Last week I fielded a call from a colleague in the world of Nonviolent Communication. He let me know that I’d taken some actions that hadn’t met his needs and made some requests of me to support him in meeting his needs. So far, so good – this was what sometimes gets described as “classical” Nonviolent Communication.
There was something else, too. I sensed anger and I asked my colleague if he was feeling angry to which he replied that he was. I found it difficult to have a productive conversation – one that met both our needs and served to build and maintain trust – as long as my colleague was speaking from a place of anger with its implicit belief that I was responsible both for his angry feelings and for taking actions to meet his needs.
Marshall Rosenberg, the originator of Nonviolent Communication often teaches that some forms of expression are a “tragic expression of an unmet need” – tragic, because as strategies for meeting one’s needs go, they are highly likely to fail. As an alternative, Rosenberg invites his students to transform anger into a deeper understanding of their needs. So, when another’s action stimulates anger, you might choose to ask for help in transforming your anger or to do this work yourself. Having done that, you are in a strong position to share your needs in ways another person can hear. In this way, you are more likely to have a productive conversation.
My experience with my colleague raised an important question for me – one that I bump into from time to time: at what point does “not having learned yet” become a positive choice for which one is solely responsible? If I accept that we are all doing the best we know how at a given point in time and acting from a positive intention (no matter how effective or ineffective our strategy) my choice of response might be wholly different to the response I might choose if I take a different view – that the person concerned has the tools he or she needs to speak in ways which are supportive to us both and has chosen not to use them.
Looking forward, I’m wondering whether I might, in future, begin a conversation like this by asking for clarity: dear colleague, are you asking for me to support you as you seek to transform your anger and clarify your needs? Or are you – from a place of anger – wanting me to take responsibility for your feelings of anger and for taking some actions that might make you feel better? And having clarifed my colleague’s requests I might choose to say yes – or no.
This example is but one of many and it’s focused on those people who have studied what it takes to be effective (whether via a professional coaching training, Neurolinguistic Programming, Nonviolent Communication or some other training). This is before one even considers a further question: and what about those people who choose not to hear the feedback that might lead them to embark on a course of learning?
I wonder, what are your views?
Your comment about "an implicit belief that I was responsible both for his angry feelings and for taking actions to meet his needs" raised a question in my mind. When someone is angry, that implication may be intended, or we may imply it from their tone, but you both know that anger is an indication of something about which you could choose to show curiosity to help your colleague unpick what the anger is really about. As long as you are not being verbally abused, that may be more successful when the colleague is still experiencing the anger. You could then still take some time out for cooling off and mulling over.
I wonder if it was your shared understanding of the issues which led him to feel able to show the anger to you, in the hope you would be able to help with this – it's your prerogative to decide whether this is acceptable to you or not.
Best wishes, Valerie
Hi Dorothy – an interesting share – thank you!
I am curious about some of the hidden assumptions that I notice. Of course they may not be assumptions for you at all as it is difficult to get the whole piece in one posting – so I recognise that I too am making assupmtions here!
One that comes to me is the "implicit belief" that you were responsible for the feelings and actions to meet his needs. I wonder if the implicity is shared by you both in the same way?
I am also thinking that your colleague may just be angry with themselves, or defending themselves and projecting it on you – in which case them owning their own and you not taking ownership of it are not one and the same – but (for me) miles apart. I felt that your explanation was suggesting that they were equatable?
I also wonder if there is a time factor in here and a chunking down of the issues? Let the anger out so it can be examined, then managed and apportioned more appropriately and helpfully? I wonder if you are asking of him / expecting him to be able to operate at your level of skill – and perhaps he is just not there yet, or in this particuar instance.
Lastly, I wondered if maybe he is unconsciously using you to help with his learning? Hard to be on the receiving end – but valuable all the same.
It's an issue of boundaries – and on this one, your boundaries are set differently – doesn't mean you need to shift yours, but how flexible are they if you wanted to shift a little??
As always, I realise that these are questions for myself – just transformed into words as questions for you!
Thanks for the insight and I hope it works through soon. Best wishes
Hilary
From my colleague on the Training Journal Daily Digest (and with permission), Fiona Beddoes:
That rather depends on whether they are angry with you or with someone else!
Anger is information. Usually it’s an ego defense mechanism against being ‘hurt’ in some way.
Self-regulation isn’t easy! – ask any parent!!
And from my colleague Resli Costabell on the Training Journal Daily Digest, with permission:
Hi Dorothy,
You asked for our views. Here’s what keeps going through my mind as I read this thread and your blog.
Is your real request for our thoughts about whether your colleague’s "not having learned yet" is a positive choice? Or are you really asking us to say, "your colleague is wrong and he shouldn’t act the way he has. But Dorothy, you’re ok." My sense is that it’s the latter.
My sense is also that instead of hearing what he’s angry about and working through it, you’re focusing on whether he’s "doing NVC right". You may be entirely correct that he’s not. And by focusing on the NVC process rather than hearing what he’s angry about, you’re likely to enrage him. (jargon buster: NVC = non violent communication.)
I wonder whether you’re using the NVC process as a retreat from his anger, in order to avoid facing his anger.
Maybe you’re treating the situation as an NVC exercise, and he’s treating the situation as something he’s upset about. Maybe he’s not willing or able to work with you on the NVC level right now. And maybe – sacred cow approaches the abattoir – the pure NVC approach isn’t appropriate right now. So instead, you could meet him on the human level of 'here’s somebody who’s really upset'. Talk the way you would with someone who’d done no NVC training. Don’t try to facilitate him. Just let him be angry. Ask him what he’s hacked off about and give him a good listening to. Own up to whatever you need to own up to, then without using NVC terminology, see if you can find a way forward that works for you both.
The above may, of course, be entirely inaccurate!
I’ve done a bit of NVC and I’m a fan. Even so, there might come a time when I’m spitting nails, and someone replies with your suggestion of: "Are you asking me to support you as you seek to transform your anger and clarify your needs? Or are you – from a place of anger – wanting me to take responsibility for your feelings of anger and for taking some actions that might make you feel better?"
My answer would not be to choose one of those two options. My response would be to want to tell the person to get off their red herring of a high horse*, stop trying to make it all my problem, and acknowledge their role in whatever had gone down. Or if I weren’t a former chair of the London branch of the Alternatives to Violence charity, and if I weren’t only 5'2", I’d just headbutt them.
All the best,
Resli Costabell
*are you liking the mixed animal metaphors?