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

How to resolve a conflict when both sides are right

medium.dave-bailey.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 167 posts

Re: How to resolve a conflict when both sides are right

#41

Post by wintermutestwin »

0xff00ffee wrote: post #21
llamataboot wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMHO this stage of NVC lasts about 6 months, and it is rarely "doing NVC" - ie; if you get really angry/scared/etc you prob haven't built up the muscle memory yet to even reach for those canned phrases (probably applies more in more intimate relationships than the workplace - partner(s), parents, kids, etc) but maybe you do, and surprisingly even a clumsy canned phrase about your own feelings or needs rather than jum…

> prob haven't built up the muscle memory yet For me, it took YEARS of practice, and it amazes my that my limbic system is still the first responder! It comes and goes and you're right, you really need to practice. The canned phrases are the training wheels.

> The canned phrases are the training wheels

Spot on! I'm going to borrow that analogy and in return I'll give you a solution to the limbic system. From my conflict resolution process document:

"Brainstorming is a “brainhack” that engages the analytical brain, which helps to reduce the stress response. This emotion regulation technique “tricks” the brain and body by sending the message that they are safe because you wouldn’t put energy into analytical thought if you were threatened. By engaging the higher reasoning part of the brain, you inhibit the stress response and mitigate the risk it poses to the conflict resolution process."

Re: How to resolve a conflict when both sides are right

#42

Post by lobotryas »

mlthoughts2018 wrote: post #39
BeetleB wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

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 metaproble…

Agreed. The name NVC reminds me of the DPRoC. A country that is, unfortunately, neither democratic nor of the people nor a republic.

Re: How to resolve a conflict when both sides are right

#43

Post by pmichaud »

cousin_it wrote: post #4

I've seen this pattern a few times now: someone encounters NVC - claims that his interpersonal skills have massively increased - starts trying to recruit others into it - others don't follow because he's mostly talking in canned robotic phrases - when others point it out to him, he uses NVC tools to ignore/deflect - all efforts to reach him fail. In contrast, I've never seen anyone who could be described as an NVC su…

I agree with the gist of the other people who responded to you -- NVC success stories just look like someone winning, so you're not going to necessarily notice them. The robotic phrases are a training tool, and in many unfortunate cases a crutch, but what they are trying to train is a big shift away from fundamentally adversarial framing.

When people have really internalized the shift, they don't sound any particular way. It just seems like they really get where you're coming from, and it's a pleasure to work through things with them even when the things suck.

Re: How to resolve a conflict when both sides are right

#44

Post by Ididntdothis »

jshevek wrote: post #9

In theory, it seems like nvc should enable higher degrees of emotional authenticity and transparency, but in practice, at least in my experience, it seems to do the opposite for most people. Anecdotally, the vast majority of the nvc people I've observed are some combination of manipulative, dishonest, or severely passive aggressive. I wonder if the explanation for this is found here: because I need [universal need] .…

I think for all these methods to work there is the prerequisite that the user has some level of internal balance already or at least is willing to develop it. Otherwise something like NVC is just a way of papering over one’s own flaws. I had such a phase too a long time ago when I learned some communication skills. I enthusiastically applied my new methods and was constantly pissed off at other people because they didn’t reciprocate immediately. It took me a while to realize that I first had to clean up my own act before there could be a real improvement.

Re: How to resolve a conflict when both sides are right

#45

Post by uk_programmer »

llamataboot wrote: post #8
cousin_it wrote: post #4

I've seen this pattern a few times now: someone encounters NVC - claims that his interpersonal skills have massively increased - starts trying to recruit others into it - others don't follow because he's mostly talking in canned robotic phrases - when others point it out to him, he uses NVC tools to ignore/deflect - all efforts to reach him fail. In contrast, I've never seen anyone who could be described as an NVC su…

IMHO this stage of NVC lasts about 6 months, and it is rarely "doing NVC" - ie; if you get really angry/scared/etc you prob haven't built up the muscle memory yet to even reach for those canned phrases (probably applies more in more intimate relationships than the workplace - partner(s), parents, kids, etc) but maybe you do, and surprisingly even a clumsy canned phrase about your own feelings or needs rather than jum…

The very acronym itself redefines violence to something it isn't which is always a red flag.

