Is Nonviolent Communication an effective decision-making model?

I'm participating in a 5-day retreat in New York state this week for Nonviolent Communication (NVC) trainers. I am feeling very nourished to be with a group of my colleagues who are truly peers to me (so it's great to have empathy, shared understanding, authenticity, and all the goodies that come with NVC! ;-)



The group's decision-making process, though, has left me unsatisfied overall, and at times feeling a lot of frustration.

It raises some questions in my mind that have been "on my mind" a lot lately:

Q: Is NVC an effective decision-making model?

Q: Can NVC be used as a governing structure?

My quick answers, at least in the present, are: No; and not really.

For me, NVC is an amazing and powerful interpersonal communication model, and also is tremendously supportive for my inner work (inner peace, transforming enemy images, healing, etc.)

It supports me in focusing my attention on what is alive in each moment -- what is coming through me and the other person -- which keeps me in the present and empowered to take actions that serve everyone involved.

The dynamics shift, however, once we include much more than a small group of people -- say 4 or 5 -- and we have a group process happening.

I have experienced countless frustrating and ineffective group decision-making processes in NVC communities over the years, and I believe I know why: NVC is not necessarily an effective approach for making decisions!

In fact, it can be downright oppressive, as well as exasperating!

What I am leaning toward now is finding other, effective models for decision-making and governance, and INFUSING them with NVC consciousness; in other words, making them more powerful by integrating NVC skills within them to create synergy.

For instance, I really like most aspects of Sociocracy, the decision-making model that was originated in Holland and recently has begun being used in North America.

Sociocracy, as far as I can tell, has clear, specific processes for including everyone, gathering input, and making decisions that everyone can live with, and giving a timeline for how long the group will try out the decision before it re-evaluates it.

The goal, thank God, is not to continue processing until each person present feels comfortable and happy and totally at peace with a decision. That is nearly impossible and hardly ever happens!

I have noticed a tendency in NVC group processes to emphasize empathy more than I enjoy, so much so that is impedes the progress of a group. I like it better when individuals find ways to meet their own needs for empathy, and/or the group finds ways to build in empathy in a way that does not send the group process into a quagmire.

Does NVC lead to endless, drawn-out discussions that go nowhere?

Recently, my friend Sean from Columbus, Ohio posted this message to an online group that I created for Compassionate Communication of Central Ohio (CCCO).

Sean and I were friends in the 1990s and we were both part of the Student Environmental Action Coalition and involved in environmental activism.

Here is what Sean wrote:

> SEAN: OK, Jeff- I'm joining this group, bringing a communication degree, 20 years of non profit work, and a nagging skepticism born of frustrations with dysfunctional communication patterns in the non profit community. In my experience, communication processes in leftist/consensus communities are inefficient and too easily manipulated by minority interests in group settings- and they USUALLY only work when when everyone is on the same page, which is rare. Convince me that there's a different way.




And my response:

JEFF: Sean, I hear what sounds like a lot of frustration about communication in the nonprofit community, and you're a bit skeptical about this work, concerned that it's just "more of the same"... yes?

My experience is similar -- too many drawn-out meetings where little gets accomplished, other than people stimulating and irritating each other... and then what we're left with is either to engage in endless dialogue, or else the people who have power to make decisions just make them, despite a lack of cohesiveness in the group. Sound familiar?

After 5 years of activism, I burned out on this kind of thing, myself. I felt hopeless and discouraged, to say the least.

When I was exposed to NVC, it rocked my world. It showed me how to "cut to the chase" and express myself authentically and effectively, and to further connection and mutual understanding.

NVC (Nonviolent Communication, the formal name for this process) is not an imperative to dialogue endlessly, nor is it a rehashed version of consensus.

It's more a set of principles and skills that we use to track what's important to us in the moment -- something in NVC we refer to as, "human needs."

We trust that when we can be aware of, and connected with, our own and others needs in each moment, things will flow and we'll move forward in fulfilling everyone's needs.

Let me clarify what we mean by needs in NVC: universal qualities that live in each human being, regardless of race, class, gender, time or place. Things that we all yearn for and move toward, like security. Community. Meaning and purpose. Growth. Love. Affection. Rest.

