NVC Evolves

Recently, the moderator of an NVC-related mailing list I’m on wrote up a draft list of “guidelines” for the group to follow. (I don’t mean to single out this fellow. He just happened to provide a recent example of an issue that has been on my mind.) The list addressed some behaviors that he and some other took issue with (discussion focus, forms of humor, and “following standard ethical procedure” of citing articles, etc.) Predictably in an NVC crowd, a few folks (including me) wondered whether these guidelines were requests or demands and expressed concern about the use of domination tools. The moderator replied that the guidelines are requests that meet needs like respect & efficiency. And that if folks do otherwise, “then you know there are people whose needs you may not be meeting.”

I suspect that this person is making some assumptions that I don’t share, namely that his proposed strategies are actually more effective at meeting needs than other strategies, and that his strategies don’t also interfere with needs being met.

I figure, however, that the opposite strategies must meet needs as well. Otherwise, people wouldn’t be doing them.

It occurs to me that all sets of rules or guidelines have this same problem: they support needs sometimes in some ways and interfere with needs sometimes and in some ways. Another example is CNVC’s strategies around other people’s use of the name “NVC”.

Here’s an idea for a more alive approach to address clashing preferences:

• Use a living, collaborative medium, like a wiki page. Expect an ongoing evolutionary process, not a static conclusion.
• Jot down what behaviors you sometimes like and which ones you sometimes dislike, say which is which and why.
• Invite others to contribute to these lists as well.
• Deal with stuff as it comes up instead expecting to control it in advance.

I expect and hope that some behaviors will show up as both liked and disliked (even by the same person), and I believe this intersection will be where the most value comes. In fact, I’d be very surprised to learn of any behavior at all that’s worth writing down in one category (Like or Dislike) and not also in the other. After all, if everyone agreed, then either the behavior would always happen or never happen. In either case, there’s no point in mentioning it.

This last point gets me most clearly to one of the essential pitfalls of the whole idea of rules or guidelines (part of the game of Preserve & Prevent). They record thin slices of creative tensions among strategies. The matching counterpoint strategies are omitted, and more importantly, so are the “good reasons” (needs met) by both sets of strategies. And so the beautiful dream of “all needs fully met” is short-circuited, and we settle for and propagate the same old either-or, win-lose-compromise thinking and living we were inculturated with.

I’m going for the dream. Want to join me?

In NVC circles, I often hear what I understand to be strategies described in “need” language. For me, the very heart and power of NVC Consciousness grows out of deep connection with Universal Needs and release of strategies. When I think I see strategy masquerading as needs, I’m concerned that the speaker and listeners are unlikely to find the sacred place, simply because they think they already have. When the speaker is someone who teaches NVC (whether certified externally, internally, or neither), my urge to speak out is especially strong, in the hope of contributing to their students’ lives as well.

Over the last few years of exploring and discussing CNVC certification, I’ve been particularly surprised and concerned when what I hear described as “needs” more often match what I understand to be strategies instead, and correspondingly how rarely I hear what I recognize as a pure & genuine Universal Need.

For concreteness, I’d like to mention a few recent examples from an NVC mailing list. I am in no way meaning to single out these two people. They just happened to provide recent examples.

One wrote:

I have a need for clarity and connection regarding the certification process and am very hopeful that my needs can be met.

I can relate to clarity and (particularly) connection as (universal) needs if taken by themselves. I strongly suspect, however, that the writer meant something specifically connected to the strategy of certification, and more specifically yet, to CNVC certification. From the place of Needs, clarity and connection can be fulfilled by means that have nothing at all to do with certification.

Because the distinction can be subtle and old habits persistent, I like to use this test: discard any qualifier following the needs, e.g., stop after “clarity and connection”, with no “regarding”, “about”, “of”, “for”, etc. Then add back an inverted/released form of the qualifier, as “and I’m totally fine with those needs being met without …”. Then listen to my body telling me whether I’ve just spoken truly or not. For example, I might say

I have a need for clarity and connection, and I’m totally fine with those needs being met without any information or forward movement on the certification process.

If my body says “Yes”, I celebrate my power, freedom, and abundance. If my body says “No”, I thank it for helping my mind out of its temporary delusion. Dropping the pretense of having found the sacred place of NVC Consciousness, I get to continue on my journey.

(Note: if you get overwhelmed or lose interest/joy in following the additional examples below, please skip to the request at the end of the post.)

For a few more examples of what I understand to be strategies masquerading as needs, here is a passage from another recent note from CNVC folks:

We have been wrestling with the balance between

the need to ensure the integrity of NVC — of who is teaching it and how it is being taught, and the need to see NVC demonstrated in the lives of the trainers

with

the need for consistency in standards to ensure the above two needs.

[…]

We are aware that we need more assessors world-wide and are working on this evolution of the new assessor training.

In all of these “need” descriptions, I hear strategies instead. I long for the pure Gold I’m confident lies buried — for the power, freedom, and inspiration I experience in deep exploration of underlying needs and release of strategy attachments.

