Category Archives: Alternative approaches

Parallels between Nonviolent Communication and Gestalt

Alternative approaches, Coaching, ,

Last week I met with Marion Gillie, who brings a background in business psychology to her work as a coach, consultant and coaching supervisor, including a good dose of Gestalt.

As it happens, I have been discussing Gestalt with my friend and colleague Len Williamson and wondering about any connections between Gestalt and Nonviolent Communication. Len is ahead of me with his reading – he has just finished reading Marshal Rosenberg’s Nonviolent Communication: A Language for Life and I have yet to read his recommended text on Gestalt, Gestalt Therapy Integrated: Contours of Theory and Practice by Erving & Miriam Polster.

I am curious to receive Len’s initial thoughts on parallels between the two. He writes:

I am struck by the parallels between Gestalt and NVC. Both start with description. In Gestalt you cannot see that someone is happy you can only describe their physical features and describe what ‘is’. You must accept they may be happy, sad or something else and if you want to know which then you must ask them. There can be no judgement. In NVC there is non judgemental observation and description of what is taking place in a situation. In both approaches this one step is immensely powerful to help relationships between people.

In Gestalt there is scanning of yourself to notice your sensing, meaning making, intuition and emotions. Noticing the distinctions of each brings richness to the experience you are having and gives insight for any situation you are in. NVC considers what we feel in relation to what we observe and again applies non judgemental description. Insight arises from what our feelings are telling us through this form of description. Both approaches bring the power of recognising what our emotions are telling us.

NVC then moves to understand what needs are creating our feelings. Gestalt works hard to help someone describe very precisely what they want. Sounds easy but it is often surprising what we find out when we look closely at this question. Wars are started, relationships broken and extreme violence often occur around misunderstandings of wants, desires and needs. Immense healing is available with powerful use of this process.

The final move in NVC is in the request we make to enrich our lives. Built from non judgemental descriptions of observation, feeling and wants there is always a request that can be constructed that is nonviolent in nature and positively moves the world forward. In Gestalt seeking to complete what is incomplete is a possible parallel. Helping people finish the most troubling piece of unfinished business enables people to grow and move on to something new.

Thanks to Dorothy for drawing me in to explore NVC. I welcome thoughts from others on these powerful ways of being in the world.

As I read Len’s words I think of how Rosenberg trained as a psychiatrist and came to view the diagnoses and judgements he made in this role as “professional jackal” – if you like, judgements like any other, judgements that block compassionate communication between human beings.

I’m not sure what understanding (if any) he has of Gestalt. I know he studied with Carl Rogers. I know he was inspired by George Miller and George Albee to think about how he might “give psychology away”.

Nonviolent communication is designed to be easy to understand and to practice (even though practitioners find it has challenges and depths which are not immediately obvious).

Perhaps the last word belongs with Marion, for something she says during our meeting resonates for me: that coaches, whether clinically trained or not, need to be psychologically minded. Sometimes the coaching supervisor’s role with those who are not is to help them to develop this interest and capability.

Restorative Justice – what’s this got to do with work?

All articles, Alternative approaches,

Yesterday I shared some links to Dominic Barter’s work in the field of Restorative Justice. This is something which is both dear to my heart and a long way away from the experience of many of my clients in the workplace. Today I thought I’d take a moment to make some links.

The phrase Restorative Justice implies that something is broken that needs to be restored. It also implies that some injustice has been done that needs to be rectified. I invite you as you read to ask yourself, are these ideas that I associate with the workplace? No matter where you are and what kind of organisation you work for – even one you have set up yourself – I am guessing that you may recognise these ideas.

How often, for example, do the fragile relationships amongst colleagues in the workplace stand in the way of the kind of conversation that could help them to move beyond some current impasse? What more might be possible if only these relationships were founded in honesty, trust, respect?

And how often do people in the workplace have a sense of injustice? This may be in relation to a particular incident or experience. Or it may be in relation to the ongoing culture and practices of the organisation within which they work or of an individual or individuals within that organisation.

If these thoughts ring true to you, you might like to go back to Dominic’s brief interview entitled “What is restored in Restorative Justice?” In it, Dominic points to what he calls “connection”. This, he says, is the thing that is broken and which Restorative Justice seeks to restore. To what does he refer? Some call it communication, relationship, rapport. No doubts other terms are also used.

