A guide to difficult conversations

My recommendation would be make some space for the way he's acting and let him know you and his sister love him regardless, know how difficult this must be, and are there for anything he needs and then, don't say anything else. Don't provoke him. Let him come to you. He may not and if he doesn't, then accept that there is nothing else you can do that won't make the situation worse. But it's just as possible that simply listening to him if and when he talks, almost playing into his power trip, may actually open him up to sharing more information with you.

We humans are such strangely paradoxical creatures sometimes. :) Good luck and I wish you and your family the best.

Why is your wife not having this conversation?

How exactly was he granted power of attorney? Was your father-in-law capable of signing a power of attorney when he was initially hospitalized, or had he signed a POA or healthcare proxy beforehand? If the latter, did it assign multiple agents and specify any restrictions on how they make decisions? For example, was the brother-in-law listed a successor to someone else in the agreement or are they co-agents? Getting a copy of the agreement will take very little billable time for any attorney. Given that time is probably a factor, and from how entrenched the attitude you've described is by now, it's unlikely that you or the family will be able to talk your brother-in-law into backing down in any reasonable timeframe. Your first step is to get a copy of the power of attorney agreement and go from there.

Speaking to an attorney might seem like an aggressive step in such a precarious situation, with the potential for long-term consequences for the family dynamic. On the other hand, as difficult as it might be to hear, you're probably already at that point. Were your father-in-law to pass away without the rest of the family even being able to hear what's happening from a medical standpoint, painful as it may be to contemplate, it's highly unlikely that anyone in the family is going to be willing to forgive your brother-in-law for it. Appearing to go around him to get a copy of the agreement might be seen as a betrayal, but it's probably going to be less problematic in the long run than the status quo.

I've seen families that have been permanently torn apart during end-of-life decision-making. Be that as it may, some manage to heal. Eventually. I hope that yours will be one of the ones that does so.

There has to be some sort of provision for dealing with situations like this, because this is far from the worst possible outcome. (e.g. "Great, $social_worker, you've now granted power of attorney to the person who lives with dad because dad was the only person able to get him to remain in treatment and on his medications, but who hates the rest of the family.")

An important part of the nvc practice is to give up attachment to outcome. Making a true request means that there will be no negative consequences if the answer is “No”. It is possible that your wife’s brother was triggered partly because you insisted (if you did), maybe he needed autonomy, solitude, to feel that he matters, to grieve, to rest.

I teach NVC and often use a small yellow book called Communication Fundamentals by Jean Morrison.

I'd recommend the book Never Split the Difference which was written by a former hostage negotiator. From what I learned from that book, anchoring his emotions and asking How questions might have helped you. Why questions are accusatory and put people on the defensive, often leading to escalation.

In my experience with grieving people, which is also extensive, don't try and take over, often people try to manage their grief by managing the situation. Taking that away from him takes away his coping mechanism. I don't know your family and I can't speak for your situation, but if it were me, I wouldn't try and inject myself. I would keep this absolutely as simple as possible:

"Hey, we're here for you. Thank you for stepping up and managing all this, I know it's almost impossible to keep track of what's going on with doctors coming and going constantly. What can we do to help?"

It might be that there's nothing you can do right now to get him to see things through your eyes. Maybe all you can do at the moment is work on self-kindness, forgiveness and patience on your own and prepare for how to mend the relationship in the future. I have seen these rifts in my own family never heal, so I hope that they will in your family.

Under severe stress, several of them reverted to basically their childhood personalities and relationships with each-other. It surfaced a bunch of half-century-old petty resentments and roles, which was quite surprising for me as an observer who was born 25+ years after their childhood.

Try to cut your brother in law some slack. He’s having a hard time.

Check out Crucial Conversations (https://www.amazon.com/Crucial-Conversations-Talking-Stakes-...). It's a framework that I've found immensely helpful.

If interested, I do recommend you read the book, but you can still get something out of this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFaXx3pgaxM (it's a summary masquerading as a review).

“This decision is so difficult, let us share this burden with you. If we have to make a decision to remove life support, you shouldn’t have to make that decision alone. If we decide the massive costs of long term life support which may drain the estate, we should make that decision together.

