Why Advice Isn't Always Connecting

Have you ever received advice from someone and instead of being able to appreciate what they shared, you just end up angry? Or maybe embarrassed?

That's because advice is one of those other conversational responses, and receiving it isn't always a connecting experience. But why isn't it connecting? Usually, the party relaying the advice has good enough intentions, and probably is just sharing because they care and want to see you succeed. Surely that would be connecting, right? Well... no.

Don't get me wrong; sometimes advice can be connecting, but typically only when the person on the receiving end is open and ready for it. Otherwise, advice, inherently, is a big ole judgment.

Yep. There. I said it. A piece of advice is a judgment. Think about it this way: if someone is giving you advice on something, they are implying (or maybe even explicitly stating) that whatever approach you are taking is flawed in some way and that they know how to fix it more so or better than you currently do. They are swooping in with advice to "save" you, because, well, you are in need of saving, you helpless fool!

Additionally, sometimes a piece of advice might not meet one's needs for understanding or being seen. Instead, it can be interpreted as dismissive or an oversimplification of one's challenges.

Here is an example: You are feeling overwhelmed with work and family responsibilities. You haven't been able to get much sleep lately due to your neighbors partying into the wee hours of the night. You missed an important detail of something you were working on and there were consequences. Your co-worker then gives you this advice: "Maybe you should start managing your time better, and then you wouldn't be so stressed out and overwhelmed all of the time".

The "What did you just say to me?" look

Of course that isn't connecting! Instead, it can be perceived as condescending, rude, annoying, or even preachy. Yes, those are all judgments as well - furthering the disconnection.

So what do we do with this?

I'm about to launch into advice about what to do when receiving disconnecting advice... are you ready? (If not, you can certainly stop reading). If you are the recipient of unwarranted and unwelcome advice, I think the first step is to give yourself empathy. Notice what feelings come up for you; notice what thoughts come up for you and see if you can parcel out the judgments from the facts; and notice what needs are alive in you. This internal process alone can lessen any charge you may have towards the other person.

Then, if you're up for it, you can give the other person empathy. Maybe it sounds something like this: "When I hear you say that I should start managing my time better, I'm guessing you are feeling concerned for me, and you really care. Maybe you just want ease and peace for me, is that it?"

Finally, if you would like the unwarranted advice to stop, you could express and make a request. That might look like this: "When you gave me that advice, I noticed feeling frustrated and even more overwhelmed. I think I'm really just needing some consideration and understanding. I'm also guessing that giving me advice might be a strategy for you to meet needs for contribution or maybe effectiveness. In the future when you want to share advice with me, would you mind taking the time to listen to what I am going through first, and then ask if I am willing to hear advice? I think that would really help me to be able to receive it in the way you were hoping."

And then, on the other side of this, if you want to give someone advice but you also want them to have emotional safety, try giving them empathy first, then ask if they are open to some advice. When someone has an experience of being fully heard and understood, they are typically much more open to other conversational responses like advice. Additionally, by asking them first, you give them choice! They now get to decide if they are in a place to hear advice, and that really does make a huge difference.

NVC + Restorative Justice: A New Way of Healing

This blog talks a lot about Nonviolent Communication, or NVC, and we have likely mentioned restorative practices at some point. Today, I'd like to talk about the incredible benefits of combining the two.

But first, some insider history:

Dr. Cindy Bigbie, the founder of The Bigbie Method, has focused The Bigbie Method on training people in Nonviolent Communication. However, before TBM existed, she served as the director of a diversion program for teens called Community Connections. As director, Dr. B combined restorative practices with NVC training for the teens involved, and she was able to reap truly incredible benefits. I'm talking less than 12% recidivism rate plus the majority of teens coming back to the program as volunteers after they had finished because they loved it so much. For this work, Dr. B won the 2019 Dennis Maloney Award for Youth-Based Community and Restorative Justice Programs.

Dr. B is also a bit of a force within our community (my judgment). When I say that, what I mean is people rally behind her. She has been teaching NVC for many years, and her students appreciate her work, as NVC has changed the lives of many of them. To that end, people in the community saw what Cindy was doing at Community Connections and wanted to expand the work beyond this fairly small, youth diversion program.

Enter the birth of Connection First, Inc. (CFI), a Tallahassee local nonprofit whose mission is to heal trauma and build hope by promoting and supporting the spread of restorative justice as well as NVC education. For several years, CFI has advocated for a restorative justice program in Tallahassee, and it is finally happening! They have created a program that combines restorative justice practices with NVC, a combination only ever precedented by Cindy's work in Community Connections, as far as I know, at least. The difference here is that her work with teens did not include the impacted parties, whereas the CFI restorative justice program will. Additionally, CFI will be taking adult criminal cases, not juvenile, as the vast majority of crimes are committed by people between the ages of 18 and 28.

So What is Restorative Justice?

When there is a harm (or crime), what follows is often a deep wound for all of the parties involved, their communities, and society overall. Restorative Justice, also referred to as RJ, is an alternative way of handling harm within the community that is quite different from the traditional criminal justice system. RJ fosters accountability, healing and safety.

Restorative Practices more broadly are defined as processes that proactively build and maintain social capital and relationships, and reactively respond to harm or conflict when it happens in efforts to repair relationships. This is done through deep listening with an emphasis on harmonizing conflict and restoring balance to the community.