As I share these brief thoughts I wonder, what need there is in your workplace to restore connection? And what means do you and your colleagues have to achieve this? I do not intend to suggest that Restorative Justice is the way to restore relationships in the workplace (thought it might be). At the same time, I do wonder what our work experience might be like if we all had confidence in a process or in our own skilful means to build, maintain and restore relationships with our colleagues.

I wonder what thoughts you have as you read this?

Restorative Justice – the NVC way

All articles, Alternative approaches,

In 2006 I was privileged to hear Dominic Barter talk about his work in the field of Restorative Justice. Dominic, who is based in and works in Brazil, told the story of a baker who, when he learnt that the man who had killed his son when attempting to steal a loaf of bread had no other way to get food that day, was moved to offer the man a job in his bakery. I find it hard to share this story (as I have done many times) without being moved to tears. This is the power of the kind of deep mutual understanding that can come from Restorative Justice.

What is Restorative Justice? Searching the internet I find a source of information at http://www.restorativejustice.org/. This website offers a set of slides which provide background before offering a definition – an invaluable resource for those who are searching for information. In essence (my brief attempt at a definition) Restorative Justice recognises that there is scope to build understanding between the “offender” and his or her “victim” in ways which repair the damage done – hence the term “restorative” – and that this in turn can have a positive, even healing effect across whole communities. Perhaps the most famous example of Restorative Justice is the Truth and Reconciliation process that took place in South Africa after the ending of apartheid.

I think of this when an e-mail lands in my in-tray from a member of the NVC-UK e-group, a group of committed practitioners of Nonviolent Communication. The e-mail, in response to a query, highlights Dominic’s work and provides sources of information which I decide to include here. They are:

As I write I imagine that some of my readers might be asking “what’s this got to do with us in the workplace?” I’d love to read your thoughts here – and share my own tomorrow.

How do you change a thought?

All articles, Alternative approaches,

It’s the end of the day and I find myself responding to a question on the Coaching At Work LinkedIn group – a great forum for coaches. There is already a line of responses to Len Williamson’s provocative question: “How do you change a thought?”

I decide to offer a few thoughts of my own before I close at the end of the day:

I smile when I read you say “I am trained in Gestalt (but still learning so much)”. What a different thought this is if you replace the “but” with an “and”!

What a rich diversity of responses, too. I am so grateful to Coaching At Work for providing this place of exchange as well as to you for asking the question and to everyone who has (and has yet to) respond.

A few random thoughts of my own. NVC (Nonviolent Communication) uses feelings as a route to awareness. Why am I angry, sad etc.? The aim is to connect with underlying needs that are or aren’t being met. Also some emotions (anger, guilt, shame etc.) point to a particular way of thinking – that somebody (self or other) has done something “wrong”. A practitioner of NVC understands that thinking this way gives away our power and limits our options.

Neurolinguistic Programming (NLP) offers all sorts of ways to change one’s thinking – and so it should! Bandler and Grindler and their followers have set out to beg, borrow and steal (a matter of perspective!) the best that’s out there.

As coaches, don’t we ask loads of questions that invite awareness, open up options, facilitate thinking choices – at the “this thought” and “all thoughts” (meta-programme) level?

Maybe the most liberating thought of all is this: that we get to choose what we think and it’s OK to do so.

The purpose of nonviolent communication (3): pure natural giving

All articles, Alternative approaches

In the DVD Making Life Wonderful, in which Marshall Rosenberg teaches a group of adults about nonviolent communication, his third of three statements of purpose goes something like this:

whatever is done is done through pure, natural giving

One way to understand what is meant by “pure natural giving” is to reflect on all the times you have chosen to do things out of a sense of duty or obligation. In the family you may well have rules which have been handed down from generation to generation such that there are things that you do out of some sense of what’s expected rather than because you choose to. In the workplace there may be rules – both written and unwritten – that you follow more or less reluctantly because you “have to”. Pure natural giving, by contrast, is the kind of giving that you do because it meets your need to give. It’s the kind of giving that you do with joy.