Dad would trust that we as a family would come together and make these tough decisions together.”

People go through various stages of mourning so sometime just time helps.

Remember that the family’s job is to be your Dad’s voice. What would he want?

Events like this bring out the worst in everybody. These are just a few strategies that have worked for me in the past. Good luck.

It has quite practical advice as well as a framework helping one navigate.

"Ben, I know this whole thing is very hard on you, but let me say I think you're doing a great job. No matter what anyone says, you're here for your father. That means a lot and I am sure your father would be proud of you for that. Not only that, but when the hospital asked you to step up and take on an important responsibility (power of attorney), you did it without hesitation. You're a loyal son and a gentleman.

"How are you getting along? Have you ever experienced something like this before? [Wait for the answer and talk about it. Let him talk about his experiences for a while and choose to go in more depth about a particular experience.] What was it like to go through that? Did everyone turn out OK?

"Listen, Ben, I'm here for you. I want you to keep the power of attorney because you've demonstrated your loyalty. Can we work together to figure out what it means to have power of attorney? I'm not too experienced with it, but I know attorneys in general have certain responsibilities to communicate with their clients and I'm sure something like that applies here. You've taken on a responsibility to communicate what's going on and I want to help you fulfill that responsibility.

"I know your family has been hard on you, Ben, so I want to help you by communicating with them for you so you can focus on the more important things. Again, I'm with you every step of the way, so let's figure this out together. We're going to get through this."

As you work with him, always be on his team. Never his superior nor subordinate, but always his peer. Navigate together.

My understanding is that it is somewhat normative for children of the recently deceased to get into confrontations.

Your state that "the power went to his head" and he is "irrational". That is pretty judgemental! But looking at your story from the outside, he is the son with the dying father and you are an in-law trying to wrestle control of the situation and get access to medical information and perhaps influence critical decisions.

No amount of conversation skill is going to make you closer related than the son.

Don't take it personally, the failure here isn't yours.

I don't understand this. IANAL, but recently had to figure some of this stuff out. PoA is granted per the wishes of the grantor. If your FIL is incapacitated, who granted the PoA?

I think your wife is certainly within her rights to see the actual PoA.

I am not advocating lawyering up or pushing hard for clarity.

I am saying that it might be worthwhile to figure out what's what, explore options. Plan for the worst, hope for the best. Like who and how decides about DNR, end-of-life, etc.

Further, it's good practice. Talk to your kids, next-of-kin, whoever. Figure this stuff out ahead of time. For everyone's peace of mind.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_of_attorney

My family has a long tradition of planning ahead for this stuff. Even so, we recently scrambled to update my mom's paperwork to better reflect the current situation. Just in case. Having that clarity helped. Prevented a bad situation from getting worse and got us all back to rowing together.

For comparison, my SIL's family hasn't done anything, won't talk about it, and last year was a total shitshow. Also, my sweetie's family hasn't done anything, won't talk about it, the inevitable happened, and now it's a shitshow.

--

Ask about any available resources, social workers, counseling. They can help navigate this stuff.

People change slowly.

You set forth the idea, you make your case quickly (e.g. the '40 word' guideline in this article) and you don't apply pressure. You can make clear the gravity of the situation if needed, but coercion, rhetoric, etc. will just work against you when people feel defensive. If you need someone to come closer to your point of view, you need to make room for them to do so.

Giving space like this is hard, and it often seems like nothing is changing, but this approach is a lot more powerful than you might think.

Obviously you don't have the luxury of time, but the reality is that you can't force the issue. 2 hours sounds miserable, for both of you, and it's only adding to his agitation. He may very well be making terrible mistakes, but they're his to make.

I'll tell you this: there's a reason he doesn't want your wife there. I bet you he feels undermined, antagonized, or otherwise unsupported by her (justified or otherwise), and wants to focus on the difficult decisions ahead.

I've found this book very helpful at facilitating communication and it might be of help: https://www.amazon.com/Say-What-You-Mean-Communication/dp/16...

