> 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.
> 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.