>What's the purpose of expressing the feeling? It seems like it's there only to underline the urgency of the unmet needs.
You answered the question. The NVC answer is that it's just a pattern of human behavior. If you speak only to the feelings and not the needs, you get labeled as sensitive. If you speak only to the needs, you get labeled as needy. If you speak to both, you are connecting the dots. People are more likely to empathize and help.
>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.
An important point I read in a non-NVC communications book: If people are getting upset at work (raised voices, venting, whatever), emotions are very much at play. So why pretend they're not there? If people will insist on putting a pretense of objectivity without putting the feelings on the table, usually problems will not get solved well.
Also, avoiding talking about emotions leads to the annoying artefact where the person starts invoking all kinds of principles, appeals to authority, morality, etc to justify their stance. These are all less effective than simply expressing their feelings. They often devolve to arguments on which principles the team should follow, etc. It's a lot easier to disagree to an objective standard than it is to tell someone their feelings are invalid (yes, yes, we all know someone who does it, but it is not the norm).
It also leads to a lot of "should" phrases. "An employee should..." "A manager should..." "It is the responsibility of a ... to ..." "The customer should ..." "A programmer should ..."
All of these statements have poor effectiveness. I've explained it in another comment, but on occasion I've told people that should is not in my vocabulary. They need to explain why they need something and not just hide behind "shoulds".
You answered the question. The NVC answer is that it's just a pattern of human behavior. If you speak only to the feelings and not the needs, you get labeled as sensitive. If you speak only to the needs, you get labeled as needy. If you speak to both, you are connecting the dots. People are more likely to empathize and help.
>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.
An important point I read in a non-NVC communications book: If people are getting upset at work (raised voices, venting, whatever), emotions are very much at play. So why pretend they're not there? If people will insist on putting a pretense of objectivity without putting the feelings on the table, usually problems will not get solved well.
Also, avoiding talking about emotions leads to the annoying artefact where the person starts invoking all kinds of principles, appeals to authority, morality, etc to justify their stance. These are all less effective than simply expressing their feelings. They often devolve to arguments on which principles the team should follow, etc. It's a lot easier to disagree to an objective standard than it is to tell someone their feelings are invalid (yes, yes, we all know someone who does it, but it is not the norm).
It also leads to a lot of "should" phrases. "An employee should..." "A manager should..." "It is the responsibility of a ... to ..." "The customer should ..." "A programmer should ..."
All of these statements have poor effectiveness. I've explained it in another comment, but on occasion I've told people that should is not in my vocabulary. They need to explain why they need something and not just hide behind "shoulds".