
A guide to difficult conversations - davesuperman
https://medium.dave-bailey.com/the-essential-guide-to-difficult-conversations-41f736e63ccf
======
leesalminen
I’m generally a good conversation participant, but this week has made me
second guess myself.

My father-in-law is currently hospitalized after his heart stopped this
weekend. He’s currently in an induced coma. Brain damage is a foregone
conclusion at this point and they’re unsure if he will ever regain
consciousness.

My wife and I happened to be on vacation in Costa Rica when this happened. We
hopped on the next available flight and were at the hospital 21 hours later.

Because we were unavailable, my younger brother-in-law was given Power of
Attorney. This “power” went to his head within minutes. He’s now decided that
he is the sole arbiter of information. Nobody but him is allowed to talk to
the doctors or ask questions.

I spent over 2 hours with him trying to talk it through. I never insulted or
condescended him. My goal of the conversation was to allow his sister (both
are the patients children) to participate in conversations with the medical
staff.

At the end of the 2 hours, he attempted to assault me so I left. I felt like a
failure. I’ve never not been able to talk someone down from an irrational
position before.

I think I subconsciously used some of these NVC tactics, but failed miserably.

Is there an online course one can take on having these difficult
conversations? I need to up my skills.

~~~
Zelphyr
Don't give up on your brother-in-law. He's making seemingly irrational
decisions but look at it from is point of view. His father may be dying.
Regardless of his relationship with his father, this is a very difficult thing
to go through. And then he suddenly has a lot of responsibility placed on him.
He's having to answer questions he's never been asked before much less having
given much thought to. He's being told things that he may not understand well
or at all (medical and legal). His power trip probably stems from feeling like
he needs to be "the man of the family" and be strong for everyone else to the
detriment of himself. He likely feels like he'd be perceived as weak if he
reached out and asked for help, when that's actually the number one thing he
needs to be doing right now.

My recommendation would be make some space for the way he's acting and let him
know you and his sister love him regardless, know how difficult this must be,
and are there for anything he needs and then, don't say anything else. Don't
provoke him. Let him come to you. He may not and if he doesn't, then accept
that there is nothing else you can do that won't make the situation worse. But
it's just as possible that simply listening to him if and when he talks,
almost playing into his power trip, may actually open him up to sharing more
information with you.

We humans are such strangely paradoxical creatures sometimes. :) Good luck and
I wish you and your family the best.

~~~
elhudy
Instead of making space, what are your thoughts on OP leveraging these
perceptions to find common ground? E.g., "We understand that we need you to be
the man of the family, and appreciate that you have stepped up to be strong
for all of us. We would like to support you in doing so and feel that our
greatest assistance would be in helping to facilitate communications for you.
Is this something you're able to allow?"

Such a communication should probably come from someone other than OP since
he's on bad terms following the assault. Thoughts?

~~~
jacobolus
This is speculatively projecting a lot of thoughts and feelings on the
brother-in-law, which is quite patronizing. It also awkwardly uses
overcomplicated words and overcomplicated passive grammar.

Try reading the linked blog post again, and hold up your proposed question
against each of Dave Bailey’s suggestions.

~~~
elhudy
>This is speculatively projecting a lot of thoughts and feelings on the
brother-in-law, which is quite patronizing.

Isn't that what negotiation is about, when dealing with someone who won't
effectively communicate their thoughts? Speculating the wants/needs of that
person and addressing them directly? This isn't something I'm making up, I've
just read it in "Never Split the Difference". The book was written to address
situations just like OPs.

The example sentence structure was meant to be paraphrased. I was hoping for
critique on the subject matter not the grammar. I feel uncomfortable turning
OP's anecdote into a hypothetical anyway so I'll back off.

~~~
johnchristopher
> "We understand that we need you to be the man of the family, and appreciate
> that you have stepped up to be strong for all of us. We would like to
> support you in doing so and feel that our greatest assistance would be in
> helping to facilitate communications for you. Is this something you're able
> to allow?"

That's corpo-marketing style. The angle is to coerce the other in a corner and
he'll see it coming from a thousand mile and react badly to it.

> "We understand that we need you to be the man of the family,

That's exactly the problem and what OP don't want/need. They want to
communicate with the medical and legal staff. They don't need him to be the
man of the family, they need him to approach this as a family. They need him
to let them be family and they need him to be family.

------
motohagiography
This is a valuable post. I have not taken an NVC course before, but I have
done a lot of work in negotiations, writing, and was brought up to use this
style of communication.

One thing I would be interested in either from the OP or someone with
experience with NVC, is how you recognize when you are being patronizing. Much
of this communication style is the artifact of an implied power relationship,
where the speaker already has the power, or is asserting power.

In negotiations, there is the idea of appealing to shared principles and
interests, and NVC can be a way to depersonalize the issue to focus on that.
But the example of handling, "No," with empathy is to directly personalize the
issue and address feelings, vs. the negotiation view which would be to ask,
"if no, given we agree on X, let's leave my perceived solution aside for a
moment and find out how we get X."

I think empathy in business can often be zero sum, where it is just an
expression of sympathy for someones lack of power in the situation, that is
both psychologically horrible, and destroys value. I call that approach of
fabricated empathy "seduce and smother," which is common in organizations
today.

This article provides an essential and valuable tool. However, this difference
between empathy and principle, is that an accurate interpretation of the
distinction?

~~~
tyingq
_" how you recognize when you are being patronizing"_

That's a good point. I'm fairly adept at recognizing when someone is trying to
negotiate with me based on some kind of taught methodology. Because most of
what's taught is counter to how you would do it naturally...thus it stands
out.

Once you recognize it, the natural reaction is to feel like you're being
manipulated with some technique.

~~~
waylandsmithers
I think part of it is that the observation needs to be genuinely objective
rather than veiled evaluation.

For example, when I did tech support I would occasionally get chat messages
from my supervisor along the lines of:

"Hey, I see that you closed out Ticket #XYZ without any resolution or response
sent to the requester."

(waits for response)

(waits for response)

(waits for response)

...and it would make me furious, regardless of whatever the situation was.

~~~
logfromblammo
"Is there something you want me to do?" is a slightly less hostile way of
saying "Get to the point."

"The petitioner did not make a request upon which relief can be granted."
might set off a snark detector, and "The ticketing system already
automatically notifies the requester that their ticket has been closed." might
inadvertently imply that the supervisor does not know how to do their job.

~~~
dodobirdlord
My habitual response to these sorts of messages has been to just affirm the
statement.

> "Hey, I see that you closed out Ticket #XYZ without any resolution or
> response sent to the requester."

> "yes" / "yup" / "indeed" / "true"

It's an effective way to sidestep having to pay attention until the person
comes up with an actual question or request.