In the first statement (”the need to ensure …”), I’m not sure whether the need was thought to be ensuring or integrity. “Ensuring” (applying will and effort toward) is always a strategy, in my understanding. “Integrity” I hear as a need, but then come the qualifiers: “of NVC”, “of who … and how …”. To the writers, I offer the Body-Clarity test:

I have a need for Integrity, and I’m totally fine with meeting that need independently of strategies involving the whos, hows and whats of teaching NVC.

Then ask the body for feedback. If it says “No!” then delve deeper for the Needs.

For the next one, “the need to see NVC demonstrated …”, I have a harder time confidently guessing the underlying need. Maybe it’s meant as additional strategy for the the same needs supported by strategies of who, what & how.

Next, “need for consistency in standards to ensure …”. If I took the language literally, I might think of “consistency” as the need. However, I understand consistency to be just a (useful as well as detrimental) strategy, and here there’s the additional qualifier “in standards”. The “to ensure”, confirms for me that consistency is in service of (i.e., is a strategy for supporting) the previous “needs” (what I’d describe as spoken strategies and unspoken and perhaps unidentified needs).

Finally, “we need more assessors …”. In this case, I’m guessing that the writers didn’t even intend the word “need” in the NVC sense. In case anyone was writing or reading this statement as a Need in the NVC sense, I’d suggest reconsidering assessors as a strategy to support the strategy of certification. Even within the strategy of assessment, there are naturally scalable alternatives to more specific strategy of a centralized, top-down approach. (See, e.g., the “Emergence of NVC” vision.)

Several other posts on this blog provide more background and examples of this perspective on faux needs.

Please try out the Body-Clarity test described in this post, and share your experience as a comment to this post (or just to me if you’d prefer more privacy). As well, please share any insights, techniques, celebrations or mournings about encountering and navigating past faux needs. With each other’s help, I believe we can get more adept at finding and living in the sacred place.

I wrote about “vague demands” in an earlier post. A vague demand is an expression couched in NVC need-style language that masks moralism and demand. (For example, “that doesn’t meet my need for fairness”, or “accountability” or “respect”.) Most of what I hear from NVC practitioners (including teachers) when dealing with or coaching someone triggered are what I call vague demands.

A reader responded to the earlier post, and I understand his comments to say that that such remarks are expressions of “honesty”. I’ve heard that term used in this way before, and I’d like to suggest another viewpoint. Of course, one can express one’s opinions & judgments with “honesty”, but I don’t think that’s what Marshall had in mind when teaching about honest & empathy, and I certainly don’t think that kind of honesty helps to nurture inner & outer connection, leading to hearts awakened to joyful giving & receiving at a deep level.

I expect people to go through stages of deepening into NVC Consciousness, and perhaps NVC-sounding vague demands represents some progress. I’m not really sure it does, however, as I’ve so rarely heard practitioners (externally certified or otherwise, even certification assessors) get beyond that stage. Moreover, I see teaching and teaching materials propagating & reinforcing vague demands as if they were the real connecting stuff of Life. See today’s “NVC Quick Connect” newsleter for some examples, as well as the widely-circulated document on translating faux-feelings to needs, developed collaboratively at an IIT. My partner Holly had more to say about these issues today in a post called “Sounds like NVC, must be NVC …?” I recommend her post.

With help from Holly, I got it today that I’m especially distressed when NVC teachers use & teach vague demands. NVC as Marshall teaches & demonstrates (most of the time) is the approach I’m most inspired about and confident in, for solving the “significant problems of our time” (as Einstein put it). I want to see NVC’s potential power & depth shared effectively, and so I care a lot about what the teachers are modeling and teaching.

Holly & I came up with a simple test for whether we’ve really connected with a Need. The test is “Heart opening or heart closing?” For us and our students, this test helps us not to settle for NVC-sounding head stuff, and keep looking for the real gold. We’ve also realized that the whole idea of teaching & learning how to talk is almost guaranteed to lead to vague demands, because it’s so much easier to change words than change consciousness. So we no longer teach the four-step process, and instead re-interpret observations, feelings, needs, & requests as tools for clarity and self-connection. Once one makes the inner shift, we recommend speaking without conscious effort. Without the shift, the effort just clouds our awareness of our unawareness.

In my understanding, NVC Consciousness looks at the universe as abundant. Needs may be met in an infinite number of ways, and NVC theory sees needs as never being in conflict. What interferes with our experience of abundance is attachment to strategies. The only reason I know for attaching to a strategy is that one holds internal belief in scarcity rather than abundance.

When I listen to people who have learned NVC, I often hear them express emotional upset and state that an action failed, fails, or would fail to meet a particular need, as in “That doesn’t meet my need for X”. My hunch is that, though couched in NVC-like language, this pattern always reveals a fundamental departure from NVC Consciousness. I interpret such statements as placing importance on a strategy and on lack. I suspect that when someone says “That doesn’t meet my need for X”, s/he usually really means “That prevents my need for X being satisfied”, or at least “That interferes with my need for X being satisfied”. In contrast, my understanding of NVC Consciousness implies that no action or strategy can possibly interfere with a need getting met, considering the abundance of other ways to meet the need. (For related comments, please see Distinguishing needs from vague demands.)

