Here's the deal: I've yet to come across someone who is critical of NVC but can provide something better. And in my experience, the status quo is rarely better.
NVC has its flaws. It won't always work. Nor will anything else we know of. If something comes along that works better (higher "success rate"), I'll jump on that bandwagon.
If you can't be bothered to read the rest of this long comment, here's a TLDR: Most communications books, written independently, have the same elements as NVC. The other books are better at explaining why these elements is important. But the NVC book is better at providing recipes, which is why it became more popular.
A few years ago I did a deep dive on the topic, and read 4 books on communications: Difficult Conversations, NVC, Crucial Conversations and Getting Past No. Most of these were written/invented independently of one another. When I had read all 4, I looked over all my notes, and noticed that they all point to the same things, with only minor differences:
1. State your observation, without judgement, and be specific, not general.
2. Personalize and state its impact on you. The "feelings" part of NVC - all the books explicitly call out that you should explicitly state your feelings. The Difficult Conversations authors pointed out that many people in professional settings have the notion that discussions should be absent of emotions ("objective). Yet if a discussion at work is getting heated, emotions are clearly playing a big role. Don't assume you can solve the problem without bringing those emotions to the table. And indeed, many solutions fail because they failed to address the emotions which resulted in a lack of commitment. As one book put it: Unvalidated emotions are a minefield.
Just yesterday there was a nasty discussion at work about whether to split a monorepo into smaller individual repos. One side's work is bogged down by it being a monorepo, and the other side would have trouble if it were split into monorepos. Both sides discussed the their problems, yet neither side acknowledged the other's pain. Validating the other's emotions is a core principle of all communications books I've read.
(The issue did not get resolved by the end of the day).
And personalize: Don't talk in vague principles, but talk about how you are affected. This is where a lot of the tech world fails. I recall one heated discussion at work where a person was strongly pushing for something, and using all kinds of principles/analogies. He wanted someone else to change his workflow because it was causing problems for him. Yet, he never explained how it was causing him problems! When queried, he kept invoking analogies and principles. The world rarely yields neatly to principles, and every analogy has a flaw. You'll often get competing principles. Invoking them alone will not solve the problem.
The other element of stating the impact on you is discussing the needs. What need of yours is not being met? Is this impacting your efficiency? Are you wondering whether the work is futile, and not giving your purpose? Do you think you are being ignored and want consideration?
I cannot stress this enough: If you have trouble putting a "need" to your problem, it is because you haven't thought this through, and it's a bad idea to go into a conversation about the issue. Even if you don't explicitly state your need, this is a valuable exercise to do internally. Feelings are easy: When you're mad you know you're upset. Most people stop there and go have an argument. NVC forces you to start introspecting: My teammate did X and now I'm mad. But why is his doing X bothering me? Yes, my teammate undid all my changes and replaced it with crappy code. But why exactly is this bothering me? Your needs and his needs may conflict. But unless you can determine both, the conversation is likely going to go south.
All the communications books are part "therapy": Emphasizing introspection along with communication.
3. Request (optional - depends on the situation).
Regarding the "canned robotic phrases": This is akin to any other book that becomes dogma (think TDD, unit tests, referential transparency, etc). And just like the others, the original author does not insist you use these phrases. The NVC author explicitly says that the elements must be present, but the order doesn't matter, and sometimes it can even be communicated in one phrase. It nevertheless provides those templates to make it easy on beginners.
When I read the NVC book, I felt similar to you: These phrases are very artificial. And would annoy others. NVC is the only book that has these templates, and it is likely why it is very successful. The other books discuss the issues involved in conversations much better than NVC does - but they don't provide a template.
Now how artificial are these? Surprisingly not very. All my skepticism went away once I started observing people destressing a situation at work. The majority of these situations involved someone using very similar templates. And many (most?) of those folks had never heard of NVC! It sounds very artificial when reading it, but no one thought it was off. This is the exercise I recommend everyone does: Observe someone handling a stressful situation at work, and note how often they touch on all 3 aspects of NVC (specific observation, referring to the feelings, and the needs that are unmet).
Rosenberg didn't invent NVC. He just identified its existence.
No one's forcing you to use the template. Here's an example "So this is bothering you because it's affecting your efficiency?" This is perfectly valid NVC.
I think some of the problem arises in what is considered "good" communication. In the academic (and tech) world, we often describe good communication as concise and objective. This is great when communicating facts, science, etc. But in the workplace, we are not in the business of communicating facts and doing science. Most of us are in the business of making a product, that someone will buy, from which we will earn our living. And there are many competing motivations (some people want to "make" something, others are more interested in promotions, etc). Generally, we are heavily reliant on others. You can make a great thing but if the marketing folks refuse to market it, it will impact you (and vice versa). So "good communication" at the workplace involves dealing with a wider variety of people who have differing needs from you.