~~~
logfromblammo
"That is a true statement." is one that is frequently used around here. It
sounds very engineer-y, and has no inflectional or emotional connotations
whatsoever. It's about as sterile as a SYN-ACK packet. I heard what you just
said, and evaluated it for correctness. Current computation completed, and
ready for additional input.

------
weeksie
It's funny because few things make me seethe like someone talking to me in
this way during a high stress moment. The artifice is transparent and if the
conversation is tense the tone is quite easy to read as condescension. I'm
hardly dismissing NVC as a tactic, just that when done poorly it's worse than
simply being direct.

~~~
dragonwriter
> I'm hardly dismissing NVC as a tactic,

But...you should be. The entire problem you relate is about NVC as an
insincere, indirect tactic (most likely, to avoid an ultimatum in a situation
where the speaker isn't seeking mutual understanding and accommodation but
submissive compliance.) NVC _as a tactic_ relied on an implicit lie about the
relationship which forms the context of the communication.

As a honest _tool_ in a relationship where the parties _actually care_ about
each others feeling, NVC is a useful communication tool for addressing that
mutual concern. As a tactic in relationships where that isn't a mutual
concern, and especially as a top-down tactic in a relationship where the
speaker would not have the concern that is being called for in the listener,
where it is a passive-aggressive way of framing commands, it's obviously toxic
and manipulative.

~~~
mercutio2
You know, I was about to write a retort that disagreed vehemently, but I re-
read and I think you’ve changed my mind.

In the presence of a power imbalance, combined with a lack of mutual respect,
I think you’re absolutely right that NVC style observations are worse than a
direct command. If there’s no explanation that would lead me, the more
powerful person, to change my mind about the behavior, then offering
conversational space for it is disingenuous.

I personally try to avoid situations where my direct managers, or my direct
reports, don’t feel mutual respect, so I don’t think a power-imbalance is
enough in and of itself to invalidate observation-request style discussions.

As it happens, if there’s no power imbalance, but also no mutual respect, I
still tend to prefer NVC style communication; but I’ll admit that’s just a
personal choice, it’s just a tool in the toolbox, and I tend to reach for it
first, because I like the outcomes better. If my counterparty obviously hates
it, “let’s get real” is next in the list.

~~~
FakeComments
Nothing poisons my respect for a manager faster than NVC style communication
when they’re not actually listening to me, they’re merely trying to manipulate
my emotions: it shows a deep contempt for me, as a person, and a view of me as
a piece of equipment to be maintained rather than a partner in a
collaboration.

~~~
peteforde
Seeing through someone's half-assed attempts to use woo woo management
strategy pablum is unquestionably infuriating. They don't have the integrity
to just be wrong... they have to wrap it in passive-aggressive management
talk. And then they do THAT poorly.

Meanwhile, putting in effort or even naturally just being someone that wants
to empathize, find common ground and work towards a compromise is noble. When
paired with good communication strategies and frankly when practiced through
experience, you end up with highly likeable leaders who are the people you
turn to in difficult times.

Don't hate the people who mean well but haven't learned to communicate like a
pro. Save your anger for the people who are full of self-serving lies that
don't even bother to manipulate you successfully because they don't really
care how you feel.

The next time someone deploys Inexperienced Manager 101 aka "the shit
sandwich" on you, ask yourself if they are malicious or just ignorant. It
could be that they are just trying and failing.

------
rsweeney21
The formative years of my career were spent as a software engineer at
Microsoft where communication was direct and sometimes harsh. Code reviews
could be particularly harsh with comments like "this code is bad because..."
or "this is unreadable." At first it was really hard, but eventually my skin
got pretty think. I even came to love the efficiency of direct communication
in programming.

When I became a founder, the communication style I had developed as an
engineer DID NOT work for communicating with other disciplines like sales,
marketing or customer success. At first I thought it was the people I hired
just being overly sensitive. After some time I realized that it wasn't them,
it was me. I needed to unlearn many of my engineering communication habits and
adopt a different style.

~~~
gowld
It's an anti-pattern to call abrasiveness an "engineering" habit. It's an
orthogonal axis. "saying things are 'unreadable' or 'bad'" is not efficiten --
that's not actional feedback. Skip the "this code is bad", and the unsupported
univeral claims of "unreadable" (obviously the author and the compiler could
both read it, and get directly to the point of your concern with the code --
this code has a logic bug, or is inneficient, or you can't follow the changing
state or don't know what this variable refers to, or what have tou.

~~~
tashian
I agree. I think talking about code is a critical skill, but not everyone has
a strong practice of doing it. When I was first learning to code I never had
anyone to talk to about my code, so I didn't get to learn the vocabulary until
later.

------
soheil
At the risk of getting a lot of heat for this, I find this type of thinking
more of a plague that has cast its ugly web on tech as a whole. An analogy
would be anti-something drugs to damp down people who are hyper, might have
ADHD and have so much energy and short attention span. As a society if we try
to normalize all things and people we're only left with the mediocrity almost
by definition and boring middle of the bell curve. This type of communication
damps down powerful human interaction that a lot of us are capable of in favor
of a much more passive style of communication and muted way of making a point
so you don't offend anyone immediately. It's ok if they're offended later
because they thought about what you said and read what NVC is and then found
out what you "really" meant to tell them, but didn't have the audacity to say
it. If we were to truly believe points made in NVC (dogmas?) that would
probably be even worse as we would be modifying the way our brain was evolved
to reason about things and may be making an un-natural change that may have
drastically negative individual and societal impacts in the future.

If my manager tells me "You arrived ten minutes late to the meeting this
morning" I would have to be an idiot to think next time he's not going to fire
me if I'm late so this is more passive aggressive and nerve racking than if he
just told me "don't be late or else!"

~~~
Loughla
It seems like your line of reasoning implies that threats are a necessary part
of being an adult in the working world. And that's just not the case. That
should never be the case.

This style of communication isn't angled at 'normalizing' anything. It's meant
to give you a framework to identify what the real problem is, to communicate
it clearly and efficiently, and to work with the other person to move past the
problem. If you don't say exactly what you're trying to say, and someone later
'found out what you "really meant to tell them' \- you 100% did it wrong.

It's not a way to get out of having a difficult conversation. It's a framework
to help you remove your personal beliefs, remove values judgments, and instead
rely on the facts of the situation.

Your whole post comes across as you believe, genuinely believe, that being
awful to other people via threats is a natural human state of being.

It isn't.

If my boss ever told me "don't do 'x' or else", it would be the last day I
ever worked for that a-hole.