I had a similar experience in my last divorce, doing every possible thing to make the negotiations non-confrontational, win/win, etc. My wife's stance was "I get everything", and no amount of kindness, reasoning, or patience could move her. (As you might imagine, the result was a trail of destruction, for me and her both.)

I take some solace in this Buster Scruggs quote: "Misanthrope? I don’t hate my fellow man, even when he’s tiresome and surly and tries to cheat at poker. I figure that’s just a human material, and him that finds in it cause for anger and dismay is just a fool for expecting better."

Just my 2c

All I can say, is for anyone reading this, if you do not have a will, medical power of attorney, and medical advance directive set up - do it now. Spare your loved ones this kind of confusion and hurt.

After you create these, make sure to tell your loved ones what your expectations are. You need to pick someone to have medical power of attorney who will defend your wishes. You also need to file your directive with your local hospitals and care providers.

This may be a difficult conversation, but not having it can cause many more problems.

It is written by a psychiatrist who trains FBI hostage negotiators. Which is about as targeted as you can for hard conversations under difficult circumstances.

"Because we were unavailable, my younger brother-in-law was given Power of Attorney."

If what you say is true, then get a lawyer and request that the court transfer POA to you or your wife, whomever was specified in his papers or in the law by default. Now that you _are_ available, the court may transfer POA to you.

Let this be a reminder to those reading that, when you assign POA you might also wish to designate whom you DO NOT wish to be assigned POA, in case the first-listed assignees are not available, resign, or later removed somehow.

Too bad you didn't let him assault you: that would have made it much easier. You could have charged him with assault and used it as evidence in the POA hearing or simply as leverage to force him to yield.

Alternatively, if you can find grounds, you can question the original POA document and have it nullified.

All in all it sounds as if, in addition to having irritable in-laws (who doesn't?), you simply didn't get your way and are angry about it. So either lawyer up or learn how to deal with "No.".

I’m encouraged to hear you’ve used NVC, since I have learned it, too, but it’s also educational to see in certain situations even that can have its limits.

Obviously, time is short, but there are two "trunk" books to be read when you're able: Difficult Conversations by Douglas Stone and Getting to Yes by Roger Fisher and William Ury, both of the Harvard Negotiation School. They are the gold standard and most other books on the topic are pale imitations. I used to believe that I was great at communication and bad at negotiation, but the opposite was true; DC has literally changed my life more than any other non-fiction book because the most important outcomes in our lives are the result of the most difficult conversations.

Your brother-in-law will eventually need to be forgiven for acting like a maniac, and you should anticipate that he will quickly transition into doubling down on the insanity because it seems less humiliating than admitting that he was acting like a tool.

Before the healing, however, you do have a problem to solve (or possibly, not). The first question is for you: is your brother-in-law making good decisions unilaterally? Is it possible that he's trying to protect his father from your wife? Don't be mad at me for asking. It could be possible that you should let him continue, as things are already stressful and perhaps having one person in charge is okay.

But let's assume that he's not making great decisions. What you need to figure out pronto is that when someone is upset, it's almost never what they say they are upset about. If your wife is pissed at you for missing dinner again, chances are that (unless you have an eating disorder) she's not worried that you're hungry. She feels disrespected, lonely and insecure about her marriage. So, if your brother-in-law says he's upset about X, the single most productive thing you can do is engage in creative empathy and figure out what he's most likely upset about. He's likely terrified of being abandoned by his dad, or perhaps is having a crisis of unresolved things that could never be said. He could be feeling powerless. The fact that he's the youngest might be manifesting as insecurity. (After all, why did you mention his age as relevant?) Perhaps he is terrified of death and seeing his father in this state is forcing him to confront his own death. I don't know what his deal is; just that it's almost certainly not what it seems to be.

As for the negotiation, here are some helpful suggestions straight from Getting to Yes: first, be prepared. It doesn't hurt to write down some of the following and maybe even practice it. Second, start every negotiation with a negotiation about the negotiation; "do you have a minute? I need to talk to you about what's happening". Third, be aware of what you want and what he wants, but also be mindful of what he is willing to accept as a compromise in combination with what you are willing to accept as a compromise. Fourth, you will both win better outcomes if you negotiation from your interests rather than a position. Why do you want what you think you want and is there another way we could possibly satisfy both of our interests?