Going further out on a limb, I propose that (in contrast to typical NVC teaching) emotional upset is typically not caused by unmet needs, but rather by belief in scarcity and interpretation of a situation as evidence of scarcity. Consider as an alternative this quote from Thomas Edison. Someone asked him didn’t he feel bad to have failed two thousand times to make a working filament for the light bulb. He responded “I did not fail two thousand times. I merely found two thousand ways not to make a light bulb.”

It occurs to me that the word “need” for the central principle of NVC encourages scarcity thinking, in that “need” has the connotation of “don’t have”, or “lack”. My impression is that Marshall’s concept is quite the opposite meaning, as in a “fullness”, “richness”, or “blessing”.

Here is a suggestion for how to help shift from lack to fullness in your collaborative conversations. Instead of saying “that doesn’t meet my need for X”, try out one of the following.

• “I can see how that would meet your need for X. I’d also like your help in working out how to also meet my need for Y.”
• “I’d like to meet my need for Y by doing [name conflicting strategy]. Would you be willing to collaborate with me on finding other ways to meet your need for X?”

Please let me know what you learn from this experiment. And, as always, I’d love to hear what my post stirs up for you.

On a mailing list I joined, people brought up their discomfort about using or about not using the term “Nonviolent Communication” (or “NVC”) in their workshop title, as requested by CNVC. I’m writing this blog post in response, so that anyone can read it and participate in a conversation.

The request about not using “NVC” is just a request, right? I’ve pondered this request at length and concluded that (a) I don’t hear an underlying need (despite some pseudo-need language on the site and expressed in person), and (b) clear expression/understanding is better served by my using the term “NVC”, since it clearly conveys what I teach. And I know that whatever the underlying needs are, they can be met with strategies that don’t interfere with my clear expression (and contribution) and my students’ clear understanding (and improved lives). So I decline CNVC’s request, and I use the term freely. If folks in CNVC want to engage in a giraffe dance with me (aimed at connection and meeting all needs fully), I’d be delighted, and I think the organization and I would both benefit.

I have heard the claim that people who hear that someone teaches “NVC” (or “is an NVC trainer”, to use static/to-be language) will assume that the person is certified by CNVC. I don’t believe that claim at all. If I tell you I’m playing Beethoven, would you assume I’m certified by Ludwig van himself, or by the Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra? Of course not. Certification is just certification. Certification is not NVC. People won’t confuse the two unless their cultural context encourages that confusion. I choose to contribute to clarity, not participate in confusion.

As NVC practitioners, we know that granting a request quickly can result in missing opportunities — opportunities for deep connection at the needs level and consequently meeting needs more effectively than the original request would accomplish. I want to see a deep re-examination and open (to all) dialog about the needs behind CNVC’s strategies of certification and of not using “NVC” in a workshop title. If there were such a re-examination, I’m guessing the beginning would contain familiar old statements like “integrity of the NVC process” or “respect for the copyright”. Given words like “integrity” and “respect”, such statements can be confused with needs, and I imagine a lot of learning and depth would come from dispelling those confusions and going deeper.

Maybe you’ll connect with what I’ve said above, and maybe not. In either case, here’s another angle on the issue — one of my favorite quotes, straight from Marshall’s mouth:

Please do as I requested, only — only if you can do so with the joy of a little child feeding a hungry duck.
Please do not do as I request if there is any taint of fear of punishment if you don’t.
Please do not do as I request to buy my love, that, is hoping that I will love you more if you do.
Please do not do as I request if you will feel guilty if you don’t.
Please do not do as I request if you will feel shameful.
And certainly do not do as I request out of any sense of duty or obligation.

I’d love to hear what’s touched in you in reading this post. If you’re willing to share your response as a comment in this blog post, that’s my preference. If you’d like a more private conversation, you can email me directly.

I’m reading Alan Watts’s book “The Wisdom of Insecurity” (1951). The following passage touches the heart of what I wanted to get at in my post “Trust that …”

We must here make a clear distinction belief and faith, because, in general practice, belief has come to mean a state of mind which is almost the opposite of faith. Belief, as I use the word here, is the insistence that the truth is what one would “lief” or wish it to be. The believer will open his mind to the truth on condition that it fits with his preconceived ideas and wishes. Faith, on the other hand, is an unreserved opening of the mind to the truth, whatever it may turn out to be. Faith has no preconceptions; it is a plunge into the unknown. Belief clings, but faith lets go.

What Watts calls “faith”, one might also call “Trust”, and what he calls “belief”, one might call “trust that …”. In this sense, “Trust” does not depend on someone acting a certain way and so is re-aligned with what we call “needs” in NVC.

I often hear from NVC folks (including externally certified trainers) phrases of the form “That doesn’t meet my need for XYZ”, where XYZ might be “respect”, (emotional) “safety”, “honesty”, “integrity”, “mutuality”, “autonomy”, “appreciation”, “consideration”, “accountability”, “trust”, “being valued”, etc. Occasionally the needs might even be “learning”, “connection”, “order”. Most of the time, especially with the former list of “needs”, I do not believe the speaker is really connected with her or his needs and speaking from needs consciousness (in the NVC sense). Instead of needs, I hear vague demands.
The energy of an NVC expression of need differs fundamentally from that of demand. With demand, the statement is directed at another person. For instance, “That doesn’t meet my need for respect” directed with anger at another person, as if the other person should be meeting that need for the speaker. Or directed in fear, as if the other person is in any way necessary for the fulfillment of the need. In contrast, when I connect deeply with my need, I know that the need can be met in an infinite number of ways. With that understanding, I release any illusion of dependence on another person’s actions.

