Life can be pretty uncomfortable, can’t it? We all have different viewpoints of how things “should” go, or why we did X instead of Y. How often do you find yourself explaining your motivation or making excuses and assuming that’s enough to assuage the emotions of the person you’re talking to? Does that actually work? Maybe for some people, but in my experience people don’t really care about the “why” if they’re angry with you, until they have been seen or heard.
This reminds me of the phases people go through when they first start learning nonviolent communication (NVC) or more generally, empathy. Once you become familiar with needs, you can become overly protective of them, putting your needs above anyone else’s. In this phase of NVC learning, your responses might come out as, “I’ve learned I have needs and my needs are the only ones that matter.” For instance, “I have a need for quiet so you should leave the room.” This phase of NVC learning can be combative — the opposite of nonviolent! This is the manipulative form of NVC that many people have experienced. It turns people against NVC as a form of communication.
In another phase of NVC, people can turn into martyrs, sacrificing their own needs to support others. You become so caught up in recognizing that other people have needs too that you forget to include your needs in the equation. It’s saying, “Oh, I’m being too loud in this room for you. I’ll leave and find another place to work.”
The middle way that balances both extremes of combativeness and martyrdom recognizes you have needs and other people do too. It’s understanding that needs never conflict but strategies often do. For instance, your strategy of the other person leaving the room may conflict with their strategy of staying put. That conflict can be uncomfortable but it’s important to address, including at the workplace.
At work, let’s say Jane initiates a team meeting and usually she would include Alex because he’s great at generating ideas and sparking creativity in others. However, even though Alex has been an integral part of a project, he’s out of town and an issue comes up that is time-sensitive. Instead of inviting Alex, or even letting him know about the meeting, Jane decides to proceed without him. She recognizes he’ll probably be hurt because he’s very attached to this project but she proceeds without him anyway.
When Alex gets back to the office, he approaches Jane and tells her he’s hurt he wasn’t included in the meeting. If Jane did what most people do, she’d become defensive and make excuses. She would say, “Alex, I needed us to move quickly. I couldn’t wait for you. And besides, I didn’t want to bother you while you were with your family.” However, in that situation, Alex likely won’t feel better because he wasn’t seen or heard. Instead, his feelings were dismissed and invalidated because Jane’s needs took precedence. In essence, Jane is saying he shouldn’t be hurt because she has a good excuse.
Jane could also go to the other extreme and say, “Yeah, I know, I messed up. It was wrong of me, I shouldn’t have done that. We should have contacted you.” Jane could make herself bad and wrong but she chose not to invite Alex for a reason — the issue was time-sensitive.
The middle way of NVC would instead recognize we are relational creatures and “logic,” while probably valid and reasonable, doesn’t have anything to do with feelings. With this approach, Jane would give herself empathy first. Maybe she would employ the T exercise to shift toward compassion for herself. Or maybe it’s not as formal as that and instead she would tell herself, “I know Alex is going to be upset. It’s going to be uncomfortable talking to him about the decision. But this project needed efficiency, and we just couldn’t wait.” After identifying her own feelings and needs, then Jane will be able to talk to Alex without feeling triggered or activated by his pain. She’ll be able to say to him, “I get that you’re hurt. It makes sense. You wanted to be there and I wanted you to be there. I see your value. You would have been awesome in the meeting because you’re so creative and able to spark other people in the room.”
Once Alex is seen and heard, then he might ask, “So why didn’t you invite me?” and then there’s an opening for Jane to give her reasons. It’s much faster and easier to go into excuses but that leaves an imprint on the other person and communicates a lack of care. The person might start questioning, “Do I matter here?”
Everything we do has an impact. Sometimes people like it and sometimes they don’t. When they don’t like it, the impact could also stretch into the category of harm. It doesn’t matter if that was your intention. It only matters if the other person feels harmed and if you care about the relationship, you’ll do your best to repair the damage that was done.
If you’re trying to foster any sort of care within your company’s culture, the best place to start is with interpersonal dynamics. People are leaving their jobs left and right — they don’t want to work for jerks if they don’t have to. If their situation allows for it, people want to work somewhere they enjoy, where the people are kind, where they get along with their coworkers and boss, and where conflict can be repaired. Empathy is a relationship builder that brings more care into your interpersonal dynamics and fosters a culture where people want to work. In that situation, everyone wins. But it starts with putting empathy first and excuses second.