~~~
soheil
That was just a tongue and cheek example to make my point clear ie. direct
communication in favor of passive aggressiveness. I'm not advocating for
threads, I think you found a straw man.

~~~
critiqjo
The original post was not intended at teaching the reader how to make a
passive aggressive conversation effectively. It was actually about making
honest and direct communication without biases and preconceptions. The whole
post, to me, was about how to not jump into conclusions about the other
person.

------
acl777
I learned about Non-Violent Communication at a programming conference when the
speaker said: "If you want to be a better programmer, read this book"

Such a game changer in my pull request comments and life.

Non-violent Communication is not easy, it takes continuous practice.

I even blogged on each chapter:
[http://redgreenrepeat.com/2017/05/12/nonviolent-
communicatio...](http://redgreenrepeat.com/2017/05/12/nonviolent-
communication-chapter-1/) and still feel I can improve my communication,
especially when I get emotional.

~~~
ascar
I'm curious, if NVC goes for indirect instead of direct conversation.

I was working in an American company (I'm German) and had to learn to adapt to
the style of being too nice (in my opinion). E.g. an "it might be better to do
it like this", wasn't really meant as a weak suggestion, but a strong one.
Something completely counterintuitive to my German mindset. I took it as a
"might" and was met with negativity that I didn't exactly follow the
"suggestion".

I much prefer language being direct at work. Treat the subjunctive as what it
is: expressing uncertainty, not politeness.

I know however that many people, especially outside of Germany, prefer the
indirect language, even though they learned to understand it with the same
meaning as the direct speech.

~~~
roenxi
Memory suggests NVC has some pretty nasty things to say about people who
"suggest" things and they later turn out to be orders. Heading 4 of the fine
article is the relevant one, bit it actually gets Requests vs. Demands wrong
based on the telling of it I heard.

My understanding based on a YouTube video I watched many years ago is that a
request is either fulfilled or not fulfilled, and that is the end of it. A
demand is backed up by some sort of threat, like threat of a negative
reaction. The key was that to distinguish a request from a demand was
impossible based on the language used. It was only detectable by the reaction
if you don't act on it.

So, ironically "Go get me a beer" can be a request but "do you think it is a
good idea to open the window?" might be a demand, depending on what happens on
a flat "No".

Nothing in NVC says you have to be nice, and I'm not sure it takes a position
on direct or indirect. But a negative response from not following a suggestion
is _exactly_ the sort of violence that NVC is trying to avoid.

~~~
BeetleB
>Memory suggests NVC has some pretty nasty things to say about people who
"suggest" things and they later turn out to be orders.

I believe it is: If you make a request that is denied, and you are upset about
it, then it wasn't a request, but a demand disguised as one.

------
excepttry
As someone who has never heard of NVC, I recall echos of such tactics in the
language a former teammate employed at work. However, nobody found him sincere
or honest. Instead, he cam across as mechanical even though it was clear that
he was trying to foster a transparent and open environment. There was always a
disconnect between this noble goal and the hostility he made everybody feel
when he talked with them.

I think this proposed quote from the article represents it well:

>To a teammate: ‘You arrived 10 minutes late to the last three team meetings.
>I am frustrated because, as a team, we have a need for efficiency. >Please,
could you help me understand what’s happening?’

This comes across as very aggressive. First off - they are peers. The author
makes a power grab by immediately painting the coworker in a negative light. I
don't put a lot of stake in hierarchies, but I am sensitive to power dynamics.
If I were witnessing this, I would immediately see that author conquered the
high ground. This puts the coworker on the defensive from the get go.

Second - it's fair to assume the coworker simply had back-to-back meetings.
But now the coworker has to explain this in the author's terms.

The conversation feels hostile and I don't believe the author has his peer's
interests in mind.

Instead the author should trust that peer has a good reason for being 10
minutes late and talk through a strategy that can help the peer arrive on
time. But the author needs to give something away.

~~~
FooBarWidget
I don't get it. What part of that question is aggressive? Arriving late is a
fact. The author requests helping him understand what's happening -- not an
unreasonable request, unless you think that author magically understanding the
situation without any communication counts as reasonable. The author feels an
emotion -- again, not unreasonable because emotions are private and are not a
choice. The author does not give an evaluation, so it sounds like you think
having the emotion _is_ the evaluation.

It sounds like you expect people to give you the benefit of the doubt all the
time, without needing to expend any effort communicating.

~~~
excepttry
> It sounds like you expect people to give you the benefit of the doubt all
> the time, without needing to expend any effort communicating.

I am saying there should be a culture of trust. What do you lose by trusting
that your peer coworker did not intend to be late? If you don't trust your
peers, you will create a hostile environment where everyone is on the
defensive.

I trust that my former coworker did not intend to raise tensions by
interrogating his peers and I trust that he really thought he was helping and
creating a culture of radical transparency.

I agree that arriving late thrice is a fact. Calling it out can be done in a
fair and neutral way.

Where I disagree is that as peers we have the expectation for a full
explanation for banal coworkers actions. I have seen this exact scenario play
out with my former coworker.

> "can you help me understand why you were late?" > the cross team sync ran 10
> minutes late and I needed to present - i notified slack) > "could you have
> left the meeting early?" > No, i needed to present and I was at the end. >
> "could you have reordered the meeting?" > No, other people also needed to
> present and were late to meetings. . . .

What a pointless conversation. Nothing of value is gained!

Instead, we can trust our coworkers - ask to diagnose the problem and help
work towards a solution.

"hey, _____, you have been late to the last three meetings, and we need to
have you present. I am frustrated that we have lost 30 minutes of the team's
time. Can we sync up after to adjust our timings so this works better for
everyone?"

Here, we make clear that we are going to do a blameless postmortem to find a
solution. I don't need to know exactly why my coworker is late, all I want to
understand is if there are process inefficiencies that we can fix.

I trust my coworker, first.

~~~
Gibbon1
> I agree that arriving late thrice is a fact. Calling it out can be done in a
> fair and neutral way.

Boss: Bob! Good you're here _looks around the room_ we were all waiting for
you.

Johnny: Sorry Bob I got hungry waiting so I ate your donut.

------
edoloughlin
When [you use NVC on me], I feel [patronised] because I'm needing some
[respect as a fellow human being]. Would you be able to [drop the insincere
MBA bullshit and treat me like an adult]?

~~~
degenerate
I never heard of NVC until today, but I'm realizing many of the "fake" people
I've communicated with in my business career have been using this type of
speaking, and it makes sense why they couldn't give me direct answers - they
were hyper-focusing on how their reply should be crafted as NVC instead of
simply answering my questions.

It's infuriating when you are simply trying to get something done and the
other person is more concerned with the alignment of their spoken words than
actually giving you the information you need. Just tell me what I did wrong so
I can fix it ffs.

~~~
milkytron
That's most likely an over usage of NVC. I can see how this format of
conversation could be useful for difficult conversations. Applying it to all
your professional communications not only seems like a lot of effort and
burdensome, but for the reasons you mentioned, might actually be
counterproductive.

------
roenxi
There are a fair few people in the world who would find a good video of
Marshall Rosenberg life changing. His perspectives on how to use language are
fundamentally superior to what people stumble into in everyday use.

His framework is remarkable because it sets up a non-confrontational approach
that lets you speak the truth without hurting or upsetting people. Being able
to do that on demand is ... really quite a stunning skill. Certainly more
useful than any technical trick I've ever learned.