It is possible that a statement like “That doesn’t meet my need for XYZ” is simply an inner observation, with no blame, demand, or expectation. In that case, the speaker’s energy (conveyed in voice tone, facial expression, and body language) would be quite different.

Here’s a simple test to distinguish an inner observation from a “vague demand”. Follow the phrase “That doesn’t meet my need for XYZ” with the phrase “… and I’m totally fine with meeting that need in other ways.” See if this combination rings true and has a sense of spaciousness around ways to get the need met and peaceful acceptance of the other person’s action. Otherwise, dig deeper for the need until the other person and his/her actions play no role, and try the test again.

Why did I give two lists of “need” words above? Because I almost always hear the words in the first list as vague demands rather than needs. I’ve heard the term “extrinsic needs” vs “intrinsic needs” for the distinction I’m describing. I prefer the descriptiveness of “vague demand”, reserving the word “need” for the NVC sense of universal needs, unattached to any strategy (person or action). As with “vague requests”, the listener doesn’t know what actions could help meet the need, and as with “demands”, the listener is unlikely to feel inspired to want to help.

I’m fascinated and very excited about sociocracy, having participated in a weekend workshop led by John Buck (assisted by Mitch & Osa). John stayed at my house for the weekend, and we clicked deeply and had long animated talks of mutual interest, including the discovery that both of us develop and teach “empty tools” with beautiful, powerful underlying theories. In addition to NVC, I do research in computer science, especially in language design, and with a focus on issues of “being” vs “doing”. (Here are some visual examples. More info and a publication list link on my home page). In listening to John in the workshop, I lit up, noticing how the spirit, intention, and logic of sociocracy brings my two chief interests together.

I joined a sociocracy e-group recently to get some help in understanding about where our group’s recent steps in sociocracy implementation match the understandings and practices of folks more steeped in sociocracy theory & practice. I shared my questions in Trouble at the beginning. Sharon V’s responses to that those questions have already been very helpful to our (NVC) organization

Next, I noticed my inner dissonance around language use, as described in Getting past labels and more clearly in Being and doing in the language of sociocracy. Much of my computer science research is focused on the question of being-vs-doing. That same distinction is a very important tool in NVC, but with an opposite emphasis. And again in Buddhism and meditation. Now I’m tuning into the sociocracy again, and I notice this apparent contradiction of using words that say what people are when trying to describe what they do. So I’m fascinated with the question of what’s going on here. What is by conscious choice and what is unconscious habit?

I want to shed light for me and stimulate curiosity and collaborative exploration. My desire is to participate in the evolution of both NVC and sociocracy and a deep synthesis of them. My hunch is that the style of language & logic design research that I’ve been doing for the last 20 years could make a valuable contribution to the theory and practice of sociocracy. Besides live & teach NVC, what I do well is create languages of being where others typically choose doing, and then demonstrate how the being-oriented (”declarative”) languages have much stronger compositional properties than the traditional doing-oriented (”imperative”) languages. It struck me (pow!) only a few days ago that the benefits of compositionality for software creation very well might translate into the realm of collectives that have vision, mission, and aim. In software, compositionality is crucial in maintaining clarity and simplicity and correctness (behavior meeting specification), while scaling up. Languages and designs that have weak compositionality (particularly, traditional doing-oriented languages & designs) tend to have lots of bugs and performance problems. I’m guessing that something similar is true for human organizations.

At first, in writing Being and doing in the language of sociocracy, I was seeing the two options of “people are” (Facilitator) and “people do” (facilitating). Then it occurred to me that “functions are” (facilitation) is a third option. My guess is that this third option is the most powerful place to reason, speak and compose, in the arena of life that sociocracy addresses. If I hadn’t written the “Being & doing” post, I don’t know if & when that piece would have clicked into place.

Now I imagine taking the deeply life-centered values of NVC consciousness, and all I’m learning about evolving its theory & practice to fulfill those values more deeply and consistently, and bringing that consciousness and skill into the wisdom, logic, and methodology of sociocracy, and I about burst with inspiration.

The post Being and doing in the language of sociocracy contains a note I sent to a sociocracy yahoo group. The moderator did not allow that note to appear, saying

The purpose of the list is to learn how to apply sociocracy. I don’t see in your messages any interest in doing that.

and later

The direction of your comments on language I find unhelpful and off topic. You posted them once and no one commented. I suggest you let the issue die there. Your second post does not add anything.

So, I am now looking for a forum of people interested in examining and evolving the theory and practice of sociocracy, rather than just how to apply the current state of understanding. If you know of any such forum, please let me know.

Here is a note I sent to a sociocracy yahoo group (and blocked from appearing there). It’s a follow-on to the post Getting past labels.

