One of my recent attempts to use non-violent communication (NVC) went well, and the other did not.

Reflecting upon those experiences A and B, I see several similarities:

• I wanted to talk about a topic that I found difficult or confrontational.
• I felt it was likely that the other party would be unwilling or unable to adjust.
• I have known all parties for a significant amount of time, and I am interested in maintaining these relationships.

I also see several differences:

However, I found out later that B did not, in fact, go well. Instead, many of the things that NVC tries to avoid happened anyway. In particular, the party in B felt like they were being blamed or accused, or that I was making a forced demand or ultimatum.

I think the main difference here can be attributed to the idea that with party B I essentially had all of the situation, feelings, needs, and request elements combined in my first message. Because my position was made incredibly clear early on, further conversation was not really necessary to come to a conclusion, so a resolution was reached quickly. I see now that this was a mistake -- the point of NVC is not only to find a resolution that we are both happy with, but also to connect empathically so we all feel understood and cared for. By precluding the other party from participating in this process -- even if the ultimate outcome may have been the same given our differing opinions -- I did not afford either of us the ability to empathically connect with each other.

My request also included all available avenues of resolution that I could think of but I can see now that this was also likely bad, as the alternate choices may have read as punishment to the other party, if the more favorable option (to me) was not chosen.

In addition, it happened to be a bad time for the message to be received, so the other party was not emotionally available to have such a difficult conversation.

The medium of communication with A is also useful to notice here, because it's a medium in which something I want to say can be interrupted before I manage to say everything I plan to say. It had the unintended effect of me naturally creating opportunities for the other person to respond, which is how an empathic connection can be made. I did not fully realize or appreciate this in the moment.

With A, I scheduled out of necessity. However, it seems obvious to me that this may give the other person time to prepare for a difficult conversation and make them more receptive.

In the future, I think I should take effort to make sure the stage is set properly and not be so impatient for a resolution. I should schedule a good time to talk, make sure we are both emotionally available, and go over one point at a time and one possible resolution at a time instead of all at once. And a voice conversation will make these things easier to do, though it's not clear from this experience if it is likely to be necessary.