Tag Archives: nonviolent communication

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?

Managing your prejudices (4): keeping your prejudices under observation

Emotional Intelligence,
“How do you manage your personal prejudices in a coaching situation?”

In recent days I have been exploring what constitutes a prejudice, wondering why we might (or might not) choose to identify and manage our prejudices and identifying some common examples of terms which are widely used without any sense that they may be inherently prejudicial.

Now though, it’s time to get closer to the question: “How do you manage your prejudices in a coaching situation?” It seems to me that the way we manage our prejudices in coaching is a reflection of our approach more widely in life. So I begin by reflecting on the approaches which, together, constitute my response to my own prejudices:

  • Keeping my beliefs under observation: Perhaps my starting point for managing my prejudices has been to develop the ability to notice my beliefs and to examine them on an ongoing basis. I like to think that some of my more rough-edged prejudices are long since gone and still, I continue to notice and examine my beliefs;
  • Broadening my experience: My beliefs are rooted both in my education and in my experience. Over the years I have embraced many opportunities to broaden my experience, both for the inherent pleasure and interest new experiences can provide and with a view to broadening the “database” on which my beliefs are based;
  • Testing my beliefs against reality: Many beliefs are simply generalisations and I’ve found it helpful to test generalisations against new information – again, and again, and again… I’ve also found it helpful to notice how much research there is to suggest that the beliefs we hold predict our reality. A belief is just a belief;
  • Letting go of being “right”: At any point in time I hold beliefs and still, I lay no claim to being right. I may stand true to my beliefs over a considerable length of time and debate them robustly with others. At the same time, it is my choice to hold the belief that my views may or may not be “right”. From this place, I have no investment in maintaining a belief and can easily review it and replace it in the light of new insights or information;
  • Choosing my prejudices wisely: Since I am bound to hold beliefs, it is my aim to choose them wisely. For me this implies gaining clarity about the purpose I have for holding a given belief and examining my beliefs to ensure that each one is fit for purpose. Perhaps one of the most fundamental beliefs I have chosen to adopt is that we all have needs and communicate in order to meet our needs and to contribute to the needs of others (this is the essence of Nonviolent – Compassionate – Communication or NVC). This means that I am guided in my communication by this belief and I hope that adopting this belief makes it more likely that needs will be met;
  • Being present to individuals and to their experience: Nothing pains me more than seeing a child being “forced” to say hello to an adult. For whilst it may or may not be “polite” to say hello, it seems to me that over time everyone pays the price for enforcing such general rules. You could say that one prejudice I choose to hold is to favour connecting with individuals and their experience over holding general rules;
  • Responding with compassion, humour and insight: Am I without prejudice? Absolutely not. And even whilst seeking to choose beliefs that honour my needs and the needs of others I am sometimes taken by surprise by my own prejudices. Since one of my prejudices is that I must get things “right” it’s taken me time to be able to come to such moments with humour and compassion and to take from them the learning that will help me to move forward.

Having identified my preferred ways of managing my prejudices I wonder, what does a coaching situation require over and above these approaches? What might be needed that’s different? This is the question to which I return tomorrow.

Nonviolent communication and the Buddha

All articles,

Since I first read Marshall Rosenberg’s Nonviolent Communication: A Language of Life in 2003 (thanks, Aled) I have – via the trainings I have attended and other events – met more followers of Buddhism than in the 40 years that preceded my first encounter with this (my “Desert Island”) book.

When I mention this to a colleague – and share my intention to understand more about Buddhism – he recommends a book which I am quick to order: The Heart of The Buddha’s Teaching, by Thich Nhat Hanh.

This is quickly followed by a number of links to websites on Deep Ecology, another way to understand Buddhist thinking and philosophy. These include links to Joanna Macey’s website, to Chris Johnstone’s website, to the Great Turning Times newsletter and to the Network of Engaged Buddhists.

Even the most cursory glance at these websites resonates strongly with my own philosophy and experience – making the link between our own inner ecology and our wider impact on the planet. This is in turn linked to an article I wrote recently and for which I am currently seeking a publisher. I have strong encouragement from my niece who is a committed ecologist. Whilst recognising the ongoing devastation of our planet and highlighting the role of industry in accelerating this trend, these sites speak of the possibility of a reversal of this trend, which they call The Great Turning. I am curious to explore more.

Oh! And I follow my colleague’s hint and sign up for daily tweets by the Dalai Lama – and quickly receive an e-mail entitled Dalai Lama is now following you on Twitter. How cool is that?!

Humanity – an alternative view

All articles
There is a field out beyond right and wrong. I will meet you there.

Rumi

It’s no surprise that the Sunday papers are full today of discussion about the release of Libyan prisoner Al-Magrahi from Scotland’s jails. Whether rightly or wrongly, Al-Magrahi was convicted of the Lockerbie bombing some twenty years ago in which 270 people – passengers on the plane that crashed and residents of Lockerbie – died.

