Non-Violent Communication

We live today in a time unlike any other. Social media and smart technology has transformed how we communicate with each other. Never in human history have we communicated with each other so frequently yet so remotely via so many platforms all designed to promote short, declarative statements. In fact, we know that social media algorithms are designed to upvote divisive, angry posts. No wonder we find ourselves in wading through so much conflict. 

In fact, when we hear something we don’t like or receive communication we find upsetting, or read a post we find offensive our first instinct now is to either share, shout, block and unfriend. Sharing and shouting only increases our stress. Blocking and unfriending may remove the upsetting or offensive content from our feeds but it does not help us learn how to resolve conflicts nor does it help us learn how to develop personal resilience. And it certainly does not help us learn how to build trust with each other. 

Today we are all connected, but we cannot hear each other and this is making us feel more isolated and alone than ever before. What if we could find a way to better connect? What if we could find a way to hear each other through our communication? It would bring us together and significantly improve our happiness.

So let’s start with the most important principle of all. If we ever find ourselves in an online conversation that starts to turn towards conflict, we need to de-escalate the situation. This means we must do our best to avoid knee-jerk responses. We should also do our best to avoid using all caps or underlined text. We also need to get offline as soon as we can and have a face to face conversation. When we’re face to face we communicate far more effectively than we do online because through tone and visual cues we can build empathy and understanding with each other. When face to face we can learn to trust each other. 

However, we still make plenty of mistakes in face to face conversations. The psychologist Marshall Rosenberg asked why it is that so many of our conversations devolve into conflicts and why do so many of our conflicts become intractable? 

Rosenberg argued that we become too focused on the words people use and fail to see the needs that lay beyond those words. And so he developed the principles of nonviolent communication, also known as compassionate communication, to help us move away from the idea of zero sum conflict resolution, in which conflicts are ‘resolved’ through someone winning and someone losing. Instead, we need to start thinking about resolving our conflicts in a way in which everyone wins. 

Nonviolent communication argues that human beings all experience the same universal feelings and that those feelings are based on the same universal needs, such as safety, creativity, community, honesty, meaning and autonomy. Moreover, these feelings and needs are connected. So if we feel happy and energised it is because one or more of our needs are being met. However, if we feel sad or depressed it is because one or more of our needs are failing to be met. 

According to the principles of nonviolent conversation, if we can empathise and cooperate with each other we can devise a strategy to resolve the conflict together. 

To do this we need to observe the situation we find ourselves in, acknowledge the feelings of those in the situation with us, understand the needs motivating those feelings, and then make a genuine request so as to enlist the voluntary help of the other person to resolve the situation.   

But this isn’t how we usually behave in conflicts. There are two responses that we might recognise as typical.

• External Judgement. This is where we blame others for the conflict

Let’s look at an example.

1. Situation: You have a collaborative project at school and you schedule a meeting to discuss your progress only to find out at the meeting that your partner has not done the work

2. External judgement: You may respond by calling that person lazy and irresponsible

3. Outcome: They feel hurt, or they call you names back, or they storm out

4. Result: The conflict has not been resolved 

• Internal Judgement. This is where we blame ourselves for the conflict

Let’s look at an example.

1. Situation: You had a collaborative project at school and you schedule a meeting to discuss your progress only to find out at the meeting that your partner has not done the work

2. Internal judgement: You may respond by thinking this situation is all your fault. You didn’t give clear enough instructions or you should have picked a different partner

3. Outcome: You feel hurt, angry, self-loathing, frustrated 

4. Result: The conflict has not been resolved

Nonviolent communication asks us to be more empathetic, both to yourself and to others. It also asks us to be brave enough to be vulnerable. 

Let’s look at an example.

1. Self-Empathy

   
   

   1. Situation: my partner did not complete their work

   2. Your Feeling: I’m feeling frustrated and hurt

   3. Your Need: I need to feel less anxious about this assignment. I need to feel like our working relationship is meaningful

   4. Request: Can I ask you to catch up on the work tonight so we can reschedule our meeting for tomorrow?
      
      

Let’s put it into a sentence you can say to your partner:

“I’m feeling let down because I need to feel less anxious about this assignment and I want our partnership to really work. Can I ask you to catch up on the work tonight so we can reschedule our meeting for tomorrow?”

You can see here that by sharing how you feel and expressing your need you have created conditions for your partner to empathise with you, which increases the chance that they will agree to your request, change strategy and therefore resolve the conflict.