~~~
ThePadawan
I struggle a lot with communication, but have not found a panacea for the
biggest issue I regularly face.

Communication requires two people to be willing to talk. If one of them just
doesn't want to listen, just hear themselves talk, what can I do?

This includes them not listening to me telling them that I'm not willing to
talk to them if they're not willing to listen (in more, or even fewer words
than that).

~~~
roenxi
> If one of them just doesn't want to listen, just hear themselves talk, what
> can I do?

There is no magic trick to make people do what you want them to do.

> me telling them that I'm not willing to talk to them if they're not willing
> to listen

Well, that attitude isn't going to fix any of your problems. Review the fine
article; Heading 1, "Observations vs. evaluations". I might try ask them why
what you are saying doesn't seem to provoke much of a response, but honestly
you aren't going to get much joy out of an internet forum for solving
communication problems.

~~~
ThePadawan
Thank you for your input.

I want to point out though that you propose "I might try ask them". I want to
point out that that would get no response. That is the whole issue which I'm
trying to find an "out" for.

~~~
SolaceQuantum
IMO You can't force people to behave in a manner that is most condusive to
you- especially if the manner they're behaving is most advantageous to
themselves (a previous example you provided is to be able to deflect blame by
sharing tasks). There is no NVC strategy to force people to behave in manners
you want them to, only to try and convince them that your goals are aligned-
if they're simply not, then that's just how it goes.

~~~
ThePadawan
Thank you. I believe your final sentence has really helped me understand an
actual issue I am currently facing, but hadn't realized yet.

~~~
SolaceQuantum
You're sincerely welcome and I wish you best of luck in the future.

------
chroma
Calling it "nonviolent communication" is a brilliant marketing move, as it
implies that not conversing in this manner is violent.

I've seen this style many times in my career, and it always comes off as
patronizing. It also tends to be used far more often than recommended. Instead
of being deployed in difficult conversations, it gets used in every one-on-
one.

My guess is that NVC ends up like power posing[1]: pop-psych that fails to
replicate and continues to be espoused long after it has been shown not to
work.

1\.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_posing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_posing)

~~~
BadassFractal
In general I'm also not a fan of changing definitions of words for the extra
pathos and marketability. I also would be surprised if Rosenberg has any sort
of malicious intent here in his choice of wording.

Violence is, by definition, physical, and claiming that "speech is violence"
seems like a trivialization of actual physical violence.

While there is evidence that certain types of psychological abuse can cause a
physical reaction akin to that experienced by victims of physical violence,
those cases are extremely rare and shouldn't be used as justification for this
sort of rebranding.

~~~
SolaceQuantum
_" While there is evidence that certain types of psychological abuse can cause
a physical reaction akin to that experienced by victims of physical violence,
those cases are extremely rare"_

Is this actually true? I was under the impression that trauma quite often
results in physical responses afterwards regardless of source. eg. panic
attacks, night terrors.

~~~
Pharmakon
Trauma generally involves either violence, or the credible threat of violence.
The three greatest factors underlying trauma are the fear of imminnat death or
grievous injury, and/or the loss of control and resulting sense of
helplessness, and a destruction of bedrock assumptions such as “I am a good
person” or “I’m safe at home.”

It’s not common for PTSD to emerge in the context of purely psychological
abuse, although it does happen. Almost inevitably abuse resulting in PTSD has
a component of either physical harm, or the threat of physical harm (including
witnessing violence or threats of violence).

~~~
jacobolus
I know lots of people who had panic attacks in response to emotional abuse
with no physical violence involved.

Probably not rising to the level of a PTSD diagnosis though.

------
nicpottier
I read the Nonviolent Communication ([https://www.amazon.com/Nonviolent-
Communication-Language-Mar...](https://www.amazon.com/Nonviolent-
Communication-Language-Marshall-Rosenberg/dp/1892005034)) book at the
recommendation of a counselor a decade or so back and it really changed my
life and how I interact with people.

I think as a programmer I am not atypical in that I sometimes struggle with
empathy or how people reacted to things I said, but NVC gave me a framework to
communicate in a healthier way. This wasn't just something that helped at
work, it had an enormous effect on my personal life as well and I credit it to
having strong relationships now.

I think the only frustrating piece is sometimes dealing with other who have
not read (or do not subscribe) to the same philosophies. It can be very trying
to respond to attacks with empathy but in the end that's still always the best
strategy.

Highly recommended and not just if you are a manager, if you deal with other
human beings at all, read it.

------
realradicalwash
There seems to be quite some overlap between NVC and I-messages [0], which are
constructed in a similar manner:

1\. I feel... (Insert feeling word) 2\. when... (tell what caused the
feeling). 3\. I would like... (tell what you want to happen instead). (from
[0])

I learnt about I-messages about 10 years ago in a seminar on conflict
resolution and have tried to use them eversince. My personal impression is
that they have really helped me - in solving conflicts, but also in growing as
a person. Because, again purely subjective, my impression is that once you
give others your I-messages, they are more likely to also respond with
I-messages. Which again helps me to understand others and their needs better.

That said, NVC looks like a great addition, by making things more explicit
with those four distinctions (observations vs. evaluations, etc.).

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-message](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-message)

~~~
treis
>I learnt about I-messages about 10 years ago in a seminar on conflict
resolution and have tried to use them eversince. My personal impression is
that they have really helped me - in solving conflicts, but also in growing as
a person. Because, again purely subjective, my impression is that once you
give others your I-messages, they are more likely to also respond with
I-messages. Which again helps me to understand others and their needs better.

I've also found the pattern:

You have [Problem]. Lots of people feel [how you feel] about [Problem]. If I
did [X] would it solve [Problem]?