Restorative Justice falls under the Restorative Practices umbrella term. It is a voluntary process that involves individuals who have a stake in an offense (crime) to collectively identify and address impacts, root causes, and needs in an effort to ensure accountability and healing.

RJ centers around 3 questions: 1) What happened and what are the root causes? 2) Who has been impacted and how? 3) What can be done to repair the harm?

RJ fosters accountability and responsibility in that the person responsible for the harm deeply hears the feelings and needs of the impacted party (as they are related to the harm). This is something that is incredibly difficult to do, and often brings up a lot of emotions for both parties. Listening to these impacts from the harmed party themselves often ignites empathy in the responsible party. Additionally, RJ conferences end in a collective drafting of agreements. These agreements contain a list of actionable items that the responsible party consents to completing in order to repair the harm.

RJ also fosters healing and safety. One way that RJ vastly differs from traditional criminal justice approaches is that the impacted party has a voice. They have an opportunity to be fully heard and they have agency in deciding what can be done to repair the harm. Impacted individuals who go through this process experience significantly less symptoms of post traumatic stress related to the harm in comparison to impacted individuals who do not participate in RJ conferences. Additionally, the recidivism rates for responsible parties who go through RJ are significantly lower than those of people who do not participate in RJ. This means less crime in the community, and greater safety for all.

How NVC Factors In

NVC and RJ are like PB and J. It just makes sense.

Nonviolent Communication (NVC) is a communication and mindset approach created by Dr. Marshall Rosenberg over 60 years ago. It takes blame and judgment out of language and focuses on observations, universal feelings and needs, and requests. NVC is a way to slow down and respond with compassion and care rather than reacting with all the various ways in which people tend to react - many of which do not lead to connection. The purpose of NVC is to find connection, even in times of conflict. You can learn more about NVC through The Bigbie Method's Intro to NVC Course here.

NVC is deeply ingrained in the way CFI operates. Learning and integrating NVC into one’s life takes intentional commitment and deep practice. CFI believes NVC is the “missing link” in many restorative programs across the country, which is why they have thoughtfully integrated it into their restorative justice program for Tallahassee, Florida. Each of the three RJ facilitators on this project are not only trained in NVC by Dr. B, but they are also facilitators for The Bigbie Method.

In RJ conferences and preconferences, it is important for all parties involved to have a sense of being heard and understood. NVC does just that. CFI RJ facilitators are trained to listen with presence, reflect what they hear, and guess needs that might be alive in someone. This process of giving empathy helps RJ participants to have emotional safety and trust during the process. It also often works as a strategy for de-escalation, which is crucial when bringing together a responsible and impacted party.

The CFI RJ facilitators will use their NVC skills to keep the conversation emotionally safe by redirecting judgments and blame language to observations and needs-based language. They will also help participants identify the needs that are alive within them so that they can have greater clarity around what is going on for them, but also so that the group can come up with a list of agreements that ideally meet the needs of all parties involved.

I, for one, am very excited about this marrying of NVC and RJ. I can't wait to see what CFI does with this program.

Looking Behind Anger

Marshall Rosenberg advises us to "Use anger as a wake-up call to unmet needs". Any time we experience anger, it is because there is a need that is not being tended to. And I think that whatever need we initially recognize as the impetus for our anger is usually just a superficial speck of what is really going on internally; I think there is almost always a deeper need at play.

When I teach Nonviolent Communication through The Bigbie Method, I emphasize this idea of a "deeper need" when teaching the self-empathy process. Anytime someone shares anger as an emotion, I am hyper-alert to listen for what that deeper need might be, because underneath all anger is something tender and vulnerable. I think anger is the front we use to protect ourselves from the suffering of mourning a deep need. I've found that those deep needs are the ones that are harder to pinpoint because they are difficult to accept. These deep needs behind anger usually tell us something about ourselves that we aren't super keen on.

Here is an example. I recently spoke to someone who was frustrated, angry, and confused because they had not heard from the person they were dating in several days. After various calls and texts, this other person had not answered them, and they had thoughts they were being "ghosted". This person initially claimed mourning needs around clarity and communication. Sure, those make sense. But that wasn't what was really driving all the charge and feelings of frustration. After some digging, we uncovered the deeper need: acceptance. Specifically, self-acceptance and self-love. This revelation came from the vulnerable acknowledgement that they tend to seek external validation from others, and that is how they typically try to get needs met around acceptance. So the thought of being "ghosted" by a romantic interest didn't meet their deep need for acceptance.

I believe we are all mourning deep needs. Some of them are ongoing mournings that we carry daily. Some of these mournings might stem from trauma or childhood. Those needs - the ones that have deep-rooted history for us - are often the ones that are the hardest to acknowledge. And I think anger is our way of protecting ourselves from having to face them.

Anger is often focused on other (sometimes on self, too, but I'm specifically talking about external anger here). Marshall Rosenberg also says "[Anger] indicates that we have moved up to our head to analyze and judge somebody rather than focus on what we are needing and not getting". When we are analyzing and judging, we are not getting acquainted with our needs. When we are analyzing and judging, we are protecting ourselves by putting blame elsewhere instead of owning our need.

Realizing a deep need behind anger can be scary and intimidating, because it can bring up so much memory and/or emotion that may be hard to experience. It is a vulnerable process, but I have found it to be worth while every time, and I have heard similar sentiments from others whom I have worked with. Getting acquainted with a deep need gives me the clarity I need to let go of my anger, because usually it isn't really about the other, but rather about the self.