Becoming better at that type of communication is a lot of effort over a long period of time. It's easy to dismiss one type of style (e.g. NVC), but recognize that the "default" alternative is very poor and merely dismissing means accepting a poor level of communication. Had I simply read the NVC book and not dived deep into other books, I wouldn't have improved at all. It is because I decided that I will try to find a way to improve it that I recognized the merits of NVC and recognized its effective usage in the real world. It's also why I didn't stop at "crappy templates" and focused on making it less artificial.
Finally, NVC has a cult following. Ignore the cult. Just focus on the book.
>I've yet to come across someone who is critical of NVC but can provide something better.
This makes sense from the perspective of seeking single, coherent, generalized system. If you embrace the chaos, complexity, and diversity of human goals, emotional experiences and communication styles, there is no need for some individual better "thing". My suggestion of "better" is to learn from a variety of sources, including NVC, but reject the premise of universality. Embrace the idea that a diversity of circumstance-dependent, participant-dependent communication styles is healthy.
In the context of work discussions, I think people should be strongly discouraged from describing their position in terms of how they 'feel' because what they feel is a result of their focus on work. Therefore the root cause of a person's feeling should be expressed instead and will be harder to dismiss in a discussion. It typically takes a lot of work to understand the root cause but it is also empowering for people when they can turn their intense feelings into rational arguments. My two cents.
I think providing an example will help me understand what you're trying to say. And I worry I will soon hit my comment limit so I may not be able to respond.
I do not think what people "feel" is necessary a result of a focus on work. I've often encountered upset people at work because they believed a coworker was implying they were stupid. And in any case, things like fairness in compensation/promotions, etc can play a big role.
I agree with root causing, but I often find it's hard to root cause someone else's problem without knowing their feelings. The sad truth about communications is that most people suck at it. Half of becoming a better communicator is learning to deal with poor communicators, and making it easier for them to express what's on their mind (something many/most are reluctant to do).
As an example, consider a product manager that decides to remove a previously planned feature that one or more people have spent considerable effort working towards. If they can discuss the benefit of keeping the feature (or the cost associated with dropping it) then they stand a better chance of a favorable outcome than if they discuss in terms of how the product manager made them feel.
While I think people are right to have feelings I think they are more likely to achieve the outcome they want if they can understand and express why they feel that way. This is assuming that they are conscientious workers which is the more common case. If they are bonkers then they probably won't be able to pin down a sensible root cause.
As long as it doesn't affect the health of the codebase or force the engineers to work overtime, why do the engineers care about what features get shipped or not? They're paid to code, so if they aren't sacrificing code quality or working overtime they should just focus on coding features that may or may not get shipped. I mean, if we're being strictly objective that is.
If the engineers have feelings they might feel dismissed and devalued if they spend time and effort making features nobody will ever see.
Why would you need to know their feelings to find the actual root cause of a problem? You need to know the facts and then make a decision based on them.
Someone feeling a certain way is a fact. In fact, if a conflict is that someone is upset, it is the critical fact
before we can conclude a decision requires making!
Handling a problem dispassionately requires resolving the meta-problem of emotional response around the problem in the first place, especially if it's part of what made the problem happen. EG. A co worker's parent has been hospitalized from covid19 and therefore their emotions are preventing them from matching previous velocity in the previous sprint, which puts heat on the project manager. This is a conflict that requires and understanding and consideration of feelings to resolve.
In my experience feelings-type problems are significantly more numerous than technical problems to resolve dispassionately.
I would send that person home and just accept that things will not get done as quickly or find additional resource from somewhere else. I solved the problem by accepting the facts of the matter (they are upset and are not going to be productive). I didn't need to go through all this other nonsense.
> In my experience feelings-type problems are significantly more numerous than technical problems to resolve dispassionately.
That is because people don't think about things objectively which they should be doing. But I am an objectivist so I suppose I am biased.
> That is because people don't think about things objectively which they should be doing. But I am an objectivist so I suppose I am biased.
But whether or not they are thinking about things objectively has no basis on whether or not they are thinking objectively right now. Neither is whether or not you are an objectivist with your own bias (a feeling) relevant to the fact that someone has their own feelings that need to be understood during the analysis part of problem solving.
No my own bias isn't a feeling. It is how I tend to think.
The fact of the matter that most problems need to be solved in a manner which is directed by the facts. What someone else feels is almost completely irrelevant. We need to achieve <Whatever>, we need to do the following. When does feelings really come into that process? It doesn't.
I find it completely mind boggling that "root cause analysis" has something to do with someone's feelings. It has absolutely nothing to do with it.
> The fact of the matter that most problems need to be solved in a manner which is directed by the facts. What someone else feels is almost completely irrelevant.
Let me give you a real example.
I took a two day workshop on communications at work (not NVC). They did a survey of the class: How many people think facts, and not feelings should be the focus of a discussion? And how many felt the opposite (focus should be on feelings, not facts)?
The outcome? Roughly a 50% split.
So when you say:
> What someone else feels is almost completely irrelevant.
You've already alienated half of the population. Good luck at resolving a conflict with them.
I come from your perspective: Feelings exist, but they divert from the real issues. Feelings are subjective, so what's the point? Facts are indisputable. Let's focus on those.