To be helpful in every relationship:

"I get that you're mad that I didn't take out the garbage. The kitchen stinks
now and everyone hates that. Do you think it'd help if I added a reminder to
my phone?"

~~~
tomjen3
My answer to that would be "I don't give a shit what you do, as long as you
take out the garbage" and I would _still_ be mad at you (plus annoyed that you
asked me for a solution to something that shouldn't be my problem in the first
place).

------
llamataboot
NVC has been a game-changer for me, not only in terms of my relationship with
my partner, but my relationship with myself. Not only does it allow someone to
communicate more effectively, it allows someone to be way more conscious of
what they need and that they are ultimately responsible for meeting those
needs.

It definitely requires actual practice though. It is a skill to be grown, not
just knowledge to be acquired or memorized.

------
davesque
The NVC system has some useful insights but suffers from a fatal flaw. It
punts on the question of _where_ the universal needs come from and the
important task of distinguishing between true needs and simple desires. For
example, an NVC practitioner could come to you complaining that a particular
need is not being met. But by seeing that need as "universal", they've already
potentially given up any leverage they might have in a conversation with a
rational person.

It seems perfectly healthy (indeed essential in some ways) to develop an
ability to distinguish between thoughts and emotions or observations and
evaluations. But it's highly suspect to apply an ill-defined term like
"universal need" to what could just as easily be described as a "personal
preference."

It's not surprising to me that, in this day and age, I would start seeing
people regain interest in things like NVC. In these times when everyone has an
opinion and everyone is angry, people probably want a quick way to categorize
people or ideas as good or bad. Ironically, by relying on vague concepts like
"universal needs", NVC ends up being a pretty good system for making blanket
judgements. But the real world is not that simple and takes more adaptability
and agility to make sense out of.

~~~
mnsc
>NVC ends up being a pretty good system for making blanket judgements

Could you give an example of this?

------
mef51
The way NVC has helped me the most is ironically not with conversations with
other people but with conversations with myself, and helping me explain to
myself why I'm feeling a certain way in response to something. Specifically,
what has helped me were the distinctions between feelings and thoughts, and
needs being universal while wants are just the ways you try to fulfill a need
in a certain moment.

Applying NVC with myself is also a lot less awkward -- with people early on I
often overdid it and got a lot of funny looks :) But over time, using NVC
primarily to understand a situation, I can pick and choose the way I say it to
a person so that person trusts that I'm being genuine instead of just applying
a formula.

In my case, the ideas in NVC probably saved my life by giving me a tool to
work through several personal crises. In my social group no one really knows
NVC or that it's important to me, I often try to be subtle about it. It's
fascinating to see it on the front page of HN.

I'd be happy to share my experience with NVC, which I primarily use with
myself but often guides my approach to problems at work or with friends.

------
AmazingAtalanta
It's interesting, because I believe as a child we learned a simplistic version
of this in elementary school. The basic construct was the "I feel ______, when
______." Obviously, this was for child-level conflict resolution, so unlike
the guidance provided in NVC it most likely left it open to making accusations
("I feel hurt when you pull my hair"). But it's possible that children might
do better with that sort of directness compared to adults in more complicated
situations.

But I have continued to use that approach as a manager and had never heard of
NVC before I saw this article. I really appreciated the expanded guidance and
a better way to plan the conversation. I also found the section on
Consequences to be helpful as well. When you are in an authority position, I
believe it is important to help people understand that there might be
consequences to their actions or continued in-action.

------
sidlls
Some of the things in there are incredibly condescending and foster ambiguity.
For example, the observation "three of the numbers in your report were
inaccurate" is an observation of a mistake made, which people do. It only
means "you are sloppy" if it's a regular occurrence without signs of
improvement. Using that as a stand in for "you are sloppy" is itself sloppy,
and also lazy and unhelpful.

~~~
tome
I don't think that the "observations vs evaluations" section was literally
suggesting replacing the evaluation line with its corresponding observation
line.

~~~
sidlls
He does exactly that further down in the article, although those examples
further down are a little better than the one I highlighted.

------
rhn_mk1
What's the purpose of expressing the feeling? It seems like it's there only to
underline the urgency of the unmet needs.

At the same time, it implies an emotional investment in the issue at hand,
which I would see either as unnecessary or insincere in a work environment.

~~~
el_cujo
The article has the example:

>Thought: ‘I feel that you aren’t taking this seriously.’

>Emotion: ‘I feel frustrated.’

I definitely agree that the "emotional" way of looking at this statement is
better. The "thought" here is accusatory and puts the other person on the
defensive. Moreover, like the article says, saying the person is not taking
things seriously is just an evaluation of their actions; you don't know that
its true, you don't know how the other person feels and its not good to tell
them how they feel. That evaluation is based on how YOU feel, so its more
honest to just share that than your own theory on how someone else feels.

In other words, it helps get past your own assumptions about people and deal
with what you actually know.

~~~
rhn_mk1
The example starts from the point of "let's express an emotion", and shows two
sentences, right and wrong. Without trying to say "I feel", while following
the other steps, there's no opportunity to even make the mistake of choosing
the "wrong" one. That's why I asked why the article bothers describing step 2.
at all.

I agree that evaluating the actions of the other person is not useful for
resolving the problem, but the article also doesn't provide a justfication for
sharing my own feelings (thank you BeetleB for shining some light).

Personally, if someone from the management told me "I feel X", I would
completely discount it, because first, I don't care, and second, they have an
incentive to be dishonest if it reduces the trouble they have to deal with.

------
kreck
Very nice and concise writeup. For me it is always hard to deliver the
feedback to the point (the 40 words rule), because i'm afraid it'll simply go
under in all the other information people take in during the day. That's why i
tend to keep pressing the matter. Has anyone some relevant experience to share
on that?

~~~
davesuperman
Often, the most concentrated the message, the higher the impact. Sometimes a
single sentence followed by silence is more powerful than a 1-hour talk.
Counter-intuitive (but who said communication was straightforward).

~~~
kreck
You're right, it is far from easy. I will definitely give it a try.

------
steve_avery
This is a very timely article for me. I just ended a romantic relationship due
to, in my perspective, a failure of communication in our disagreements.

I had generally thought of myself as someone who was able to communicate
clearly, in recognition of whatever emotion triggered a disagreement but
without letting that emotion color the discussion. To at least to keep it in
check while discussing our needs. But I consistently failed with my partner,
and I found it so incredibly frustrating. I got more exasperated and upset in
our conversations than I ever been, and it spiraled out of control.

I had been seeing a therapist, and he instructed me briefly in NVC, and I
suddenly saw that I had been unable to say things without inherently assigning
blame. I felt cowed.

But the thing is, my partner had always reacted negatively to my calm approach
to the disagreements. I had gone so far as to demand her to get on my level
(which I acknowledge was an over-the-top condescending statement) to which she
rejected as being sanctimonious. It was more than just that statement that she
was rejecting, though.

And now, I can't help but feel that NVC would be just another crutch to
approaching difficult conversations, and possibly even counter to my goals. My
synthesis of these experiences is that I am practically blind to my emotions,
and I am only barely better at recognizing motivations and emotions in others.
Once I've built up the ability to recognize what the hell is going on, then I
have to figure out what to say. It's all about the audience.

------
rejschaap
After reading the comments in this thread I feel there are two broad
categories people seem to fall in. These categories are independent of whether
they use it themselves or it is used on them. The first category is of people
who think it is a tool to manipulate people into doing what they want. The
second category is of people who think it is a tool for introspection and
starting a meaningful conversation.