It's critical to convey that someone does not have to lose in order for you both to win. (See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdA2wecb4k0 for a further summary.)

A power move is to bring in a trusted but removed third-party expert to help with a difficult negotiation. It's important that this person is impartial and not arguing for either side or else the brother-in-law will rightfully feel attacked.

Finally, don't be so hard on yourself. I am proud of you for attempting to be productive using whatever techniques you have in a time of stress. Best of luck.

Clearly I don't actually believe that, but it's helpful to start understanding the dynamic by internalizing the other guy's point of view.

In this situation the right approach is to walk away, you can't and shouldn't try to get between someone and their father in a moment of crisis. His sister has standing, you don't. She has to step up and deal with it, or not, at her discretion.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

But...you should be. The entire problem you relate is about NVC as an insincere, indirect tactic (most likely, to avoid an ultimatum in a situation where the speaker isn't seeking mutual understanding and accommodation but submissive compliance.) NVC as a tactic relied on an implicit lie about the relationship which forms the context of the communication.

As a honest tool in a relationship where the parties actually care about each others feeling, NVC is a useful communication tool for addressing that mutual concern. As a tactic in relationships where that isn't a mutual concern, and especially as a top-down tactic in a relationship where the speaker would not have the concern that is being called for in the listener, where it is a passive-aggressive way of framing commands, it's obviously toxic and manipulative.

Nearly everyone's conclusion, after 3 years of being deeply embedded in NVC, was that they hated it. And for the same reasons you describe.

The key they said was to work out what the person's motivation was and then adapt your communication to suit what was appropriate.

The general rule was to (at least appear to) match the emotional intensity of the person you were talking to. If you're negotiating with someone who's ready to jump off a bridge, rational argument and NVC is not as likely to help as an emotional appeal to their underlying concerns.

This is tough. Sometimes people need a lot of prodding to start expressing a strong emotion because it invites judgement. It's kind of the end of artifice - 'this is who I am and what I'm really feeling'

Also, I find it exhausting to deal with high emotion.

But once that's over with, folks are more open to hearing the 'feeling statements' and observations.

--------------------

And can't resist old NVC joke -

Person 1 - "I'm really mad! This is so unfair!"

Person 2 - "I FEEL your anger"

Person 1 - "Everything's so chaotic, I don't know what to do!"

Person 2 - "I FEEL your confusion"

Person 1 - "I've got a lot of shit going down in my life!"

Person 2 - "I FEEL your shit going down!"

I like to think of NVC a little differently than most people. It is not a tactic or a strategy, it is a reframing of the problem in your own mind. Instead of the thinking "how can I get this person to do what I want" you should instead be thinking "I need something and can this person help me?". One is manipulative, the other is collaborative.

What I have found is that the person you are enlisting for help may actually have a better idea than you on how to solve the problem than you do. But for this to work, you genuinely need to believe that the person on the other side of the table wants to be a good person. If you don't believe that then you tend to see this as a way to manipulate them and it comes across in your words and actions.

You have to "know your audience." This means you need to know your employees, bosses, or colleagues as people and work to understand what motivates them. This is challenging, risky, and requires an opening of the mind to not just understand different psychologies but to accept them as viable alternatives to your own.

NVC communication will be very effective for some and thoroughly ineffective for others, and if you know your audience you'll know which is which.

I'm an example of the latter: I absolutely despise the NVC communication pattern because very few people actually speak like this and when they do so it's an obvious deviation from their status quo. It feels fake because it is, and it feels fake because I know the pattern. It's like when I get "feel/felt/found"[1] from a salesperson...I know what they're doing and it's not going to work.

[1] http://www.tomhopkins.com/blog/presentation/the-feel-felt-fo...

I have worked on remaining calm in high stress moments. In certain situations it drives my wife nuts that she is stressed/excited and I'm calm looking for a solution. What I learned is to reflect back some of her excitement from a stressful situation, but not quite to her level. This then calms her down.