The idea is that anyone who shows up at a meeting, or gets involved in your organization, is doing so in order to fulfill or experience their own needs. And the more you can be aware of those needs, and communicate your understanding of the needs, the more likely those needs can be met with effective strategies.

Likewise, the more you can be aware of YOUR OWN needs in a given situation, the more likely you are to be able to communicate those needs powerfully and effectively, and again suggest effective strategies that get all the needs met.

So, there is no imperative in NVC to talk and talk and talk endlessly -- instead, we operate with a moment-by-moment needs awareness, that guides us in how to respond.

Having said that, however, using the communication principles of NVC greatly increases the likelihood that whatever words we DO use, will be received and understood by others.

For me, NVC is not a rehashed version of dozens of "effective communication" methods circulating out in the world. Rather, it's a profound paradigm shift, something that enables me to speak from my heart, listen with deep empathy, and move beyond all of the endless babbling that ordinarily takes place in group communication.

I'll pause here because I want to stay connected with you in this. How is this for you to hear? What comes up in you reading all of this?

How does Nonviolent Communication (NVC) differ from other types of conflict resolution?

What makes Nonviolent Communication (NVC) unique?

Many people point to the inclusion of universal human needs as a way of identifying the deeper source of our feelings, whereas many systems point only to our thinking as what causes our feelings.



I agree, and I was intrigued several years ago when I came across a chart developed by Bay Area Nonviolent Communication (Bay NVC) that compared and contrasted NVC with conventional conflict resolution.

First of all, let me say that I regard NVC as much, much more than a method for conflict resolution. I see it as a set of principles to live by -- a system that provides an orientation from which to live, in order to fulfill my purpose for being on the planet.

Included within the NVC toolbox are communication skills that, yes, help us to resolve and transform conflict into connection.

And so, here are the, "Unique Features of NVC," again inspired by Bay NVC and expanded by me and a few others:


Unique features of Compassionate Nonviolent Communication (NVC)

OBJECTIVE:

Conventional Conflict Resolution: Compromise, find common ground, problem solve, and “agree to disagree.”

Nonviolent Communication: Mutual understanding, equally valuing everyone’s needs, and searching for a solution that works for everyone involved.


COMPONENTS:

Conventional Conflict Resolution: Observations (often mixed with evaluations), feelings, requests (usually does not identify human needs).

Nonviolent Communication: Observations, feelings, needs, and requests (emphasizing the deeper, human needs).


REQUESTS:

Conventional Conflict Resolution: Often vague and wide-ranging. Sometimes come in the form of demands.

Nonviolent Communication: Specific, present, doable. An invitation for others to joyfully contribute to our well-being, without obligation, expectation or demand.


SELF-RESPONSIBILITY:

Conventional Conflict Resolution: I-statements: Use of “I” acknowledges my feelings, but the identified cause of my feelings may remain you. Example: “I feel upset because you _________”

Nonviolent Communication: Double I-statements: Feelings linked to needs acknow- ledges responsibility for the source of feelings. Example: “I feel upset because of my need for consideration.”


FOCUS:

Conventional Conflict Resolution: Intellectual. Expressing our point of view, and understanding the other’s point of view.

Nonviolent Communication: Connection. Expressing our feelings and needs, and receiving other people’s feelings and needs.


PITFALLS:

Conventional Conflict Resolution: Even when immediate issues are resolved, underlying causes are often not addressed and transformed. Moving too quickly to settlement before establishing mutual understanding.

Nonviolent Communication: May be more challenging in situations where acknowledging feelings and needs is not the norm. May take more time and energy due to some people’s fear of vulnerability.


PREMISES:

Conventional Conflict Resolution: It’s in everyone’s best interest to find common ground with others in conflict situations. People in conflict are capable of resolving their own conflicts, sometimes with assistance from a third party.

Nonviolent Communication: Human needs are universal and never in conflict. All human actions are attempts to meet needs. It is possible for everyone’s needs to be satisfied through compassionate giving. Each of us is responsible for meeting our own needs.