And you know what? I like that world where facts are what matters. I like working with people who act that way. I think with enough training and discipline, anyone can get to the point where the feelings don't matter, and they focus on facts. That's what people strive for in academia[1].
But I'm crazy to think that half the population will spend the effort to get there. A big chunk of them don't view it as a desirable goal. It's a laudable aspiration for me to try to make them think that way, but unless I want to make it my life's mission, I need to focus on getting results now, and that means discussing their emotions, and realizing that in doing so I'm not going for an inferior approach.
I work in a team. I need them and they need me. If addressing their emotions helps them, then it helps me. Refusing to do so makes me the problem - not them. Insisting on facts is dogma.
Oh, and people who say feelings are irrelevant? Let me completely dismiss them in a meeting and suggest mildly that they're perspective likely is due to a lack of competence. Most of them will not perform well for the rest of the meeting. Quite a few of them will have issues with me in the long run - either my productivity or theirs will be suboptimal.
Hell yeah - feelings matter. And I was the problem. Not them for letting their negative feelings towards me get in the way at the workplace.
Is this an artificial example? How about a more realistic example. Same paragraph as the above, but the person merely interpreted it as me dismissing them and questioning their competence. I had no intention of doing so and those thoughts are not in my head. Yet they perceived it, and did not want to discuss the feelings they had.
The outcome is the same:
Quite a few of them will have issues with me in the long run - either my productivity or theirs will be suboptimal.
How often does this happen at work? I suspect at least once in every team I've been in. Someone in the team believes someone else thinks that way about them based on some offhand remark, and tells me about it, but refuses to have a discussion with the "accused".
The person is jumping to conclusions. The only fact is the person made a particular remark. The conclusion was premature. I point this out to the aggrieved every time. And every time they refuse to accept it. Is the person who is jumping to conclusions problematic? Sure. I could try ensuring such people don't join the team (or stay in it for long). But trust me, that's a difficult solution. A much easier solution is learning how to deal with his emotions effectively.
[1] And as someone who spent a decade in it, I can tell you they mostly fail - academics make plenty of decisions based on emotions.
> I took a two day workshop on communications at work (not NVC). They did a survey of the class: How many people think facts, and not feelings should be the focus of a discussion? And how many felt the opposite (focus should be on feelings, not facts)
That is endemic with society today is that people don't seem to think facts important.
Also a two day communication workshop on how to talk to people. You have bigger problems than how to communicate at work.
> You've already alienated half of the population. Good luck at resolving a conflict with them.
And that is their problem. Why is it mine? If you are an adult you should be able to talk about things as a matter of fact. If you cannot you are not an adult. Some people don't grow up past 16 years old. That is their failing and not mine.
> But I'm crazy to think that half the population will spend the effort to get there. A big chunk of them don't view it as a desirable goal. It's a laudable aspiration for me to try to make them think that way, but unless I want to make it my life's mission, I need to focus on getting results now, and that means discussing their emotions, and realizing that in doing so I'm not going for an inferior approach.
Sure. You have a choice as to whether you want to work with those people or not. I don't like working with those people so I minimise the amount of time I spend working with them if possible.
> Oh, and people who say feelings are irrelevant? Let me completely dismiss them in a meeting and suggest mildly that they're perspective likely is due to a lack of competence. Most of them will not perform well for the rest of the meeting. Quite a few of them will have issues with me in the long run.
There is a difference between openly hostile (which is what your example is) and talking about things as a matter of fact.
> That is endemic with society today is that people don't seem to think facts important.
No one said facts aren't important. They said facts shouldn't be the focus.
And what's with "society today"? When was society any different?
> Also a two day communication workshop on how to talk to people. You have bigger problems than how to communicate at work.
There are worse things. People take a whole semester course on compilers and most don't use any of that knowledge. The majority of technical courses I took in undergrad were never used for anything at work. The communications workshop has been more valuable than those.
And about those bigger problems at work? Try solving them with poor communication.
> And that is their problem. Why is it mine?
Because you have to deal with these people at work. I mean, if you're a solo developer who doesn't work in a team, then your stance is fine. If people don't want to work with you on a project, it becomes your problem. The world isn't going to change to conform to how you thinks adults "should" behave.
Speaking of "should":
> If you are an adult you should be able to talk about things as a matter of fact.
This is classic way to deny yourself of agency and put the onus on others. I once told a manager of mine to stop using the word "should" - it's a way of saying "I don't want to deal with this - it is someone else's fault".
> I don't like working with those people so I minimise the amount of time I spend working with them if possible.
And you are willing to disclose this in an interview?
> There is a difference between openly hostile (which is what your example is) and talking about things as a matter of fact.
Sorry, but I was not being "openly hostile". My dismissing remark can be quite factual, as well as my imputation of incompetence,
You conveniently ignored the rest of my comment where the perception this happens is fairly common. No one is acting hostile, but the outcome is similar.
> No one said facts aren't important. They said facts shouldn't be the focus.
Splitting hairs.
> And what's with "society today"? When was society any different?
