No Stupid Questions

Humanistic psychology has a way to describe things in very long and broad manners that might sell a lot of books to schools, but contain very little practical information.

Also, they often use specific terms that can mean one thing in psychology but means something completely different to anyone in any other field, who have not studied the exact psychology book that they're referencing.

It's a lot simpler than described on wikipedia, and you do not have to discuss feelings with your co-workers.

The point of including your own feelings in the sentence is to turn to the topic away from fruitless chasing of logical arguments where there are none or they are irrelevant. It's about taking personal ownership of the problem, so that you don't claim that it is the other persons problem, even if they are the one who needs to do something in order to solve it.

As it turns out... yes, although I was unaware that there was a codified definition for this. There are parts of this that I'm not doing, so thank you for linking such a useful resource!

IMO, doing this is really non-negotiable. Not behaving in this manner can be counterproductive at best, and land you in hot water with HR at the worst. People are on the lookout, and rightly so, for bias, discrimination, bullying, and malice. So having strong and warm relationships is important to make sure your worst days are not misinterpreted by others. This is even more crucial if you're in management. Having a solid communication strategy is paramount to enabling the best in all relationships, and having a good experience for yourself at the same tie.

Going by the written-word on Wikipedia... yeah, this is a lot. I honestly think this is the kind of thing that goes better with practice, and maybe having a small note (phone, paper, whatever) with the critical points to hit, would make that easier than recalling two pages of instructions. You can also be up-front with people, explaining "I'm trying something new, please indulge me for a moment". After all, who doesn't mind getting extra care and attention?

It's a nice concept for interpersonal relationships regardless of the setting, but it's got limited applicability in a results driven setting.

No. We do hasty, vague and passive-aggressive communication.

Im a social worker so i learnd to use it without thinking. It doesnt have to be complicated or exclusively emotional. I actualy think everybody in any situation would benefit from it.

Just yesterday I was coaching someone on how to turn their demands into requests, so I guess yeah.

At work you should be direct, and be polite. No need to bring feelings in.

It's charming to call some new communication style 'non-violent', as if it's the first.

I learned to update in quick language in the army. I learned to argue a point in New Jersey.

In NJ, when I worked there, the staff of geniuses were incredibly passionate about doing a thing the best and right way. Sometimes the best route to achieving that wasn't obvious and a discussion would ensue. These would be obvious verbal heroism by the nerds in residence, but they only never argued the facts and the options; never the people.

It was effective and only sometimes needed a decision from above, and when everyone was done they didn't hate each other.

I just don't see where "I feel ..." isn't just slowing us down when time is short. But, if your environment has a surplus of time, then I hope you'll see benefit from this idea.

No, but we don't use violent communication. We use direct communication, and unfortunately sometimes CYA communication, though I push back on that.

Notable concepts include rejecting coercive forms of discourse, gathering facts through observing without evaluating, genuinely and concretely expressing feelings and needs, and formulating effective and empathetic requests.

Why the fucking fuck does that need a name? People incapable of such basic communication aren't really going to be fixed by slapping a weird label on it.

No I only communicate violently. /s

It is not unpractical. You don’t need to follow every bullet point for every conversation. In most cases a normal professional conversation just need to be respectful. Some of the non violent techniques are only important in specific situations (e.g. difficult colleague in a stressful scenario)

You have to, even if you don’t do the four steps out loud.

1. Make an objective observation as it happens (don’t lump it with others in the past)
2. Express how it makes you feel (if appropriate)
3. Express your need (so the feeling can be attributed to it, and not your interlocutor)
4. Make a specific, actionable request that would satisfy your need (which can be denied, it’s not an order)

You can use non-violent communication even if you only do steps 1 and 4 out loud, as long as you understand 2 and 3.

No, we often communicate via messages attached to arrows and occasionally someone gets hit. And someone once got burned while doing smoke signals.

No. It seems like pointless "HR" talk. I try to be direct and dry with my communication and very neutral so personalities dont clash while working. Generally I have no conflicts at work and the few I have had I work through it and make no attempt to resolve anything.

I seriously dislike these somewhat new wording because it trivializes actual problems.

In this case it makes anything that isn't sweet and nice and places it directly at the same severity as actual violence

For those that can't distinguish between actual violence and hurt feelings, I don't know what to tell you, but there is a huge difference between me breaking your bones and me breaking your heart

I'm not trying to negate shitty bosses or toxic work environments, not at all, but I hate that this is now called violence.

It's the same as people calling everything rape. You're staying out late in a hotel lobby with some people and when going back up in the elevator you ask the girl that was with you of she would like to join you for a nightcap? Yeah, raaaape! (This happened)

I get the point of it but I feel that the definition of this very "non violent communication" literally makes it "violence" within itself.

Well, this is not something you do, as in a once and done action. Like, you don't schedule a meeting to talk feelings. It's an approach. The idea is to practice it consciously to reach the goal of just doing it spontaneously. Stressed people with deadlines are exactly the kind of people who can take advantage of and appreciate nonviolent communication. It can help teams in highly stressful circumstances reach high levels of performance while keeping dysfunctions from stress to a minimum. Not to mention negative effects in their personal lives. Angry, burnout and fatigued people are actually really lousy workers and the least effective overall. Dealing with negative feelings can help reduce these ill effects.

Yes. I focus on making direct requests and on trying to understand the unmet needs of others. A large part of what I do is train people to believe that they can say "no" to me without arbitrary repercussions.

Yes I do if I really need to clean the air or if I want something from the boss but I'm a factory worker so with my colleagues the need rarely arises. If it does it's pretty funny to see how seamlessly you can actually switch between brutal workplace banter and sharing something genuine. It doesn't have to take a lot of time if you're upfront with it.

Maybe the reason why nonviolent communication seems foreign in the workplace is because there is violent communication inherent to the workplace relationship.