Nonviolent Communication for L&D – Part 2

Needs Instead of Agendas: How GfK Helps Make Stakeholder Work Constructive.

For years, I was a lecturer and trainer before switching to learning design. I thought it meant quieter work behind the scenes. In reality, I still work with people, just in a different way. In projects, I sit with stakeholders who have different agendas, and there's a lot of human interaction involved. Nonviolent Communication (NVC) according to Marshall Rosenberg helps us to clarify not just requirements, but also genuine needs in project workshops. This second part of the series focuses on how NVC specifically helps to make needs visible, recognize hidden tensions, and create space for real collaboration.

The scenario: Workshop for an „AI Course“

Six stakeholders are in the room: HR wants compliance, L&D wants innovation, IT is skeptical, and sales wants practical relevance. The biggest fear (at least mine): the group leaves the workshop with uncertainty or, even worse, important conflicts remain beneath the surface and emerge later in the project, when they can no longer be used.

Set the scene

Even though we don't usually talk about conflict resolution when we act as facilitators, we are also mediators between different perspectives and priorities. So, how can we design such a collaborative framework? We can already manage expectations in the workshop invitation by asking participants to prepare these two reflection questions:

• What needs to be fulfilled at the end for the project to be successful for you?

• What do you fear could go wrong?

These direct questions signal: Your personal perspective is valid and welcome. Different priorities are normal and will be negotiated in the workshop. Not everyone will come prepared, but we have initiated a thought process.

Of course, a kickoff workshop also covers an initial gap analysis, defining goals, scope, timeline, role distribution, etc. But the time we invest in the human aspect (individual needs, fears, expectations) massively influences the project's progress. We are managing risk. When all stakeholders are aware of their own needs and those of others, collaboration runs more constructively. So, Before we get to the matter, we should get to the people.. Rosenberg says: We are not trained to express our needs, and even less to hear those of others. Our task as facilitators is to hear the needs behind these statements, not the solutions they propose.

What do you need?

When we return to our question: „What must be fulfilled in the end for the project to be successful for you?“, various needs will most likely emerge:

Listening according to GfK

Rosenberg suggests that we first use criticism or statements that we perceive as negative or as an attack as valuable information. I am well acquainted with the reflex to immediately interpret and want to reassure or explain oneself. GfK works with four components:

Skepticism as a Need

Let's take Michael (IT): „Honestly, I'm skeptical. We've already had two e-learning projects that completely failed.“ The first impulse is to think Michael is negative. That's a judgment. GfK invites us to observe: Michael has experienced two failed projects and expresses skepticism. What feelings or needs are behind this? We ask: „I hear you've had two projects that didn't work out. What was the biggest problem back then?“ Michael says something like, „Nobody used the courses. Because they were mandatory, but completely missed the mark.“ Now the actual need emerges: relevance, practical application. We can then reflect: „You need reassurance that what we're building will actually be used and is relevant to people. Right?“ We haven't argued, reassured, or explained, but listened and understood.

Fears as a Guide

The second question, „What do you fear might go wrong?“ often opens up a different space. People often express anxieties as criticism. Ayşe (L&D) says, „My fear is that we'll end up with another run-of-the-mill click dummy again. That won't do anyone any good.“ Without empathetic listening, I might be tempted to defend myself by saying, „This will be different this time!“ or to dismiss it with a „Okay, I understand.“ GfK invites us to respond more like this: „When you think of a ’run-of-the-mill click dummy,‘ what would be the opposite of that for you? What would you need for you to be satisfied in the end?“ Ayşe might say, „I want people to really be able to do something with it. That they reflect, experiment, discuss, not just consume.“ Ayşe likely has a strong need for activation and real interaction. We reflect back: „So, it's important to you that it's activating, that people take action themselves. Do I understand that correctly?“ If we hear concerns early on, we can incorporate them into the concept as guardrails.

Recognize and address hidden tensions

I rarely experience open conflicts. More often, it's passive-aggressive comments like, „Yeah, sounds good. But we heard that last time too.“ How can we deal with this according to GfK? We make the underlying need visible. With passive-aggressive comments: „Michael, I hear that you're concerned we might repeat the same mistakes. What would you need to feel confident?“ Michael: „I'd need concrete examples of how we'll ensure practical relevance. Not just the promise.“ Now we have something constructive. Instead of resistance, we have a concrete requirement.

Between procedural authority and real boundaries

I'm in a paradoxical position in these workshops: I have process authority. I shape the space, guide the conversation. But I have no hierarchical power. I cannot force decisions. Rosenberg describes the role of facilitators, but he writes for peer relationships. I am not a peer. I am an external service provider. We can make needs visible, name goal conflicts transparently, ask questions that provoke thought, and hold the space so that everyone is heard. But we cannot make decisions, make everyone happy, or resolve deep organizational conflicts. For example: HR: „We have to launch this by Q2, otherwise it will look bad to the board.“ IT: „If we rush this, it will be garbage. Then it'll flop again.“ I cannot resolve this conflict. But I can make it visible and thus contribute to joint problem-solving: „Both needs are valid. The question is: What is the minimum we need to deliver by Q2 for it to look good to the board?" and “technically sound?" Sometimes that leads to an MVP approach. Sometimes it doesn't. But we've kept the space.

Self-Empathy: What do I need?

Rosenberg reminds us that empathy also turns inward. What do I need myself in the workshop? Clarity about my role. Confidence that I can hold the process, even when conflicts arise. Respect for my expertise, even if I don't have hierarchical power. When I know my own needs, I can better navigate where my boundaries are. And sometimes, the workshop still fails. If the organization is structurally dysfunctional, if power struggles are more important than the project, if needs are so contradictory that no solution is possible, then I, as a learning designer, cannot solve that. GfK gives me tools, but unfortunately no superpowers. I should be aware of that. If this part of the workshop went well in the GfK sense, everyone has an overview of needs and fears, as well as a clearer picture of conflicting goals. We have more trust in the project because all perspectives are given space, enabling designs that address multiple needs simultaneously, and reducing passive-aggressive sabotage during the project. Will everyone be happy in the end? Hopefully, if they have broadened their perspectives. At least everyone knows why certain decisions were made and which needs were prioritized. GfK gives us tools: to hear what people really need. To ask instead of interpreting. To reflect instead of judging. To hold space, even when we can't solve all conflicts.

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.