Is it easy? No. Do I manage to do this 100%? I wish. Is is manipulation? I don't think so. It's building a relationship to better communicate. Too often people think about communication as what I say and not what do people hear and also say.

"Look, fuckery abounds, and it's not time to pass judgement because I'm not ready to be hung, drawn and quartered myself. So for now, let's deal with the facts and only the facts: ..."

The real skill, it seems to me, is to be able to know what one is feeling, stay connected to it, and take responsibility for it, especially in high-stress situations. If you can't do that, techniques only make things worse. And if you can do that, maybe you don't need so much technique.

(Not to dismiss NVC though. NVC is very interesting. But I have found it much more interesting and compelling to watch how Rosenberg did it than in the limited cases where I've run across it in the wild.)

Someone using NVC can still be forceful and rude. I'm struggling with how to describe this. I suppose all it does it remove unrestrained emotion and moral blame from the interaction. Unrestrained emotion and moral blame are not a given. (ie, they may not be injected into a conversation, even if NVC is not implemented) And further, I suppose, it's possible to push somebody around and refuse to listen to their concerns while employing NVC. For example, under the guise of empathy a boss may "feel" your perfectly valid concern, equivocate it to the concern of others in the room, and then simply ignore your recommendations. It's possible that your recommendation was actually best, but instead of understanding the value of your idea, the boss has simply made sure not to trample your emotions.

I can think of plenty of situations where I don't care if someone tramples my emotions, but I'd be pretty distraught if they adopted a flawed idea, or couldn't understand why one idea was superior and another was inferior.

[edit]

Just to clarify, I think I talked myself into a conclusion I feel comfortable with. Empathy is not inherently useful. An approach that focuses on the feelings a person might demean them (since their feelings are not actually so fragile) while also equivocating all the ideas in the room. (all ideas might not be created equal, but it is necessary to treat everyone -- and their feelings -- with the same respect.)

In a sense, someone using NVC for deescalation and resorting to the actual formula of Saw [x], felt [Y], request [Z] is likely to not be very good at NVC. People who are really good at that style of communications are going to separate it out so they tell you needs up front, well before you need to know about them, make requests at the moment they want something, and then observations as things become apparent. All 3 at once usually means a surprise has emerged.

There is a pretty basic tell here - it isn't at all obvious why you'd be seething if someone observed a fact, felt strong emotion about it and bought it to your attention, even in a high stress situation. So either you've misinterpreted something (possible) or they aren't communicating - they are pressuring (pretty likely). It isn't called Non-Violent Get People To Do What You Want and trying to use it that way isn't going to work.

Perhaps I'm missing something, because I'm not familiar with NVC. After reading the article, it seems that having empathy and curiosity are necessary for NVC to work, and if someone doesn't approach it that way, then they aren't really engaging in NVC.

In these comments, there seems to be many people who dislike it, and I'm wondering why. If someone in a powerful position, like my boss, sought me out to discuss something and expressed empathy and wanted to find out why I did something the way I did, I would feel impressed and appreciated.

There's nothing quite like seeing someone who rarely gets angry say, "If we don't fix this we might as well not fix another F'ing bug ever again" to make you reconsider your triage decision.

Sales, Marketing, and CS people are perfectly capable of handling direct conversation, if it’s done with genuine respect and a desire for mutual benefit. Your approach, based on some of your examples, sounds outright dismissive and disrespectful.

I’ve spent time around lots of engineering leaders and lots of their CS, Sales and Marketing teams. The good engineering leaders recognize that those people excel in many ways they never will, and have genuine respect for that, and ask more questions about their approach. The bad ones think they know everything, treat complex issues like a code review, and carelessly dismiss their work when it’s not what they would’ve done.

I think using one of these strategies probably changed you as much as it changed them.

This style of communication isn't angled at 'normalizing' anything. It's meant to give you a framework to identify what the real problem is, to communicate it clearly and efficiently, and to work with the other person to move past the problem. If you don't say exactly what you're trying to say, and someone later 'found out what you "really meant to tell them' - you 100% did it wrong.

