Is non-violent communication too direct for Seychellois workplaces?

Used well, it is the opposite of harsh. It replaces judgements with facts and orders with honest requests, and it happens in private. What it does require is saying the thing to the person concerned rather than to someone else, which is the change that matters most in a close-knit team.

Can I use it with a colleague who is older or more senior than me?

Yes, and it is one of the situations where it helps most. An observation and a consequence are hard to take as disrespect, because they do not judge the person. Asking a question at the end, rather than making a demand, leaves the senior colleague room to respond without losing standing.

Does it work in English with someone whose first language is not English?

It works better than most alternatives, because it relies on short, factual sentences rather than on nuance or irony. Avoid idioms, keep one idea per sentence, and check understanding by asking the person to say what they will do next, in their own words.

Non-violent communication at work in Seychelles

Non-violent communication is usually presented as a way to calm tempers: how to disagree without shouting. In many Seychellois workplaces, shouting is not the problem. The problem is quieter.

A supervisor is unhappy with a colleague’s work. They do not say so to the colleague. They say it to another colleague, who mentions it to a third, who tells a cousin. Two weeks later, the person concerned hears a distorted version of the criticism, from someone who had no business delivering it, and feels publicly humiliated by something nobody ever said to their face.

In a small society where everyone will keep meeting, avoiding direct criticism feels like kindness. It produces the opposite. The same reluctance explains why meetings go quiet, as described in what silence means in a Seychellois meeting room. Non-violent communication is useful here because it offers a way to say the difficult thing directly, while keeping everyone’s dignity intact.

The method has four steps: observation, feeling, need, request. Here is how each one works in practice, with one adjustment.

Start from what a camera would have recorded

An observation is a fact that anyone present could confirm. An interpretation is what you concluded from it, or what you heard about it.

People are saying you are not serious about your work.

That sentence is an interpretation, based on rumour. The only possible answers are denial or hurt, and the rumour now has an official stamp.

You arrived after 7:30 on four mornings last week, and the breakfast set-up was not ready when the first guests came down.

That is an observation. It does not quote anyone else. It cannot be argued with, so the conversation moves directly to why, which is where it needed to go.

A simple test: could someone who does not like you disagree with the sentence? If yes, it is not yet an observation.

Replace the feeling with the consequence

In its original form, the second step asks you to name your feeling: I felt frustrated. Between friends, this works. At work, especially from a manager to a junior colleague, it goes wrong. The junior colleague stops listening to the message and starts managing the manager’s mood.

What works better is to state the consequence for the work:

Two of the waiters had to set up alone, and one table of guests complained to the duty manager.

It carries the same weight, it is factual, and it keeps the conversation about the work rather than about anyone’s emotions.

Name the need, briefly

The need is what the work requires: a breakfast ready at 7:00, a report on Tuesday, a handover done in person. Stating it in one sentence helps the other person understand that the issue is the need, not them.

Make a request, and be honest about whether it is one

A request only counts as one if the other person can say no. Many requests at work are really instructions, and dressing an instruction as an invitation makes it worse, not better.

If there is no choice, say so kindly: The 7:30 start is not something I can change. If there is room, show where it is: Is there something in the mornings that makes 7:30 hard? I would like to understand before we decide what changes.

The second version often reveals the real cause, in Seychelles as elsewhere: a bus from the other side of Mahé that arrives late, a child to drop at school, a second job. None of these appear if the conversation starts with a judgement.

Where and when matter as much as the words

In a close-knit workplace, the setting decides whether the message is received as help or as humiliation.

In private. Never in front of guests, never in front of colleagues, never in a group message. A criticism given in public becomes a story that circulates for months.

Soon. A remark made the same day or the next is about the event. A remark saved for three weeks is about the person.

Followed by action. If something is agreed, write it down in two lines and check in a week later. That shows the conversation was about the work, and that it is now closed.

Where the method does not apply

Non-violent communication assumes good faith on both sides. Harassment, discrimination, safety breaches and deliberate sabotage are not communication problems. They need a procedure, a written record and, often, someone with authority. Rephrasing indefinitely in front of bad faith is not patience; it is letting a situation continue.

Knowing which situation you are in is the first skill, and it is where Knowing yourself to communicate better and stand your ground starts. The preparation of a difficult conversation, step by step, is practised in Self-awareness and positive communication.