Some differences between NVC and NbC

Especially if you have studied NVC already, you might be curious about whether ‘NbC’ as I use the term is the same or different.

Firstly a caveat: there is no agreed definition of what counts as NVC and what doesn’t, and the original ideas of Marshall Rosenberg’s are selected and interpreted differently by different CNVC trainers, never mind the independent trainers. Then we all add on extra bits that we like, such as ‘the beauty of needs‘ or the ‘dance floors’, or a Buddhist flavour or a focus on bodywork, and probably all or most of the bits that I have added to create what I call NbC are also in use by other trainers who stick with the NVC label. So what I am comparing with here is basically the contents of Rosenberg’s best-selling book  Nonviolent Communication: A Language of Life, which is the ‘Bible’ of NVCers world-wide.

NbC is based on NVC
NbC is the same as NVC in that it’s founded on the brilliant insights of Marshall Rosenberg in crystallising, simplifying and making manageable something that generations of linguists, semiologists, philosophers and psychologists had failed to do. Seeing human needs as the ultimate drivers of behaviour, feelings as the guide to the needs, and judgmental thinking as the danger zone leading to disconnection is fundamental to both NVC and NbC.

And, early on in my training, I noticed that the NVC practitioners who really impressed me didn’t actually do ‘classical’ NVC at all. I don’t think Marshall Rosenberg did, either. What has been taught as NVC is often an idealized abstraction, like when someone hears a great jazz musician and tries to write down what he has played in terms of notes on the staves, inevitably missing the subtleties of slides and slurs and half-pauses and syncopation and flow which are what made the music great, not to mention the ‘soul’ of the music. And maybe it’s an unavoidable simplification – we have to start somewhere, after all – but then there can be problems unlearning some of the over-simplified structures later. So, as a facilitator of NbC, I try to get a bit closer both in my theoretical descriptions and my practical exercises to what I see actually happening in effective NVC practice.

As well as this, having studied many different systems and teachings around self-connection and self-development, I was familiar with other insights and procedures which I believe complement NVC and which I therefore wanted to introduce into NbC. Some examples which are easily available in printed form would be The Work of Byron Katie and the Four Agreements of Don Miguel Ruiz.

Connection is bigger than communication
Classical NVC focuses heavily on understanding the processes of dialogue between two people and on improving these in order to better meet everyone’s needs. It is explicitly language-based, as the title of Marshall Rosenberg’s bestselling book indicates, and it’s ideal for conflict resolution, mediation, and similar processes. And, it takes a lot of work to get our NVC to the level where it’s actually a practical tool for such real-life situations. Everybody who comes to introductory workshops wants to go back home and try this ‘new way of talking’ on their spouse or children or work colleagues, but not always with great results. It seems to be very common that as beginning NVC students we are more eager to use our new-found NVC skills to interpret – and if possible to change! –  the behaviour of our friends and acquaintances than we are ready or able to take equivalent steps ourselves, not to mention ‘getting’ that it’s not our job to change anyone else anyway! Not so many students progress from ‘doing’ NVC to ‘living’ NVC. The common over-eagerness to proselytize also results in the phenomenon that for every new NVC recruit, three more people are put off NVC for life (usually his own family members!). Thus, in my work I like to highlight connection over communication; contact before connection; and self-connection before everything else! Hence, Needs-based Connection (NbC).

Of course, Marshall himself knew very well that the words we use in communication – whether NVC or not – are the map, not the territory, but still it is that verbal model for interpersonal communication which is emphasised by the ‘four components’ approach of OFNR. Because this is easy to teach, and because MR himself talks in ‘A Language of Life’ about ‘two parts’ to NVC without mentioning the role of self-connection, it often takes precedence over self-connection in introductory workshops and trainings. Many good trainers do however offer a more tripartite model in their own hand-outs and diagrams. In my workshops and coaching I try to keep the focus on self-connection as much as possible, though I admit it isn’t always easy to do, without disappointing the students who want to take something home which will get immediate results!

Nobody does OFNR ‘by the book’ in practice
Considering how the OFNR model gets applied, I see that in practice it gets modified by NVC practitioners in each of the three ‘modes’ of NVC. In ‘self-empathy‘, we often review our experiences and describe them in terms of feelings and needs: “(When x happened) I felt y because I needed z” (OFN or just FN). Observations disappear and the ‘Request’ step becomes a ‘request to self’, if it is applied at all. Similarly, when we listen empathically to others, we are usually trying to connect with them and understand them better by using the model to get to their deeper experience below their actual words: “Are you feeling y because you’re needing z?” (F?N?). Observations and Requests are often not necessary or relevant here, either. And when we express ourselves in NVC, we are essentially explaining ourselves, possibly but not necessarily as a prelude to making a Request for help or support: “When x happened, I felt y because I needed z, so will you help me by doing w?”(OFN or OFNR). Thus, already in current practice the model is not so rigidly applied as it looks in the books and trainers’ manuals. In NbC, I simply choose whichever steps (or none) will bring the most connection in the actual situation. That may mean focusing on needs without mentioning feelings at all, or it may mean the opposite.

A Request is a special case of an Action step
I have some special issues with the Request step of the OFNR model. In the self-empathy mode, the idea of making a ‘request to self’ as a general principle seems rather contrived to me, and I notice that students often struggle with this when they first encounter it in a ‘dance floor’ process. It’s also rather common that NVC students who have finally connected with their needs in a given situation, and have proudly formulated a more-or-less doable request, fall into despair and helplessness – or even rage – when that request is denied.  To me, the real point with the 4th step is to take some action which will move towards meeting the need(s) identified in the 3rd step of the process. That action could certainly include asking someone else for support, in which case a request made of another person is a perfectly appropriate form of action. It could include a ‘request to self’ in the sense of a reminder or intention to do something – but then it is the thing we will do which is important. So, the action step is mostly about doing something for ourselves. If we are hungry we can ask someone to cook a meal for us, but more likely we will have a look in the fridge and see what we can cook ourselves. Therefore, in NbC self-expression mode I replace the ‘Request’ step with ‘Action’. This wider focus also makes it clear that we are responsible for meeting our own needs and are not dependent on any one person for help.
In the mode of listening empathically, it seems equally contrived to invent a ‘request’ which another person might make of us but has not actually made (unless s/he is another NVCer and speaks the same code!). The form of words recommended by Rosenberg and CNVC is “Would you like me to do x?”. This is clearly not actually a request from the other person, it’s our own suggestion. So in this case, the Action step in the standard 4-step process is actually to make an offer of action: I see that you fell over (O), I guess your knee is hurting (F) and you might like some support (N), so can I fetch you a bandage (A)?

Putting all this together as a spatial map, I offer a revised version of the communication process defined by Bridget Belgrave and Gina Lawrence and known as the “13-step NVC dance floor”: 13 steps in Dialogue.

This page is getting long, but if you have energy for more, here are three more differences between NbC and NVC!