How to resolve a conflict when both sides are right • Hacker News Board

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

#101

Post by jlokier » Thu, Apr 02, 2020, 8:02 PM UTC

nicoburns wrote: post #91

quanticle wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 setti…

> 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." There's one quick way to find out how they'd react! Seriously though, I generally find myself respected in the organisations that I work in,…

That works pretty well if you're confident of finding another job and/or have a safety cushion (aka "FU" money).

In that situation, your manager doesn't really have much power over you. What's the worst they can do, fire you?

But a lot of people don't feel confident of finding another job and are basically afraid of losing the one they have.

That's what makes it a significant power difference. They're afraid because they aren't secure.

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

#102

Post by nailer » Thu, Apr 02, 2020, 8:13 PM UTC

jdmichal wrote: post #94

nailer wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> By framing itself as the "non-violent" option, it makes any other form of communication "violent" by default I like and use NVC, but the naming is terrible. Violence is violence. Communication is not. Not only does the silly name throw aspersions onto other forms of communication, it trivialises actual violence and mars the actual NVC methodology, what I personally have found to be an effective way of resolving dis…

The name makes sense, though they have a very explicit definition of violent which is laid out at the beginning of the book. (Which I suspect very few commenting here have read.) The definition is that, by only acknowledging your own needs, you are attempting to persuade others to meet your needs and disregard their own. It's violent in the way that telling someone "you're worthless" is violent -- it's the implicit m…

> It's violent in the way that telling someone "you're worthless" is violent

That is not violent.

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

#103

Post by brudgers » Thu, Apr 02, 2020, 8:33 PM UTC

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…

a manager that understands Is also "an employee who communicates effectively" and the someone-is-wrong-on-the-internet cycle continues. If that's not what I want (and I am wont to want it), then non-violent communication is a method I can use to try and escape the loop along with my antagonist. The cycle is easy and my default. Non-violent communication tends not to be what I want to do in the moment. I don't really like seeing myself as a virtue-ninny either. Pretenseing as a winner strokes the part of my ego that's used to be stroked. Your milage may vary. For me, non-violent communication looks like a channel for personal growth. I'm already really good at being an asshole from long practice and innate talent. Good luck.

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

#104

Post by Terr_ » Thu, Apr 02, 2020, 8:36 PM UTC

luckylion wrote: post #13

supercanuck wrote: post #3

The problem with businesses/startup/bosses trying to use these is that they come across as disingenuous and manipulative if you try to use these as a tool. The core tenet of NVC is that: NVC is based on the assumption that all human beings have capacity for compassion and empathy. If you can't exhibit these skills in your day to day life, it feels manipulative to others because you are asking others to be vulnerable.

This. So much this. You need to be extremely good at it to fake compassion and empathy. And if you don't need to fake it, you don't need a lot of frameworks. I've had one client that suddenly changed his behavior in this way and it felt like somebody who clenches their teeth and does a weird smile while he says in a robotic voice "I mean you no harm". I know him fairly well, so I asked him about it and he explained t…

Reminds me of a book-quote:

> The Patrician of Ankh-Morpork sat back on his austere chair with the sudden bright smile of a very busy person at the end of a crowded day who's suddenly found in his schedule a reminder saying: 7.00-7.05, Be Cheerful and Relaxed and a People Person.

-- Men at Arms, by Terry Pratchett

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

#105

Post by jdmichal » Thu, Apr 02, 2020, 8:38 PM UTC

munk-a wrote: post #89

tome wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the DPRoC?

Democratic People's Republic of China is what I believe he was referencing, though it's officially the People's Republic of China - maybe confusing the PRC with the DRC (Democratic Republic of the Congo)?

Probably confusing it with North Korea, which is officially the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea".

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

#106

Post by an_d_rew » Thu, Apr 02, 2020, 8:42 PM UTC

BeetleB wrote: post #20

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…

Here's the deal: I've yet to come across someone who is critical of NVC but can provide something better . And in my experience, the status quo is rarely better. NVC has its flaws. It won't always work. Nor will anything else we know of. If something comes along that works better (higher "success rate"), I'll jump on that bandwagon. If you can't be bothered to read the rest of this long comment, here's a TLDR: Most c…

That was a great reply! Thank you, @BeetleB!

