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.
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.
I agree that evaluating the actions of the other person is not useful for resolving the problem, but the article also doesn't provide a justfication for sharing my own feelings (thank you BeetleB for shining some light).
Personally, if someone from the management told me "I feel X", I would completely discount it, because first, I don't care, and second, they have an incentive to be dishonest if it reduces the trouble they have to deal with.
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.