---

I experience an inner dissonance when I compare the sociocracy’s intentions with its language. If I understand Sharon below, sociocracy aims at clarifying what people agree to do (”roles and functions”) rather than what they are (identity/status). In contrast, in English at least, the language of sociocracy labels people rather than activities, i.e. it says “Nancy is the Facilitator” (or “Bookkeeper”), rather than “Nancy facilitates ” (or “keeps books”), or “Nancy’s role is facilitation” (or “bookkeeping”). Moreover, I notice the habit of capitalizing the people-labels, which I further interpret via my English-language lens as giving weight & importance to the people label. In English, I think capitalization is used mainly for identity. Given that English is not the native language of sociocracy, I wonder if perhaps the people-labeling and capitalization are accidental or intentional.In talking about people and actions, here are three choices. (Are there more?)

• Say what someone is: “Nancy is the Facilitator” .
• Say what someone does: “Nancy facilitates” (or “keeps meetings on track”).
• Say what a role/function is: “Facilitation consists of task focus and participation monitoring”.

I think of these choices as (respectively)

• language of being for people,
• language of doing for people,
• language of being for functions

I would expect that sociocracy would want the second and third choice rather than the first one.Why do I care about this language issue? Because at odds with the intention of sociocracy (and NVC) are strong ego (identity/status) habits. I want to support putting the intentions into effective practice by undermining the old habits and nurturing new ones, via some awareness and verbal skills. Since language influences thinking so profoundly, I like to consciously align language with intention as well as possible. The language shift I’m suggesting aligns better for me than what I’ve been hearing (including in Sharon’s note below).

Comments?

Some reflections on why I care whether psncc/nwcompass (and cnvc) adopt a more expansive and inclusive orientation and let go of “quality-control” measures like certification.

I want to support the living & sharing of NVC Consciousness much more than any particular form/process. The “sacred place” rather than the “raft”. (That’s what I teach & coach, and I am applying and co-evolving tools & principles from the NVC theory & process to do that. I’m confident Marshall would be delighted, though I’m not sure about others.) I also want to contribute to the spread of this consciousness and skills to support it in a way that is more effective and more harmonious with that consciousness than I see the current top-down quality-control strategies being. And I want all trainers to have support through the valuable communication resources (web site, & mailing list) that psncc/nwcompass has accumulated, whether those trainers are certified externally or internally to be ready to train. And I want there to be a community of mutual learning among these trainers, in which each of us experiences others’ trainings, learns and offers feedback and interaction about the feedback. If we did that, I believe the worries about “quality” (whatever that could mean) would simply disappear. If the feedback were held a mutual conversation rather than an evaluation, we’d all learn.

I re-read the psncc vision/mission statement, and I really do not know whether the mission was written with intent to embrace evaluative quality-control. I also don’t know whether the mission was intended to embrace the continuing evolution of understandings and methods for supporting living in the Sacred Place. I really do want to know. Perhaps the answers are yes to quality control and no to evolution, which would help explain why I’ve been so uncomfortable in the group. I wrote a bit more detail in Missions, cats and rafts. I know that my heart is with the Sacred Place, and I trust Life’s billion-year-old model of evolution and peer-level feedback (see Emergence).

Here is our NVC group’s vision and mission statement:

Northwest Compassionate Communication is a regional non-profit association of people who envision a world in which all needs are met compassionately. Our mission is to contribute to this vision by living and teaching the process of Nonviolent Communication (NVC), which strengthens the ability of people to connect resolve conflicts.

One thing I read in this statement is “teaching the process of NVC”. In that statement I can see a basis for “quality control” (standards, certification etc) as a strategy to make sure it’s really the NVC process that gets taught and to make it clear to all who is teaching the “real thing”, as opposed to things, such as astrology, crystals, or NVC consciousness. (Note that “quality” and “control” are very counter-NVC notions).

The Center for Nonviolent Communication (CNVC) has its own statement. In discussing CNVC’s goals of certification,

One is to ensure that the next generation and succeeding generations are taught NVC in a way that preserves and protects the integrity of the NVC process.

Personally, I do not believe in the existence of “the NVC process” as a static thing. Rather I see the process as itself being in process, with Marshall giving most of the evolution and now some others of us joining along. Something I do not see in this mission statement is evolving the NVC process, so that it more and more fully supports NVC Consciousness. I don’t know whether more than a very few of us in this area are really interested in doing that. If the mission statement referred to “NVC Consciousness” instead of “the NVC process”, maybe we’d be playing a different game.

I notice myself at times getting swept into an old argument habit. Then I’m looking for ways to prove I’m right, to win the debate, and get the prize. When I look at that, what I really want instead is clarity & openness. I want simply to express what game I’m interested in playing in ways others can understand, listen to them express the games they want to play, and see whether there’s a big enough overlap so that we’ll both enjoy playing together. As Miguel Ruiz says in “Mastery of Love”

Let’s imagine that you get a dog and you love cats. You want your dog to behave like a cat, and you try to change the dog because it never says, “Meow.” What are you doing with a dog? Get a cat!

So, maybe what I really want to revisit the mission statement and see who really does want a static NVC process and who wants an evolving one. (See Emergence of NVC.)

I’ll end with a quote from Marshall Rosenberg, taken from this FAQ:

Q: What are some frequent mistakes you and others make when trying to use the NVC process?

