davesuperman

How this CEO replaced his human support team with 25 AI employees and achieved a 1000X return on investment.

Good point on caring, it's easy to forget and we all need a reminder sometimes.

As for the question-reflex, I'm not suggesting asking a leading question that assumes your idea... more an open curious question that seeks other points of view.

There's an interesting point around whether people want what they need, or need what they want. Here's a two-by-two matrix:

Need but don't want, e.g. vegetables. Want but don't need, e.g. click-bate. Want and need, e.g. Apple products. Don't want and need, e.g. pain.

Having read all of the comments to this article, it's quite impressive how quickly people lost sight of the conflict, and took sides with whoever they empathised most with.

I included enough facts to elicit a trigger response for anyone that's worked in a tech company. Just reading them was enough to make people angry, and invent a back story that 'management never listens' and 'this company is going to fail' (paraphrasing). This wasn't in the piece and likely reflects a projection of their reality.

This angry tone is pervasive in the comments and quickly turned people against each other. Anger that came from somewhere, perhaps a place that isn't apparent to the angry. A lasting sensation of not feeling listened to, or truly seen and valued.

Even if you only communicate your emotions to yourself, and get curious about where they come from, it's likely to help simply by acknowledging that not all emotions arise from the present situation. I believe this is true in life as it is in the comments.

Anyway, I wish you all a productive week!

> Nope, he doubles down, just saying that it will be awkward at first but that you'll learn

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.

> NVC and NVC-like forms of communication work when the participants are relatively equal in power

Could you suggest a general approach to mitigating conflict when there is inequality in power without getting to the specifics, listening to both sides, and attempting to find a win-win?

If the less-powerful don't try to get what they want, the more powerful wins by default.

> "I feel belittled by the fact that you constantly ignore my feedback and impose unreasonable deadlines because a salesperson put you on the spot in front of the VP"

Let's work with this. Are you feeling resentful because your need to be listened to? If the answer is yes, how about we take 15 minutes and you can explain the extent of the issues? If not, I haven't understood—could you try again?

Just to clarify, asking how are you feeling isn't NVC. Getting to the specifics of a contentious issue, and then asking how you feel about them is.

Also, what you say about vulnerability being incidental to connection contradicts a lot of widely-accepted social science research.

I honestly don't understand your point. Listening to how you feel (you're frustrated) and uncovering out why (you want to be treated like an adult) isn't theatre, it's how adult resolve problems. It's worth considering whether you're projecting onto NVC here... after all, NVC doesn't infantilize you, although this may be an area you're vulnerable to shame.

While there's lots of interesting points in the thread, I'll focus my response on this one.

1) I completely agree that the title 'Nonviolent' is awful. It doesn't even follow the NVC principle of 'say what you want, not what you don't want'. The original author conceded to this. However, you shouldn't judge NVC by its title.

2) NVC doesn't purport to resolve the issue of the bugs or velocity, it aims to help resolve the conflict between the sales manager. Gosh, if NVC actually changed reality that would be awesome. Instead, it helps you find solutions given reality, which is actually very helpful.

3) I sense a lot of irritation and frustration in your tone because you want to be spoken to like an adult. Fair enough—that is a universal need. If you'd like to get your boss to 'give it to you straight', you could NVC to get what you want, without sounding self-righteous :)

Hope this clarifies.

I believe I heard this from Astro Teller of Google X... However, I can't find a trace of it online. Anyone heard of this and can provide a source?

If you go to DaveBailey.com and look in resources, you'll find structured reading lists full of 'friend links', allowing you to access them for free. Hope you enjoy :)

This is such a good point. When we don't set up a pattern of regular feedback and the expectation that everyone can improve (even at the top) then feedback takes on a different meaning. I see feedback and learning deeply intertwined in any system... companies are no exception.

Absolutely. In startups, I've seen two of the most valuable skills in a team member is (i) proactivity and (ii) the ability to learn fast. If a founder values (ii), they should pay for something that accelerates it.

I'm curious whether there are any other tips to improve engagement on investor updates...

There are a couple of variants of this question:

1) Would this work in an environment like yours?

This is a closed question that gets the receiver to quickly evaluate whether there is a fit, side-stepping the question of price.

2) How would this work in an environment like yours?

This is an open, leading question that gets the receiver to simulate the product in their organisation.

The second is more useful if the prospect is showing strong signs of interest, but can be perceived as coersive if the prospect is still on the fence (in which case the first version may be better).

I like the approach. I’m curious—how do you define debt tech?

I must strongly disagree. NVC stressed the importance of specific observations — genuinely, I can't see how you can be more direct than that.

Most people never get to specifics and stop at generalities. That would be my definition of indirect.

Great question.

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.

I won't lie... NVC is really, really hard to achieve. But sometimes it's worth risking making mistakes to achieve your goal.

Expressing our feelings is powerful way to connect with people, by helping to create empathic attunement.

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.

Someones we all need a vent. If you hold someone the space to say what they need to — and truly know they've been heard, that opens up space for them to hear.

Frustrating sometimes? Definitely. But it works.

Often, the most concentrated the message, the higher the impact. Sometimes a single sentence followed by silence is more powerful than a 1-hour talk. Counter-intuitive (but who said communication was straightforward).

Pleasure :)

I fixed it. Great catch, thanks for letting me know :)

Great feedback — really appreciate this comment.

Any other classic examples of perfectionism at play in a typical startup?

Fantastic point on thanking people. It’s a very underestimated idea but, when done authentically, can have a massive impact.

Any other ways that startups can celebrate their wins?

It was meant to represent creativity.

To help people position your product in their heads effectively, points of parity (e.g. analogies) and points of difference are very useful.

The 'X for Y' is a way to express both at once "it's like X but it's different because it focuses on Y". However, as you say, it only works well in limited situations and can come off as very cliché.

During customer development, I recommend leading with the input / output description and then letting the recipient clarify using their own 'point of parity'.