About 20 years speech codes and communication frameworks were mocked openly and treated with scorn (as they should be). Today not so much.
> There are worse things. People take a whole semester course on compilers and most don't use any of that knowledge. The majority of technical courses I took in undergrad were never used for anything at work. The communications workshop has been more valuable than those.
This is a general misunderstanding by people such as yourself why they teach you these things. The first being "this is how this works under the hood" and the second is that many other problems might have similar patterns to them. It teaches you how to think in a particular way and break down problems. But alas this was lost on you.
> And about those bigger problems at work? Try solving them with poor communication.
1) Just speak to people. like adults.
2) Be honest.
3) If someone doesn't seems to know what they mean just say "Does that make sense?" and assume you made an error.
It is very simple.
> Because you have to deal with these people at work. I mean, if you're a solo developer who doesn't work in a team, then your stance is fine. If people don't want to work with you on a project, it becomes your problem. The world isn't going to change to conform to how you thinks adults "should" behave.
It isn't about how I think adults should behave. It how the rest of the world thinks adults should behave. You are there to do a job.
> This is classic way to deny yourself of agency and put the onus on others. I once told a manager of mine to stop using the word "should" - it's a way of saying "I don't want to deal with this - it is someone else's fault".
Not at all. I've accepted there things I can control (myself) and there are things I largely cannot control (other people). You seem to framing this like I go around being verbally abusive to my co-workers.
> And you are willing to disclose this in an interview?
I am a contractor. I am brought in to do specific jobs. I don't spend years working at the same place. If I don't like it somewhere I just don't extend the contract.
I also don't particular respect lifers and company men. But I tend to keep that to myself.
> You conveniently ignored the rest of my comment where the perception this happens is fairly common. No one is acting hostile, but the outcome is similar.
Great post. Your reading list is excellent and I'd add Getting to Yes.
I think there are some key elements you left out: (1) the concept of emotional safety and the value of brainstorming (Crucial Conversations), (2) seeing the problem as separate from the people (Getting Past No / Getting to Yes), (3) Negotiating interests, not positions (Getting to Yes).
Here are the links to the reading list (and I added Getting to Yes):
Controlling someone else’s language and implying they are selfish for not changing is a lack of the social skills this framework purports to instill. You do not need to control someone’s language with a framework to enquire about their feelings. The majority of your comment is waffle littered with unsolved problems.
This NVC is fundamentally predatory on another’s mindset by controlling language under the guise of caregiving. It is an attempt to prime people for being heavily micromanaged in a few years by clogging up language with identifying feelings whilst real decisions are made by the nvc practitioners.
> Controlling someone else’s language and implying they are selfish for not changing is a lack of the social skills this framework purports to instill.
This is explicitly false. Please tell me where in the NVC book this is recommended. It never suggests criticizing someone else's language. In fact, quite the opposite - it puts the burden on you not to be upset at how people phrase things - even if they're shouting at you. Of course, if you are upset at the general communication approach with a coworker, it does give you a way to express it. It doesn't mandate it, though.
The NVC book is quite clear that there should be no judgment from you if the other party doesn't change. To the extent that part of NVC is defined that way. I mean, you can dislike it and disengage with the person (quit, divorce, etc). But blame the other person for not changing after asking them to? That's a clear no-no in the NVC book.
> You do not need to control someone’s language with a framework to enquire about their feelings.
You and the NVC author are in complete agreement.
> This NVC is fundamentally predatory on another’s mindset by controlling language under the guise of caregiving. It is an attempt to prime people for being heavily micromanaged in a few years by clogging up language with identifying feelings whilst real decisions are made by the nvc practitioners.
I must mirror a sentiment expressed in another comment. Has anyone who is critical of NVC over here actually read the book? The impression we who have are getting is that this thread is full of people who have little to no understanding of NVC and yet are quite critical of it.
None of what you wrote here is advocated for in the NVC book. There is an NVC cult out there who take things further, and while they annoy me, I have yet to hear anything like what you say from them either. It's certainly quite possible there are manipulative managers (i.e. assholes) at work who exploit it for their own gains, but a more likely prior is that people are entirely misinterpreting their efforts and in those people's world view such language is triggering.
I cannot alter a person's world view if he is not willing to discuss it. I do wonder which alternate universe these people are from where NVC is about labeling people for their refusal to change. It's like criticizing Gandhi's nonviolence movement for aiming to increase beheadings. It's just so antithetical to the concept that the criticism is so ... bizarre.
I stand by my comment above: It's totally OK with me if you don't like NVC. However, in a thread of over 100 comments, no one has pointed to an alternative that works when dealing with a wide variety of people. Sure - you can always filter people for "culture fit" and get a group where such language is not necessary. As your company grows in size, though, this becomes impossible.
The nature of pushing a packaged book with ideas about elevating a certain type of language with a certain type of goals over anything else and expecting people to conform in the work place, is controlling someone else's language.
You have the opportunity to create an individual approach that works well in most situations. That is your social advantage in the workplace that on the whole you don't need or want to share because it dilutes the advantage. It is also tuned to your identity, your past, your needs and your goals that are not the same for everyone.