This all sounds like the worst parts of working in a lot of modern offices where people don't speak frankly and instead everything is done through this sort of political office speak which is lets be honest here all about politics and not about solving problems.

When I read things like this. I find it very insidious.

Re: How to resolve a conflict when both sides are right

#46

Post by 0xEFF »

BeetleB wrote: post #35
quanticle wrote: post #28

Suppose product development has slowed down, reported bugs have increased 30% since last month, and sprint velocity is down by 40%. Your engineer is feeling desperately unhappy and is terrified of building new features because of the risk to the system as a whole. They want to stop building new features and refactor some of the system architecture. But what do you think their unmet universal need is here? If I were i…

> 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…

> Your problems are valid, but you have to be able to communicate them in ways that don't trigger defensiveness.

This isn’t the only choice, but it’s presented as though it is. Communication goes both ways, the people on the team can also choose to not get defensive.

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

In bad situations it’s ok for people to feel bad.

Re: How to resolve a conflict when both sides are right

#47

Post by redis_mlc »

peterwwillis wrote: post #17
redis_mlc wrote: post #5

What Dave Bailey proposes with NVC is a cancer for engineering. All things being equal, anybody's opinion or emotion is equally valuable. That is rarely the case in engineering. Some of his examples indicate the lack of a roadmap is causing friction, not the request itself. If you can't frame your request in logical terms, don't make the request. In other words, do the opposite of what Bailey proposes.

You do realize that proposing that NVC is a cancer is a negative and threatening statement, right? (Cancer is generally considered negative, being that it's a fatal disease...) People who don't already agree with you are going to have a negative emotional reaction to this and immediately disagree without trying to understand your point of view. If you are trying to convince someone of your opinion, you are failing. I…

Exactly.

Re: How to resolve a conflict when both sides are right

#49

Post by quanticle »

mlthoughts2018 wrote: post #39
BeetleB wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

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 metaproble…

The other problem that the article completely ignores is the difference in power between the manager and the engineer. NVC and NVC-like forms of communication work when the participants are relatively equal in power, when one person can say honestly and forthrightly what they feel and be reasonably certain that they won't be retaliated against for being honest.

In my experience, that describes very few business settings. There is a massive power differential between the manager and the engineer (after all, the manager can fire the engineer, but the engineer cannot fire the manager) 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."

As I see it, a work environment that's safe enough for NVC to be useful is one where the lines of communication are open and honest enough for NVC to be unnecessary. As a result, whenever I see or hear someone speaking NVC phrases at me at work (especially if they have never done so in the past), I am immediately on guard, because I know they're trying to slip a fast one by me.

Re: How to resolve a conflict when both sides are right

#50

Post by geofft »

BeetleB wrote: post #35
quanticle wrote: post #28

Suppose product development has slowed down, reported bugs have increased 30% since last month, and sprint velocity is down by 40%. Your engineer is feeling desperately unhappy and is terrified of building new features because of the risk to the system as a whole. They want to stop building new features and refactor some of the system architecture. But what do you think their unmet universal need is here? If I were i…

> 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…

> 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.

I think this is true in certain contexts where you don't have much power over the situation itself (which ranges from resolving conflicts between family members to resolving conflicts between leaders of non-allied countries). 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.

And this still isn't being judgmental: the engineer simply needs management who understands the process that they are managing. The engineer is not only allowed but expected to exercise technical judgment in determining whether that's happening, same as an engineer should exercise technical judgment in determining whether a proposed vendor product fills the need (and would not be doing their job if they refrained from analyzing the vendor product for fear of being judgmental). Perhaps the manager doesn't have the requisite technical background to make proper product decisions. That doesn't mean "the manager is a bad person" - that means that the manager isn't (by themselves) the right person for the role. Maybe they should seek a technical team lead, or promote a manager within the team, or something.

Post reply on HN