11–20 of 87 posts
Feels strange to read on the title header: PRODUCTIVITY TIPS AND APPS by PRODUCTIVITY HUB like if it was an original article from the website but at the very end there is the note 'All Rights Reserved for Dave Bailey' without any link to the original source:
https://medium.dave-bailey.com/the-essential-guide-to-diffic...
which is taken from Dave Bailey website (https://www.dave-bailey.com/go)
This is very smart.
Daniel Dennett takes the paradigm further by adding a prequel, which is to clearly articulate the other person's logic and state of mind empathically first, before going into the analysis. Done well, this enhances possibilities for cooperation because it elevates the status of the receiver through respect, even when, or especially when the parties views are not aligned.
https://www.brainpickings.org/2014/03/28/daniel-dennett-rapo...
(By the way, I’m writing this from a place of exhaustion and disappointment with the industry, rather than just knee jerk negativity.) Although I do think it’s worthwhile to try to think and communicate as clearly as possible, over the years I’ve learned in this industry that 90% or more of coworkers and managers are not going to put the same effort into it. You can do everything right and the majority of the time it…
This is correct but the implication is that a good career means having the courage to accept the risk of poor relationships with management and to be willing to end an unhealthy relationship.
There's something to be said for trying to confront someone that could break you in two, has severe psych issues, and Bic-pen-ink tattoos. It sort of helps you to focus on outcomes.
In my experience, starting by laying out a platform of common goals and achievements is always a great icebreaker.
i.e.
ME: "We've really made a lot of progress on the fundraising, but we still have to get the registration packets done, and the catering menus finished, in time for the conference."
I've found that ignoring personal insults and blamethrowing is useful.
BIG BUTCH: "Well, you were so busy riding your high horse, trying to impress Cathy, that you never checked on my team."
ME: "You're right. I should have checked in to see if you could use help. So here we are, and I need your help to deliver the packets to Joe's committee. How can we get this done?"
Note how I sidestepped horses and Cathy? She'd probably be crushed that I ignored her, but she was irrelevant to the conversation.
Also, it always helps to give them some authority and "upper hand."
Then, there is the firing conversation:
ME: "I'm afraid that I can't work with your team, any longer. I've found that I can't be productive in our work. I'll need to find someone else to work with."
There's really no need for "constructive feedback," since The Die Is Cast. If they want that, I am happy to give it, but the main subject needs to be made clear and unambiguous. The relationship is at an end. The time for negotiations and bargaining is over.
I've learned that "weasel words" can be incredibly self-destructive. They leave the appearance of "gaps" that aren't actually there. They are dishonest, and paint me as a coward; which can be taken as weakness. If the decision has been made, then I can't allow it to be second-guessed or misinterpreted. Plain vernacular is worth its weight in gold.
If I need to have a couple of bruisers with billy clubs available, then I can have them file in quietly, after we're settled.
I think that treating people with respect, at all times, is really, really important. Choosing the venue (like not confronting them in front of others) can go a long way towards helping to reach my goals.
Everyone deserves respect; even those that refuse to give me respect.
I understand this is not a general assessment of the value of observations over evaluations outside of the framework of NVC. Most of the examples would be perceived - at least by me - as impersonal and dishonest. Voicing observations such as “you were ten minutes late this morning” to someone who’s knowingly been late already before could be easily perceived as passive aggressive. Passive aggressivity is, I believe, the most subtly violent form of communication, and it really leads to nothing useful or constructive.
Most of the examples read as passive aggressive to me, because you’re renouncing to a very direct evaluation that doesn’t require a specific knowledge framework and present instead your interlocutor with an emotionless remark about their actions.
These methods for NVC are useful because (a) they decouple analysis from emotions, and (b) they protect the target from feeling attacked, so it is possible for the target to receive the analysis instead of going into defensive mode. Daniel Dennett takes the paradigm further by adding a prequel, which is to clearly articulate the other person's logic and state of mind empathically first, before going into the analysis…
Ah , non-violent communication, a great tool. I've copied an excellent summary by @BeetleB To add to the above: 1. Observations should be specific, not generic ("you are lazy" vs "you have not accomplished any of the tasks you've been assigned"). They should also be objective - third party witnesses should have consensus. We can agree that you've not accomplished your tasks for the week. We will likely disagree on wh…
> However, if you want to take things to the next step and have better relations with people around you, do care about their feelings and use techniques to have them feel better - but out of empathy and not out of responsibility or guilt. This might be a very stupid question… Aren’t responsibility and guilt and empathy somehow very intertwined? At least you’re probably empathetic if you feel guilt or responsibility,…
One thing to say here is that empathy is basically putting yourself in another person's shoes. Often when you do that you also find room in your heart to forgive them, ie. when you see the way their behavior makes sense from the inside, most of the time there's less blame and more "that makes sense, if I look at it that way."
And I guess you're right that by having a policy of caring about people's feelings and acting on that care, you're "taking responsibility" in a broad sense. But there is a difference between acting out of obligation or coersion vs acting out intrinsic care or even out of even-handed consequentialist reasoning (ie. "what communication will cause the outcome I want?").
There's a lot to say about what that difference is, but--just in terms of outcome--"empathizing" out of obligation almost never works. It's because that obligation is kind of lurking within our motivations and comes through in various ways that disrupt the process of actually, really, understanding what's going on with the other person. Plus it disrupts communicating that understanding in a way that comes through to them.
If there's unspoken blame and contempt in the interaction, it'll almost always come through and make the communication fraught.
I think the observation vs evaluation examples are sloppy (yes, that’s an evaluation). I understand this is not a general assessment of the value of observations over evaluations outside of the framework of NVC. Most of the examples would be perceived - at least by me - as impersonal and dishonest. Voicing observations such as “you were ten minutes late this morning” to someone who’s knowingly been late already befor…
1. Is in large part for you, the speaker. It forces you to get clear about what you really know to be true. I'm surprised at how often I'm trying to communicate some reaction I'm having, and it's really hard to even say what triggered it. In the process of figuring that out I get a lot of clarity about hat I was expecting or hoping for, what was missing, what the other person actually did, and just by virtue of the reflection, often some "free" insight into what they might have been thinking.
2. Is always followed by a feeling, need, or request (or some combo of those). This, I think is the key to making it not passive aggressive. If I start with "I need for you to not be late anymore," it's a bit disorienting in the conversation for the other person. What caused you to say that? Why now? Providing an objective observation as context for the rest of what you say allows both people to be on the same page about what the subject even is. Being late is a bit of a trivial example, but just like making the observation alone leaves a lot of work on the listener to infer what you expect to happen as a result of the observation, making the request alone leaves a lot work on the listener to infer what generated the request in the first place, ie. what you think has been happening, what matters to you, etc.
I think the strongest move is actually: observation, then impact, then request. Like:
> Hey, you were ten minutes late this morning. We had to push back the client meeting because you weren't there, and I'm afraid we looked disorganized and untrustworthy as a result. I need you to be on time from now on.
It's quite direct that way.
Also much like the observation step triggering useful self-reflection, the impact step requires you to know why the request matters to you at all. Like if there was no client meeting, what do you care if the other person was 10 minutes late? Maybe you still care, but you need to reflect enough to actually understand why, so that you can say it.
"Sandwich Technique" All you ever need to know.