Nonviolent Communication for L&D – Part 1

Why „duty“ and „necessary“ have little impact. And how our language designs our learning culture.

Elective subject. A word from my university days that confused and amused me as an international student. And a word that I constantly encountered later as a teacher and learning designer. Surely you too. This „compulsory“ language is deeply ingrained in educational and L&D communication. Words like must, should, mandatory people experience choice and self-efficacy. This is the main argument of Nonviolent Communication (NVC) according to Marshall Rosenberg:

This type of language creates compliance and formal participation, but rarely intrinsic motivation. Behavior that arises from duty is rarely conducive to learning. Or as Rosenberg puts it sharply: when people perceive a demand, they see two options: obedience or resistance.

Self-Determination Theory (Deci & Ryan) provides an empirical basis for this: experiencing autonomy is one of the central prerequisites for intrinsic motivation. GfK gives us a practical vocabulary to support this experience in communication. Even where requirements are real and non-negotiable.

Potential of Nonviolent Communication for L&D

In L&D practice, this rebellion manifests itself in the following ways: clicking through the material, being present without actively participating, disruptive behavior during sessions, colleagues gossiping about „pointless training,“ and an NPS of 0 %. Language is such an important component of L&D because it frames expectations, roles, and scope for action, thereby shaping the entire learning journey.
 
Rosenberg describes the goal of Nonviolent Communication as: shaping relationships so that the needs of all parties become visible. For L&D, this means fostering communication on equal footing and creating clarity about the needs of the organization and its people. Nonviolent Communication asks these central questions:

• What should people do?

• For what reasons should they do it?

This requires honesty about why something is important and a willingness to allow choice where possible. But why is this still so difficult in organizations? Leadership often acts out of fear of losing control and, in doing so, loses trust. Here are three fears I often hear:

If we don't clearly state that something is mandatory, nobody will do it.

Mandatory language creates formal participation with minimal internal engagement. However, instead of pushing authority, we can make the organizational need (e.g., security, compliance) and individual benefit transparent. Real requirements don't disappear this way; they are simply communicated honestly instead of being hidden behind impersonal mandatory language.

Classic communication: Participation in this data protection training is mandatory and must be completed by the end of the month.

Organizational Rationale: We work with sensitive customer data daily. We want to protect our customers and prevent their data from falling into the wrong hands. It is important to us that everyone adheres to data protection principles. Please take the time by the end of the month to complete this online training.

🩷 GfK-Oriented Communication: You work with customer data daily. A data breach creates legal risks for the organization and also damages the trust that customers place in you personally. Please take 30 minutes for this training by the end of the month. It will show you where the real risks lie in your specific work.

Without pressure, we lose commitment.

Pressure shifts responsibility outward. Real commitment arises when people support the reasons, not when they follow orders.

Classic communication: Executives are required to attend this training annually.

Organizational Rationale: As a leader, you shape your team culture and collaboration. That's why it's important to us that all leaders attend the workshop once a year to stay on the same page.

🩷 GfK-Oriented Communication: You know the feeling when a conversation doesn't go as you'd imagined: difficult feedback, a tension in the team that you couldn't quite grasp. This workshop gives you space to think through exactly these kinds of situations with other leaders. Please register by [Date].

If we have a choice, too many say no.

A „no“ makes visible where processes, formats, or time budgets don't fit reality. The problem was there before; the „no“ just reveals it. But a "no" also has a second interpretation: At GfK, every "no" is a "yes" to another need. Someone who says they don't have time for training right now is simultaneously saying "yes" to an urgent project, a deadline, or another priority. This isn't a refusal, but information about real conditions. If we take that seriously, the question changes: not "How do we get more agreement?" but "What conditions would need to change for the learning offer to fit?"

Classic Communication: All employees must attend the onboarding week.

Nonviolent Communication: The onboarding week is a central starting point for your role. If you cannot attend, please let us know.We'll look for a solution together.

🩷 GfK-oriented communication: A new job means figuring out a lot at once: who you can approach, how things really work here, and what's expected of you. The onboarding week answers exactly these questions before they slow you down. You'll also get to know the people you'll be working with the most. Please sign up by [Date].

„Because you must“ is a design problem.

Back to the two questions: What should people do? For what reasons should they do it? If we can't answer the second question honestly without saying „because they have to,“ then we have a design problem.  

One point that often gets overlooked in this discussion: GfK does not relativize real requirements. The GfK version of the data privacy training is still mandatory. The difference lies not in the "whether" but in the "how" of communication. Anyone who works for a company has agreed to certain framework conditions with their employment contract, including regulatory requirements. GfK does not help to circumvent this, but rather to communicate about it honestly. If the training itself is not convincing, a friendlier invitation will not solve the actual problem.

In the next post, I'll go one level deeper: Nonviolent Communication and working with stakeholders.

Links https://www.gfk-info.de/was-ist-gewaltfreie-kommunikation/ 

Quotes from the book by Rosenberg, Marshall B. Nonviolent Communication: A Language of Life: Life-Changing Tools for Healthy Relationships (Nonviolent Communication Guides) (Function). Kindle Edition.

GfK is often criticized because its four steps seem mechanical, almost like a checklist for human communication. Real conversations don't work like that. Nevertheless, I find it valuable how GfK can sharpen my awareness for when I'm evaluating instead of observing, or when I'm operating with assumptions and demands instead of needs. It's a matter of practice, and GfK provides a good foundation for it.

Edited in dialogue with Claude (Anthropic). Ideas and conclusions are mine.