Case Study 1 — Chapter 16: Communication That Actually Works

Jordan: Breaking the Pattern

Background

Jordan and Dev have been talking more since the Chapter 15 disclosure — the conversation about the anxious-attachment pattern, about what Jordan's silence means when his threat-detection system fires. That conversation did something to the air between them. Not fixed it — that would be too simple — but made certain things nameable that had previously been performed in the dark.

The current challenge is different. Dev wants to talk about Jordan's new role.

Jordan accepted the strategic initiative lead position. He is — carefully, privately, more than he would admit openly — excited about it. He is also anxious, which is different from the old anxiety: this is not the impostor system saying you'll be found out. It is the realistic assessment that this is a bigger job, with more visibility, and that the probability of making a significant public mistake is meaningfully higher than before.

What Dev wants to talk about is not the job itself. Dev wants to talk about what happens to the relationship when Jordan is in a bigger role. The pattern, which they have been in before: Jordan takes on more, becomes more absorbed, becomes less available, and the relationship pays the cost without the cost being named. Dev does not want to have that pattern again without it being chosen deliberately.

Jordan does not want to have the conversation.

The Avoidance

He is aware he is avoiding it. This is new: the old Jordan did not know he was avoiding things; the current Jordan notices the avoidance in real time. He notices that when Dev raises the topic — "I want to talk about what this new role means for us" — he finds reasons to postpone. Busy week. Not the right time. Let me get through the first month and then we can assess.

Dev is patient, but not indefinitely patient.

After the third postponement, Dev says: "I'm noticing we keep not having this conversation. I don't want to push you, but I want you to know I'm going to need it to happen."

This is assertive communication, Jordan thinks, with the particular dryness of someone who now has language for things. Direct, specific, not global-critical. "I'm going to need it to happen" is a statement of need, not a demand.

He agrees to a Saturday morning conversation. He does not feel ready. He goes anyway.

The Saturday Conversation

They sit at the kitchen table — the same kitchen table at which the relationship has had most of its significant conversations, for reasons that seem partly accidental and partly something about the specific quality of morning light and the ritual of coffee.

Jordan opens: "You want to talk about what the new role means."

"I want to understand what you're expecting," Dev says. "Because we've been here before — you take on more, I start to feel like I'm competing with the job for your attention, and then six months later we're having a hard conversation about distance. I don't want that to happen again without at least having tried to name it."

This is, Jordan recognizes, a complaint rather than a criticism. It is behavioral (this is what has happened before) and it contains a feeling (competing for attention) and a need (to name things before they happen rather than after). Dev is doing the thing the chapter describes.

Jordan responds to the specific content rather than defending his character: "I know that's been the pattern. I don't want to repeat it either."

"So what would be different this time?"

Jordan considers. He has not, actually, thought about this specifically enough to answer. He has thought about the job; he has not thought about the relationship conditions the job will require. "I don't know yet," he says. "I know what I don't want. I don't want to disappear. I don't want you to feel like you're competing with my inbox."

"What would not disappearing look like?"

This is a good question. Not rhetorical — Dev is actually asking him to specify. Jordan thinks about it.

"Specific protected time," he says slowly. "Not 'I'll be home more' — something with actual boundaries. Thursday evenings. Sunday mornings. Specific containers that don't get eaten by the role."

Dev considers this. "That's a start. I also want to be able to flag when I notice you disappearing without it becoming a fight. Like — I want to be able to say 'Hey, you've been somewhere else for three days' and have it be a check-in rather than an accusation."

"That depends on how you say it," Jordan says.

"Fair. Can you say more about what would make it feel like a check-in versus an accusation?"

This is the conversation neither of them has been able to have for three years: specific, about real needs, with both people genuinely interested in solving the actual problem rather than defending their character. It is not comfortable — Jordan feels exposed in the way that honest conversations always feel exposed — but it is productive.

They come out of the conversation with three things:

Two protected time containers per week — Thursday evenings and Sunday mornings — explicitly reserved for the relationship, with a shared understanding that Jordan will not fill them with work without advance notice.
A shared language for the check-in: "Hey, I want to do a check-in" signals that Dev has noticed a pattern and wants to address it early, not accusatorially. Jordan agrees to receive this without defensiveness — to treat it as information rather than indictment.
An acknowledgment that this will not be perfect — that Jordan will sometimes disappear anyway, that Dev will sometimes feel the competition for attention, and that the point is to notice and repair rather than to pretend the pattern cannot happen.

The Communication Analysis

What made this conversation work, when most of their previous versions of it had not?

Dev's assertive opening: "I'm going to need it to happen" — specific, non-aggressive, not globally critical. It did not say "you're avoiding this because you don't care about us." It said: "this conversation needs to happen, and I'm asking you to show up for it."

Jordan's specific engagement: Rather than defending his character or intentions in the abstract, Jordan engaged with the actual problem Dev was raising — the behavioral pattern, the practical need for named structure.

Both using complaints rather than criticisms: The conversation stayed at the level of specific behaviors and genuine needs, without escalating to character verdicts. Dev did not say "you always disappear." Dev said "this is what has happened before, and I don't want it to happen again."

The request was specific and doable: Thursday evenings and Sunday mornings are concrete, observable, actionable. They can be kept or not kept, which means there is something to work with. "Be more present" is not a doable request; "reserve Thursday evenings for us" is.

Both parties acknowledged imperfection: The conversation did not aim for a promise that the pattern would never recur. It aimed for a structure that would make the pattern more visible and the repair more likely. This is realistic and, therefore, more trustworthy than a resolution neither party believes they can keep.

Analysis Questions

Dev's "I'm going to need it to happen" is described as assertive rather than aggressive or passive. What specifically makes it assertive — what elements are present, and what elements of aggression or passivity are absent?
Jordan recognizes Dev's communication as a "complaint rather than a criticism" and responds differently than he usually would. What does this recognition allow him to do that the defensiveness triggered by criticism would have prevented?
The conversation produces three specific agreements. What principle from the NVC framework do these agreements reflect — specifically regarding the request component?
Both parties acknowledge at the end that "this will not be perfect." How does this acknowledgment change the function of the agreements? What would be different about agreements that were presented as guarantees?
The case study notes that this is a conversation "neither of them has been able to have for three years." What changed that made it possible now? What specific changes in Jordan's communication capacity, developed across Part 2 and Part 3, contributed to the conversation's different outcome?