How to resolve a conflict when both sides are right

This approach is called Interests-based negotiation (or Principled Negotiation): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Getting_to_Yes

In the context of work discussions, I think people should be strongly discouraged from describing their position in terms of how they 'feel' because what they feel is a result of their focus on work. Therefore the root cause of a person's feeling should be expressed instead and will be harder to dismiss in a discussion. It typically takes a lot of work to understand the root cause but it is also empowering for people when they can turn their intense feelings into rational arguments. My two cents.

> If I were in a situation like that, my "unmet universal need" would be "a manager that understands the concept of technical debt and taking time for unit testing as opposed to spouting mindless psycho-babble at me".

If you cannot state your need without judgmental comments (blaming others, etc), you are not going to get far in solving the problem. Your problems are valid, but you have to be able to communicate them in ways that don't trigger defensiveness.

> More seriously, this article reinforces my view of NVC as a fundamentally hostile communication framework. By framing itself as the "non-violent" option, it makes any other form of communication "violent" by default, allowing the first person to wield NVC to claim an advantage.

This is a rather large logical fallacy. It is a non-violent option. Not the violent option. And on top of that, dismissals due to semantics are usually insincere.

Edit: Wow. Kind of sad that my lowest effort comment for this submission both got the most responses and the most upvotes.

I'm sure I'll hit my comment limit if I respond to each response individually, so I'll respond to them here:

> But the engineer has a BATNA here - find another job with a better boss. It's such a common BATNA that "people don't quit jobs, they quit bosses" is a catchphrase. The engineer can get extremely far in solving their "unmet universal needs" like fun and safety by finding another job. It's in the company's interest, one would hope, to keep them.

I don't disagree with any of this. We seem to be discussing different things. Of course, if your boss/job is problematic finding a different one solves that problem. What I was referring to is the inability to have an effective conversation about the need. Exactly what is your problem with a manager who spouts mindless psycho-babble? What is your problem with technical debt? What is your problem with no unit testing?

Imagine you're saying these things to someone who has never dealt with this problem (e.g. someone not in SW). Stating these is not helping the person understand you at all. I come from the engineering (non-SW) world. You will find little sympathy for technical debt and unit testing issues, and will get a response of "Perfect is the enemy of good".

Merely explaining that technical debt makes it harder to add features and will lead to longer timelines isn't explaining your needs. It just leads to more questions: Why is that a problem? You're getting paid for it, aren't you? And so on.

And please, the whole "manager spouting psycho-babble" is not going to get you far. Everyone has an imperfect boss, imperfect spouse, imperfect other. We all know it. After a while in industry, it is tiresome to hear someone complain about an imperfect manager. We all know it's true, and we all differ in what managerial problems one should put up with. Lots of employees are OK with such managers. And again, it's because different people have different needs. If you can describe how you differ from those employees, people are more likely to understand you.

And finally, possibly veering off topic, employers will always find the employee who effectively confronted the problems with the manager instead of running away to be more valuable. Now thankfully the SW world has a lot of mobility so I wouldn't always recommend it, but this looks a lot better on your resume than knowing React.

> Sure, nobody likes a full on attack but a perfectly sweet sugar coated message isn’t always great.

Every discussion I've seen about communications involves this fallacy: False dichotomy. In fact, one other book I've read even gave a name for it: The Fool's Choice (the notion that if you don't sugarcoat relationships will get hurt). NVC isn't suggesting you sugar coat. In fact, it suggests the opposite. Know the problems. State them. Be direct.

> I’m just going to say that we got man on the moon without NVC.

The elements of NVC have likely been around since people started talking, so I'm not sure you're right.

And I'll also point out we got men on the moon without debuggers, source code control, automated testing, etc. We also accomplished a lot without fundamental freedoms (speech, worship, etc). So what?

> I personally find NVC to be degrading and belittling. It presumes I am not a grown up who can handle important criticism, which infantilizes me.

I don't understand where you get the idea that it presumes you cannot handle criticism.

> but it is very violent in other domains like undermining valid criticisms, changing the conversation so it’s not about the problem

In a significant percentage of heated discussions I've seen, there is fundamental disagreement about what the problem is. I wonder if you're merely blaming NVC for something that is independent of NVC. NVC does try to get all parties to understand what the problems are, and I also wonder if that is making you believe it is trying to divert from your problem merely because it is trying to highlight that your problem is not the only one in the discussion.

Of course, without concrete examples, I cannot say.

> and very often the engineer doesn't know the manager well enough to know how they would react to a statement like, "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."

I do hope people have relationships with their managers such that they are free to say stuff like this (I've seen it in person).

However, this is orthogonal to NVC. Your statement to the manager pretty much violates NVC's guidelines. It also violates the guidelines in Difficult Conversations and in Crucial Conversations. Sure it would be awesome to be able to say stuff like that to most people (it's not just about power relationships), but that's not the reality. These books exist to give you a way to get your point across without phrasing it that way.

Belittling is not a feeling. It is a story you are telling yourself. His ignoring feedback is not a fact, but a story you're telling yourself. Claiming the deadline is unreasonable is merely an opinion, and you did not back it up. Saying it's because of salespeople is also a story you are telling yourself, and not a fact. Pretty much every element of what you said can trigger defensiveness. Your statement implies you know everything, and doesn't have the posture of you attempting to validate what you think you know. What kind of conversation do you expect will happen? If you are wrong about any of the above, it will put the manager in a position of having to defend his actions, which is the very definition of defensiveness.

You can say this type of stuff without hurting feelings to only people very close to you (true buddies). Most people are not dealing with true buddies.

I personally find NVC to be degrading and belittling. It presumes I am not a grown up who can handle important criticism, which infantilizes me.

It is also a political weapon. It may be non-violent in one domain (the tone and language presentation) but it is very violent in other domains like undermining valid criticisms, changing the conversation so it’s not about the problem but instead filibustered with metaproblems about who is / isn’t being kind in someone’s made up subjective & political definition of verbal discourse.

Just because it says “non-violent” in the name doesn’t mean it’s true. In fact it’s rather suggestive. If you have to be defensive and _define_ your communication as non-violent, that’s pretty suspect and belies dangerous motives.

It’s “politeness theater” in a way similar to how the TSA uses security theater. You can _say_ it’s effective for a stated purpose all you want, but that doesn’t make it true.