Your concerns are valid. Your method of expressing them is problematic. And your automatic assumptions are lethal to a good work environment.
I was going to address some of the specifics, but you're not exactly giving the impression of someone who wants input.
This guy needs reassurance that his boat isn’t going to be rocked anymore as it stabilises. It’s a great key to the health of the company that all the business analytics in the world and discussions about feelings can’t see.
You are behaving in a predatory manner expecting him to submit rather than solving problems. It’s petty.
When you say that my concerns are valid but that I am expressing them in problematic ways, you are tone policing. This is a typical technique used by management: First, break up the original complaint into small pieces, then estrange the emotional content from each piece, minimizing and shifting as necessary. It is a useful way of dodging actual responsibility.
The attitude you are displaying, where you would have given a substantiative reply, but only for the way that the complaint was phrased, is a common empty rhetorical technique that comes with tone policing. Odds are strong that you don't actually have any substance to reply with, but you need to ensure that my tone isn't allowed to flourish or even gain sympathy or support.
Let's double-check my concerns, without profanity:
* People are not entitled to coffee or other errands being run by other employees. There are appropriate ways to join a coffee run, and this ain't it. Right? Now, does Dave give alternative wordings? Nope, he doubles down, just saying that it will be awkward at first but that you'll learn. Yep, you'd better learn to ask politely about coffee runs and other communal activities.
* Feature factories are a management anti-pattern, right? The engineering director in Dave's story is negligent to not seriously consider the risks to the stability and quality of their services and products.
* Sales must never drive engineering decisions unilaterally, right? It sounds like this engineering director lacks the ethical spine necessary to support their engineers.
* None of the people here, neither Dave, the sales director, nor the engineering director, are coders, right? So y'all don't understand the engineering concerns, which is unfortunate, because without addressing engineering concerns, your products and services will not be marketable.
Edit: After reading the rest of the thread, you've indicated that you do in fact have coding experience. Okay; in that case, I apologize and retract my guess. But I am then forced to conclude that you have a tremendous lack of empathy for fellow engineers and have decided to side with management, not just in terms of their emotional duplicity but also their manner of speaking-without-saying. I am, as before and as ever, disappointed.
Dave here. The point of the article was in fact not at all that NVC is awkward and you'll have to learn, but to say there are valuable principles that you can apply without the format, that can help you address conflict.
You're describing sanctions without even being clear about the offense. What is the behaviour? Saying "no" to the question if they can bring a co-worker a coffee? That's the only behaviour they even hint at, the rest is how they think about things.
> but you're not exactly giving the impression of someone who wants input.
And now you're speaking for them.
I read most of your other posts in this thread with great interest, they are mostly very insightful, and I want to thank you for them. But here I think you're not being very fair, that is, you're simply bailing, and then blame the other person for that.