The difference is not always in what you give or what you do and what you don’t give or do. No, it might equally be in the awareness that you have that you are indeed choosing to give and that your choice does indeed meet your needs. Pure natural giving comes from this awareness of choosing and of choosing to meet your own needs. Consider the difference, for example, between saying “I have to take John through the disciplinary process because his performance is poor and that’s the rules” and saying any one of the following statements:

  • “I am choosing to take John through the disciplinary process because I’m aware that if I don’t I may open myself up to criticism from my boss. Having this job helps me to meet my needs for security – having a home, food to eat etc. – and I don’t want to put my needs at risk”;
  • “I’ve noticed how other members of the team are beginning to show signs of resenting John in the team and I want to do something about it so that everyone’s needs can be met. Taking John through the disciplinary process is one way of exploring the issue and looking for ways forward”;
  • “Over time I’ve observed how John works hard and still falls short of delivering in his job. I want to contribute to John and I believe that taking him through the disciplinary process will help us to explore what the issue is and to find a way forward so that John can thrive in his work”.

Each statement shows that the speaker acts out of a clear awareness both of choosing to act and of meeting his or her own needs by doing so, including the need to contribute to others.

It may surprise anyone who is not familiar with nonviolent communication (or NVC) to hear that pure natural giving is something we do to meet our own needs. It is not that we give whether or not it meets the needs of others. On the contrary! The practitioner of nonviolent communication understands his or her need to contribute to others and seeks feedback to understand the impact of his or her actions. At the same time, pure natural giving is something we do to meet our need to contribute. It is by acting in service of our own needs that our motive is pure and natural. In this sense the practitioner of NVC is “self-full” rather than selfless or even selfish.

I wonder, how does this land with you?

The purpose of nonviolent communication (2): valuing needs

All articles, Alternative approaches

The second of three statements of purpose of nonviolent communication which Marshall Rosenberg outlines in the DVD Making Life Wonderful goes something like this:

valuing another person’s needs being met as much as we do our own

It’s easy to see the level of challenge this might imply. Even in our most loving and intimate relationships there will be times when it seems impossible to honour another person’s needs without giving up on our own. And that’s before we consider all sorts of relationships we have at home and at work, let alone relationships on a larger scale – between political parties, or nations, or ethnic or religious groups…

Rosenberg is quick to differentiate between needs and the means or “strategy” by which we meet our needs. For whether we are discussing who’s turn it is to do the washing up or mediating between rival countries, a discussion held at the level of strategy is likely to lead to an impasse. Once different parties truly understand each others’ needs, however, it becomes much easier to generate ways in which everybody’s needs can be met. In other words, the challenge is not in finding ways in which everyone’s needs can be met: it’s in reaching a point in time in which everybody’s needs are understood and valued.

It’s easy to see how Rosenberg’s second statement of purpose is connected with the first – the intention to achieve equality of connection, in which we see each other’s humanness, free of enemy images or moralistic judgements. For as long as I see another person (or an organisation, or a country, or, or, or…) through the lense of moralistic judgement, why should I chose to connect with their underlying needs?

Nonviolent communication invites its followers to put aside such judgements and to make the connection with needs (one’s own and those of others) central to communication and a means by which equality of connection is attained.

I wonder, how often do you ask yourself “what needs am I seeking to fulfil right now?” when you are talking with others? And what thoughts do you have as you consider this idea?

The purpose of nonviolent communication (1): connection

All articles, Alternative approaches

Every now and then I take time to watch the videos I have of Marshall Rosenberg working with groups to study nonviolent communication (or NVC). And although I’ve been studying NVC for a few years now and have watched the videos Making Life Wonderful a few times, too, I am struck – in about section 6 of 8 – by Marshall’s description of the purpose of nonviolent communication and decide to share it here.

Marshall’s statement of purpose has three parts and the first part goes something like this:

equality of connection with others in which we see each other’s humanness and are free from enemy images or moralistic judgements

Now, the idea of connecting with others is not new. In my own Christian upbringing I was told to love my neighbour as myself. (What do other faiths say? Please share your thoughts on this from your own faith). In my NLP trainings, which I treasure, Ian McDermott placed great emphasis on rapport, describing it as one of the four pillars of NLP. In other words, if you want to be effective, you have to be able to get on with people.

Even so, it seems to me that this clear statement of NVC purpose goes a step further than any objective we commonly set ourselves in our modern day communication with others, where obeying some common laws of politeness (saying please and thank you, kissing your aunt on the cheek etc.) leaves plenty of room to make judgements or to hold enemy images. Indeed, in a world in which we judge, doesn’t judging others in some way free us from the obligation to be polite?