MBR: … One more mistake we make–especially when we’re new to the NVC process–is to think that the Nonviolent Communication process is the goal. I’ve altered a Buddhist parable that relates to this issue. Imagine a beautiful, whole, and sacred place. And imagine that you could really know God when you are in that place. But let’s say that there is a river between you and that place and you’d like to get to that place but you’ve got to get over this river to do it. So you get a raft, and this raft is a real handy tool to get you over the river. Once you’re across the river you can walk the rest of the several miles to this beautiful place. But the Buddhist parable ends by saying that, “One is a fool who continues on to the sacred place carrying the raft on their back.”

Nonviolent Communication is a tool to get me over my cultural training so I can get to the place. It’s not the place itself. If we get addicted to the raft, attached to the raft, it makes it harder to get to the place. People just learning the process of Nonviolent Communication sometimes forget all about the place. If they get too locked into the raft, the process becomes mechanical.

The Nonviolent Communication process is one of the most powerful tools that I’ve found for connecting with people in a way that helps me get to the place where we are connected to the Divine, where what we do toward one another comes out of Divine Energy. That’s the place I want to get to.

This post is based on a note I sent to the sociocracy Yahoo group. I’m editing and reposting here for wider access.

Someone asked the following question:

NVC conveys the message that putting labels on people is not helpful for a connection on the level of needs.
I somehow have the impression that in a sociocratic organization it is necessary to put labels on people in order to build a structure.
I am a certified trainer.
I am in certification process
I am a volunteer
I am a member of …

Is it really necessary to look at what people ARE instead of what they are feeling and needing in the moment?

I love this question, as I am also concerned about old thinking habits.

I do not see any benefit in using labels in sociocratic groups. On the contrary, I expect our thinking and communicating is more clear when we talk about what we do rather than what we are. We could experiment with this theory by trying it out on some examples in a sociocratic context.

I prefer action language and relationship language over identity & status language, so I like NVC. Sometimes a label can serve as a clear short-hand for action or relationship, but given our cultural programming, identity and status creep in out of unconscious habit. For instance, in our NVC group, some of us use the word “trainer” to mean simply somebody who trains (short-hand for an action). Others use it to mean someone who has gone through an external approval process, and I interpret their use as being about identity & status, and perhaps a bit about relationship. Of the latter group, some of them mean one approval process and some of them mean another. See Comments on the word “trainer” for more about this topic.

In a sociocratic circle, we may agree to (temporary) “roles”. It is easy to fall into the habit of using people-nouns like “Bookkeeper”, “Secretary”, or “Facilitator” for these roles. Doing so can trick us back into using static identity & status language. I prefer labeling the tasks (actions) rather than the person. For example, in English, I would say “facilitating” (or “facilitation”) instead of “facilitator”, “bookkeeping” instead of “bookkeeper”, and “training” instead of “trainer”.

One of the lessons I get from Eckhart Toelle is that identities feed ego / separation. If I get a sense of personal importance out of a label, then my ego is being fed, and I would expect the group’s creative flow and accomplishment to be harmed. If I say I am “Chairperson”, “Trainer”, or “Secretary”, I am much more likely to get confused and think I’m talking about what I am. Then my ego gets interested, so I start taking things personally, and the group suffers. If I say “facilitation”, “training”, or “handling notes”, I am more likely to remember that what I (temporarily) do is not what I am, which is less interesting to my ego.

Some people defend people-labels as making our communication more concise and efficient. On the contrary, I find action language able to be consistently clearer and at least as concise. I also find it more difficult to get there sometimes, and I believe my difficulty is temporary and entirely due to my old habits and having heard labeling all of my life. Every time I make the effort to shift to clear & concise action language, I enjoy the result. And the practice makes it easier for me to speak what I really believe.

I asked two specific questions on the sociocracy Yahoo group, regarding Trouble at the beginning. First,

Q: Does a circle define criteria for who in an organization is welcome to participate (and thus be heard) and who is not? Or instead, do people self-select, based on whether they embrace the circle’s aim? If the former, wouldn’t the circle fail to meet needs, simply by excluding those who would object to policies that don’t support them.

A: In volunteer organizations or cohousing, where a choice excludes people who are already members of the organization, this is a crucial question. In cohousing, self-selection is the rule.

A: The larger organization should have membership criteria and an aim.
Then when the larger organization creates two circles, it should assign aims and the aims would, in part, determine the membership criteria.

Second,

Q: Does a circle define its aim, or does an aim define a circle? (Which comes first?)

A: The aim is defined by the “higher” circle when the “lower” circle is formed. The aim defines the circle.

What I’m getting as the most important piece is that defining aim is fundamental at all levels, and are to be decided by a higher circle in forming a lower circle, rather than by the lower circle itself. Any decisions & actions (norming & performing) that happen without crystal clear aims are bound to generate confusion & disagreement rather than harmony & progress. I guess that’s where we are.

My recommendation is that we say “oops” and take a few steps back to get on track with sociocracy. Specifically, I’d like to see a clear aim for the overall organization and then clear aims for one or more circles.

