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

231–240 of 415 posts

Re: A guide to difficult conversations

#231

Post by maxxxxx »

leesalminen wrote: post #170
maxxxxx wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a family issue so it would have been your wife’s job to deal with this. As an in-law you are often an outsider when it comes to these issues.

I agree in principle and I hate being put in the middle of this. I responded to some other similar comments on this sub-thread but the short of it is that I was asked to do this by the family (not my wife) because nobody else can get through to him.

I think you were in an impossible situation so there is no need to beat yourself up. Keeping observe and another opportunity for an intervention or steering things may come up later.

Re: A guide to difficult conversations

#232

Post by jacobolus »

elhudy wrote: post #203
Zelphyr wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't give up on your brother-in-law. He's making seemingly irrational decisions but look at it from is point of view. His father may be dying. Regardless of his relationship with his father, this is a very difficult thing to go through. And then he suddenly has a lot of responsibility placed on him. He's having to answer questions he's never been asked before much less having given much thought to. He's being told t…

Instead of making space, what are your thoughts on OP leveraging these perceptions to find common ground? E.g., "We understand that we need you to be the man of the family, and appreciate that you have stepped up to be strong for all of us. We would like to support you in doing so and feel that our greatest assistance would be in helping to facilitate communications for you. Is this something you're able to allow?" S…

This is speculatively projecting a lot of thoughts and feelings on the brother-in-law, which is quite patronizing. It also awkwardly uses overcomplicated words and overcomplicated passive grammar.

Try reading the linked blog post again, and hold up your proposed question against each of Dave Bailey’s suggestions.

Re: A guide to difficult conversations

#233

Post by samirm »

chroma wrote: post #156

Calling it "nonviolent communication" is a brilliant marketing move, as it implies that not conversing in this manner is violent. I've seen this style many times in my career, and it always comes off as patronizing. It also tends to be used far more often than recommended. Instead of being deployed in difficult conversations, it gets used in every one-on-one. My guess is that NVC ends up like power posing[1]: pop-psy…

sounds like a personal problem

Re: A guide to difficult conversations

#234

Post by ozim »

mevile wrote: post #220

> move them on When I see these disingenuous alternative ways to say that you've fired someone I just think that person is being an asshole. Why is it so hard to say you fired someone? Why is it always some bullshit like "we transitioned them out" "we moved them on" and no bullshit, "they graduated". Using these euphemisms makes you come across as tone deaf and dishonest. Your audience can take hearing that you fired…

Because you are not in target audience. Target audience is not top 20% of Gauss distribution or probably not even top 40% of confident people. It is all those people who fear they will be fired but are still needed (you still can have top performers with anxiety). If they hear someone "graduated" it becomes OK in a day or two, but "fired" will trigger them and all anxiety will make them think not about working harder but about what they will do when they are next.

"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.

Re: A guide to difficult conversations

#235

Post by JohnSully »

giardini wrote: post #230
leesalminen wrote: post #126

I’m generally a good conversation participant, but this week has made me second guess myself. My father-in-law is currently hospitalized after his heart stopped this weekend. He’s currently in an induced coma. Brain damage is a foregone conclusion at this point and they’re unsure if he will ever regain consciousness. My wife and I happened to be on vacation in Costa Rica when this happened. We hopped on the next avai…

leeslaminen says: "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 wis…

> Too bad you didn't let him assault you: that would have made it much easier. Simply charge him with assault and use it as evidence in the POA hearing.

Sometimes its best not to further aggravate family arguments. This situation is currently recoverable, filing charges will forever change the relationship.

Re: A guide to difficult conversations

#236

Post by randyrand »

leesalminen wrote: post #126

I’m generally a good conversation participant, but this week has made me second guess myself. My father-in-law is currently hospitalized after his heart stopped this weekend. He’s currently in an induced coma. Brain damage is a foregone conclusion at this point and they’re unsure if he will ever regain consciousness. My wife and I happened to be on vacation in Costa Rica when this happened. We hopped on the next avai…

As someone with many brothers and sisters, how is Power of Attorney determined? Just curious.

Re: A guide to difficult conversations

#237

Post by andyidsinga »

ben509 wrote: post #192
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've sort of used NVC, but I put a lampshade on it: "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: ..."

this a great response to so many situations. avoiding sugar coating turds and fubaridness is key to being a good boss. Acknowledge the fubar situation - let the team chime in - then get back to facts and actions.

Re: A guide to difficult conversations

#238

Post by specialist »

chroma wrote: post #156

Calling it "nonviolent communication" is a brilliant marketing move, as it implies that not conversing in this manner is violent. I've seen this style many times in my career, and it always comes off as patronizing. It also tends to be used far more often than recommended. Instead of being deployed in difficult conversations, it gets used in every one-on-one. My guess is that NVC ends up like power posing[1]: pop-psy…

Miscommunication and misunderstanding is the norm. NVC is just another technology. Use it or don't.

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

Re: A guide to difficult conversations

#239

Post by elhudy »

jacobolus wrote: post #232
elhudy wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Instead of making space, what are your thoughts on OP leveraging these perceptions to find common ground? E.g., "We understand that we need you to be the man of the family, and appreciate that you have stepped up to be strong for all of us. We would like to support you in doing so and feel that our greatest assistance would be in helping to facilitate communications for you. Is this something you're able to allow?" S…

This is speculatively projecting a lot of thoughts and feelings on the brother-in-law, which is quite patronizing. It also awkwardly uses overcomplicated words and overcomplicated passive grammar. Try reading the linked blog post again, and hold up your proposed question against each of Dave Bailey’s suggestions.

>This is speculatively projecting a lot of thoughts and feelings on the brother-in-law, which is quite patronizing.

Isn't that what negotiation is about, when dealing with someone who won't effectively communicate their thoughts? Speculating the wants/needs of that person and addressing them directly? This isn't something I'm making up, I've just read it in "Never Split the Difference". The book was written to address situations just like OPs.

The example sentence structure was meant to be paraphrased. I was hoping for critique on the subject matter not the grammar. I feel uncomfortable turning OP's anecdote into a hypothetical anyway so I'll back off.

Re: A guide to difficult conversations

#240

Post by arendtio »

rhn_mk1 wrote: post #12

What's the purpose of expressing the feeling? It seems like it's there only to underline the urgency of the unmet needs. 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.

Well, essentially everybody has emotions unless you don't really care about the outcome of a discussion. Expressing those emotions is often considered unprofessional. Nevertheless, most people act in conformance with their emotions (even if they don't express them). So in fact, not talking about the emotional state would be insincere (as it exists and affects what everybody is doing).

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.

Post reply on HN