For several years, I have been seriously questioning whether Compassionate Nonviolent Communication (NVC) has any value whatsoever in group settings.
As useful as NVC is in interpersonal relationships, and also with my inner relationship with myself ("
intra-personal"), I haven't witnessed much success with applying it to organizations.
Mostly, groups informed by NVC create a zoo-like atmosphere where nothing of value gets accomplished -- neither moving forward with the objectives of the group, nor deepening connection among the people present.
At times, I have concluded that NVC's usefulness is
limited to intrapersonal and interpersonal relationships, and that it's best to confine it there -- and not aggravate groups of people with NVC who are trying to get something accomplished.
I have a new insight that gives me hope that NVC
can be useful in group settings: The work of
Gregg Kendrick, namely clarifying that when groups of people gather, there are new needs that emerge specifically as a result of the group.
I've heard this called the "needs of the whole" or "organizational needs" or as Gregg says, "The WE." In other words, there are three levels in which we can apply NVC:
- I
- You
- We
1.
I: This is my relationship with myself: how I view myself, what my inner talk says to me, and the care with which I hold my own needs.
2.
You: This is my relationship with "you," in other words I am holding my own needs equal to yours, in a dance of mutuality and seeking connection.
3.
We: This is where the group's needs come in, which is more than simply a compilation of the needs each individual comes to the table with, but also needs that emerge specifically from the group's purpose in existing. Gregg calls this the "shared purpose."
It's vital to recognize that there is such a thing as a shared purpose, because it orients the group toward the actions it can take to achieve its goals (stated or unstated).
Furthermore, without a shared purpose, a meeting of the group ends up being merely a group of individuals attempting to have a series of "you" (or interpersonal) exchanges, without holding the needs of the whole in mind while doing so.
This quickly produces aggravation, if not downright ineffectiveness... unless, that is, they have joined the group for the explicit purpose of exploring and practicing interpersonal interactions, in which case the entire purpose of the gathering is to practice communication with each other.
But short of that, and assuming people are in a group to achieve some goals, NVC practiced at a "you" level in a group setting can be downright maddening (and confusing).
Because you see, when people recognize the needs of the "we" -- again, the needs that
only emerge as a result of the shared purpose of the group, and that simply do not exist until and unless an organization is formed -- they create synergy by marshalling their collective energies around the pursuit of a common goal.
Levels of Complexity
The three levels of I, You and We have increasing complexity, and therefore require a greater awareness and higher level of skills as you proceed.
For instance, when learning NVC, the first thing people usually learn is to identify their own needs, and express them as desired. At this level, one needs only pay attention to one set of needs -- their own.
With the "You," it now requires connecting not only with my own needs, but also including and considering another person's needs in real time. Therefore, there are two sets of needs to track, which requires more practice and integration of NVC.
Finally, in the "We," in addition to my own needs (I) and the other person's needs (You), there are multiple parties needs present for me to be aware of (We). And again, there is another set of needs that appears
exclusively as a result of the shared purpose of the group. This is a higher level skill that requires a lot of practice for most people.
And for those people who are at the "You" level of their skill development, if they do not have an understanding of the "We" level, they might even greet it with suspicion or defensiveness if people are attempting to operate at the "We" level in organizations.
For instance, they might say: "But wait a minute! We can't move forward until we've heard from everyone. Plus, I'm in pain about something that another person said, and I need empathy!"
Or, "What good is it to say that we're an NVC organization if we can't even live it within our own community?" (with the underlying assumption being that living NVC in community means that we halt progress at the slightest indication that someone is in pain, direct all of our available resources to giving them empathy, and not moving forward until everyone is absolutely and 100% calm and peaceful inside themselves... which is an idealized state that will virtually never happen!)