My hunch is that different people interested in the “Training Circle” have different aims in mind. By clarifying these different aims, I expect that at least two circles will arise rather than one, and those circles will operate more efficiently than one multi-aimed circle, in which different members are focused on different aims. Maybe one circle will address emergence/evolution or supporting those who share NVC, while another addresses “quality” control (”preserving the integrity of the NVC process”). I expect these two circles to have contradictory wishes about accessibility of the organization’s web site and mailing list.

How would we resolve potential strategy conflicts between “evolution” (or “support”) and “preservation” circles? Perhaps through clarity of aim of the higher circle, which is the top circle in our case. What is our organization’s aim? Does it embrace evolution & preservation, or do we want to split it into two different organizations?

For as long as I’ve been actively involved with NVC organizations (particularly our local one), I’ve had confusion and deep discomfort around use of the word “trainer”. There’s a strong dissonance between what I understand people to mean and what I understand of NVC consciousness & theory. I have two objections to the uses I’ve been hearing.

• The word “trainer” is a label. I’d rather practice what I believe and teach about labeling. And when I run into difficulty expressing myself clearly & succinctly without labels, I’d rather go through the effort of retraining myself into new habits than reinforcing old ones. I made this effort with the Emergence vision. It was hard for me and well worthwhile. (I don’t like compromise.) Not only did I get the practice (and it gets easier every time), but I believe the document came out more clearly and concisely as a result. The reason I care about other NVC folks’ use of labeling is that I long for community support in deepening, integrating, and strengthening the new consciousness and habits. It’s easier for me to speak Jackal because I grew up with it, but not because Jackal is a more fitting language for what I want to communicate. With practice, Giraffe is becoming easier & easier. Statements like “it’s easier to label” (or clearer, more succinct, etc), “compromise is necessary”, or “violence is inevitable to resolve conflicts”, are self-fulfilling prophecies. More precise and life-connected would be “I have a habit of labeling, so I can do it with little conscious effort”.
• I hear some (not all) NVC folks (included both labeled-in and labeled-out) consistently use the word “trainer” not in the simple & direct sense of the word as “one who trains”, but rather in an indirect sense of someone who is approved by others to train. Despite what I said above, I’m relatively comfortable with the direct usage of the word, as I hear it to be simply shorthand for saying what what a person does. I strongly dislike the implicit approval usage, because (a) it eliminates a simple word for a meaning I care a lot about, namely one who trains, and (b) it hides the fact that external approval is involved. I’m highly suspicious of unconscious habits in relation to external approval systems, so I want language use to be very explicit in such a case, as support for us to live in partnership consciousness rather than domination.

I understand the implicit-approval usage of “trainer” as being in direct conflict with a deep teaching of Marshall’s. He shifts labeling language to relationship language, such as reflecting “That’s a terrible picture” into “Oh, you don’t like the picture?” I’ve heard him call that principle “Never let somebody in authority tell you what you are”. (For instance, “you’re a trainer”.) Marshall’s reframe counteracts the basic Amtsprache trick of using language that obscures personal connection and responsibility. As I undestand Marshall’s teaching, applying or withholding the label “trainer” but really meaning approved-by-someone trainer is telling them what they are. I’d rather hear an observation or a feeling or a need. A more life-connected alternative might be “I trust that person to present NVC in a way I agree with.” Do you feel a difference?

Even saying “certified trainer” is still Jackal-speak in my understanding, in that it (a) labels what someone is rather than what they do, and (b) replaces a conscious & visible labeler (an NVC organization or assessor) with a statement of what someone is, by virtue of unspoken authority. The label and doesn’t say certified by whom. (For example, I’m certainly certified by myself and my students.) A clear observation would be “I heard that CNVC certified Suzy”. Still — yuck; I’d rather just remove my personal energy from the whole external approval mindset and focus on support, learning, evolution, and community.

I’ve wanted to raise awareness and promote change about these issues around in our local NVC organization. My first attempt was to model different word choices, avoiding the word “trainer” altogether, even in its relatively direct meaning of one who trains. I’m discouraged about this approach. Now I wonder if a more effective strategy to get the language shift I’m wanting is to simply use the word the way I want to use it (the direct & conventional English meaning of one who trains, i.e., do rather than be) and allow cognitive dissonance in others to help from there.

I have a request and an offer. The request is to let me know whether any of the above resonates with and inspires you and if you would like to join me in community around using practicing label-free, clear & succinct communication. Given my experience and interest, my offer is to work with you to eliminate labeling from your own communications while improving clarity & conciseness. My needs-payoff includes community, play, learning, and integrity (living what I believe).

Last spring our local NVC group ventured into sociocracy. At a group retreat, the group made some specific decisions in how to move forward. (I had other plans and missed this meeting.) Through a number of email messages and conversations, I’ve come to believe that the group’s implementation of sociocracy is proceeding in ways fundamentally at odds with the intentions of sociocracy, in hearing and addressing the needs of everyone affected by created policies. In this note I want to lay out some of my current understanding of what’s happening and to look for how to get the process back on track. In particular, I want to develop more clarity about how I might most helpfully contribute. Here’s a partial description of what has happened, as I currently understand.