It's not a way to get out of having a difficult conversation. It's a framework to help you remove your personal beliefs, remove values judgments, and instead rely on the facts of the situation.

Your whole post comes across as you believe, genuinely believe, that being awful to other people via threats is a natural human state of being.

It isn't.

If my boss ever told me "don't do 'x' or else", it would be the last day I ever worked for that a-hole.

- don't be late or else!

Yes that is the language of power that that a lot of you are capable of. And a lot of people with power don't want others to try to mute the power they have gained.

Nvc is not about power, it's about emphatic connections with other human beings, nothing more, nothing less.

I was working in an American company (I'm German) and had to learn to adapt to the style of being too nice (in my opinion). E.g. an "it might be better to do it like this", wasn't really meant as a weak suggestion, but a strong one. Something completely counterintuitive to my German mindset. I took it as a "might" and was met with negativity that I didn't exactly follow the "suggestion".

I much prefer language being direct at work. Treat the subjunctive as what it is: expressing uncertainty, not politeness.

I know however that many people, especially outside of Germany, prefer the indirect language, even though they learned to understand it with the same meaning as the direct speech.

It sounds like you expect people to give you the benefit of the doubt all the time, without needing to expend any effort communicating.

The formal-speak sets off most people’s “I am being disciplined” alert right away.

It's infuriating when you are simply trying to get something done and the other person is more concerned with the alignment of their spoken words than actually giving you the information you need. Just tell me what I did wrong so I can fix it ffs.

But, when people are taking on things like this at first, it is awkward. I remember my first one-on-ones as a manager were super awkward, because I hadn't internalized a sincere way of doing it, I was following a recipe I learned on a podcast. And, for someone to learn to be a good manager, there's likely to be some awkward recipe-following along the way. We're all learning as we go.

I think for things like NVC there's the stated technique, and then there's the art of it. The art takes a pretty major shift in mindset for a lot of people, and managers can still be in very high-level roles while still being super insincere robots, usually because they're really good at other stuff.

Communication requires two people to be willing to talk. If one of them just doesn't want to listen, just hear themselves talk, what can I do?

This includes them not listening to me telling them that I'm not willing to talk to them if they're not willing to listen (in more, or even fewer words than that).

This style of communication is not supposed to be a tool for more efficient (or deniable) emotional manipulation / control.

The “nonviolent communicator” is supposed to spend a lot of work up front thinking about what their real emotional needs are (which takes serious introspection, not just trivial rationalization), stripping judgment and generalization out of their observations, eliminating speculation about other people’s intent and state of mind, and coming up with requests instead of demands (in many cases those requests might be requests for additional data or possibilities), not backed by implicit threats if the request goes unmet. Ideally the non-violent communicator should be trying to drop their internal judgments and biases as well, not just leaving them unstated.

Someone who is adopting this kind of communication needs to be open to getting push-back on their comments and hearing that their demands are harming the emotional needs of the other person, open to considering alternative suggested remedies, etc.

The point is to accelerate mutual understanding of each-others’ feelings, promote empathy, and come up with some kind of outcome which is acceptable to both parties.

Anything that gets and keeps both parties talking in these situations, even by marginal degrees, is worth everything.

The problem with “power-posing” was that it made specific (and incredible) claims about the results of using it. I have not seen so much in the book (or if I did I ignored it), and regardless of whether it has any effect on others or not, I've found it valuable in my own mind to have mental clarity, separating observation from evaluation, thoughts from feelings, requests from demands, and simply being aware. (Even if I don't change a word I'd say... actually I can't get myself to speak that way often as it feels unnatural, so I'm content with simply saying whatever sounds natural but with these distinctions in mind.)

There are definitely superficial similarities with a “patronizing” style or a manipulative one. Nevertheless, I do think that, genuinely done, it's more than a “style” of communication, and one for every conversation where there's any emotion involved (not just difficult ones): I see it not as a strategy or technique, but as a reminder that the person I'm communicating with is a real human being with needs — the goal is a greater connection between people, not being more effective at getting what you want (for which I suspect many of the same principles may apply, but employed merely as tricks).