It is crucial that when you make your request that you are comfortable with hearing a no. If you cannot tolerate hearing a no, you have not made a request but a demand. As soon as we make demands of others we create a negative power dynamic and we end up back in external judgement. 

So what can we do if we hear a no? Well, we need to shift strategy. Only you can devise a strategy for fulfilling a need you have. And we must not get stuck with using only one strategy. When we get stuck with just one or two strategies we end up back in external or internal judgement.

One change of strategy you could use is to switch from focusing on your needs exclusively to empathising with the needs of others. 

Let’s look at an example.

1. Empathy With Others

   1. Situation: my partner did not complete their work

   2. Their Feeling: They are feeling frustrated, defensive, and embarrassed

   3. Their Need: They need more support to complete the work

   4. Request: Do you need extra time or resources to get this finished? 

Let’s put this into a sentence you can use with your partner:

“It looks like you're feeling upset about the work. I wonder, do you feel that you need more support to complete it. Would you like some extra time or resources to get this finished?” 

Now, because it's a request it is possible that they will say no. In which case, shift strategies again. 

Why not try the following:

Ask them, how do you feel? 

Ask them, what do you need? 

Ask them, what would you like me to do?

Of course, if you keep hitting a wall of resistance go seek support and advice from a mentor.

However, if we focus on needs not words, if we reach out with empathy, if we show our vulnerability, if we make requests not demands and if we show a willingness to shift our strategies we build trust, we reduce tension and develop resilience. And most likely we'll find a win win solution together.

In these pandemic times, when we are physically distanced and communicating behind masks, it has become increasingly difficult, tiring and anxiety-inducing for teachers and students to effectively convey what we mean to each other. Sign language may be able to help us. By using a short, common sign language vocabulary we can add clarity and reduce confusion apropos some of our daily communication needs. In addition, sign language might help us to build rapport and generate empathy. After all, no matter how tough communication is for us in this moment, it is significantly more challenging for those that are hard of hearing. 

We can also use non-violent communication principles when working in large groups experiencing conflict. One excellent protocol is a Town Hall meeting. You may have heard the term before. If so, you might have an image in your head of a large group of people yelling at each other or someone in authority. Let’s try to reimagine what it can be.

Imagine that there is an issue your school, college or community needs to discuss. It could be a run of the mill issue or something really meaningful. This kind of Town Hall meeting works for both types. Bring everyone together and have a small group moderate the meeting. This means you’ll likely need one person to chair, one person to monitor the time and perhaps another to pay attention to the audience noting who wants to speak and so on.

Explain the process at the start of the meeting so everyone is clear on the protocol. This will allow you to remind people later if emotions get the better of anyone. So what does the protocol look like? The first stage is called Statements on the Issue. In this phase, you allow a handful of individuals to present the issue up for discussion. Make clear that we are only putting the problem on the table: we’re not judging it. The second stage is called Clarifying Questions. In this phase people can ask questions of those who made statements. The questions are only designed to make sure everyone understands the issue. This enables everyone to speak the same language about the same thing.

The third stage is called Thoughts and Feelings on the Issue. In this phase people can share their concerns, hopes, worries and so on. Having worked through the first two stages should allow this stage to be sincere without devolving into argument. Make sure that there is no cross talk and importantly no direct replies. This stage is all about hearing the concerns of others not blame or recrimination. The fourth stage is called Potential Solutions. In this phase anyone can put on the table ideas to resolve the issue at hand. Once again, it is important that the conversation does not devolve into judging those potential solutions. This phase is about ideating potential solutions not landing upon the right or best one immediately.

The final stage is called Common Agreements. This phase is about reaching a consensus about what to do next. It might be that you could vote on the ideas presented in Potential Solutions. It might be that a consensus is formed to do more research into the issue. Here a group could be formed to do that research and feedback. Or it could be that the consensus is to revisit the topic at the next meeting. You may or may not resolve the issue by the end of the meeting. However, you will have made sure that the problem has been identified, that all parties have been heard and understood, that no one has felt attacked and that the meeting ends with some form of unity and a sense of a future direction of travel.

Spend twenty minutes journaling about a time you found yourself stuck in a situation where you used external or internal judgements. What happened? How did you feel? What need was not being met? Imagine that you used one of the nonviolent communication approaches instead. What would have happened? How would things have been different?