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

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

#91

Post by nicoburns » Thu, Apr 02, 2020, 7:15 PM UTC

quanticle wrote: post #49

mlthoughts2018 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 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, and I think it's at least partly because I'm willing to be forthright in calling people out and telling them what I think, regardless of their position. Of course, some may take it badly, but that's not the kind of organisation I want to work in (and in my experience, most people react well to honesty).

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

#92

Post by SolaceQuantum » Thu, Apr 02, 2020, 7:16 PM UTC

uk_programmer wrote: post #76

SolaceQuantum wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Someone feeling a certain way is a fact. In fact, if a conflict is that someone is upset, it is the critical fact before we can conclude a decision requires making!

In the scope we are talking about (solving a problem). Their feelings are mostly irrelevant. Their feelings are their own responsibility not others. Going back to the facts and going through them dispassionately is the only way to solve a problem properly.

Handling a problem dispassionately requires resolving the meta-problem of emotional response around the problem in the first place, especially if it's part of what made the problem happen. EG. A co worker's parent has been hospitalized from covid19 and therefore their emotions are preventing them from matching previous velocity in the previous sprint, which puts heat on the project manager. This is a conflict that requires and understanding and consideration of feelings to resolve.

In my experience feelings-type problems are significantly more numerous than technical problems to resolve dispassionately.

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

#93

Post by Ididntdothis » Thu, Apr 02, 2020, 7:23 PM UTC

frobozz wrote: post #75

danShumway wrote: post #72

> 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? No. The…

Totally agree. > If you make engineer feels safe and engaged but don't actually address the bug count, you have not actually solved the problem. Even more - I don't think you can make that engineer feel safe and engaged without addressing the problems they raise.

You actually can piss them off with acting safe and engaged while not addressing the actual problem. I see that quite a bit.

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

#94

Post by jdmichal » Thu, Apr 02, 2020, 7:28 PM UTC

nailer wrote: post #66

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…

> 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 message in that attempted persuasion. "You're worthless; let's talk about what I need." This is why it has such a strong focus on everyone stating their needs, and working towards common solutions.

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

#95

Post by uk_programmer » Thu, Apr 02, 2020, 7:29 PM UTC

SolaceQuantum wrote: post #92

uk_programmer wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the scope we are talking about (solving a problem). Their feelings are mostly irrelevant. Their feelings are their own responsibility not others. Going back to the facts and going through them dispassionately is the only way to solve a problem properly.

Handling a problem dispassionately requires resolving the meta-problem of emotional response around the problem in the first place, especially if it's part of what made the problem happen. EG. A co worker's parent has been hospitalized from covid19 and therefore their emotions are preventing them from matching previous velocity in the previous sprint, which puts heat on the project manager. This is a conflict that re…

I would send that person home and just accept that things will not get done as quickly or find additional resource from somewhere else. I solved the problem by accepting the facts of the matter (they are upset and are not going to be productive). I didn't need to go through all this other nonsense.

> In my experience feelings-type problems are significantly more numerous than technical problems to resolve dispassionately.

That is because people don't think about things objectively which they should be doing. But I am an objectivist so I suppose I am biased.

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

#96

Post by jshevek » Thu, Apr 02, 2020, 7:41 PM UTC

invalidOrTaken wrote: post #90

wintermutestwin wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The WHO includes emotional and psychological in the definition: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence That said, I do prefer the AKA of "Compassionate Communication"

The WHO can jump in a lake.

When I see someone earnestly citing the WHO to make a point I'm usually a bit nonplussed. This site has a culture of expectation that we make substantial responses, but how you respond substantially to irrelevancies like this? The best response is "So?" I understand that the WHO does a decent job of regurgitating data or facts derived from elsewhere, but otherwise they are not an authority worthy of respect.

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

#97

Post by fenwick67 » Thu, Apr 02, 2020, 7:42 PM UTC

BeetleB wrote: post #22

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] .…

> It's never because the speaker is selfish Trust me: Everyone is selfish. They just manifest it in different ways. That person who gives everything he has for charity is being selfish. Most sane people do things because it satisfies something in them. The one who is very generous is getting something out of it. Even when dealing with selfish people, it's good to identify what they are getting out of it.

https://www.thefreedictionary.com/selfish

"Concerned chiefly or excessively with oneself, and having little regard for others"

(the second part being an important piece of the definition you have forgotten)

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

#98

Post by itronitron » Thu, Apr 02, 2020, 7:48 PM UTC

BeetleB wrote: post #38

itronitron wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I think providing an example will help me understand what you're trying to say. And I worry I will soon hit my comment limit so I may not be able to respond. I do not think what people "feel" is necessary a result of a focus on work. I've often encountered upset people at work because they believed a coworker was implying they were stupid. And in any case, things like fairness in compensation/promotions, etc can play…

As an example, consider a product manager that decides to remove a previously planned feature that one or more people have spent considerable effort working towards. If they can discuss the benefit of keeping the feature (or the cost associated with dropping it) then they stand a better chance of a favorable outcome than if they discuss in terms of how the product manager made them feel.

While I think people are right to have feelings I think they are more likely to achieve the outcome they want if they can understand and express why they feel that way. This is assuming that they are conscientious workers which is the more common case. If they are bonkers then they probably won't be able to pin down a sensible root cause.

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

#99

Post by viklove » Thu, Apr 02, 2020, 7:52 PM UTC

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…

> If you are trying to assert your opinion forcefully without caring what others think, you are succeeding.

You do realize this is a negative and threatening statement, right?

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

#100

Post by asfarley » Thu, Apr 02, 2020, 8:01 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…

Sounds like you would make a good project manager.