Of course I only remember/manage to put it in practice a small fraction of the time, and I don't know whether the “effectiveness” of such conversations is positive or negative (in terms of outcomes), but I definitely feel fewer negative emotions and that's valuable in itself (to me).

As an example, a quick Google search just now for "nonviolent communication empathy" turns up an article from 2011 at the "Center for Non-Violent Communication" titled "How to DO empathy." I couldn't possibly roll my eyes harder. It's a failed premise from the jump. It's like an ask I recently had at work, "We need to DO machine learning," says the CEO, "because all of our competitors are [putting it on their slide decks]."

I notice the same behaviors in people who read Carnegie's "How to Win Friends and Influence People" and think that it's an instruction manual. It comes off as insincere and it instantly sours me to further communications with the person.

Violence is, by definition, physical, and claiming that "speech is violence" seems like a trivialization of actual physical violence.

While there is evidence that certain types of psychological abuse can cause a physical reaction akin to that experienced by victims of physical violence, those cases are extremely rare and shouldn't be used as justification for this sort of rebranding.

At the very least, if someone is patronizing you, being aware of the technique(s) will help you extract yourself from the situation quicker.

One can be non-violent, and coercive. That’s how passive aggression works. Sometimes it’s not angry words but the nicest, prettiest words which can get inside a persons head and destroy them.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuro-linguistic_programming

I've also found the pattern:

You have [Problem]. Lots of people feel [how you feel] about [Problem]. If I did [X] would it solve [Problem]?

To be helpful in every relationship:

"I get that you're mad that I didn't take out the garbage. The kitchen stinks now and everyone hates that. Do you think it'd help if I added a reminder to my phone?"

Could you give an example of this?

The point is to deliver the observation, not the evaluation.

You seem to be saying that those evaluation statements are lazy/unhelpful. And NVC advocates agree! That’s why they recommend observations, not evaluations!

Let's say X and Z are coworkers. Z messed up some report numbers.

X could say "Z, you are sloppy." Z could easily respond "No I am not, how could you say that?"

By focusing on a concrete example, X and Z can both discuss the actual problem (inaccurate report numbers) instead of bickering about whether or not Z is sloppy.

NVC is also a check on the person initiating the communication.

It's possible X's view of Z as a slob is not based in reality. If X can't find a specific thing, but just thinks Z is a slob, NVC makes it hard for X to say anything until they can point to a specific event/action. It's not perfect (X can just look for the first example that proves their belief) but it does prevent totally baseless claims of "you are a slob."

You answered the question. The NVC answer is that it's just a pattern of human behavior. If you speak only to the feelings and not the needs, you get labeled as sensitive. If you speak only to the needs, you get labeled as needy. If you speak to both, you are connecting the dots. People are more likely to empathize and help.

>At the same time, it implies an emotional investment in the issue at hand, which I would see either as unnecessary or insincere in a work environment.

An important point I read in a non-NVC communications book: If people are getting upset at work (raised voices, venting, whatever), emotions are very much at play. So why pretend they're not there? If people will insist on putting a pretense of objectivity without putting the feelings on the table, usually problems will not get solved well.

Also, avoiding talking about emotions leads to the annoying artefact where the person starts invoking all kinds of principles, appeals to authority, morality, etc to justify their stance. These are all less effective than simply expressing their feelings. They often devolve to arguments on which principles the team should follow, etc. It's a lot easier to disagree to an objective standard than it is to tell someone their feelings are invalid (yes, yes, we all know someone who does it, but it is not the norm).

It also leads to a lot of "should" phrases. "An employee should..." "A manager should..." "It is the responsibility of a ... to ..." "The customer should ..." "A programmer should ..."

All of these statements have poor effectiveness. I've explained it in another comment, but on occasion I've told people that should is not in my vocabulary. They need to explain why they need something and not just hide behind "shoulds".

>Thought: ‘I feel that you aren’t taking this seriously.’

>Emotion: ‘I feel frustrated.’

I definitely agree that the "emotional" way of looking at this statement is better. The "thought" here is accusatory and puts the other person on the defensive. Moreover, like the article says, saying the person is not taking things seriously is just an evaluation of their actions; you don't know that its true, you don't know how the other person feels and its not good to tell them how they feel. That evaluation is based on how YOU feel, so its more honest to just share that than your own theory on how someone else feels.

