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.
4 comments:
Jeff-
If you haven't read it already I recommend that you look at a business book called Crucial Conversations. Obviously, it is focused on business issues but spends a fair amount of time discussing decision making in a group context that would be applicable to almost any group.
I agree, nvc supports intra and interpersonal clarity and authenticity; other processes will assist group idea generation and decision-making. NVC groups, I find, sometimes do not access their analytical and critical thinking skills to support making a decision the group can endorse.
Especially like the tools and processes of what was originally Total Quality and is now Six Sigma; these techniques, if used with consciousness and values of participation and contribution, assist clarity, order and efficiency (using our resources to achieve our goal). A good intro is "The Memory Jogger" by Michael Brassard and Diane Ritter.
IMO it's time to recognize both the strengths and best use of nvc, and incorporate some other processes.
Jeff it's Kathleen here, this is my blog name!
Hi Kathleen, thanks for responding! And thanks for the recommendation, Weston -- I've heard many positive words about that book and will check it out further.
-Jeff
I too have been frustrated using NVC as a decision-making process. So I've been on the warpath to find something both efficient and heart connecting.
I've studied Dynamic Facilitation with Jim Rough, Skilled Facilitation with Roger Schwarz, Participatory Decision-Making with Sam Kaner and of course Sociocracy with Jim Buck.
In spending more than a week with Roger, he never once stepped out of NVC consciousness, though he's never heard of it before. He uses an efficient, rigorous process to check out assumptions, including assumptions about feelings and needs.
Dynamic Facilitation allows conversations to emerge - groups naturally move through three stages on their own without the facilitator cajoling or pushing them through steps of a process. The three stages of Dynamic Facilitation are:
1. Purging: sharing what we already know
2. Transition: feeling discomfort at not knowing what to do with all that’s been said
3. Excitement: sensing creative possibilities emerging
I found it a deep transformative process, especially suited to tackling huge issues.
Kaner advocates for naming it when the group is going through the groan zone, (a natural, necessary phase of confusion and chaos that leads to fresh ideas. I think he's got a handle on integrating multiple facilitation skills.
Sociocraccy takes the prize for both efficiency and inclusion, but it's not my favorite for building heart connection. However, I use a form of it - Holacracy - in orgs where efficiency is king because Brian Robertson has a well-written article that I ask people to read before we begin. http://www.holacracy.org/downloads/HolacracyIntro2007-06.pdf
Which brings me to my point - I don't yet have a favorite decision-making process. In fact, this journey has left me with tender compassion for benevolent dictators who take all the needs into account and then choose the direction that looks most promising.
I'm still out there looking which is actually a lot of fun for me. I'd love to know what others have found! - Martha Lasley
Post a Comment