Why are you changing other people's worldview? The enterprise seems predatory, it depends on others changing to a framework that privileges it's proponents. It demonstrates a lack of skill in the speaker. It's politicking under the guise of caregiving, a negative act.
> The nature of pushing a packaged book with ideas about elevating a certain type of language with a certain type of goals over anything else and expecting people to conform in the work place, is controlling someone else's language.
So can we agree that your problem is not with NVC but with a few people?
The scenario I can think of where what you are witnessing makes some sense is if someone (perhaps management?) is saying that people are not effectively communicating when there are problems and they're recommending NVC as an alternative. That makes sense, and is not at all problematic. If, OTOH, they are saying "We're picking NVC as a style of communication", then it's problematic if the employees don't agree with this. As an example, my workplace used to have a 2 day workshop on effective communication (not NVC, but more or less the same[1]). But it was purely voluntary and no one called out on someone if they didn't take the workshop or practice it.
If management is pushing you to communicate this way and you don't want to, change your job. But don't knock NVC for things unrelated to it.
I do get the sense from a number of comments (not necessarily yours) that people think they should be able to express themselves at work however they feel most comfortable. That's an unrealistic expectation at any sizable workplace. How you choose to communicate does impact team productivity and is definitely a factor in promotions, continued employment, etc. I don't hire you to do solo work - I hire you to produce results while collaborating with other people. And communication styles do impact how well you will collaborate with people.
[1] It's more or less the same because most books on effective communication are the same.
>So can we agree that your problem is not with NVC but with a few people?
No. I was describing what NVC is. The book, this thread, the culture of people like you pushing it in the workplace is what I wrote. The book encourages a language form, the proponents of the book push a language form, you are pushing a 'communication style'.
>I do get the sense from a number of comments (not necessarily yours) that people think they should be able to express themselves at work however they feel most comfortable. That's an unrealistic expectation at any sizable workplace. How you choose to communicate does impact team productivity and is definitely a factor in promotions, continued employment, etc. I don't hire you to do solo work - I hire you to produce results while collaborating with other people. And communication styles do impact how well you will collaborate with people.
Comfort can be good or bad, I don't see it as a property worth examining. Working solo or collaboratively is a fine line, at the end of the day everybody does the work by themselves, you are hired for your individual skills at a particular task. The collaboration aspect is half the job and that half is not worth slavery to a language form for the sake of micromanagement.
Your communication style is not working with me. I don't see the value of your ideas on this topic. The value of the ideas should be self-evident because we are talking about how to communicate. Who's responsibility is that?
Sociology has been dealing with the fundamental attribution error for fifty years. There is little evidence that communicating in any particular style is going to solve problems and instead will likely paper over miss-attributed judgments about an individual's character rather than looking at the situation they are in. We have been working together as groups for thousands of years, it's unlikely a new fad book is going to have a solution to 'communication', one of the most fundamental things we do as humans.
If you're a boss it doesn't matter what I say because you can just set the rules however you like, it's not a workplace where I'd choose to work. I would look forward to working with people that want to talk about mission critical issues more than they want (apparently) to spend talking about feelings and structuring sentences.
> No. I was describing what NVC is. The book, this thread, the culture of people like you pushing it in the workplace is what I wrote. The book encourages a language form, the proponents of the book push a language form, you are pushing a 'communication style'.
I'm sorry, but:
1. You haven't read the book.
2. You are falsely accusing me of pushing it in the workplace. Do you work at my workplace and know me?
3. I am not pushing a 'communication style'. Nowhere in this thread or anywhere else have I suggested that one should follow it. I've expressed my like for it - that's all.
If you have concluded all this about me, then I must say I do not trust at all what you say about the people "pushing" NVC at your work place. And frankly, your comments remind me of people who make all kinds of claims about, say, Muslims/Islam without understanding anything about them.
> you are hired for your individual skills at a particular task.
Rarely. This is true for contract jobs, but not employment. People are usually hired with a project in mind, and then anything else we give them.
> at the end of the day everybody does the work by themselves
Also rare. If you're committing code to a shared codebase, you are not working by yourself.
> I would look forward to working with people that want to talk about mission critical issues more than they want (apparently) to spend talking about feelings and structuring sentences.
As I said - I don't talk about communications issues at work unless it is clearly affecting people (e.g. someone complains). And when that happens, your communication style has become something that affects mission critical issues.
I may practice NVC on occasion[1], but NVC doesn't require or request others to do so, and insisting others do so pretty much violates the NVC approach.
> We have been working together as groups for thousands of years, it's unlikely a new fad book is going to have a solution to 'communication', one of the most fundamental things we do as humans.
