The "N-word" from NVC consciousness: YouTube video

I recently discovered this YouTube video of an African-American man talking about the N-word.



It is an African-American man with the screen name, "NLP NVC" who talks about
how he responds to the "N-word."

I was moved by this, and struck by the congruency with NVC consciousness he
talks with. I wonder if he's studied NVC?

Click here to view the video in another window if you cannot view it above.

What ARE the principles of NVC?

Recently, I have noticed myself making reference to the "principles and practices of Compassionate Communication (a.k.a. "NVC")."

The practices of NVC are pretty clear to me -- the three modes of communication being honesty, empathy and self-empathy, within which we utilize 4 ingredients: observation, feeling, need and request.

The principles of NVC are less accessible to me, so I am getting clarity for myself what I mean when I refer to the principles of NVC.

I came across a handout from Bay NVC (www.baynvc.org) that describes these principles in a way that I like:

--

Nonviolent Communication is based on the premises that:

1. We are all trying to get our needs met.

2. We fare better if we know how to get these needs met in a cooperative, rather than an aggressive way.

3. Each of us has remarkable inner resources we can use if we are given empathy to get in touch with them.

4. People naturally enjoy contributing to the well being of others when they can do so without any element of coercion.

5. Each of us is responsible for our actions and for how we respond to what others do or say.

6. Some forms of thinking and speaking tend to disconnect us from the life within ourselves and others, whereas other forms enable us to remain connected with life.

--

I would enjoy dialogue and exploration of these ideas.

Do you resonate with these principles, as outlined by Bay NVC?

Would you add any others?

The Connecting Power of Authentic Expression

I continue to be amazed by the power of honest, caring self-expression.

I can hardly believe how empowering and energizing it was to express my honesty to a person in an NVC organization I am a part of, in front a group of 20 people, no less.

More than 24 hours later, I continue to feel jazzed.

Here's what happened: I was part of a daylong meeting, during which one of the participants and I had an exchange where we both experienced distress and dissatisfaction.

We completed our tasks early, and the facilitator of our meeting (a consultant) suggested that we spend the final hour practicing a new clearing process that I have been developing that combines things I've learned in the Mankind Project with NVC.

After doing some heavy-duty self-empathy -- and receiving empathy on a break from another participant -- I passionately expressed how I felt about the person's actions, along with the qualities in relationships that really matter to me (i.e. my needs).

We had a dialogue over the course of 5 or 10 minutes (again, in front of the group), and it was of secondary importance how the person responded and how it ended -- I had proactively expressed my truth to the person, with the rest of the group as my witness, and wow that feels great!

NVC and Decision Making (by Miki Kashtan)

I have been gnawing on the whole concept of NVC and decision-making recently, and I came across and article written by fellow NVC Certified Trainer, Miki Kashtan, titled, "Maximizing Willingness: Facilitating Efficiency in Collaborative Decision-Making."




Miki is one of the co-founders of Bay NVC and is an instructor in their annual Leadership Program, where I understand they teach and practice these principles for decision-making.

To read the full article, click here.

Here is an excerpt:

Why Collaborative Decision-Making?

The principle of including people in decision-making can often be a hard sell because most people don’t have successful experiences combining inclusivity with efficiency. If one person makes the decision, or a management team, or a majority vote, as the case may be, the process appears faster and more efficient, qualities highly sought after in the high-speed environment of modern workplaces in particular.

In my experience, however, such shortcuts can be costly later. Including needs and perspectives of all parties affected by the decision is not just about making the care for everyone visible. It’s also about effectiveness, and about leaders and decision-makers having access to information critical to the success of whatever strategy they want to implement.

When it comes to implementation, suddenly there can be a gap, a problem, an issue that is blocking the implementation. Often it’s delayed because people are afraid to speak for fear of consequences, or are discouraged about being heard, or don’t trust their needs and perspectives matter...

Breathing Life into my NVC work -- NVC and Abundance

I am copying here a recent email I sent to the "Nonviolent Communication and Abundance Project" that I co-founded with fellow NVC trainer, Francois Beausoleil.