So, the level of challenge implied in this first statement of NVC purpose is great. Some of us may already harbour the odd grudge against our nearest and dearest – the son we describe as “lazy” or the wife we describe as “nagging”. And that’s before we go any further. Having watched the behaviour, for example, of some members of the audience towards Nick Griffin on the recent BBC Question Time it seemed that some were holding enemy images of Mr. Griffin in their minds – and felt justified in doing so.

Signing up to nonviolent communication means seeking to see beyond an individual’s actions and through to the simple humanity of the individual. It means placing ourselves neither above nor below others. It means seeking to understand even those actions we most abhor. The more committed we are in our practive of NVC, the more we return to this simple – and yet challenging – objective. And yes, that’s our son, or wife or colleague in the workplace. It’s Nick Griffin or any other politician you might care to mention. It’s every man, woman or child who has ever committed an act deemed criminal. The list is long…

I wonder, how does this idea land with you? And are you up for it?

Coaching Groups: Action Learning Sets by another name?

Alternative approaches, Coaching

Whenever I share my thoughts with others, they ask questions I haven’t yet thought of. This is true no matter how long I’ve spent brainstorming the questions I think others might have.

I am grateful for a question I hadn’t considered in relation to Coaching Groups: in what ways are they similar to or different from Action Learning Sets? This question came from Ben Sheath, Training and Development Manager at British Gas and my colleague on the Training Journal Daily Digest. Since I’ve never been a member of an Action Learning Set – at least, not one that has gone by that name – I was not in a strong position to answer the question. Thankfully Ben was able to share a link to an introduction to Action Learning Sets at ActionLearningSets.com and willing to share his own experiences. As I write I am still teasing out the similarities and differences between the two.

The introduction to Action Learning Sets begins by saying “Action Learning is an accelerated learning tool which can be applied to any number of different workplace (and personal) issues and challenges”. So far so similar – a Coaching Group also addresses an agenda set by members of the group. This agenda can be as wide and as deep as members choose. Still, I have a suspicion as I read this first sentence which is confirmed by the article’s second question: “What sort of problems do Set members discuss?” This for me, sets an Action Learning Set apart from a Coaching Group. For whilst an Action Learning Set appears to be problem-focused a Coaching Group is clearly outcome-oriented. That is, members of a Coaching Group come together to establish what goals they would like to pursue and members work with their coach and with each other to pursue their chosen goals. Insofar as the members of a Coaching Group address problems, it is in service of these goals.

What are the implications of this difference? I suspect, though I don’t know for sure, that Coaching Groups hold a bigger picture in their sights than do Action Learning Sets. And when group members are working in pursuit of a goal (rather than seeking to solve a problem) the questions they need to answer are, to a greater degree, about themselves. Whilst the Action Learning Set member may focus on how to re-design a process or to establish dialogue with colleagues in another department, the coaching client is more likely to be asking what beliefs are holding him back or what new way of thinking about a goal is likely to open up new and accelerated progress.

It seems to me that this is a matter of degree. At one end of the spectrum you might have a group that is looking at processes and systems and in which limited introspection is needed. This group is more likely to be called an Action Learning Set (or Quality Circle) than a Coaching Group. At the other end of the spectrum a group might be looking at how to improve behavioural effectiveness (as a leader or coach, for example) and this, to me, implies a willingness to reflect, to build self awareness and to share one’s self with the group. This is the Coaching Group.

One statement jumps out at me from the introduction to Action Learning Sets. This is the statement that Research has found that if a skilled facilitator is present, the Set is more likely to be successful. This is the statement that, for me, unites both approaches. For no matter the name or stated purpose of a group, the facilitator or coach needs to be sensitive to the readiness of group members to engage in learning at varying depths – from the surface “how tos” to deeper exploration of personal needs, values, behaviours and even identity. For me, this implies both clarity at the outset about the purpose and processes of the group and an ongoing dialogue with group members about their readiness to move forward.

My thanks to you, Ben, for helping me to tease out these similarities and differences.