Again, as one who has not read the book, you cannot appreciate how your comment sounds to those who have. To give an extreme example: Imagine a popular book today talking about the need to be truthful, and imagine someone on the Internet coming in and saying "People have been dealing with each other for thousands of years. I don't want to read some new fad book." As I said earlier, Rosenberg didn't invent NVC. He merely identified its existence. Most people I've seen who successfully destress a situation are using NVC without having heard of it. I listen to a radio show where the host does a fantastic job of getting people to speak honestly (local issues and conflicts in my cities). He doesn't get people to say "I feel X because of my need for Y", but he is practicing NVC. I should email him and ask if he's even heard of NVC.
I don't practice NVC because I think it's a new thing that's cool and awesome (BTW, the book is older than many people here). I practice it because after reading it, I noticed it everywhere in the world. It's not at all new.
[1] And it really is on occasion. Anyone who knows NVC can see I'm not practicing it in these comments.
I can’t abide these blatant contradictions. I just stood up for a guy who was swearing, that you tried to lock out in this very same thread. You are pushing NVC and in that very comment you mentioned that you would let this guy go for his communication style.
I know there are books that describe “the obvious”, we just had two years of Jordan Peterson telling common sense things to 500 million people and selling books on it. I don’t need another guru to tell me how to do the “obvious”.
You didn’t answer my question about who’s responsibility this problem communicating self evident ideas is. If you can answer that then you have a key to why NVC is silly.
You didn’t answer my point about NVC being more about papering over judgements of character or acknowledge that these treatments of communication necessarily fall into problems of attribution.
Associate me with religious critics however much you want. I have made solid points and you have lied. I’m done here.
> Just yesterday there was a nasty discussion at work about whether to split a monorepo into smaller individual repos. One side's work is bogged down by it being a monorepo, and the other side would have trouble if it were split into monorepos. Both sides discussed the their problems, yet neither side acknowledged the other's pain. Validating the other's emotions is a core principle of all communications books I've read.
This is a technical tooling problem, not a problem about the feelings of the two teams. By all means, dig technically into why one team's work is being bogged down and why one team prefers the current setup. Maybe you need a different design for integration testing or deployment pipelines. Maybe you need another branching strategy. Maybe you need some ground rules about monorepo-wide changes. All of those can be discussed productively between the teams. Perhaps the underlying conclusion is you need more release engineering resources, and both teams might agree on that. (What did you end up discussing, anyway?)
Just like "there are no technical solutions to social problems," there are no social solutions to technical problems. The solution to "people keep breaking the build on trunk" has nothing to do with your feelings about the people who keep breaking the build - it has to do with your lack of a bot that runs tests and only pushes to trunk if the tests pass. (Nor is the reason that they keep breaking the build on trunk about their emotional needs - it's about the fact that they can't make use of such a bot because none exists.)
I'll give you an example from my side - just yesterday there was a nasty discussion at my own workplace about whether we'd perform a certain upgrade despite an ongoing not-quite-change-freeze because of WFH. A couple of people at the meeting were extremely unhappy about the proposal because they thought it was too risky. Tensions were high on the Jira ticket going into the meeting and various managers were overruling other managers. We got the right people on a call, and the folks who were concerned said, I think this is too risky if we're not going to do a production release, because we'll have too much divergence between master and prod, and the team that owned production said, actually, we're going to do a production release soon and we're happy with this upgrade being part of it. The people who were concerned said, great, that addresses my concern. Problem solved, and the upgrade is happening shortly.
Perhaps we were just mature enough to know, going into the meeting, that of course everyone's emotions were valid, and we had enough trust that teams genuinely want to not cause problems for other teams? I don't think we're an abnormally high-empathy workplace... people here are great, but I think we're pretty normal as workplaces go.
> This is a technical tooling problem, not a problem about the feelings of the two teams. By all means, dig technically into why one team's work is being bogged down and why one team prefers the current setup. Maybe you need a different design for integration testing or deployment pipelines. Maybe you need another branching strategy. Maybe you need some ground rules about monorepo-wide changes. All of those can be discussed productively between the teams. Perhaps the underlying conclusion is you need more release engineering resources, and both teams might agree on that. (What did you end up discussing, anyway?)
Yep, the person who initiated the conversation was hoping to have precisely this kind of conversation. And no, he didn't get such a discussion. It's easy to say that this is what the conversation should have been. The reality was quite different. So the question is why did they not end up having a fruitful discussion?
In the past my thought process almost exactly mirrored yours. It's only due to a bunch of years of observing these dynamics in multiple teams did I realize that these expectations I had were off. SW folks, as much as they try to deny it, are as emotional as anyone else. Everyone is emotional - they just manifest it in different ways. The fact that a person has described his pain with a technical configuration, and the other party isn't explicitly acknowledging that pain usually will have negative consequences. Frankly, as a third party observer, I think both parties heard and understood the others' pain. But neither party indicated it to the other. And so every exchange in the conversation was a restatement of the pains they had with other's preferences. I catch on to this pretty well because I used to be guilty of the same. And my experience has taught me how frequently disarming it is to merely convince the other party that you truly understand the other's pain. It takes very little effort.
The issue is not resolved. The manager is likely going to step in and pick one solution. This is the worst way to resolve it as he is the one least impacted (at least directly).
> Just like "there are no technical solutions to social problems," there are no social solutions to technical problems.