I think that in human communication intent matters much more than the tool or
framework you use.

------
tomp
Another interesting idea: apparently, positive motivation (reward) works much
better than negative motivation (punishment). Allegedly it's "scientifically
proven" (for some definition of "scientifically") which I haven't yet taken
the time to research, but I plan to.

I've been thinking about how to apply this in two of the most important areas
of interpersonal interaction in our lives, in our careers and in interpersonal
relationships. We often discuss on HN why it's difficult in careers
(conflicting interests, hard to measure results, under-specified goals, etc.).
In relationships, I think the main difficulty is that we enter relationships
with so many expectations (i.e. "my partner should love me and spend time with
me and give me gifts" or similar) that these can't really be used for positive
motivation, instead we interpret the absence of them as negative motivation.
One idea I had, though, is to explicitly verbalise rewarding in addition to
the _actual_ reward (i.e. instead of just spending time with them, say "I
really liked that you did X yesterday" _and_ spend time with them).

~~~
el_cujo
I know I'm being pedantic here, but in psychology, negative motivation is when
you take away something averse as a reward for a certain behavior. Negative
here relates to the fact you're negating or removing something to act as
motivation, whereas if something is positive, you're adding something (like a
treat for a dog). What a lot of people refer to as "negative motivation" is
actually positive punishment because you are adding something aversive (like a
spanking) in response to a behavior you want to decrease.

It's important to keep this in mind when looking at scientific literature so
that you know exactly what they're talking about.

~~~
tomp
Ah, useful to know. So I guess what my post was about, was preffering to scale
the rewards between positive and negative ends of the spectrum, instead of
punishment.

------
malvosenior
It's funny, his very first paragraph hints at what I've found to be the most
effective way to handle difficult conversations:

 _" All my biggest regrets as a founder are around not having difficult
conversations sooner. I could have helped team members improve faster, fired
people with the wrong fit earlier, had so many more productive meetings. I
could have created a more open company culture."_

"Sooner". Give difficult information out in small bit immediately. Waiting and
letting things bottle up only makes it harder. You also build a relationship
with the person receiving the bad news of honesty and openness from the get
go.

If I'm managing a report that did something wrong, I address it immediately.
They get used to me being honest and prompt with my feedback. Addressing a
single issue immediately also mean things don't build up and you're not forced
to "bundle" bad news together.

Of course you should also do this with positive feedback but I think you'll
find that when you regularly and openly address negative issues, it becomes
much easier on all parties involved.

~~~
jillesvangurp
Depends on culture and formality of the relationship. I noticed some key
differences working with people in the US, Scandinavia, Netherlands, India,
Germany, Russia, and other places.

In the US, people will insist everything is awesome and great right until they
get fired. Reason, they can be on the street in under 15 minutes and that kind
of puts some filters in place. It also means that you need to follow up with
some questions to get a real feel for what is going on. A peculiar thing with
Indians I've worked with (superiors even) is that they seem reluctant to say
no even when they mean to. So if you ask a direct question and you get an
evasive answer, more questions are needed.

------
jeffdavis
The article begins with the need to fire people as an example of an important
but difficult conversation, but then doesn't show us how that should be
handled. The article seems more about correcting tardiness, which doesn't seem
like it should be a very difficult conversation.

I am not in a position to fire someone, nor would I want to be. But let's say
that Jane really needs to fire Bill, what universal need should she express
and how does that help the conversation? What observations would actually help
such a conversation? How does expressing her feelings help?

How is that different from a simple "Bill, you aren't the person we need on
this team right now, and we have to let you go. Here's what I can do to make
this transition as easy as possible."

This post is very highly rated so there must be some gem here that I'm
missing.

------
vfinn
It seems his teachings are based on the teachings of Jiddu Krishnamurti. There
are some good audio books by him on Youtube, like _Freedom from the Known_. On
a slightly related note, Jonathan Blow also has a talk called _Techniques for
dealing with lack of motivation, malaise, depression_
([https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7kh8pNRWOo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7kh8pNRWOo)),
where he also talks about the importance of observational skills as a means of
understanding / "putting out" your (negative) emotions and thoughts.

~~~
__blockcipher__
I was shocked when I saw that Krishnamurti quote.

J Krishnamurti's talks are some of the most insightful and clear-headed that
I've ever encountered. And yet it's very rare to encounter references to him
in the wild.

Sounds trite to say but some of "his" teachings (he hated that phrasing) got
me through some very difficult times in my life. There was a time when I
realized that my relationship with my parents was twisted; that they were
hurting me by being oppressive/overbearing/controlling. Hearing his thoughts
on love and the relationship between perception and action (namely, that
perceiving a problem without running away from it _is_ the act of fixing the
problem) gave me the insight and clarity I needed to cut my parents off
[ASTERISK], pay my way through college and build a life that I was happy with.

[ASTERISK] This sounds weird or callous when you have to say it "out loud",
but to be clear, I had very good reasons to do so. I did it to protect myself,
not to hurt them.

edit: how the hell do I escape an asterisk? I tried single asterisk, triple
asterisk, backslash asterisk before giving up and just putting [ASTERISK]

~~~
vfinn
True about the rarity of Krishnamurti. Not sure how Krishnamurti would feel
about Rosenberg, though, since he seems to be offering template solutions.

What comes to your asterisk issue, the help says: "Text surrounded by
asterisks is italicized, if the character after the first asterisk isn't
whitespace."

~~~
funfunfun
I think this summary offers template solutions. They are an approximation of
the insights of the book. The book is more about relating a human experience
to a conversation,

~~~
vfinn
Ah, silly me. I forgot to mention that I was referring to his 3 hour Youtube
workshop (link was in the summary), not the summary itself. Hard to imagine
the book would be that different. Still, I appreciated the applied
Krishnamurti :).

~~~
ehsanu1
I don't believe Marshall's idea is to apply a template-based approach to
communication, if that is what you mean. The templates themselves are not NVC,
but are rather a guide to help the uninitiated to apply the philosophy behind
NVC.

Aside: I'm definitely interested in learning more about Krishnamurti after
reading this thread of conversation.

~~~
vfinn
Ok, sounds great :). Have patience with Krishnamurti, because he's very
subtle. First time I read his book, _The Awakening of Intelligence_ , I
thought he was nice but rather empty in content, because I saw his message
intellectually, which just the thing you shouldn't do. A few years later I
read it again, and started to see, and the things I agreed with kept
increasing the more I listened to him.

------
mevile
> move them on

When I see these disingenuous alternative ways to say that you've fired
someone I just think that person is being an asshole. Why is it so hard to say
you fired someone? Why is it always some bullshit like "we transitioned them
out" "we moved them on" and no bullshit, "they graduated".

Using these euphemisms makes you come across as tone deaf and dishonest. Your
audience can take hearing that you fired someone. If you have a hard time
using the words required to effectively describe what you're doing maybe
you're in the wrong line of work and shouldn't be coaching others.

