Nonviolent Communication

[john70t]

There is a news article today about a Microsoft COO article trying to get rid of 'toxic culture' to make it a better company.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/ceo-satya-nadella-first-joined-181500087.html

(Ironically, I do believe the release of Window10 a year later was extremely 'violent' upon its customers...)

Some bullet points from the article are:
"1. Effective communication has 4 components.
According to the book, there are four components of effective communication:
-Observing what is happening in a situation (such as someone saying or doing something you don't like).
-Stating how you feel when you observe the action.
-Expressing how your needs are connected to the feelings you identified.
-Addressing what you want by requesting a concrete action.


First off, I would like to say I did find some merit to the theory of it. It's a very different way into training oneself in listening to someone elses' highly emotional rant, absorbing it, and calculating and returning a response which does not have any emotional or judgemental content to it.
A "we are here to talk and not fight" kind of thing.
Hence the "non-violent" part of the name.

You attempt to make a connection regardless of whether you disagree, and be able to gloss over the triggers which tend to blow up most conversations and relationships these days. To maintain a connection and get through emotional road-blocks. To establish a bond at the end. The technique encourages a therapeutic feedback and almost a psychiatric relationship where you are encouraged to talk as much as you want until exhausted, then you deeply feel "you have been heard" by the other person.

I knew someone successful who works with a variety of important people, and is very big into this technique. We talked extensively and went through the basics. However, the other person may not have been doing the technique the right way because when we talked politics, with me using a chain of sequences to explain and rationalize my political opinion on a particular subject (backing emotion with facts and history) there was a complete emotional meltdown with refusal to talk any further on those subjects.
I did not understand what happened there, because I thought that communicating facts and background feelings was part of the interaction process of understanding where another person is coming from, in order to be able to relate to them.
That other person wanted to engage using (my)pure emotion apparently and did not even validate my experiences or extensive proven facts of the situation as even real.


In conclusion:
My experience in talking extensively with that person and together with another highly trained person was similar to talking into a well after all that.
The technique is great for keeping other people at the table and only pretending to validate their concern.
There would only be an acknowledgement echo with encouragement to talk further.

After hours of this I came to the conclusion it was all a one-sided conversation which actually frustrated me even more.
The technique encourage a person like myself to fully reveal everything about my opinion without the other person offering anything of equal value in return, That eventually led to mistrust.
It wasn't talking as equals.
Psychologically it inferred a subliminal master-servant relationship

This is similar to what Scientology does. The blackmail arrives later on.
It did feel a little cult-like with the insistence in communicating this way. I saw it in the swarmy eyes when they talked about it.

If does have some merit and is a challenge to use different social skill sets if nothing else,
But it's worth understanding so you can recognize it and be wary later on.

[LEAKYSEALS951]

I agree- some interesting points, but a lot of potential for lameness- for instance- the example from the article states:

"Felix, when I see two balls of soiled socks under the coffee table and another three next to the TV, I feel irritated because I am needing more order in the rooms that we share in common. Would you be willing to put your socks in your room or in the washing machine?"

Makes me want to puke.

How about... "Felix, get your g#$ d#$% socks off the floor right now or that's the last g#$ d#$% time you will ever watch tv down here again."

broken down this is what I hear-

"Felix, when I see two balls of soiled socks under the coffee table and another three next to the TV, "
punk teenager "wow..mom made an observation."
"I feel irritated"
punk teenager"like I care..."
because I am "needing more order"
I was advised in a communication seminar last week to be wary of the word "need" and not to be a "needy person"
we need food, air, and water, and potentially shelter. No one "needs "order. Perhaps if I chop my arm off with a chainsaw, and blood was pumping out, I could say "I need you to call an ambulance" because I'm dying/physically cannot dial phone.
otherwise- "needy" talk big no no. She wants order. She does not need it.


"Would you be willing?"
Why is she asking for permission? Her house. Her rules. This just empowers the kid to say no. I was also taught never to give a child a choice in a matter unless you are willing to accept the consequences.

edit- ironically, walking downstairs to throw my stinky socks in the hamper just a minute ago- I realized exactly why the example they used was weak- She states she "needs something", but then "asks" for approval to get it done (as if the answer "no" were an option) which shoots her "need" in the foot. It's either/or, but not both.

I think one could go on and on over-analyzing this type of stuff.

