stuff like "attitudes", "beliefs" and "principles" between.
The details aren't important so much as the idea that as you go from outer to inner you go from objective and observable to subjective and hidden, and that in any critique of a colleague you should as far as possible stick to the concrete and observable (as per the "late-to-standup" observation) and strictly avoid as far as possible the temptation to make statements about the more "inner" zones such as "I feel you have a casual attitude about punctuality" where endless and unresolvable recrimination and debate can ensue, often mistaken for real and valuable discussion by those doing the criticising, since reduced visibility in these zones can easily lead to facile assumptions and insufficient comprehension on the part of the critiquer.
I have had decent success with telling people how certain behaviors affected me. “When you do X it comes access to me as Y and makes me feel Z or affects me in this way. I don’t know how other people are affected by this but this is how I feel. Just my personal opinion”. I try to avoid generalized comments. I just talk about what it does to me.
So: "I noticed that your email had a slightly sarcastic ring to it, I feel a bit unhappy about this, I want communications with external contacts to remain professional, can you review tone and content for anyone outside of our company"
In that case, rather than bringing my feelings into it which implies that you interpreted it that way I would suggest something like this:
"Your email had appeared to have a slightly sarcastic ring to it, while everyone interprets sarcasm differently I found it to be unprofessional towards the clients, can you please ensure that you review the tone of your emails such that they're not misunderstood?
Saying you're unhappy about it sounds weak and emotional in this context. Happiness isn't expected from an email in this context.
As a note: Grammarly says this is 4/5 in terms of formality (very strong intensity) and dishearting 2/5 (moderate intensity).
Slightly different meanings there:
What I mean to say is that I, personally would be unsatisfied (unhappy) with sarcasm as a tone towards a client.
It is not always understood that it is bad to be "unprofessional towards the clients", do not take it for granted that everyone knows that. In fact this person in the original example probably did not.
In my experience, while internally, one can be informal, even joke a bit and still be respected for technical ability, it is necessary to take a more formal approach outside of the org in order to be taken seriously.