> 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 disputes.
And yes I like NVC: someone else on the thread mentioned they want to talk about their feelings with their SO, not their PM. It doesn't have to be that kind of wishy washy conversation or feel like bullshit. Here's an example:
"When we push updates without facing technical debt, it slows down our velocity for future updates as we're having to deal with things like flaky tests and infrastructure outside our configuration. I'm worried we're actually losing long term speed with our current focus"
It's a good methodology, but agreed completely on the terrible name.
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.
> "When we push updates without facing technical debt, it slows down our velocity for future updates as we're having to deal with things like flaky tests and infrastructure outside our configuration. I'm worried we're actually losing long term speed with our current focus"
Coming into this article and thread without knowing anything about this NVC thing, that just seems like a normal thing for a person to say when describing a problem, having very little nothing to do with the technique I just read about... Does your "NVC done well" just boil down to communicating concerns clearly and honestly? If so, I don't see why it needs a name at all.
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 disputes.
And yes I like NVC: someone else on the thread mentioned they want to talk about their feelings with their SO, not their PM. It doesn't have to be that kind of wishy washy conversation or feel like bullshit. Here's an example:
"When we push updates without facing technical debt, it slows down our velocity for future updates as we're having to deal with things like flaky tests and infrastructure outside our configuration. I'm worried we're actually losing long term speed with our current focus"
It's a good methodology, but agreed completely on the terrible name.