> [...] I think that the primary effect of this communication style is actually to inhibit real discussion of the issues at hand, by making the needs/wants of the various parties the center of the conversation and immediately moving away from an open dialog and into a negotiation.
Hmm, would a simple fix be to pause at one of the earlier steps and ask for clarification? For example, after step 2: "Does that seem like a reasonable or understandable reaction?"; after step 3: "What do you think of all the above?" Is it really taught to always deliver it all in one go?
(Background: I've heard several people describe NVC and have read a bit, but haven't taken an official class. I also wouldn't be surprised if there is wide variance between "NVC in theory", "NVC as taught by this or that person", and "NVC in practice".)
Remember its a business with business goals. Not to be heartless but to earn pay, some performance is required.
I think that there are two uses of this type of communication:
- One or more of the parties doesn't really give a shit about the other party's opinions, so a negotiation is the only conversation to be had.
- One or more of the parties is generally incapable of having a disagreement with somebody without it upsetting them.
I think that one or both of these describes a large percentage of workplace conversations, which is why 'non violent communications' is so useful, but they are both bad situations that we should strive to fix, not work around.
(I treat separately a third case where NVC style is useful - one or more of the parties is an asshole - since I think it's pretty generally understood that this is a situation that needs to be fixed.)