Something I heard in my first or second year in the industry: "At top tech companies, there are no technical problems. Every problem is a social one. Even a problem that looks technical is really due to a social problem somewhere behind the scenes." Whoever said it was so right. I've worked on plenty of technical problems that arose because people did not get along.
So I must disagree. Solve the social problems, and you often solve the technical ones as well.
> The solution to "people keep breaking the build on trunk" has nothing to do with your feelings about the people who keep breaking the build - it has to do with your lack of a bot that runs tests and only pushes to trunk if the tests pass. (Nor is the reason that they keep breaking the build on trunk about their emotional needs - it's about the fact that they can't make use of such a bot because none exists.)
First: Feelings aren't "about people". My problem is not that people are breaking the build. My problem is that I don't have a clean build to work on. There's a difference.
Second, I've been in teams that allowed anything in the trunk (CI would fail later, but it worked off the trunk, so the damage is done). Yet every time someone proposed to switch the CI to reject things that broke the build, there was push back and it never got implemented. Why is that? How do you solve this?
We had the "technical" solution. That we could not implement it is a social problem. You are not going to succeed unless you deal with the social problem? No matter how bullet proof your technical solution is.
> In the past my thought process almost exactly mirrored yours. It's only due to a bunch of years of observing these dynamics in multiple teams did I realize that these expectations I had were off. SW folks, as much as they try to deny it, are as emotional as anyone else. Everyone is emotional - they just manifest it in different ways.
That does not describe my thought process at all. Of course software people are as emotional as anyone else. No part of my argument is about software people being unemotional - and no part of my argument is about software people in particular. It applies to everyone who's trying to get a job done. If your altos and sopranos aren't blending because they're using different vowels, that isn't about how they feeling, that's about the vowels they're using. If your choir director isn't able to notice that, that isn't about an emotional desire for a particular choir director, that's because it's the choir director's job to notice it.
Yes, you can be upset or sad or exasperated at the choir director. You can be jealous that he has the job and you don't. You can even be indifferent. That's all worth addressing if you want a happy choir, sure, but none of that changes that the choir director's job is to notice when the altos and sopranos aren't pronouncing their vowels the same. The purpose of a choir (even a community choir that never performs) isn't to make a happy choir, it's to make good music. People are in the choir because they think making good music will make them happy - and everyone knows that, that's not an interesting observation.
> I've worked on plenty of technical problems that arose because people did not get along.
I have, too. I've also worked on plenty of technical problems that would have been equally present had everyone got along. I think whoever told you that there are "no technical problems" had a pretty limited view of the world. Sure, many problems are from behind-the-scenes social problems. I'd maybe even say that most problems that actually get solved are those. But it hardly means that if you had a company full of people who were perfect empaths operating in perfect good faith, you'd have no technical problems left.
(And, again, same for other fields - I've been in plenty of choirs with interpersonal problems, and the altos not liking the sopranos and the soprano who's unwilling to admit she's really an alto certainly aren't make things easier, but solving those won't magically make you blend!)
> You are not going to succeed unless you deal with the social problem? No matter how bullet proof your technical solution is.
Firmly agree. But you're also not going to succeed without a technical solution, either. Yes, if you've built out the pre-push CI, figuring out why people don't want to switch to it is a social problem, and you must solve that. But you also have to build it, and take any technical concerns they raise into account.
I'm not seeing how the choir director example relates to mine. In my particular case, if you mean someone like the manager is the choir director who decides: Well, at the moment he can't, as he isn't actively involved in the code base, so he doesn't know all the issues. He wants the team to discuss it (and he'll monitor the discussion) so that all the issues come to the table. Then with all the feedback, he can make an informed decision/suggestion.
But he's stuck at the stage where multiple people are arguing in a very non-constructive manner, and so he can't see all the issues on the table. How can he get the different parties to talk without merely repeating their stance?
There are clearly emotions involved. And yes, I do agree with you that it is not necessary for people to discuss them. However, if they are discussed well, then it makes the rest of the discussion easier. The "discussing well" is what many communications books are trying to address. Trying to get to the technical aspects that are causing these feelings is a good idea, but a lot harder if you don't know the feelings.
One person involved is quite senior, incredibly competent, and very rarely gets into arguments. He's definitely getting into one. So there are clearly strong emotions at play. If he's upset, he has a good reason. And at the moment he's refusing to engage and is building walls. Now this might be because the other party is perceived as being dismissive, so he doesn't want to waste time in the discussion.
When one person is appearing dismissive, and the other person is clamming up, how do you get them to talk so that the manager has all the factors to consider on the table? Note that the notion that one is dismissive and the other is upset are merely how I have observed the dialogue - and I may be off. Any attempt at starting a discussion where it is accepted that one side is being dismissive and the other stubborn is likely to blow up.
NVC has its flaws. It won't always work. Nor will anything else we know of. If something comes along that works better (higher "success rate"), I'll jump on that bandwagon.
