cross-posted from: https://linux.community/post/3511467
I learned what non violent communication is a day ago and I’m using it to mend a friendship.
Have you however used it at the workplace?
I find it unpractical: there are so many things to do at the workplace and the last thing stressed people with deadlines need is to have a conversation about feelings, but maybe I’m wrong?
A question for nurses working bedside: do you actually use non violent communication at your ward with your patients and actually have time to do your other duties, like charting, preparing infusions and meds, dealing with providers, insurance, the alcoholic who fights you, the demented one who constantly tries to leave the unit, the one who wants to leave ama (against medical advice)?
You must log in or # to comment.
I try to.
The section on “requests” hits hard for me because I grew up in the Midwest, and work with a lot of people from the Midwest, and I often have to remind myself and them that it’s okay to say no if the answer is no. I try to couch my requests as questions about feasibility rather than inclination for that very reason: “Do we have X available?” or “Do you have time to do Y?” rather than “Would you do Z?”
(If you’re not from the Midwest or other subcultures with high-context communication style, you may be confused by the above. But its very rude to ask someone for something you think they’ll refuse, as you’re forcing them to do the emotional labor of saying “no” to you instead of you saying “no” to yourself.)
But the “observation without evaluation” and empathic portions of NVC are also very important.
I know it’s been a journey for you trying to learn better how to get along with coworkers you find draining and difficult. I’m glad to see you taking the step of learning about NVC as a part of that, I think it can only help.
Using violent communication at the workplace would be grounds for calling the police and on-the-spot dismissal. Non-violent communication is the only acceptable communication mode at the workplace.
That was a little tongue in cheek, but damn is that an awful name for something. Communicates nothing of note and is extremely confusing. Yet its goal is to aid communication…
From the wikipedia link:
Marshall Rosenberg … explains that the name was chosen to connect his work to the word “nonviolence” that was used by the peace movement, thus showing the ambition to create peace on the planet. Meanwhile, Marshall did not like that name since it described what NVC is not, rather than what NVC is. In fact, this goes against an important principle in the fourth component of NVC, i.e. requests. Specifically, in an NVC request, one should ask for what one does want, not what one doesn’t want. Because of this, a number of alternative names have become common, most importantly giraffe language, compassionate communication or collaborative communication.
Ironic, indeed. It looks like it got that name from what Rosenberg was doing at the time, rather than an attribute of the system itself.
I really like the system. Knowing that it was part of a utopian counter-culture nonviolent peace movement makes it even better.
but agreed, the name is not informative
Yes. It’s more or less the main way to get things done in a productive manner. Is the person stressed with deadlines? Giving them the safety to speak out that, for example, the constraints are unrealistic is better for everyone involved in the long run.
I was once of a more cynical disposition and automatically assumed the worst in people. It’s a very sad way to live.
I find the Wikipedia article to be wishy-washy on its content and seems to contain more buzzwords than giving the reader an idea on what it is. Better resource if one needs concrete examples: https://positivepsychology.com/non-violent-communication/#what-is-nonviolent-communication-3-real-life-examples
i also haven’t heard that name before, but this seems to be along the same lines that we were taught in dialectical behavior therapy within interpersonal relationship skills. one great use for this skill for people with difficulities in emotional self-regulation (usual in trauma-based disorders i believe, i was stamped with bpd myself) is to learn to detach emotions from whatever it is that you need to talk about, as to minimize the possibility of an overwhelming emotional state. i personally used to go completely delusional very easily in enough emotional stress, so much so that reality that everyone else could see didn’t really matter to me because i saw a different reality that i knew completely and utterly to be true. this tendency has lead to many moments of distress to myself personally and many more around the world, and this skill is one of the reasons i don’t suffer as much anymore.
which is why it’s so sad to see such rampant ableism in the comments. people completely misunderstanding the entire concept (because of it’s sucky name) and then just completely shitting on apparently everyone, someone there decided to bring up their general bigotry towards sexual minorities there or something.
anyway, nothing to do with the question really, just some personal musings
Thank you for your comment.
I haven’t heard it described as nonviolent communication, but yes.
I work with software development groups. It’s very helpful in stating a series of facts, separating them from the speaker, and limiting emotional involvement. When we’re requesting work from each other, it’s helpful, because it cushions demands and makes it easier to talk about what will happen if the request isn’t completed.
When stuff goes wrong, it’s even better. It makes it harder to blame. It also reduces absolute statements and hyperbole.
Generally, it reduces the emotion in a conversation and turns it into a discussion of alternatives and outcomes.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
I’m confused. Would this not be standard practice in any form of communication?
