>This is speculatively projecting a lot of thoughts and feelings on the brother-in-law, which is quite patronizing.
Isn't that what negotiation is about, when dealing with someone who won't effectively communicate their thoughts? Speculating the wants/needs of that person and addressing them directly? This isn't something I'm making up, I've just read it in "Never Split the Difference". The book was written to address situations just like OPs.
The example sentence structure was meant to be paraphrased. I was hoping for critique on the subject matter not the grammar. I feel uncomfortable turning OP's anecdote into a hypothetical anyway so I'll back off.
> "We understand that we need you to be the man of the family, and appreciate that you have stepped up to be strong for all of us. We would like to support you in doing so and feel that our greatest assistance would be in helping to facilitate communications for you. Is this something you're able to allow?"
That's corpo-marketing style. The angle is to coerce the other in a corner and he'll see it coming from a thousand mile and react badly to it.
> "We understand that we need you to be the man of the family,
That's exactly the problem and what OP don't want/need. They want to communicate with the medical and legal staff. They don't need him to be the man of the family, they need him to approach this as a family. They need him to let them be family and they need him to be family.
The key is not to speculate, but to figure out how to ask so that you can have a discussion about what they feel and need.
You have a theory, but even if you are a good people reader, and even if you are mostly right, you are very likely to be wrong in many small but important ways. I'm sure you can recall instances where someone was right about you in general but wrong in small ways that really mattered to you.
If someone asked me your proposed question, I would think they were trying to passive-aggressively manipulate me, and I would feel resentful and angry. YMMV.
>Isn't that what negotiation is about, when dealing with someone who won't effectively communicate their thoughts?
No, negotiation is the process that happens when you and the other party have decided you want to work out a mutually acceptable agreement. The other person in this situation has not decided to do that, and so the trick is how to get the him to that point. I think Zelphyr's approach would be a lot more likely than yours to have that effect.
Isn't that what negotiation is about, when dealing with someone who won't effectively communicate their thoughts? Speculating the wants/needs of that person and addressing them directly? This isn't something I'm making up, I've just read it in "Never Split the Difference". The book was written to address situations just like OPs.
The example sentence structure was meant to be paraphrased. I was hoping for critique on the subject matter not the grammar. I feel uncomfortable turning OP's anecdote into a hypothetical anyway so I'll back off.