Foreign Secretary David Milliband spoke on Radio 4 during the week and seemed to be claiming a humanitarian stance when he said:

“The sight of a mass murderer getting a hero’s welcome in Tripoli is deeply upsetting, deeply distressing, above all for the 270 families who grieve every day for the loss of their loved ones 21 years ago but also for anyone who has an ounce of humanity in them”.

When it comes to anyone with an ounce of humanity in them, my money is on Scotland’s Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill. His words gave me great hope for a world which is truly based on humanitarian values:

“In Scotland, we are a people who pride ourselves on our humanity. It is viewed as a defining characteristic. The perpetration of an atrocity and outrage cannot and should not be the basis for losing sight of who we are, the values we seek to uphold, and the faith and beliefs by which we seek to live.

“Mr Al-Magrahi did not show his victims comfort or compassion. They were not allowed to return to the bosom of their families to live out their lives, let alone their dying days. No compassion was shown by him to them. But that alone is not a reason for us to deny compassion to him and his family in his final days.

“Compassion and mercy are about upholding the beliefs we seek to live by, remaining true to our values as a people, no matter the severity of the provocation or the atrocity perpetrated.

“For these reasons alone it is my decision that Mr Al-Magrahi be released on compassionate grounds and allowed to return to Libya to die”

Colonel Gaddafi’s son Seif Al-Islam Gaddafi responded to this decision by describing it as “a courageous and unforgettable stance from the British and Scottish governments“. I leave the final word, though, with Marshall Rosenberg, who said:

“We think need revenge but what we really need is empathy for our pain”

Responding to anger: getting ready to reach out

Emotional Intelligence, ,

The “meta-mirror”, a tool from the kitbag of neuro-linguistic programming, is a powerful way to explore a difficult relationship in the privacy of a quiet space. The emphasis is on one’s own learning. After all, as hard as it is, we can’t do other’s learning for them.

I have already been reflecting on a conversation with a colleague at a time when he was feeling anger in response to something I had done. I know that there’s something that I’m needing still before I either go back to my colleague or choose to walk away.

The first step in the meta-mirror is to step firmly into one’s own shoes and to express whatever comes up in relation to another person. I am surprised when the first thing that comes up is a sense of anger that my colleague spoke to me in the way he did, knowing that he has the tools to own his anger and even to transform it. I thought I had left this anger behind.

I am also surprised to learn something else – that just a fraction below the surface I am “beating myself up” about my own contribution to this conversation. It seems I would like to have handled this conversation with a level of grace I didn’t manage to call on at the time. There’s something else, too – I realise I’m not quite ready openly to say “I won’t speak with you as long as you talk to me in this way. Come back when you’re ready to take responsibility for your anger”. Perhaps, in the language of my colleagues these are my own “needs behind the need” – the things I’m hiding from by holding on to my anger.

With this recognition, I can feel my anger slipping away and a sense of compassion – for myself, for my colleague – emerging. I wonder if he, too, has been beating himself up since we spoke.

With this renewed sense of compassion I complete the meta-mirror process, stepping into my colleague’s shoes before stepping back to observe myself from a distance (“How does this you here respond to that you there?”). It seems I have already found the compassion I was missing – for myself, for my colleague.

It’s not that I have changed my mind about the way my colleague spoke to me. I haven’t. Still, I am ready to speak to him to see if he, too, wants to connect so that we can reach a place of mutual understanding.

I am not wedded to any particular outcome – just ready to initiate the conversation.

Responding to anger: connecting with my colleague’s unmet needs

Emotional Intelligence, ,

In the process of reviewing my experience – of talking with a colleague at a time when he was feeling anger in response to something I had done – it’s important to me to understand the needs of my colleague as well as my own.

As I review my experience of our conversation, I recognise that I know what actions I took that stimulated anger in him and I know that they did indeed stimulate anger in him and still, I don’t understand why. My colleague gave me an explanation which I didn’t truly understand. They were not actions that, if anyone had else had taken them, were likely to stimulate a similar response in me.

This is not to dismiss the experience of my colleague. Rather, simply, I recognise that I didn’t take the information from our conversation that would help me truly to connect with him or to understand his needs. I notice that without this depth of understanding I feel unable to respond to his needs from the place I treasure so much and aspire to right now – a place of empathy and compassion.

I am curious, too, about some of the comments my colleagues have made to me. They have reminded me of something that I already know – that as well as the needs which my colleague has sought openly to address in our conversation there may be other needs which he sought to meet in our conversation by holding onto his anger and the thinking that lies beneath his anger. One colleague described these as “the needs behind the need”. I can only guess what these needs might be.

Even as I write I recognise one implication for me – and for our relationship with each other – of this lack of shared and mutual empathy and understanding. For when there is a conflict or misunderstanding there is also an opportunity for learning, healing and resolution. This takes place when both parties can fully understand each other’s needs, can understand the impact each of their own behaviour on each other’s needs, and can honestly and sincerely express regret for any behaviours they wish they had not taken and commit to do something different in future. I don’t have any sense of regret at this stage for anything I have done though I might do with a deeper understanding of my colleague’s needs. Nor has my colleague expressed any regret for his behaviour though I hope that he, too, might do so from a place of greater understanding.