It's about a topic that has a lot of juice for me lately -- how does the notion of abundance and sufficiency relate to Compassionate Communication.

Some questions that have come alive in me:

Q: Can I be in integrity receiving money in exchange for sharing NVC?

Q: Are NVC and Abundance Consciousness in harmony? Are they the same thing?


I want to share with you the single most effective "Key to Success" I have found in creating an abundant income for myself sharing NVC:

** Breathing Life into events that I organize **

WHAT DO I MEAN BY "BREATHING LIFE" INTO AN EVENT?

I hold events as though they are living organisms that require care and nurturing, much like a puppy dog requires nurturing from its mother, or human baby needs nurturing from his or her caregivers.

Too often, I perceive that facilitators and organizers "go through the motions" of organizing and promoting an event -- reserving a room, writing an email, hanging up a few fliers -- however if the event was a living organism, it would be on life support.

The event seems like it's hanging out in thin air, just waiting for someone -- anyone -- to \ breathe life / into it.

Although this might sound ambiguous, my objective is to bring the event to life, so that it becomes a living organism.

In other words, I BREATHE LIFE into the event. The way I think about it, the way I talk about it, and the way I feel inside myself about it is FULLY ALIVE.

When I do this, an amazing thing happens -- people show up.

They show up with curiosity; they show up with intrigue; and most of all, they arrive ready to learn and integrate what I have to offer.


MY QUESTION FOR YOU:

So my question to you is this: Are you willing to think the thoughts, feel the feelings, and take the actions necessary to create your work so that it's a living organism?

Are you willing to "breathe life" into your work in such a way that it comes alive and becomes an attractive force for others to join with you?

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.

Jeff interviewed for radio program

A few weeks ago, I met Mitchell Dahood at a Nonviolent Communication (NVC) conference in Santa Barbara, CA. We found that we shared similar life missions, and he subsequently interviewed me for one hour and uploaded the interview on his website.

Click here to listen to the interview (or download it)



In the interview, we cover a broad range of topics that I predict you'll find interesting and stimulating.

Jeff spoke at Divine Science church service in St. Louis

This morning I gave the "sermon" at the Center for Divine Love in St. Louis, Missouri, and my talk was titled, "Speak Peace and Change Your World." The topic would more aptly have been described as, "Adventures in Honesty," which is the name of the presentation I will be giving in a couple of weeks at a free Nonviolent Communication (NVC) conference in Santa Barbara, CA.



I spoke about how expressing my truth to others generates energy that enables me to respond with a lot more empathy toward them than if I had not expressed myself.

Let me say more about this...

When I withhold my honesty from other people, it creates a constriction or contraction inside of me. In addition to building resentment, I experience a decrease in my life energy because some of it is tied up by attending to this unexpressed honesty that is wanting to come out.

So when I withhold, I have LESS energy available to be empathic (compassionate understanding) toward others.

On the other hand, when I am willing to be authentic and share my truth, I experience an INCREASE in my life energy which enables me to have a lot more compassion toward others... and this comes in handy, of course, immediately after I express myself to others, because when I express my pain to others, often they are triggered into some form of discomfort.

I spoke about the likely consequences of withholding my truth from others: resentment, anger, depression and hopelessness. And the likely consequences of sharing my truth with others: temporary discomfort, long-term intimacy, trust and integrity.

When the rubber meets the road -- NVC consciousness in the face of violence

Last night, I had the opportunity to "test" (so to speak) how deeply Nonviolent Communication (NVC) consciousness had seeped into my veins, thanks to a traumatic experience.

I was robbed at gunpoint around midnight, in front of my home in St. Louis, MO. Just returning from facilitating a weekend of NVC trainings in Madison, WI -- and 8 hours of driving -- and was unloading my car when I stood up to see a gun pointed in my face.

There were two young men I would guess were around 20 years old, one of whom was staring me down behind the barrel of a handgun and ordering me to give him my money.

