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)?

  • bstix@feddit.dk
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    16 hours ago

    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.

  • scarabic@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    13 hours ago

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

  • Rumo161@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    23 hours ago

    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.

  • viking@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 day ago

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

  • dejected_warp_core@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 day ago

    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?

  • remon@ani.social
    cake
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

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

  • Fizz@lemmy.nz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    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.

  • db2@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    46
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    3 days ago

    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.

    • fubbernuckin@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      23 hours ago

      Well clearly it’s making OP think twice about it. I think it’s completely possible for people to lack some component of these communication skills simply because they haven’t had anything that brought them to their attention before.

      And to be fair, berating people who don’t understand these concepts doesn’t “fix” them either.

    • masterspace@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      36
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      Because once it has a name, it makes it easier to describe and reference in research literature, and thus makes it easier to draw conclusions on.

      Everything has some super specific name that professionals in some field use for it because they regularly need to distinguish it from other similar thing that the broader public does not care about.

      • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        2 days ago

        Great

        Use a different name as this has nothing to do with violence and it is unhelpful. Violence is physical and as soon as you make any inconvenience in communication “violence” then you just get lost in pedantic semantics.

        • Bane_Killgrind@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          2 days ago

          The World Health Organization (WHO) defines violence as "the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual

          So coercion and other completely verbal applications of power are violence.

          It’s not really semantics, it’s just the whole definition is more encompassing than the most basic/ ubiquitous case of the thing.

        • makeitwonderful@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          2 days ago

          The creator of Nonviolent Communication didn’t like the name either. He said he used it because it connected him with people around the world to share his ideas.

          Do all demands have an assumption of violence attached? (do this or I will force something to happen) I am failing to think of ways that demands don’t have implied physical violence if they are genuine.

          • Optional@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            2 days ago

            The creator of Nonviolent Communication didn’t like the name either.

            So they fucked up. Hey, words are hard. I get it.

        • masterspace@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          2 days ago

          You realize that when you speak up just to ask other people to use your specific definition of a word, you’re the one getting lost in pedantic semantics, and that can also be addressed by you not doing that, right?

    • CrayonDevourer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      3 days ago

      It reminds me of people on LGBT forums and seeing shit like: “I’m a man, and I like women, but I don’t feel sexual attraction towards all of them, only the ones I feel a connection with; what are my labels?”…and wanting to scream “NORMAL! NORMAL IS YOUR LABEL! WHAT ARE YOU DOING HERE?!”.

      Meanwhile everyone is like “Oh, you’re ace+/romantic”…/sigh…

      • Grimy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        3 days ago

        We really need to bring back the “it’s complicated” label but for sexuality instead of relationships. We can just dump 90% of people in there and call it a day.

      • CmdrShepard49@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        Tribalism has run rampant. Stuff like this is fairly innocuous if a bit much. When people get militant about it then it becomes a problem.

        • CrayonDevourer@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          2 days ago

          How is this bigoted? And who said I disagree with non-violent communication? You know what we call that? – Just communication.

          You might want to re-read what I wrote. You either seem to have missed a key portion of it, or because you saw the letters “LGBT” you’ve somehow immediately primed yourself for confrontation…

          • WoodScientist@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 days ago

            You’re making an argument of absurd literalism. You argue that the name “non violent communication” is inappropriate because all language is non-violent by definition.

            But obviously any description of language will be in the context of language. Words can be fearful, as in they display clear fear by their speaker, even though obviously words themselves cannot experience emotion. Language could be called “confusing,” even though language has no will, can take no action, and cannot confuse anyone.

            Obviously words themselves are not physical things. That doesn’t mean language cannot be violent. Language can be violent in the exact same way language can be proud, boastful, joyful, and a thousand other things that words themselves are incapable of directly being or doing.

            You’re performing an exercise in literalist absurdity. Is your name Amelia Bedelia by any chance?

            • CrayonDevourer@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              2 days ago

              The problem with the term “non-violent communication”, is that we don’t preface things that we describe based on their lack of something.

              You might as well call it “non-love communication”…get it?

              We don’t call driving to work “non-violent driving”, we just call it driving.

              We don’t call our jobs “non-slavery labor”. You’re practicing absurdity in order to proclaim some higher order of thinking, but you’re just being silly.

            • CrayonDevourer@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 day ago

              Nobody is “dunking” on LGBT folks. The presented scenario is literally of a completely straight person invading those spaces. You really have a problem with reading comprehension, you know that? I’m even, quite literally, presenting them in a positive, helpful light in this scenario, as they’re being inclusive and presenting labels for this completely straight person to present with. So what’s your damn problem?

              • Narri N. (they/them)@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                18 hours ago

                ah damn, it seems i am in the wrong here. sorry about that i tend to get like blind and delusional and shit with strong emotions and everything and the whole concept of NVC is tied to my own sexuality and personality and the therapy for the personality disorder and the and the… but yeah, uh nevermind me.

  • corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    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 ans 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.

  • cloudless@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    3 days ago

    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)

  • TeamAssimilation@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    edit-2
    3 days ago

    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.

  • RBWells@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

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

  • dustyData@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    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.