I wonder, what next? And I decide to take a next step. It is a step of inner dialogue with both myself and my colleague, using an approach from the “kitbag” of Neurolinguistic Programming – the meta-mirror.

Responding to anger: connecting with my unmet needs

Emotional Intelligence,

Taking time to review my experience – of talking with a colleague at a time when he was feeling anger in response to something I had done – I recognise how little my needs were met during our conversation.

Connecting with my needs, rather than focusing on the actions my colleague took which stimulated anger in me, is a way to transform my anger. By transforming my anger I have a better chance to meet my needs. These include my deep need to live my life in alignment with my chosen values, including my values of nonviolence. Choosing to transform my anger into a deeper understanding of my needs is one process offered by Marshall Rosenberg in the process he calls Nonviolent Communication (or NVC).

It’s easy to see that the exchange we had did not meet many needs that I have in relationships. It has been my choice over time to seek out those people – friends, family, colleagues, clients – with whom a quality of communication is possible which contributes equally and effectively to the well-being of everyone involved. At best these relationships are rooted in a deep sense of mutual respect and affection. At best they honour each person’s needs fully and equally.

I recognise how much this is a matter of intention for me. I want to attract those people into my life who share my intention to create nonviolent, mutually enriching “win, win” relationships and who choose to invest in the fulfilment of this intention. In practice, I have discovered that they do this both by developing what one colleague refers to as the “skilful means” needed to translate this intention into practice and by choosing to deploy them.

It would be easy to conclude that my needs are better met in other relationships and to walk away – at least in theory. Still, recognising my needs does not in itself give me a sense of closure. I wonder if this is because I also have a need to contribute to the well-being and learning of others, in this case my colleague. It’s not just that I feel some disappointment that our conversation was not in itself more enriching for my colleague. I also have a sense that to walk away would not meet my need to contribute. At least at first glance, it seems I have conflicting needs. I know I need to reconcile these if I am to find my way forward. I sense that there’s something here that I have not yet seen – something that is at my growing edge.

Perhaps there’s another, related, question. What are the needs of my colleague? What needs was he seeking to meet when he picked up the phone and called me? I decide this is the next question I want to explore.

Choosing your professional coaching training

Coaching,

There’s a question I get asked (in various forms) so often that it’s time for me to write about it on my blog: what training courses do you recommend for me to develop my coaching skills?

Of course, the answer depends largely on your response to a further question: what do you want to gain from the training programme you choose? In the main, the people I field questions from are looking for a professional coach training – one that will get them on the road to becoming a professional coach or one which will help them further to develop skills they are already using professionally.

This in turn raises another question: are you planning to pursue professional accreditation and if so, with what body? The field of professional accreditation is highly diverse and often confusing – a reflection, perhaps, of coaching’s current status as a young and emerging profession. I ask this question ahead of time because some programmes are accredited by the accrediting bodies. This suggests a mark of quality and also plays a role further down the line. For example, the International Coach Federation accredits programmes (as Accredited Coach Training Programs or ACTP, for example) and offers an optional accreditation route for graduates of these programmes which is different to that offered to others. Given the highly fractured nature of coaching accreditation in the UK and the international nature of coaching I opted to pursue accreditation with the International Coach Federation.

There are many other questions to consider. For example, is it enough to go for a “generic” programme or do you want to choose one which focuses on your own coaching specialism (“executive” or “life” coaching, for example)? I have taken the view that all coaches, no matter what their specialism, have core skills in common and this is reflected in the programmes I recommend below. So, here are some thoughts about specific programmes.

Firstly, I took my own training with ITS. This was a comprehensive NLP-based training – you don’t get to graduate from the coaching programme without first achieving your certified NLP Practitioner and Master Practitioner status. It’s a mark of the value that NLP can add that many experienced coaches include training on these programmes as part of their continuing investment in their professional development. I can recommend this path highly based on my own experience.

Secondly, not least because they were early into the market, the Coaches Training Institute has trained many great coaches, including my own. Even if you don’t take their training, it is based on thinking and approaches which permeates many coach trainings.

One coaching programme which has caught my attention is run by Coaching Development. Its founders, Philip Brew and Colin Brett, set out to raise the bar in training coaches and I’ve noticed that it’s been highly recommended both by newcomers to the profession and by experienced coaches who have opted to follow the course.

One further programme is run in the US by Coaching That Works. I mention this programme because of my interest in Nonviolent Communication. Martha Lasley, who designed the programme, has based this programme on NVC principles. All the programmes I mention in this posting are ICF-accredited programmes.

Perhaps it’s worth adding that, with such a large and growing market, this posting is simply scratching the surface of a large topic and reflects my own choices and experience. This can lead some people to ask: how do I begin to choose? So my final remark is this: whatever you choose will be a step in the right direction rather than your final destination. If you’re serious about offering a high standard of coaching to your clients, you will continue to invest in your development as a professional coach and will no doubt choose to take part in further programmes along the way.