I didn't have any time to respond by running, and I certainly didn't want to fight the guy for fear of my safety (and his), so I told them to take whatever they wanted.

Strangely, all they took was my cell phone and car keys to the rental car I was driving, leaving me with my wallet and laptop computer. The young man with the gun ordered me to run down the street the other direction, and when I returned 5 minutes later, they hadn't taken the car, either (in spite of having the keys).

I'm very thankful the young men didn't seem to have any desire to hurt me, as I was totally unharmed physically.

In any event, mostly what I want to share is my internal process related to this event.

When it was happening, it was like time was suspended. I was very calm, considering the circumstances. When I ran away, I jogged calmly away.

20 hours later, I have not noticed any desire for retaliation or revenge. Interesting to notice this.

I have had several moments of surging adrenaline today, looking around to see if anyone was preparing to jump me.

During one of these moments, I did have thoughts that if these guys jumped me again, I would fight back and attempt to beat them to a pulp. Hmmm... I wonder if this is more protective or punitive.

Perhaps it's a hidden desire for revenge, masquerading as protective use of force -- in that I could "justify" beating the men if they attacked me again.

Mostly, I think it's a desire for my own safety, and doing whatever necessary to preserve that... including using whatever force I can muster.

--

Knowing my age-old tendency to overlook or gloss over traumatic experiences, I set an intention today to be fully present with whatever feelings came up. This evening -- about 16 hours after the event -- I began feeling very tearful, so I went to a safe place and allowed myself to shake and cry and emote.

I know from past experience that if unexpressed, these traumas can become stuck in my body as "kinks" of physical/emotional energy, and that would not be healthy for me.

So I even exaggerated the shaking and crying and felt a release come after a few minutes. I sense there is still more to come, however I'm on a healthy path to coming to terms on all levels with the experience.

--

On the whole, I am most struck by an absence of any desire to punish these young men. I hope, if they are caught -- which I hope they are -- that they somehow receive the support and attention they need that I believe they have not gotten so far in their lives.

I am hopeful, but not confident about this, as they say. Hopeful because I have seen real-life examples of when people who commit crimes or take actions that harm others can see with empathy the impact of their actions on the other person, a major transformation can take place.

I pray for something akin to the 3-step process of reconciliation that I learned from Marshall Rosenberg, founder of NVC. That somehow, we all get into a room together and experience empathy, mourning and honesty.

Namely, that they can come to see the impact of their actions on me, and on themselves; that they can mourn that what they did violated some precious values of THEIRS (not necessarily of mine, but theirs) such as dignity, caring, or respect; and that they could express honestly the reasons why they did it, in the form of what human needs they were trying to fulfill... and that I could hear that with empathy.

So as the rubber hits the road, I can see that 10 years of diligent practice in Compassionate Communication has DEFINITELY altered my internal reaction and process around this.

Carl Rogers, mentor to Marshall Rosenberg

I am fascinated by the presence and genuineness of Dr. Carl Rogers, the psychotherapist who Marshall Rosenberg studied under as a doctoral student at the University of Wisconsin in the 1960s.

When I was a graduate student in 2006 earning a degree in counseling psychology, we watched a video of Rogers working with a client as part of a groundbreaking film called, "Approaches to Psychotherapy" (1965).

Here is the 30-minute segment of Rogers working with the client, embodying empathy, congruence and prizing, the 3 components that Rogers taught were the important elements of relating to others.

You can click on the 5 links below to bring up each part of the session:

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

Punishments vs. Consequences: Is there a difference?

Last week, I trained a group of about 30 people who are employed by a medium-sized business in the skills of Compassionate Communication.

One of the participants asked a question while I was sharing various forms of conflict-inducing communication, namely making demands and threatening to punish people if they don't do what we want:



"How do you apply NVC in a workplace situation when you are the boss and you need to get certain tasks accomplished?"

The distinction I drew was between punishment and consequences, although I admit I didn't answer the question with as much clarity as I would have liked.

