Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A guide to difficult conversations

medium.dave-bailey.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 415 posts

Re: A guide to difficult conversations

#31

Post by davesuperman »

ascar wrote: post #30
acl777 wrote: post #20

I learned about Non-Violent Communication at a programming conference when the speaker said: "If you want to be a better programmer, read this book" Such a game changer in my pull request comments and life. Non-violent Communication is not easy, it takes continuous practice. I even blogged on each chapter: http://redgreenrepeat.com/2017/05/12/nonviolent-communicatio... and still feel I can improve my communication, e…

I'm curious, if NVC goes for indirect instead of direct conversation. 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…

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.

Re: A guide to difficult conversations

#32

Post by kdelok »

weeksie wrote: post #14

It's funny because few things make me seethe like someone talking to me in this way during a high stress moment. The artifice is transparent and if the conversation is tense the tone is quite easy to read as condescension. I'm hardly dismissing NVC as a tactic, just that when done poorly it's worse than simply being direct.

I went to a course on how to negotiate with people delivered by a hostage negotiator for the (British) police that basically agreed with what you say.

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.

Re: A guide to difficult conversations

#33

Post by tenaciousDaniel »

hopler wrote: post #29
tenaciousDaniel wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I supported my girlfriend throughout her grad studies to become a therapist. A huge part of her studies were in NVC. Even though I didn't go to school with her, I spent a lot of time with her classmates. 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.

Which of them became good therapists? I know programmers how hated parts of school and are bad programmers. And some who are great programmers...

That's not really a reasonable question to ask. Even if I were still connected with those people, I'd have no idea how to rank their skills as professional therapists?

I can, however, speak to my girlfriend's skills. She's incredible. And when she talks about NVC, she's far less charitable than OP.

Re: A guide to difficult conversations

#35

Post by hopler »

ThePadawan wrote: post #23
roenxi wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If one of them just doesn't want to listen, just hear themselves talk, what can I do? There is no magic trick to make people do what you want them to do. > me telling them that I'm not willing to talk to them if they're not willing to listen Well, that attitude isn't going to fix any of your problems. Review the fine article; Heading 1, "Observations vs. evaluations". I might try ask them why what you are saying do…

Thank you for your input. I want to point out though that you propose "I might try ask them". I want to point out that that would get no response. That is the whole issue which I'm trying to find an "out" for.

If it's someone who can cut your pay, then deal with it, for money, until you find a better option.

Otherwise, tell them that you find that the meetings aren't adding value since you've already exchanged all the info that can be communicated, and excuse yourself.

Re: A guide to difficult conversations

#36

Post by nabla9 »

motohagiography wrote: post #7

This is a valuable post. I have not taken an NVC course before, but I have done a lot of work in negotiations, writing, and was brought up to use this style of communication. One thing I would be interested in either from the OP or someone with experience with NVC, is how you recognize when you are being patronizing. Much of this communication style is the artifact of an implied power relationship, where the speaker…

Not denying responsibility is essential to NVC.

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..

Re: A guide to difficult conversations

#37

Post by SolaceQuantum »

ThePadawan wrote: post #23
roenxi wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If one of them just doesn't want to listen, just hear themselves talk, what can I do? There is no magic trick to make people do what you want them to do. > me telling them that I'm not willing to talk to them if they're not willing to listen Well, that attitude isn't going to fix any of your problems. Review the fine article; Heading 1, "Observations vs. evaluations". I might try ask them why what you are saying do…

Thank you for your input. I want to point out though that you propose "I might try ask them". I want to point out that that would get no response. That is the whole issue which I'm trying to find an "out" for.

IMO You can't force people to behave in a manner that is most condusive to you- especially if the manner they're behaving is most advantageous to themselves (a previous example you provided is to be able to deflect blame by sharing tasks). There is no NVC strategy to force people to behave in manners you want them to, only to try and convince them that your goals are aligned- if they're simply not, then that's just how it goes.

Re: A guide to difficult conversations

#38

Post by hopler »

ThePadawan wrote: post #25
davesuperman wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Well that is something I can 100% relate to, but it's not the situation I was thinking of. A typical situation would be someone trying to deflect blame by ensuring they have talked to someone else before making a mistake, just so they won't take 100% of the fallout.

That sounds like not your problem. If A deflects blame to B, to escape C's judgement, then B can make their case to C separately. There's no reason to prevent A from having a conversation from B at all.

Re: A guide to difficult conversations

#39

Post by roenxi »

ThePadawan wrote: post #23
roenxi wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If one of them just doesn't want to listen, just hear themselves talk, what can I do? There is no magic trick to make people do what you want them to do. > me telling them that I'm not willing to talk to them if they're not willing to listen Well, that attitude isn't going to fix any of your problems. Review the fine article; Heading 1, "Observations vs. evaluations". I might try ask them why what you are saying do…

Thank you for your input. I want to point out though that you propose "I might try ask them". I want to point out that that would get no response. That is the whole issue which I'm trying to find an "out" for.

A communications problem described with 4 lines of text is not going to get solved. But I really like airing my views, so you can have a cold read on top of what the other commentators have written. This is generic stuff that I think about when I watch people make mistakes in conversation.

Odds are pretty good that any problem is building up over a couple of conversations before it manifests, people are usually obviously walking into trouble, sometimes weeks before things get obviously bad. Often a presentation problem (always doing something that does a little damage but isn't important, like 'joking' insults or forcefully characterising the situation), sometimes an attitude problem (it is surprisingly easy to clearly perceive things that are not there, like the situation being extremely positive or negative - there are some unbelievable whingers out there), often an expectations problem (wanting something out of the conversation that just isn't going to be given, like firm commitment to a radical idea).

When I see people who can't get a straight answer, or when it happens to me and I reflect carefully with hindsight, usually it is an expectations problem that leads to other issues. It isn't much fun accepting to that sort of problem though, so bad luck it that fits you. On rare occasions, I've identified expectation problems and then just abandoned a relationship because I don't want to change.

One related addendum I make to the NVC framework is people make all decisions by copying other people who look successful. Expect no exceptions unless proven otherwise.

Re: A guide to difficult conversations

#40

Post by kreck »

davesuperman wrote: post #18
kreck wrote: post #3

Very nice and concise writeup. For me it is always hard to deliver the feedback to the point (the 40 words rule), because i'm afraid it'll simply go under in all the other information people take in during the day. That's why i tend to keep pressing the matter. Has anyone some relevant experience to share on that?

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).

You're right, it is far from easy. I will definitely give it a try.
Post reply on HN