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.
Comments
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.