Nonviolent Communication for L&D – Part 2

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

For years, I was a lecturer and trainer before switching to learning design. I thought that meant quieter work behind the scenes. In reality, I still work with people, just differently. In projects, I sit with stakeholders who have different agendas, and there's a lot of human interaction involved. A successful Stakeholder Management in Learning Design therefore requires more than just working through agendas. Nonviolent Communication (NVC) according to Marshall Rosenberg helps us clarifying not only requirements but also genuine needs in project workshops.

In Part 1 of this series, I talked about Mandatory language in L&D reflects. This second part of the series is about how GfK specifically helps to make needs visible, to recognize hidden tensions, and to create space for genuine 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 it's too late to address them.

Setting the Framework for Better Stakeholder Management

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've got them thinking.

Of course, a kickoff workshop also covers an initial gap analysis, defining goals, scope, timeline, roles, 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 becomes more constructive. before we get down to business, we need to get to know 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 needs to be fulfilled in the end for the project to be successful for you?", various needs will most likely emerge:

Listening According to NVC: 4 Components

Rosenberg suggests we treat criticism, or anything that feels like an attack, as valuable information first. I I know that reflex well to immediately interpret and want to reassure or explain myself. NVC 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. NVC 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 an "Okay, I understand." NVC 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 to feel 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 NVC? 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 am in a paradoxical position in these workshops: I have process authority. I design the space, guide the conversation. But I have no hierarchical power. I cannot force decisions. Rosenberg describes the role of mediators, 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 encourage reflection, and hold the space for everyone to be 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'll look bad in front of the board.“ IT: „If we rush this, it'll be trash. Then it'll flop again.“ I can't resolve this conflict. But I can make it visible and thus contribute to co-creating a solution: „Both needs are valid. The question is: What is the minimum we need to deliver by Q2 so that it looks good in front of the board?" and is 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 what my role is. Security 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 fails anyway. 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 not superpowers. I should be clear on that. If this part of the workshop went well in the GfK sense, everyone will have an overview of needs and concerns, as well as a clearer picture of conflicting objectives. We'll have more confidence 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've broadened their perspectives. At least, however, everyone will know why certain decisions were made and which needs were prioritized in the process.

NVC gives us tools: To hear what people truly need. To ask, rather than interpret. To reflect, rather than judge. To hold space, even when we can't solve every conflict.

Links https://www.cnvc.org/

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.