David and I don't really know each other yet, and there we are with our luggage, excited about the journey we're about to undertake together. We not only have different things packed, but also different ideas about where the journey should go.
David brings prior experience from other projects where his knowledge was either oversimplified or misunderstood, training sessions he didn't find effective, and a degree of skepticism about what I actually intend to achieve. I, too, come with preconceived notions about brain dumps, claims of completeness, and resistance to learning perspectives. With all of this, we're embarking on this journey together for the foreseeable future. How can Nonviolent Communication help me shape this journey so that, despite our different starting points and expectations, we both arrive at a destination we can look at and say, "We did this well, together"?.
Inside Part 1 In this series I described how mandatory language in L&D communication generates resistance. In Part 2 It was about making needs visible in stakeholder workshops before diving into technical details. When working with subject matter experts, this is even more true: the relationship level is the prerequisite for everything that comes after. If I go straight to the learning objectives, I'm skipping the most important step. David doesn't yet know if I respect his knowledge and if he can trust me. Without this foundation, any technical discussion becomes a fight for control rather than a collaboration.
First the relationship, then the content
So before I ask, „What should the learners be able to do?“, it's worth asking: What does David need in this collaboration? Recognition of his expertise? Assurance that his knowledge won't be diluted? Rosenberg points out that in interpersonal communication, we reflexively tend to give advice or explanations. From the NVC perspective, I approach encounters with David differently: I listen before I ask. I need information too, but first I want to understand what's driving him: What's important to him? What does he fear? This is how I invest in the collaboration, and it pays off later when we get into the technical aspects. NVC works with four components that help me conduct these conversations:
These four components of GfK provide me with a structure to navigate the three typical tensions in collaboration with subject matter experts more clearly.
The brain dump
I'll send you my slides first. Everything is in there. David is sending me 150 slides. And behind this statement isn't an attempt at sabotage, but rather a need for completeness, quality, and professional integrity. He knows his subject deeply and takes responsibility for ensuring nothing important is missing. Rosenberg points out that we often confuse observation with evaluation, and then the other person hears criticism instead of our actual message.
If I respond to 150 slides with „That's too much, we need to cut back,“ I'm making an assessment. David hears, „Your knowledge is too much.“ This naturally triggers resistance. Another reaction would be: „I see how much you're contributing to this topic. I want to understand what aspects will make a difference for the target audience in their specific situation so we can focus on those.“ This acknowledges the need behind the brain dump while also introducing a different question: "What do the learners really need?"
Knowledge vs. Behavior
They should understand all of that. David thinks in terms of knowledge. That's his job. I think in terms of behavior: what should people do, decide, or be able to solve differently afterward? That's my job. These two perspectives aren't automatically in conflict, but they often talk past each other. Rosenberg asks two fundamental questions that are central to Nonviolent Communication and also crucial for collaborating with subject matter experts:
These questions help me clarify with David: What exactly should happen with this knowledge? I can ask these questions directly, but even better, I can invite David to tell me about a specific example: „Tell me about someone you explained this topic to who really understood it. What did they do differently afterward?“ This question shifts the focus from content to behavior. This way, I can translate David's knowledge into something that will be useful for the learners.
Skepticism towards learners
Or they're not interested. Or they don't understand. Sentences like these are common among subject matter experts. GfK invites us to hear such statements as expressions of need. When David says, „they never understand,“ it can mean that he is afraid or frustrated because he feels like his knowledge isn't being taken seriously.
I can reflect: „I hear you're worried about whether this will land. What would you need to feel confident that the content will actually be used?“ This often opens a different space. Instead of discussing the target audience, we talk about design choices that can address that concern.
My Role as Co-Creator
In collaboration with David, I am a co-creator. We both need what the other person brings. David needs my perspective on learning; I need his expertise. I can contribute my perspective without imposing it. Rosenberg describes the difference between requests and demands: A request is perceived as a demand when the other person believes they will be criticized or punished if they don't agree.
When I say, „We need to think about this from the learner's perspective,“ it sounds like a demand, even a rejection (your perspective doesn't count, only the other one). When I say, „I'd like to look with you at how learners can use this content in their daily work. Would you be willing to go through that with me?“ that's a request. The difference isn't just tone. It primarily signals that I respect their decision and don't want to impose anything on them.
Not conflict-free but constructive
Sometimes there are genuine differences in interest: subject matter experts want completeness, the project has a time budget for 30 minutes of e-learning. GfK helps me recognize where resistance stems from unmet needs and where I need to make real project boundaries transparent. GfK reminds me that David is someone with legitimate needs and valuable knowledge. My task is not to educate him didactically. My task is to design a collaboration in which his knowledge and my perspective on learning jointly create a product that truly works for the target audience. The journey with David won't always be easy. We'll probably go in circles a few times. But if we can both look at the result at the end and say, „We did a good job on this together,“ then the investment in the relationship will have been worth it.
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.
In dialogue with Claude, edits. Ideas and conclusions are mine.