Here is the way I see it:

PUNISHMENT: If I want to get someone to do something, I threaten to punish them if they don't, either explicitly or implicitly. For example, if they don't do what I ask then I will blame them, lay a guilt trip on them, label them (irresponsible, inconsiderate, insubordinate, etc.) or use some other such alienating response in an attempt to induce them to do it. The focus is on getting the person to obey me.

CONSEQUENCES: I make it clear to a person the need behind my request, and tell them that if they act in a certain way (or fail to act in a certain way), then I will respond in a certain way. I do this without any idea in my mind that they are bad, wrong, inappropriate or otherwise if they don't do it.

I reveal to the person why this is important to me (i.e the needs that are motivating me), and even engage their creativity to show me some other way I could get my needs met, that would be even better for them at the same time.

The focus, rather than being on getting the person to obey me, is on getting my underlying need(s) met.

--

To me, the key differences are:

1) My Objective: With punishment, it's to intimidate the person into doing what I want, and if they don't, make them suffer for their actions; with consequences, it is to get my needs met.

2) My Strategies: The threat of punishment is one strategy, whereas an alternate strategy that can go along with consequences is to invite the person to tell me if they have any ideas of how I could get me needs met in the situation.

--

I welcome clarification and conversation about this point. I believe I could be a little bit clearer inside myself and a great deal clearer about how to express it. Any ideas?

When Empathy might not be the most Life-Serving Response

Frequently when I am teaching people empathy skills and practice, I get a question that sounds something like this:

"How could you just stand there and talk with the person endlessly if they ______," and then the person fills in the blank with any number of scenarios.



This illuminates how empathy -- whether done silently or out loud -- is actually NOT the preferred response in certain situations. So, as valuable and life-giving as empathy can be, I invite you to consider ditching empathy in the following situations and trying the alternative:

-----


SITUATION: You notice resentment or irritation when you imagine offering your empathic presence to another.

ALTERNATIVE RESPONSE: Remind yourself that the only way that empathy connects is when the listener is acting out of the joy of giving, and is meeting his or her own needs by offering the empathic presence. In other words, empathy is not a commodity that we “dole out,” but rather a compassionate embrace of the other that enriches our life.


SITUATION: You are too upset or triggered in that moment to genuinely offer your empathic presence.

ALTERNATIVE RESPONSE: Take a time out. Take a deep breath. Shine the light of empathy on yourself (“self-empathy”). Connect with your own feelings, needs and requests, and/or ask another person (not the person who triggered you) you trust to listen to you with empathy.


SITUATION: When you want to share your own truth with the person.

ALTERNATIVE RESPONSE: Express yourself honestly to them. This sometimes involves “Screaming Compassionately,” as in, “I am overwhelmed and needing to take care of myself, and I am not able to hear you right now! Can we talk again after dinner?”


SITUATION: The other person has a need that is more alive than empathy, such as information, clarity or honesty.

ALTERNATIVE RESPONSE: Tune in to the person’s present-moment need(s), and respond accordingly… rather than defaulting to or assuming that empathy is always the primary need. It can be extremely irritating to receive empathy – particularly the verbal reflection of feelings and needs – when another need is alive.


SITUATION: You fear for your physical safety or security.

ALTERNATIVE RESPONSE: Get out of there immediately and go to a safe place.


SITUATION: A person is behaving in a physically violent manner, and you believe there is imminent danger to yourself, others, or to the person him or herself.

ALTERNATIVE RESPONSE: Protective use of Force. In an emergency situation, if
you are able to, use force to stop the person from causing harm. Once the person is restrained and safety is restored, be prepared to empathically connect with the person.

Joyful RECEIVING goes along with joyful giving

One of the concepts from Nonviolent Communication (NVC), as I understand it, is that of joyful giving and receiving.

In other words, the most fun and fulfilling way to play the game of life is to contribute to the well being of others, and receive that same giving from others.



I embraced, almost from the beginning of my NVC experience in 1999, the practice of joyful giving (i.e. "contributing to the well being of others."). This brought me great joy, and continues to fuel my mission to share NVC around the globe.