~~~
ozim
Because you are not in target audience. Target audience is not top 20% of
Gauss distribution or probably not even top 40% of confident people. It is all
those people who fear they will be fired but are still needed (you still can
have top performers with anxiety). If they hear someone "graduated" it becomes
OK in a day or two, but "fired" will trigger them and all anxiety will make
them think not about working harder but about what they will do when they are
next.

"Your audience can take hearing that you fired someone", that is situation
specific, company specific, yes audience specific.

If you think we are all adults and should treat everyone who is over 21 as
perfectly reasonable person, you are in world of surprise.

------
l1n
Great article, thanks for the concise and actionable NVC intro!

Non-Medium reformatting:
[http://download.nova.anticlack.com/nvc.txt](http://download.nova.anticlack.com/nvc.txt)

------
davesque
I went through a phase where I was pretty interested in NVC. I learned some
useful things mostly have to do with the distinction between observation and
evaluation and emotion and thought.

However, I feel the system can't justify its particular choice of words used
to describe universal needs and also can't justify the notion that those
concepts would apply in any situation. I remember seeing Marshall Rosenberg
speak in person once at Naropa University in Boulder, CO. During the question
and answer part, one person asked where the universal needs came from and why
Rosenberg chose those particular needs instead of others. At first, he acted
confused by the question. Then he paused for a moment and finally answered,
"I'm not sure. God I suppose. The universe. Whatever you want to call it."
What I felt he had done, perhaps unintentionally, in that moment, was to give
every person in the room a method to make _righteous_ requests with NVC, not
just requests. It made me realize that there's easily a debate to be had about
what needs apply in what situation. A person might not be reasonable in
suggesting that their needs aren't being met and may develop a really wrong
attitude on top of that in viewing their needs as universal (i.e. being
righteous and requiring no justification).

~~~
ehsanu1
Based on that answer, and given the initial confusion, I can't help but
speculate that Marshall took the question to literally mean "where do needs
originate", to which the obvious literal answer is a creator or the Universe.
I think the question was meant to understand how the list of needs was
determined, to which I would imagine Rosenberg may have had a different
answer.

I can't know this for sure, but my understanding is that these needs were
identified via some sort of introspection, and probably seemed somewhat
obvious to Marshall. This is clearly subjective in some way, but it does seem
that most humans do share many of the same needs, so I'm not sure that your
criticism holds much weight.

The idea behind calling needs universal is to ensure we are talking about the
same kinds of needs. eg. I don't need you to accept whatever I do and say it's
ok no matter what. But I do need autonomy. The need should not reference
specific people, things, times or situations. It should be very general, which
helps frame the conversation in a less combative way and makes sure we are
talking about the underlying values that motivate all our actions.

It's very hard for me to try to think of something that follows those rules of
generality and that may be characterized as a need by someone, but is not a
real universal need and is overly righteous. Could you help me by giving an
example of such a mis-characterized need?

------
baud147258
I prefer the actual title of the article (How to Deliver Constructive Feedback
rather than A guide to difficult conversations); a difficult conversation
could be about anything and the object of the article seems very vague,
whereas delivering feedback is something most of us would have to do and so is
something of interest (and is more precise). I nearly didn't read the article
because of this, which would have been a shame since it was an interesting
read.

------
andyidsinga
Corollary (to the whole article): act/do the way you expect others to act/do
in a _small set_ of areas that are very important to you.

I've often seen leaders/managers get upset about the little shit while not
acting the way they expect others to act in the areas they care about.

My step dad and a few bosses I've had over the years are great at this; they
jump in and start _doing_ the work and its amazing to see others jump right in
along side them. Also, and this is key: they jump in and work along side their
own reports who are doing the right things (this is a powerful message to a
team).

One boss and mentor (and now a good friend) - would write
documents/presentations and share them with an employee: "hey, I'm doing this
presentation to _______ , check it out. I'd like you to ramp up and next month
take it over. I'll be happy to help if required"

One time, some people were arguing one day about how to test some software and
hardware. Boss observes the argument and comes in the next day with a little
circuit board he made to help complete the tests. The model within the team
from then on was often "hey I built this thing to help with the _____ ..what
do you think, will this help?"

Another example, eng boss in a standup : "hey, I like how you did that thing
with ____ in the code, I'm going to fork that and try an experiment". Comes
back a few days later "hey check out this branch.. its a way to do _____; You
can see what I'm getting at - and maybe figure out how something like this can
work in the main codebase ..food for thought".

------
truth_seeker
>> ‘The ability to observe without evaluating is the highest form of
intelligence.’ — Jiddu Krishnamurti, Indian Philosopher

First of all, he was a mystic than being a philosopher. The quality of
observing is a by-product, a consequence. If you directly try to achieve this
by using your mind based on some moral principles or disciplines mentioned
through this article you are bound to get frustrated. It is like one thought
fighting with other thought but in the end, it leads to the creation of a
chain of many complex thoughts entangled. But because it appeals more many
people fall prey.

I see many such articles focus more on the mind and how to change thoughts.
This article is nothing but an offshoot of a limited part of psychology. A
real inner transformation happens when you experientially go beyond thoughts.
Psychology is just a temporary cure. Vipassana can help you in a true
experiential manner.

Jobs such as software engineering and others which requires constant use of
thinking and sitting at one place throughout the day makes the mind stronger
than other faculties of a human being. it needs to be balanced with exercise
(to remove physical and to certain extent mental blocks ) and proper
meditation guidance.

------
ancarda
If anyone is interested in an IRC channel for NVC, a few friends and I run
##nvc on freenode. It's small, but we'd love to grow it and spread NVC.

------
leshow
I have a feeling people will read this blog post and implement it by stating
some of those observations are going to come across really passive aggressive.

------
funfunfun
I've personally found this book more valuable than any other mentioned in the
thread and I challenge skeptics to read it.

------
patjenk
Maybe I am misunderstanding empathy, but the following paragraph sounds more
like sympathy: "But when it comes to difficult conversations, I’ve found that
empathy has a side-effect. I can get so focused on how the conversation might
affect the other person’s feelings that I lose sight of why the conversation
is needed in the first place."

In the above circumstance, I thought empathizing with the person would be
understanding they (may) benefit from the information you're providing.
Sympathizing with them would be reacting to their feelings, which seems to be
the approach here.

Am I wrong?

An analogy could be made to a person who recently had a friend die.
Sympathizing would be reacting to their sadness and feeling bad for them.
Empathizing would be understanding how they're feeling and taking steps to
support them (e.g. spending quality time with them).

------
Wizek
If anyone wants to have some real-time chat about NVC, or ask questions of
people who have years of experience using the technique, you can come here:

[https://webchat.freenode.net/?channels=##nvc](https://webchat.freenode.net/?channels=##nvc)

It's the ##nvc channel on Freenode.