If you can't be bothered to read the rest of this long comment, here's a TLDR: Most communications books, written independently, have the same elements as NVC. The other books are better at explaining why these elements is important. But the NVC book is better at providing recipes, which is why it became more popular.
A few years ago I did a deep dive on the topic, and read 4 books on communications: Difficult Conversations, NVC, Crucial Conversations and Getting Past No. Most of these were written/invented independently of one another. When I had read all 4, I looked over all my notes, and noticed that they all point to the same things, with only minor differences:
1. State your observation, without judgement, and be specific, not general.
2. Personalize and state its impact on you. The "feelings" part of NVC - all the books explicitly call out that you should explicitly state your feelings. The Difficult Conversations authors pointed out that many people in professional settings have the notion that discussions should be absent of emotions ("objective). Yet if a discussion at work is getting heated, emotions are clearly playing a big role. Don't assume you can solve the problem without bringing those emotions to the table. And indeed, many solutions fail because they failed to address the emotions which resulted in a lack of commitment. As one book put it: Unvalidated emotions are a minefield.
Just yesterday there was a nasty discussion at work about whether to split a monorepo into smaller individual repos. One side's work is bogged down by it being a monorepo, and the other side would have trouble if it were split into monorepos. Both sides discussed the their problems, yet neither side acknowledged the other's pain. Validating the other's emotions is a core principle of all communications books I've read.
(The issue did not get resolved by the end of the day).
And personalize: Don't talk in vague principles, but talk about how you are affected. This is where a lot of the tech world fails. I recall one heated discussion at work where a person was strongly pushing for something, and using all kinds of principles/analogies. He wanted someone else to change his workflow because it was causing problems for him. Yet, he never explained how it was causing him problems! When queried, he kept invoking analogies and principles. The world rarely yields neatly to principles, and every analogy has a flaw. You'll often get competing principles. Invoking them alone will not solve the problem.
The other element of stating the impact on you is discussing the needs. What need of yours is not being met? Is this impacting your efficiency? Are you wondering whether the work is futile, and not giving your purpose? Do you think you are being ignored and want consideration?
I cannot stress this enough: If you have trouble putting a "need" to your problem, it is because you haven't thought this through, and it's a bad idea to go into a conversation about the issue. Even if you don't explicitly state your need, this is a valuable exercise to do internally. Feelings are easy: When you're mad you know you're upset. Most people stop there and go have an argument. NVC forces you to start introspecting: My teammate did X and now I'm mad. But why is his doing X bothering me? Yes, my teammate undid all my changes and replaced it with crappy code. But why exactly is this bothering me? Your needs and his needs may conflict. But unless you can determine both, the conversation is likely going to go south.
All the communications books are part "therapy": Emphasizing introspection along with communication.
3. Request (optional - depends on the situation).
Regarding the "canned robotic phrases": This is akin to any other book that becomes dogma (think TDD, unit tests, referential transparency, etc). And just like the others, the original author does not insist you use these phrases. The NVC author explicitly says that the elements must be present, but the order doesn't matter, and sometimes it can even be communicated in one phrase. It nevertheless provides those templates to make it easy on beginners.
When I read the NVC book, I felt similar to you: These phrases are very artificial. And would annoy others. NVC is the only book that has these templates, and it is likely why it is very successful. The other books discuss the issues involved in conversations much better than NVC does - but they don't provide a template.
Now how artificial are these? Surprisingly not very. All my skepticism went away once I started observing people destressing a situation at work. The majority of these situations involved someone using very similar templates. And many (most?) of those folks had never heard of NVC! It sounds very artificial when reading it, but no one thought it was off. This is the exercise I recommend everyone does: Observe someone handling a stressful situation at work, and note how often they touch on all 3 aspects of NVC (specific observation, referring to the feelings, and the needs that are unmet).
Rosenberg didn't invent NVC. He just identified its existence.
No one's forcing you to use the template. Here's an example "So this is bothering you because it's affecting your efficiency?" This is perfectly valid NVC.
I think some of the problem arises in what is considered "good" communication. In the academic (and tech) world, we often describe good communication as concise and objective. This is great when communicating facts, science, etc. But in the workplace, we are not in the business of communicating facts and doing science. Most of us are in the business of making a product, that someone will buy, from which we will earn our living. And there are many competing motivations (some people want to "make" something, others are more interested in promotions, etc). Generally, we are heavily reliant on others. You can make a great thing but if the marketing folks refuse to market it, it will impact you (and vice versa). So "good communication" at the workplace involves dealing with a wider variety of people who have differing needs from you.
Becoming better at that type of communication is a lot of effort over a long period of time. It's easy to dismiss one type of style (e.g. NVC), but recognize that the "default" alternative is very poor and merely dismissing means accepting a poor level of communication. Had I simply read the NVC book and not dived deep into other books, I wouldn't have improved at all. It is because I decided that I will try to find a way to improve it that I recognized the merits of NVC and recognized its effective usage in the real world. It's also why I didn't stop at "crappy templates" and focused on making it less artificial.
Finally, NVC has a cult following. Ignore the cult. Just focus on the book.