Ask the Trainer: "Can you share stories of transforming group conflict, or is NVC strictly intended for 'one-on-one' work?" Ask the Trainer Dear Trainer, I'm finishing up a toolkit on dialogue and deliberation and am including NVC in the conflict transformation section, but I am lacking any stories of actually transforming conflict in a situation of violent conflict between groups. (I have great "one-on-one" stories, of course.) Are there any that you could share? Or is that the wrong way to think of the work of NVC; i.e. is it always, in the end, just "one- on-one"? Thank you so much. —N.G. Trainer Answer Dear N.G., I would like to both answer your question and share a specific story with you.First, your question was whether NVC is “always, in the end, just ‘one-on-one?’” My response is a resounding “No.” Let me elaborate just a bit, since I would like the main part to be the story you wanted for your toolkit. Is NVC Always One-on-One?NVC contains specific tools and skills for dealing with group situations: from ways of surfacing and naming needs which are alive within the group to finding ways of connecting with and addressing those needs. The specific process is to be distinguished from any notion of “group needs.” Whether or not a group is an entity that can have needs (a controversy within the dialogue community), we lack mechanisms for checking in with a group as to what its needs are. All that we can do is get anyone’s or everyone’s interpretation of what the groups’ needs might be. Because of that, the work entails checking in with individuals, not with a group. It is through understanding, connecting with and attending to the needs of the individuals in the group (or groups) that NVC can create movement in a group situation. Example of NVC in a Group ProcessI hope the following story will illustrate this principle. This happened at the second of four quarterly week-long intensives of a year-long NVC leadership training program. One member of the group, let’s call her Maya, withdrew from the program at the beginning of the week, and towards the end of the week wanted to come back. Committed to inclusive process, we asked members of the group how they felt about it. All but one was happy to have this person back. One person, let’s call him Rob, was very upset and triggered, and didn’t want it to happen. The fundamental commitment we have in practicing NVC in a group is that everyone’s needs matter. How could we uphold that commitment in the face of this moment in a group’s life? In the process of attempting to understand Rob’s needs that led to the strategy of not wanting to include Maya, several other people in the group became quite charged. They were unwilling to let go of accepting Maya back. At the level of strategies, the conflict was clear: Maya wanted to come back, most people wanted her back, and Rob didn’t. We took a long stretch of time to resolve this issue. Many people at different points in time attempted to argue strategies and merit and majority and so forth. With our guidance, and with the growing willingness of more and more people to engage in the process of empathy and expression not only with Rob and Maya, but also with those who had become charged by Rob, we were able to peel off slowly the layers of “position” and reach the level of pure needs. The entire conversation was carried out by one individual after another attempting to connect, to express, to empathize. And yet it affected everyone in the group. One person, let’s call him Arnie, was the one most charged about Rob’s reluctance. For a while he was attempting to empathize with Rob, but Rob did not relax. Needless to say, Arnie felt more frustrated as time went by. He really wanted to find a way to understand Rob fully, and he wanted to find a way to make it work. However, at one point it became clear that he had not fully set aside his attachment to a particular strategy, namely having Maya back. It was through the empathic understanding of other people that he finally was able to stay open and relaxed himself. Within moments, Rob said: “I am now finally heard. I have no more unmet needs.” All of us in the room were amazed, as we had had no inkling this was coming even a second before. And so someone asked: “Does this mean that you are now willing to have Maya rejoin the group?” To our even greater astonishment, Rob said: “I am not saying that; I am just saying that I don’t have any unmet needs.” Maya joined the group, and everyone in the group experienced and reported a sense of depth and cohesion that stayed high for the remainder of the year. Both Individual and Group InvolvementSo, to conclude, each step of the way was articulated by one individual. And yet the process involved the group in several ways. First, the decision about Maya affected everyone. Second, the decision about whether or not and how to take time to work out the question of Maya’s return to the group affected the entire group. Third, even when one person was actively involved with empathic listening to another, everyone else was present. It is my experience that empathic connection between two people in a group (or from different groups) affects others in the group; witnessing connection appears to enhance connection for most people. Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, even though only individuals spoke, many of their expressions addressed the entire group, and included requests of everyone in the group, such as: “Please raise your hand if you are open to continuing this dialogue with Rob.” In conclusion, the conflict which arose in the group at that time was not between Rob and Maya. It was a conflict that in different ways affected the entire group. The conflict within the group was resolved through connection with all the needs that were identified by different people at different times. And the process of engaging with the conflict contributed to more people experiencing safety and trust that their needs mattered too. I hope this helps! —Miki Kashtan, Oakland, CA, USA