When it’s time to follow your bliss

Alternative approaches, Coaching, Emotional Intelligence, , ,
The power of coaching lies in its invitation to become increasingly conscious of the dreams we hold for our life and to take steps towards the fulfilment of these dreams. Joseph Campbell, author of The Hero With A Thousand Faces and The Power Of Myth, describes the choice to pursue this journey as “following your bliss”. Because coaching sponsors this journey, whether clients are working with “life”, “executive” or any other coaches, they usually report high levels of satisfaction with their experience of coaching.
This is not to suggest that the road we travel when we act to create the life of our dreams is always easy. Often, clients come up against barriers to progress and need to find ways to engage with these barriers and to overcome them. The most insidious of these are clients’ (often hidden) limiting beliefs. Do I have the resources I need to create the life I dream of? Will my loved ones support me – continue to love me, even – if I pursue my dreams? How will people respond if I fail? Will my gain be at others’ expense? The list goes on and on. Perhaps the mother of all hidden beliefs – the belief that underlies the myriad questions we ask ourselves – is the belief that it’s somehow not OK to live the life of our choosing; the belief, if you like, that it is not our lot to be happy and fulfilled in life.
Today I am reminded of this in my work with one of my coaching clients and I promise to pop a quote onto my blog. The quote is from a book by Michael Berg called The Secret: Unlocking The Source Of Joy And Fulfilment. Michael’s family is prominent in sharing the teachings of Kabbalah. Whilst I am not a student of Kabbalah, my precious friend Rob is. As a result of our sharing over time, I was delighted to read Michael Berg’s tiny book and the quote I share below jumped out at me. I dedicate it to my coaching clients and their various journeys:
One of these lessons needs to be introduced now, for it’s the foundation of everything that follows. This lesson can be expressed in few words: Our true destiny is not the pain and suffering that can seem so pervasive in the world but a joy and fulfilment beyond imagining.
I wonder, what new doors would open up for us all if we were guided in our lives by this belief?

What is an “alternative approach”?

Alternative approaches, Developing as a leader, , ,

Some time ago, I wrote about an experience I had – a session of Emotional Freedom Technique. This was something I hadn’t heard about until my friend Alex started to study it. I chose a new keyword for this posting – Alternative Approaches – and even as I chose the keyword I recognised that this heading begs the simple question: what is an alternative approach? Today, sitting in the lounge at Heathrow Airport, I am taking some time to respond to this question. I offer no prior research – simply an opinion.

As I understand it, the word “alternative” when applied to all sorts of approaches, is used as an alternative to “mainstream”. The primary issue here seems to be one of acceptance: is an approach accepted. This in turn begs the question: who by? I think of questions of power – would it be true to say that mainstream approaches are those approaches which are recognised by those sections of society which are most powerful? However, the question of what constitutes power is a subtle one. Instead, I opt to describe the mainstream as a tide of culture which is in some way recognised and endorsed.

It’s easy, when discussing alternative and mainstream approaches, to jump to the conclusion that those approaches which are seen as mainstream are those which scientists have tested and endorsed. There is much to discuss here and much to dispute. In the field of leadership in which I work, one approach that has passed into the mainstream via academic research is the use of competencies to identify those characteristics which differentiate the most outstanding leaders. Whilst this approach is largely taken for granted now, it was originally an alternative to the prevailing idea that testing for IQ (intelligence quota) was the best way to recruit for leadership potential. It was the research of David McClelland and his colleagues which showed this widely accepted (“mainstream”) approach to be based on assumptions which were, in fact, inaccurate. Because of McClelland’s research, testing for competencies, still an alternative approach 30 years ago, has gradually become mainstream.

At the same time, scientists can be blind to evidence when it does not fit prior theories or when they struggle to explain it. Fresh from participating in a training in Transcendental Meditation (TM) I am struck by an anecdote which I had heard prior to attending the training and which I heard again whilst I was there. Some years ago, a large group of meditators spent some time meditating in Washington D.C. with the express aim of reducing crime rates. The Chief of Police was highly sceptical, predicting that it would take six feet of snow to have this effect. Still, the scientists who had been lined up to study the data had to concede that yes, crime rates did go down. A paper was written but only published some time after the event in a peer-reviewed journal, accompanied by a rather apologetic addendum. The research that supports the use of Transcendental Meditation to achieve all sorts of positive outcomes is now extensive. Has it (as yet) become a mainstream approach? No.

In what sense then, do I use the term “alternative approach” on this blog? I aim to use it entirely without prejudice, recognising the many and varied approaches that can make a difference in people’s lives. Perhaps an underlying belief that I hold, which may mark me out from the mainstream, is that far more is possible than we often imagine. The myriad of approaches available to us serve to highlight – should we choose to be aware – just what possibilities exist. In this sense, an alternative approach is simply an option and every approach to which I gave airtime on this blog is an option – an alternative approach.