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

#107

Post by btilly » Thu, Apr 02, 2020, 8:43 PM UTC

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…

In my experience situations where the bug-count goes up by 30% and sprint velocity goes down by 40% don't just happen out of nowhere. In every situation I've been in where that's happened, management has been warned repeatedly and well in advance that engineering was implementing short term hacks that would come back to bite us later on. To respond to something you were warned about with NVC baby-talk (as opposed to a clear and forthright, "Yeah, we screwed up, how do we go forward from here?") seems like it would just make the problem worse.

In my experience, developers always warn management repeatedly and well in advance that engineering is implementing short term hacks. And if management believes them and gives them a free hand, then sprint velocity goes down by 80% and bug counts go up by 90% as stuff randomly breaks in the refactor. Which seldom works out in the end as well as development thinks it will.

(Hint: Refactoring is usually an inefficient way to write a second system, with all of the downsides of the second system effect.)

The moral of the story is that "...management has been warned repeatedly..." DOES NOT mean that the warnings are a correct diagnosis. Here are alternate diagnoses that may also cause the same symptom:

- Confusing product stories.

- Onboarding new developers without proper integration in the team.

- Poor communication patterns between developers.

- General company morale problems.

- Improved QA. (This one is actually an improvement. Reported bugs are up because they are being caught, and developer throughput is down because they have to fix the newly reported bugs. In dysfunctional organizations, though, developers can wind up upset at QA.)

And so on.

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

#108

Post by lonelappde » Thu, Apr 02, 2020, 8:43 PM UTC

oconnor663 wrote: post #7

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 think the value of the canned phrases is in giving you an alternative to reach for in more difficult situations, where your default would've been either angry yelling or not communicating at all. When you take a typical business conversation -- which is definitely going to happen either way, and which isn't really at risk of becoming a screaming match -- and apply the canned phrases to it, I agree that it adds awkw…

You might be lucky to be in an office where people don't scream at each other.

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

#109

Post by pmichaud » Thu, Apr 02, 2020, 8:49 PM UTC

wintermutestwin wrote: post #77

pmichaud wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah this is huge, and the sophomore mistake here is to try to "aikido" the people who are using feeling words to describe judgement. Ie. to immediately rephrase their statement into more a "correct," NVC-style format. It's a mistake for a couple reasons. First, it's a violent move (in the sense of NVC)--"I hear that you have a judgement that I don't want you" is a dangerous rephrase specifically because it substanti…

I think you are pointing out that reframing can be misused. Do you think that this cut from my conflict resolution doc is a "concise alternative?" "The art of reframing is to maintain the conflict in all its richness but to help people look at it in a more open-minded and hopeful way." -- Bernard Mayer How to reframe a statement: Acknowledge the emotion Restate the problem or issue removing the inflammatory language…

I really like that quote!

I think your steps are a decent approximation, but I don't think they are fully general. For example, sometimes clarifying the details and reality of a conflict causes the conflict to be more directly inflammatory. And if you're following a procedure that has "be less inflammatory" as a metric, then you'll fuck that up. (For the record, I don't think it's a bad heuristic to follow. Most of the time you do actually want "less inflammatory").

A few months ago I facilitated a conversation in which some old friends/coworkers were trying to have a conflict, and they were being SO careful, and SO polite, and SO open to each others' perspectives. Yet neither of them was willing to be fully honest about the pain and blame they were feeling. Things didn't really move forward until I started making clarifications that sounded like impassioned, inflammatory accusations, which really got to the heart of what was at stake emotionally.

I think the real guiding principle is truth tracking, at its core--ie. as a facilitator noticing when something is being confused or hidden, and bringing it more out. In practice, bringing more truth to light normally causes relief and feelings of safety, but sometimes what the reality of the situation calls for is more like "honorable combat," which is made honorable because it's direct, straightforward, and open hearted.

So maybe I'd change that step to "Restate the problem in a more truthful way."

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

#110

Post by motohagiography » Thu, Apr 02, 2020, 8:56 PM UTC

More I read about it, the more NVC seems essentially like a progressive NLP. It has the same hypnotic misdirection and playing on peoples emotions, while directing them to a zero sum end.

I'd argue further that the approach of pretending everyone's interests are legitimate also normalizes objectively terrible people.