In other words, it helps get past your own assumptions about people and deal with what you actually know.

Articulating your own emotional state gives the other person a better chance to evaluate your perspective. Furthermore, even if it might look like you don't really care about the topic as you act detached, you can show that you have rather strong feelings too, but keep them in control to stay constructive and professional.

Forming a connection is critical when communicating in a difficult situation. It might seem like 'fluff', but I believe it's what separates the mediocre and great communicators. Sadly, logic is rarely enough.

It's important to keep this in mind when looking at scientific literature so that you know exactly what they're talking about.

In the US, people will insist everything is awesome and great right until they get fired. Reason, they can be on the street in under 15 minutes and that kind of puts some filters in place. It also means that you need to follow up with some questions to get a real feel for what is going on. A peculiar thing with Indians I've worked with (superiors even) is that they seem reluctant to say no even when they mean to. So if you ask a direct question and you get an evasive answer, more questions are needed.

J Krishnamurti's talks are some of the most insightful and clear-headed that I've ever encountered. And yet it's very rare to encounter references to him in the wild.

Sounds trite to say but some of "his" teachings (he hated that phrasing) got me through some very difficult times in my life. There was a time when I realized that my relationship with my parents was twisted; that they were hurting me by being oppressive/overbearing/controlling. Hearing his thoughts on love and the relationship between perception and action (namely, that perceiving a problem without running away from it _is_ the act of fixing the problem) gave me the insight and clarity I needed to cut my parents off [ASTERISK], pay my way through college and build a life that I was happy with.

[ASTERISK] This sounds weird or callous when you have to say it "out loud", but to be clear, I had very good reasons to do so. I did it to protect myself, not to hurt them.

edit: how the hell do I escape an asterisk? I tried single asterisk, triple asterisk, backslash asterisk before giving up and just putting [ASTERISK]

I've found most "new" teachings are based on past geniuses, with a modern-day twist to compensate for slang or technology...

I took a 10-day meditation course, originally developed by Buddha, and many of the guidelines run through to today's principles... Such as "Observe sensations, without judging, without reacting, without getting excited. Observe."

"Your audience can take hearing that you fired someone", that is situation specific, company specific, yes audience specific.

If you think we are all adults and should treat everyone who is over 21 as perfectly reasonable person, you are in world of surprise.

I can't know this for sure, but my understanding is that these needs were identified via some sort of introspection, and probably seemed somewhat obvious to Marshall. This is clearly subjective in some way, but it does seem that most humans do share many of the same needs, so I'm not sure that your criticism holds much weight.

The idea behind calling needs universal is to ensure we are talking about the same kinds of needs. eg. I don't need you to accept whatever I do and say it's ok no matter what. But I do need autonomy. The need should not reference specific people, things, times or situations. It should be very general, which helps frame the conversation in a less combative way and makes sure we are talking about the underlying values that motivate all our actions.

It's very hard for me to try to think of something that follows those rules of generality and that may be characterized as a need by someone, but is not a real universal need and is overly righteous. Could you help me by giving an example of such a mis-characterized need?

When you make it clear by your actions you're not interested in that game, it will throw them off balance. Not many people are prepared for this and the only tactic they know is to escalate. "You're being an insincere prick" is all they've got.

The key is that you know that you, yourself are sincerely open to making a connection, and you go the extra mile to avoid condescension. At a basic level, you are indeed pushing them to confront something about their own feelings that they'd rather not deal with at that moment.

Sometimes folks just don't want to connect with you when they're feeling vulnerable, and the best you can do is let them know that you're safe to be vulnerable around by respecting that.

Surprised there isn't more of a brouhaha about it in the comments.

There’s also a section explaining the difference between requests and demands.

But your formulation does tend to highlight why people get incensed at amateurish imitations of NVC.

"the urge to punch you" could be phrased as "angry" perhaps?

"fking professionalism" isn't what you need, it is a trait you want the other person to show. What is it that you need?