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.
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.
Personally, if I'm on the receiving end of that, I'd rather the boss say, "please update this ticket with X and Y" rather than making an "observation." It can't be condescending nor manipulative since that person is plainly exercising their authority. And you can generally resolve problems with an instruction by pointing out that it won't work, or it conflicts with others, etc., which avoids it getting personal.
(This may be why I rarely had these issues in the military, and noticed that many veterans report a great deal of confusion when they get into civilian life because "nobody knows their lane.")
"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.
> "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.
I asked if there was some way I could speak to them that would help them meet their need for freedom. Then we both laughed and the situation defused.
I use NVC frequently to people with a lot more power than me, and I'd actually suggest NVC is actually about putting yourself (and your needs) on the same level as those of the person your speaking with.
The fundamental premise is that fundamental needs are shared by all humans... and the ideal strategy is one where all needs are met.
So, you can avoid patronising someone by truly seeking to understand the other person's feelings and needs without judgement and taking those needs seriously. Again, easy to say, hard to do.
This is why it's important to be conscientious about spirals of passive aggression with this communication style. Mastering it is mastery, trying is, well, doing it wrong. Great thread.
Examples? I'm struggling to understand how one could "frequently" have to use NVC with "people a lot more power".
Having to do this frequently itself is a problem with the organization, right?
In my current line of work (and previous one, finance), if you cite observations as the main way of communicating, the other person is just going to cut you off and tell you to hurry the fuck up and tell them what they did wrong.
"3 numbers were inaccurate" (just an FYI for next time, no big deal)
"3 numbers were inaccurate" (and I am annoyed that I had to deal with the consequences, please ensure it doesn't happen again)
"3 numbers were inaccurate" (but I understand the pressure you were under and the volume of work you had, so I don't see it as an ongoing problem)
"3 numbers were inaccurate" (and I see it as part of an ongoing, worrisome pattern of sloppy work coming from you, and I expect you to correct it)
Sometimes the recipient of the message really does need the speaker's evaluation, not just the bare factual observations, to put the message in proper context. "My order took 4 days to arrive" is a lot less useful than "Thanks, my order only took 4 days to arrive" or "I had to wait a whole 4 days for my order to arrive".
Personally, I don't get it either. No one I'm frustrated with seems to understand that if I tell them in an unhurried, matter-of-fact way. They may say that they prefer me to express frustration that way, but it gets no results. I don't see the appeal.
The magic of NVC comes from the recipient empathizing with the person making the request.
I genuinely have no idea what this means. What are you trying to say here? So I can be in any feeling except frustration when I'm conveying that I'm being frustrated? This sounds like snake oil.
And, in fact, people can be different in different scenarios.
In a work scenario I'm going to respond best if you're bringing up something I need to improve in a constructive way, with feedback that is actionable on my part, and doing so fairly dispassionately. "Hey Z. Here's what happened and how/why it was incorrect. Here's how you can make up for it/do better next time. No harm, no foul as long as you do better in this one area and keep rockin' it everywhere else."
But I need my wife to tread more lightly for some reason. Being dispassionate would be perceived by me as uncaring in that scenario.
In my experience there are two types of coworkers: those that respond well to BS (read: couched language) and those that don't. You just have to recognize who is who.
Often a speaker doing this feels that the sheer number of data points makes their strategy (that they will argue for shortly after finishing their list of observations) all but inevitable. People who have interacted with such arguers get understandably defensive when shown a barrage of facts painting them a certain way.
In the presence of a pattern of behavior, one example followed by every means necessary of keeping the offender on your side while building a strategy should be enough if the pattern is real and the offender has good intentions.
As soon as I was old enough to recognize the pattern it became an infuriatingly depersonal way to be talked to. Sometimes the lack of “umm, like, just, kind of, etc.” will reveal speech as inorganic and make the whole thing seem false. After awhile it’s hard to even relate to someone who speaks to you like that as a person.
Step #1 in this kind of conversation is to listen attentively to the other person. Trying to acknowledge someone’s feelings is much better than denying or ignoring them, but if the kid is obviously getting frustrated/annoyed at the response, then the parent needs to adjust what they are saying and doing. (Yes, this is hard.)
In particular, if the kid is very heatedly angry and the parent calmly tells them “it sounds like you are upset”, that can be incredibly frustrating. If the mom had said “Your teacher must have really pissed you off!” (or whatever) the kid might have felt more understood and been willing to elaborate.
The words by themselves can feel empty and patronizing.
NVC practice aims connection, not changing the other person’s emotional state. Thus the term manipulationnin my response.
But consider the alternative: most people never actually get any acknowledgement of their thoughts and feelings. They are fully expecting to just be ignored and responded to with the argument that the other party was building in their head while they were talking.
The Mom was preparing GGGP to expect people to give a sh*t when he speaks, he just hasn't realized it yet.
His own response was annoyance and disappointment with the mechanical approach. He did not experience connection and he did not feel understanding. That’s pretty much the perfect example of empty words vs true connection.
It's patronizing if you have made your mind and only involve others into discussions to get support or ease them into going along and accepting. "I have to do X, I'm here to listen how you feel about X and empathize with you." is not real NVC. "Have to" is denying responsibility to outside conditions.
NVC is best used when you have to do something and have a problem and are willing to communicate it to others as way to learn and find a solutions..
When I teach NVC I focus on finding a sincere space of care which always starts with self empathy. I was taqught as a language practice but I find it most productive to teach it as a body/emotional/somatic/language practice as the language becomes fake without full alignment.
Empathy as defined by M.R. In his nvc work is “I know what’s alive in you and you know that I know.” That’s it. There’s no other outcome.
Many business use fake empathy as manipulation. There’s no sincere interest in understanding, just a technique to try and make people less mad. South park’s skit on Comcast workers was spot on with this.
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?