There was only one little catch: I had NOT embraced the process of joyful receiving nearly as much. I continued to diminish the value of my own needs in service to others, often in subtle ways.

For instance, when I traveled to other communities to facilitate an NVC training, I would hesitate to ask to arrive a day early or stay a day late to help me with rest and restoration. Or, I would struggle to ride the local mass transit system rather than asking to get a ride from the airport.

One time, I lugged over 100 pounds of luggage several miles to the natural foods stores, and then walked several more miles to the person's house where I was staying... all because I wanted to contribute to their need for ease! (they were shocked and visibly uncomfortable when I told them what I had done!)

In the past 10 days, I have traveled to two communities to offer NVC training (Washington, DC and Cincinnati, OH), and I have made a big stretch for me -- I asked for help all along the way, and allowed others to "serve" me and meet many of my needs.

For instance, getting rides to and from the airport and bus station; staying two extra nights at someone's house; letting people buy food for me; clean up the room and do paperwork; and so on.

It's somewhat painful allowing this to happen, due to some limiting beliefs I have living inside of me: "Jeff, you SHOULD do your own work yourself... you shouldn't impose yourself on other people. You should take responsibility for yourself; after all, YOU are the one getting paid to do this! Besides, you're just taking advantage of other people's kindness and abusing your power as the workshop presenter..."

Ugh! No wonder I've been reluctant to ask for help in the past! And no wonder every few months I struggle with burnout and exhaustion. Go figure!

My body and mind feels SO relieved to be letting in the joyful receiving -- and actually seeing how others WANT to contribute to my well being, and that I am actually participating in the creation of more joy on the planet by allowing others to do this, when they are genuinely inspired to do so.

When agreements are permeable -- living NVC for real

I recently completed a weekend Nonviolent Communication workshop with my work partner, Myra Walden. We led a 2 1/2 day event titled, "Inner Peace, Inner Freedom" in Sedona, Arizona, which was videotaped.

I am excited to be able to share our work more widely by showing people how to use NVC skills to support healing and inner peace, which are skills that I see becoming more vital all the time in our ever-changing and rapidly evolving world.



In any event, this event has been a most interesting experience for me. There were at least 6 people involved in this event in some way, shape or form, ranging from facilitating, promoting, organizing, videotaping and various other logistics.

And as sometimes happens, there was some major miscommunication, and in some cases lack of communication, that contributed to a whole lot of anxiety, stress and confusion throughout.

Here is the gist: what I understood was happening before, during and after the training was different from how other people understood it would be happening. No need to go into the details, but suffice to say that there were a lot of needs on the table.

So how did I respond, both internally and externally? I had a choice to "enforce" certain agreements and refer back to certain conversations, and insist that those agreements be honored.

Frankly, that didn't feel good to me at all, because through connection, I was moved to see needs of other people involved and I genuinely wanted to contribute to their well being. Furthermore, I came to see that certain actions that I took -- or didn't take in some cases -- contributed to the misunderstanding... so even though I could have chosen to point back to certain emails or phone calls, it felt yucky for me to do that.

Essentially, we started from scratch and "renegotiated" the financial and work arrangements from scratch -- and this after Myra and I had flown there, incurred certain expenses and everything was in motion... most notably the workshop had already begun!

This represents a radical change from how I was taught to operate in our world -- iron-clad agreements that must be adhered to, and if there are not, then some form of consternation or punishment would be the consequence... and probably also severed relationships.

I actually see this often in NVC communities -- various people come together to work on a particular project, and through the course of it, they get triggered and are not able to find the resources to work through the situation, or do not have sufficient supplies of empathy, so the people become alienated and the community breaks down.

I am celebrating that all 6 of us had the wherewithal to "stay with" what was present and alive in the moment, without resorting to the static agreements that were made in the past. True, my needs for predictability and security were not well met at times, but I shifted off those needs to ones that had much more life for me -- namely, mutuality, trust and caring for everyone's needs equally.

Celebration!