• The group decided to disband the existing “core team” and to create two new sociocratic circles, called the “Training Circle” and “Compassion University”.
• It was agreed that the new circles would define their own aim.
• It was agreed that “Each circle will create membership criteria to be presented to the GC [General Circle] for consent that they are congruent with the aims of the organization.”
• A first phone meeting was called privately for a limited group of people, coinciding with the old “trainers” group (including only trainers approved by the local or global NVC organization and excluding other trainers and other group members), plus Sandy, our executive director.
• An early agenda item called “sociocratic consent Sandy member of TC” had the description “as I understand the agreements from GC: Sandy can choose to be part of any circle, given the circle gives consent”.
• The next agenda was called “NCC affiliated trainers”, described as “Discussion on if and what are criteria to join training circle.”
• The meeting did take place, involved paramount objections from Sandy, and left most or all agenda items unresolved and raised some upset.
• An invitation, this time public, was issued for others to join the next meeting.

As I’ve reflected over reports of what was said and agreed to at the retreat and the phone call, I notice some things don’t make sense to me. I offer these puzzlements up for discussion, as a starting point for helping us better understand our intentions and how to support them consistently.

• I don’t understand what it could mean to say that a circle creates its own membership criteria. After all, a circle’s decisions are made by its members. Who is there to decide on membership criteria before such criteria exist? In this case, as far as I know, some people (the formerly-approved “trainers”) were spared the consent process.
• Similarly, I don’t understand how a circle can choose its own aim. How can a circle exist without an aim? I don’t understand how one could decide whether to form and/or join a group without having the aim defined first.
• I don’t understand how a circle can define exclusion criteria while staying with the intent of sociocracy. I understand the purpose of sociocracy as being a way to make sure all needs (related to a given aim) get addressed and supported as well as possible, even the needs held by a minority. Now imagine a circle that is allowed to both (a) have power (e.g., who gets promoted on the group web site and who doesn’t), and (b) exclude some people who embrace the group’s aim (e.g., supporting those who share NVC). I don’t understand how exclusion can have any effect but to defeat the effective, sociocratic approach to fulfilling the aim.

I suggest the following solution to these quandaries:

• Anyone can define an aim and propose creation of a circle. (Aim first, then circle.)
• If such a circle forms, then everyone who says s/he embraces the aim is invited to participate in the circle. (No membership criteria to be defined by a circle that doesn’t yet exist.)

I’d like some feedback about how this solution fits with successful sociocratic experience.

The title of this post comes from the name of an I Ching hexagram (also called “difficulty at the beginning”).

I love the discussion here (in the section called “Trouble at the beginning”) as it relates to our group’s transition and learning process.

Sometimes people practicing (even teaching) NVC say things like “I want you to do xyz from now on”, or “I want you not to do xyz again”. Or they may cloud the issue even further by saying something like “I want to trust that you won’t do xyz again”. (See “Trust that”.) Marshall generally recommends making requests present, positive, specific, and doable. So do I. The whole idea of a future request or commitment is at odds with spontaneous, living Choice. I don’t know if many NVC folks get that. I’ve watched Kelly Bryson handle a future request in a group, and he certainly gets it. If I say yes to a future request, then am I duty-bound to do it and wrong to make a different choice?

One response to “I want you to xyz from now on” (or “I want to trust that …”) is simply “Oh”. It’s not really a need or a request, but rather what Marshall calls a “wish”, so I probably don’t want to respond as if it were a request and feed the speaker’s or group’s confusion. If I’m in an empathic space, I might try to tune in through the wish and guess at a present feeling or need. Or if I’m more interested in getting the exchange unstuck, I might ask “And what is it you would like from me right now?”. I’ve watched Marshall do that when someone is consuming group attention without getting to a request. Usually the person doesn’t know, and then I might say “I’d like to move on then, and I invite you to make a request later when you figure out what it is.” Or in the “trust that” example, the person might make the request for the future. In that case, I like the response “Right now I cannot predict what will be my best choice in the future, so I don’t see how I could honestly do as you ask”.

I like to hear all promises as predictions, and since predictions are iffy so are promises. A more useful request would be “Please let me know now if you can foresee any reason to do xyz again in the future”. Another is “Please let me know what your intention is right now about doing xyz again in the future”. And the answer might be “Right now I have no intention one way or the other. My choice will depend on circumstances.”

I usually don’t buy “trust” as a need. One clue is that I usually hear “trust” followed by “that”, which certainly gets into strategy-land. For instance, “I want/need to trust that you’ll hear and value my needs.” Trust doesn’t fit for me for several reasons.

• My trusting is entirely up to me.
• “Trusting that” may be a poor choice, i.e., out of sync with reality.
• I hear “trust that” as NVC-speak (not NVC-heart) for an attempt to get a static guarantee (nail down the future) and thus go against living, spontaneous Choice.
• I suspect that every question of “trust-that” can be laid to rest with a single generic answer:
  

  You can trust that I will XYZ, exactly when doing so is the best way I see to get my needs met at the time.

• A living alternative to “I want to trust-that you will XYZ” could be “I want to collaborate in exploring how you choosing to XYZ will meet your needs.”

Afterthought on February 26: I’m guessing that “I want to trust that you will XYZ” generally means “I want you to XYZ”, where XYZ is a “wish” rather than a request. See Promises, predictions, and wishes.