~~~
tome
Thanks! I joined and I'm glad I did :)

------
roel_v
The problem, as I've experienced with this, is that it requires cooperation of
the other part; more specifically, it requires them to acknowledge these
feelings as being pertinent to reality. Take this example from the article:

"When you said, 'I’m not happy with your work,' to me in front of the team, I
felt embarrassed because it didn’t meet my need for trust and recognition.
Please, could we set up a weekly one-on-one session to share feedback in
private?"

What when the other party says 'well I didn't mean to make you feel
embarrassed, and if you did, that's your problem - just change the way you
feel about these things because this is just the way things go around here.'
What then? And a similar response can be phrased for every statement that uses
this terminology/method.

------
zomg
Great article and very timely as I need to have a difficult conversation with
a co-worker today! :)

------
DoofusOfDeath
I've also heard good things about "The Art of Hard Conversations: Biblical
Tools for the Tough Talks That Matter" [0] and "Difficult Conversations: How
to Discuss What Matters Most" [1].

Can anyone comment on the relative merits of these articles' / books'
approaches?

[0] [https://www.amazon.com/Art-Hard-Conversations-Biblical-
Matte...](https://www.amazon.com/Art-Hard-Conversations-Biblical-
Matter/dp/0825445558)

[1]
[https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0143118447/ref=oh_aui_sear...](https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0143118447/ref=oh_aui_search_asin_title?ie=UTF8&psc=1)

~~~
funfunfun
Read them all. The ROI is so high you may as well

------
shanecleveland
I saw a similar article about workplace conversations that suggested a similar
track.

The gist was to make a request for help instead of a demand, while also being
frank about what is happening and that there is a need for change.

I can appreciate the idea of presenting it in a collaborative way. Instead of
"I am telling you to do this because you made a mistake and I know better" you
can present it as "I can understand the issue, and we can work as a team to
come up with a solution that works for everyone."

------
system2
While this looks very nice and fun to read, in the real world we deal with
very emotional people. There are times I use these subconsciously when needed
but I know there are many clients I dealt with would reject me the moment I
start talking like this.

I personally find people using NVC tactics very insincere. It is very obvious
they are using some "you can't use this sentence against me later" tactics.

~~~
marshray
Sometimes what people really want is old-fashioned give-and-take, or to engage
you in open conflict.

When you make it clear by your actions you're not interested in that game, it
will throw them off balance. Not many people are prepared for this and the
only tactic they know is to escalate. "You're being an insincere prick" is all
they've got.

The key is that you know that you, yourself are sincerely open to making a
connection, and you go the extra mile to avoid condescension. At a basic
level, you are indeed pushing them to confront something about their own
feelings that they'd rather not deal with at that moment.

Sometimes folks just don't want to connect with you when they're feeling
vulnerable, and the best you can do is let them know that you're safe to be
vulnerable around by respecting that.

------
webwanderings
Book is here:
[http://web.archive.org/web/20050308042540/www.algonet.se/~jo...](http://web.archive.org/web/20050308042540/www.algonet.se/~johnnyfg/books/noviolnt/index.htm)

------
ochronus
Great article! Thanks for highlighting this often neglected aspect of
communication!

~~~
davesuperman
Pleasure :)

------
SCdF
The video linked at the bottom of the article doesn't work for me ("the video
is unavailable <mock concern face>"). Is this a regional thing (I'm in the
UK), or is it broken for everyone?

~~~
davesuperman
I fixed it. Great catch, thanks for letting me know :)

------
suchire
I also highly recommend the book “Difficult Conversations”, which has a
similar overall idea with a slightly different way of framing and breaking
down the hard parts of these conversations.

------
stadeschuldt
Is this article paywalled? Medium presents me with a box saying:

You read a lot. We like that. You’ve reached the end of your free member
preview for this month. Become a member now for $5/month to read this story
and get unlimited access to all of the best stories on Medium.

~~~
ranie93
That showed up for me as well but there was an X icon on the top right to
close the pop-up and continue to the article.

------
jaimex2
It just occurred to me while reading this that the entire job of counsellors
is to usher non-violent communication between people. Fascinating.

------
musicale
"When ____[observation], I feel ____[emotion] because I’m needing some
____[universal needs]. Would you be able to ____[request]?"

The typical/traditional response to such a request is somewhere between "uh,
no" and "absolutely not - and making such a request is itself an unforgivable
offense; if you value your (job/career/life/relationship/etc.) you will never
speak of it again."

The only exception is if the requester is a boss or another person whose
"requests" are actually orders.

------
stackzero
"consequences should be protective, not punitive." \- Couldn't have put this
any better

------
bitxbit
I highly recommend Celeste Headlee’s We Need To Talk. A good audiobook as
well.

------
d0100
From the example dialog, NVC seems to my ears as extremely patronizing.

------
MadWombat
So, a tutorial on "how to be a greedy, hypocritical, toxic asshole without
sounding like one" :)

------
funfunfun
There are a lot of bad communicators on this thread

------
86carr
This seems pretty great!!

------
mgamache
Nonviolent Communication? Words are _not_ violent. There are better ways and
worse ways to say things. You can be more empathetic and use words that result
in less "triggering", but calling words violence is dangerous. It erodes the
distinction between thoughts and opinions and real physical action.

------
codeape
So if I understand the article, one should use the communication pattern:

When ____[observation], I feel ____[emotion] because I’m needing some
____[universal needs]. Would you be able to ____[request]?

For instance:

When [you're acting like a dickhead], I feel [the urge to punch you] because
I'm needing some [f __king professionalism]. Would you be able to [stop acting
like a dickhead]?

~~~
mercutio2
There are several sentences in the piece dedicated to explaining that treating
the [emotion] section as a synonym for [attack that happens to be prefixed
with the word feel] is a corruption of the practice.

There’s also a section explaining the difference between requests and demands.

But your formulation does tend to highlight why people get incensed at
amateurish imitations of NVC.

------
ne_jo
Imho just beat him: imho again if it's my father, and laws are specific so
dumb, there are no questions denying me to talk to my father, would it be a
brother in law or natural brother. It is not a matter of choice that he has to
take by himself (other than think he "has the possibility to feel
responsible", but that's also not a question and not an option, imo). I would
make him understood that it is not a choice, nor me that I'm asking him if he
will allow me, he has to understand (imho) within goods or bads: if it's for
my father, he will come after, on a different level of importance. Really to
me allowing him to take responsability as to "help" himself, or make him to
feel this experience, is something that might even be silly, like what: "have
a solace try?", whitin the life of another person? Because hospital's laws are
dumb? Imho no way, and no no fight if needed (you also older).

