How to resolve a conflict when both sides are right

Agreed except for the part about refactoring:

> 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.

5x less velocity and 10x bugs is not the result of any sane refactor. Anywhere close to this would indicate that either the devs massively underestimated the complexity of the job or their own competence, or something else in the process is broken, such as letting the senior estimate and the junior implement the change. The vast majority of refactorings are in my experience non-events, simply because I'm by now used to working with thoroughly tested systems.

I'm not a professional, but you seemed to be using refactor and rewrite interchangeably. I had the impression they were different and you seem to be applying all the bad ideas of rewrites to refactors.

> The fact of the matter that most problems need to be solved in a manner which is directed by the facts. What someone else feels is almost completely irrelevant.

Let me give you a real example.

I took a two day workshop on communications at work (not NVC). They did a survey of the class: How many people think facts, and not feelings should be the focus of a discussion? And how many felt the opposite (focus should be on feelings, not facts)?

The outcome? Roughly a 50% split.

So when you say:

> What someone else feels is almost completely irrelevant.

You've already alienated half of the population. Good luck at resolving a conflict with them.

I come from your perspective: Feelings exist, but they divert from the real issues. Feelings are subjective, so what's the point? Facts are indisputable. Let's focus on those.

And you know what? I like that world where facts are what matters. I like working with people who act that way. I think with enough training and discipline, anyone can get to the point where the feelings don't matter, and they focus on facts. That's what people strive for in academia[1].

But I'm crazy to think that half the population will spend the effort to get there. A big chunk of them don't view it as a desirable goal. It's a laudable aspiration for me to try to make them think that way, but unless I want to make it my life's mission, I need to focus on getting results now, and that means discussing their emotions, and realizing that in doing so I'm not going for an inferior approach.

I work in a team. I need them and they need me. If addressing their emotions helps them, then it helps me. Refusing to do so makes me the problem - not them. Insisting on facts is dogma.

Oh, and people who say feelings are irrelevant? Let me completely dismiss them in a meeting and suggest mildly that they're perspective likely is due to a lack of competence. Most of them will not perform well for the rest of the meeting. Quite a few of them will have issues with me in the long run - either my productivity or theirs will be suboptimal.

Hell yeah - feelings matter. And I was the problem. Not them for letting their negative feelings towards me get in the way at the workplace.

Is this an artificial example? How about a more realistic example. Same paragraph as the above, but the person merely interpreted it as me dismissing them and questioning their competence. I had no intention of doing so and those thoughts are not in my head. Yet they perceived it, and did not want to discuss the feelings they had.

The outcome is the same:

Quite a few of them will have issues with me in the long run - either my productivity or theirs will be suboptimal.

How often does this happen at work? I suspect at least once in every team I've been in. Someone in the team believes someone else thinks that way about them based on some offhand remark, and tells me about it, but refuses to have a discussion with the "accused".

The person is jumping to conclusions. The only fact is the person made a particular remark. The conclusion was premature. I point this out to the aggrieved every time. And every time they refuse to accept it. Is the person who is jumping to conclusions problematic? Sure. I could try ensuring such people don't join the team (or stay in it for long). But trust me, that's a difficult solution. A much easier solution is learning how to deal with his emotions effectively.

[1] And as someone who spent a decade in it, I can tell you they mostly fail - academics make plenty of decisions based on emotions.

NVC is just a tool. There are a number of them that accomplish the same or similar things using similar techniques and principles. Fundamentally, they are just tools for someone who actually wants to move the conversation forward. There are people who abuse the language for manipulation, and it comes across as insincere because they aren't actually trying to solve the problem at hand. I can name a few from my own past. NVC doesn't make people seem more or less selfish than they already are.

It's sort of like a programming language. It won't turn a shitty programmer into a good one, but it will turn a good programmer into a more situationally effective one. The hardest part isn't learning the programming language, it's becoming a better programmer.

The first lesson in the book I learned from, Crucial Conversations (https://www.amazon.com/Crucial-Conversations-Talking-Stakes-...), is to recognize when you are becoming emotionally driven (angry, defensive, etc.) and to step back from it. Another key lesson is to focus on identifying and solving the collective problem - the key point is that in the vast majority of cases, especially in the workplace, there is a formulation of the problem such that everyone is trying to solve it, but they are just disagreeing on how to approach it. In my own experience that's been consistently true.

These are both introspective processes of first getting yourself into the right mindset and then employing the communication tools. Learning to first be generous to other people was the hardest and also the most crucial change, whether or not I had communication tools to go with it.

> That is endemic with society today is that people don't seem to think facts important.

No one said facts aren't important. They said facts shouldn't be the focus.

And what's with "society today"? When was society any different?

> Also a two day communication workshop on how to talk to people. You have bigger problems than how to communicate at work.

There are worse things. People take a whole semester course on compilers and most don't use any of that knowledge. The majority of technical courses I took in undergrad were never used for anything at work. The communications workshop has been more valuable than those.

And about those bigger problems at work? Try solving them with poor communication.

> And that is their problem. Why is it mine?

Because you have to deal with these people at work. I mean, if you're a solo developer who doesn't work in a team, then your stance is fine. If people don't want to work with you on a project, it becomes your problem. The world isn't going to change to conform to how you thinks adults "should" behave.

Speaking of "should":

> If you are an adult you should be able to talk about things as a matter of fact.

This is classic way to deny yourself of agency and put the onus on others. I once told a manager of mine to stop using the word "should" - it's a way of saying "I don't want to deal with this - it is someone else's fault".

> I don't like working with those people so I minimise the amount of time I spend working with them if possible.

And you are willing to disclose this in an interview?

> There is a difference between openly hostile (which is what your example is) and talking about things as a matter of fact.

Sorry, but I was not being "openly hostile". My dismissing remark can be quite factual, as well as my imputation of incompetence,

You conveniently ignored the rest of my comment where the perception this happens is fairly common. No one is acting hostile, but the outcome is similar.