[Icemaster]

Originally Posted by LEAKYSEALS951

I agree- some interesting points, but a lot of potential for lameness- for instance- the example from the article states:

"Felix, when I see two balls of soiled socks under the coffee table and another three next to the TV, I feel irritated because I am needing more order in the rooms that we share in common. Would you be willing to put your socks in your room or in the washing machine?"

Makes me want to puke.

How about... "Felix, get your g#$ d#$% socks off the floor right now or that's the last g#$ d#$% time you will ever watch tv down here again."

Agreed.


IMHO, and some experience (not an expert by any means) this is what's used as the final straw. Depending on whether you're talking home or work, the messaging is different - the above is a derivative of what my kids hear, but not with absolutes cause they and I both know that eventually, they'll watch TV down there again. I play the 'gimme 5 bucks' 'why' 'cause I'm throwing your socks out next time I see them on the floor and you're going to pay me back for buying them' card. Works.

In the office, it boils down to a blunt but binary conversation, if A, then B. No in between or ambiguity, it's the three strikes rule basically. Easier if it's a subordinate and someone who works for you, there's a different approach when it's managing up or over.

End of the day, he's not wrong - there's really no need for a culture of "I'll end you" in the office, but it doesn't have to go to the 'tell me about your feelings, now let me tell you how that made me feel' Iron John campfire circle BS. There's not enough hours in the day for that.

[LEAKYSEALS951]

^^^ yeah, I was making the assumption that in the example, the sock issue had been brought up before, and it was time for a simple a- then - b type resolution. Swearing added for entertainment!

..and you bring up a good point, the willingness to carry out the threat. That's a big problem at our house and it leads to inconsistency if not well thought out or unrealistic.

[Jims5543]

When 10 rolled out and forced its way onto some of my computers (I fixed that by rolling them back and putting a blocker on them) If I could touch a Microsoft employee, I would be in jail.

[cstreit]

There are good points though. If the person you are engaged with has merit - even if you disagree - crafting a response without judgement is a good rule. ...and it can be hard but will foster more open communication.

[Tervuren]

The problem here is that it focuses on feelings rather than results.

Now feelings can be a result, but it loses the bigger picture.

Ultimately you want your team to win, and you do not always get to choose ideal teammates. Your communication should have winning in mind, sometimes that includes feelings, sometimes you may need to ignore feelings.

However, if you can ignore YOUR feelings, you will be a step ahead. A lot of things go south by people wanting to FEEL IMPORTANT. This shifts their communication to laying as much blame on others, and puffing themselves up. Not productive.

In a work environment, if two people have opposite feelings, someone will need to make a judgement or adjustment. Otherwise it does nothing.

[masraum]

Feelings should mostly be ignored at work. I suppose there may be certain times when feelings could be brought up at work, but most of the time, they should have no place at work. This sounds like it comes back to the fact that everyone's feelings should be happy all of the time and that's not going to happen.

[john70t]

iirc, the process goes like this:
Sally(anguished): You did that the wrong way again like you always do. You didn't listen. It needs to be done this way so that then afterwards...

Betty(using NVC): Ok can we pause there so I understand what you are saying?

Sally: sigh. Fine. Ok. deep breath

Betty: What I'm understanding you say is that I'm doing this the wrong way because I don't respect you. Is that how you feel?

Sally: Yes.

Betty: And you feel that I should be doing it another way because you are in charge. Is that what you meant?

Sally: Yes.

Betty: And you wanted me to do it a different way. Is that what you meant?

Sally: Yes.

Betty: And you wanted me to do it this way? Is that what you are saying?

etc. etc. etc.

It is a format for standardized feedback format which slows down and draws out a conversation and breaks down every-single-thing said.
[breaking up the conversation into little segments like it is a court trial cross examination]

Just the fact that everything takes so damn long might be exhausting and non-efficient at first.
I guess since the painful experience is shared, a "bond of trust" is created.
And from that trust, a non-judgmental relationship is formed.


I can see the technique might be useful in certain circumstances.
Not so much in others.

[RKDinOKC]

Is this kind of milinial snoflake training why HR is now calling themselves People and Culture.

[john70t]

But 'Culture' should never be a factor in the workplace...
That is discrimination.

[sammyg2]

The world is too wimpy already, we don't need some A-hole gazillionaire trying to make it worse because he's so out of touch.
The only people at work he ever has a conversation with are his butt-kissing handlers.

[legion]

Crap like this just makes it easier for sociopaths to bowl everyone else over as they are conditioned not to resist.