Author: vivslack

Nonviolent Communication (NVC)

Posted on by vivslack

Back in 2015, in a time of transition in my life, someone reflected back to me “you don’t seem to have much awareness of your feelings – i notice you tend to say you feel good or bad”. Even my own feelings were something i had learned to judge. This simple statement sent me into a deep journey of reflection and self connection that has radically changed how I experience life. Here is a little of what stands out from that journey…

For me, the shift starts with noticing and welcoming all parts of myself, and of others. I don’t always have the space or conditions or awareness to do it, and that too needs gentleness and compassion.

I also began to realise that we are not separate, that we are interconnected, and I want to live in a world where all needs matter. I care for other people’s needs and my own in the same breath, and want us to look for strategies that will work for all, so we can all be free and well and thrive.

A key part of my journey has been discovering Nonviolent Communication (NVC), developed by Marshall Rosenberg.

A core shift i found through NVC was to realise that all of our actions are attempts to meet human needs that we all share – that violence is a ‘tragic expression of unmet needs’. He shows how we experience pleasant feelings when our needs are met, and unpleasant feelings when our needs are unmet, and are socialised to focus on strategies to meet those needs. We will find any strategy we can to get our needs met, especially when we are in pain (emotionally or physically), or not feeling safe. Often these strategies are found when we are young and we continue them as patterns in our lives, long after they serve us. Often we don’t even know what motivates our actions, it’s just what we do, how we are.

Much of our communication and thought patterns centre on these strategies rather than the feelings and needs underneath, and this is the root of many of our conflicts and inner struggles. When we can connect with our feelings and needs and those of others, we come back into connection and from there are more able to find strategies that work for all. We can also reconnect with our choice and autonomy, to make requests, to say no, and to go to mourning when our needs aren’t met rather than to blame.

This is a world beyond right and wrong, where we see our judgements are patterns of our mind that hide within them beautiful needs that want attention. NVC gives us a new understanding of our inner worlds, and tools to help us understand ourselves and communicate in way that is more likely to bring connection. Often it is understood as a language, a set of steps that can aid communication, but at the core is an intention to move towards a world where all needs matter, and to connect at a deeper level with ourselves and each other.

Marshall’s work builds on a legacy of nonviolence movements, the work of Gandhi and Martin Luther King and many more who see that prioritising the needs of some over others is violence, that nonviolence is not about ‘not being violent’, but an active resistance to injustice, and an intention to see the humanity of all. The personal, interpersonal and systemic are all relevant and interconnected here. For more on the systemic side of this work, i recommend checking out NGL and Miki Kashtan’s writing, starting here.)

So what does this have to do with groups and social change?

I work in and alongside many different groups and organisations working for social change, and so often following the beautiful intention and common purpose of the groups is made difficult because of all the internal and inter-personal struggles that emerge. Especially with such urgency in our work, with the multiple crisis looming from climate change to racism to inequality and homelessness, we can feel as if there is not time for our own needs, and for listening to where others are struggling, that we have to push on.

I see the cost, in burnout and exhaustion, in conflicts and tension that goes unresolved, in people sensing they are being excluded and devalued, in ways of working that centre some needs over others. I see how groups try to care for each other, to include all needs, but don’t know how, and often miss each other. I feel sad when people leave movements or push themselves beyond what feels good, when it seems it’s ok to sacrifice some for the sake of the cause. I so value the vision of nonviolence and ‘Beloved Community’ – all needs matter, including our own.

And so, I am passionate about bringing this understanding, my energy and many of the brilliant tools out there to support groups. It might be explicitly NVC we want to bring in, to find easier ways to communicate what is going on and work out requests. It might be more about finding decision making tools that work for all and value outliers so that the needs of people who are often marginalised are included. It might look like exploring different ways to find solutions so that people who have more capacity in visual arts, metaphor, story telling, body sensing or movement can bring in all their insights alongside those whose strength is more in thinking and analysis. And it might be supporting conflict resilience – stepping towards conflict with care, setting up restorative systems or bringing in mediation or restorative circles.

If you are interested in how nvc can support your organisation, please get in touch. You can also find out about nonviolent communication (nvc) offerings in the north of England here.

Find out more

There are so many fantastic people out there developing the work Marshall started, and freely available resources to learn from. Below are links to some resources and some of the people I most enjoy learning from…

You could also attend an NVC training, find a practice group or start one near you.

Let me know if you would like any support.

Inclusive decisions with Convergent Facilitation

Posted on by vivslack

So often working in systems change we seem to hit limits in our ability to collaborate when we are coming with different perspectives and priorities. It can seem like we are in different realities, stuck in a polarity, too hard to find a way to togetherness in the challenge.

We might try to hear and value different perspectives and share power, yet it can feel frustrating and even impossible to try and find a way through to reach consensus, and sometimes people walk away, or resort to going back to how things were, or settling for small tweaks rather than the bigger changes we dreamed of.

I feel really fortunate to have met Miki Kashtan and got to know the process she has developed called ‘Convergent Facilitation’ which offers a different way forward. The key difference is pausing the conversation and getting really clear on what all the needs are, what matter to each of us, and then shifting to a creative thinking phase where we collaborate together on finding solutions that meet all the needs we have named. From there we can make a truly inclusive decision that all in the group have genuine willingness to go forwards with.

I have since used it with groups including GM Homelessness Action Network, and Extinction Rebellion UK and love the creativity and togetherness that comes with this different way of finding next steps that work for all, and am keen for more people to experience it.

How does Convergent Facilitation work?

I learned an analogy for this process from Paul at Navigate that i like – making a list of ingredients and checking for allergies; coming up with recipes using all the ingredients; and then agreeing together on a recipe that really works for everyone – explained here and included below…

Phase 1: Finding criteria (listing ingredients and identifying allergies)

The first part of the process involves hearing from different perspectives what is important, what matters about this for different people, and finding a set of criteria that they all agree to. In this process, the criteria are called ‘noncontroversial essence‘ – detailed enough to contain the essence of what matters, broad enough that all in the group are willing to adopt the criteria. This alone builds trust and a sense of working together towards a common goal.

Phase 2: Creating proposals (exploring possible recipes)

The next phase is a common mission for the group, to creatively explore ideas for meeting these criteria. Objections are invited in, seen as a gift to the group, a way to see another valuable perspective that was missing, the gold that makes what is agreed more likely to work.

Phase 3: Making a decision (choosing a recipe that all can say yes to)

In this phase, we look for willingness from everyone in the group to adopt or adapt a proposal that works for all. We rate and analyse the proposals as a group, to find a good place to start, and then seek objections to see if there are criteria that are not met, and get suggestions from the group to improve it. This process continues until there is genuine willingness, or an alternative decision is reached.

In addition to building trust, and enabling groups to find a way forward through complexity, what i love about this process is how it gives people an experience of a different way of being together, to know that it is possible to find solutions that work for all, that it can be win-win. It also surprises me when i see that setting specific criteria actually invites more creativity and togetherness rather than constraining anything. Wrapped into all this is awareness of power and privilege, making sure everyone is empowered, that their needs and concerns are heard and valued.

Find out more

I would love to see more structures and organisations opening up to making decisions together, beyond consultation, to deeper collaboration, and I am curious to understand what the blockers are. Here’s one example from the GM homelessness network.

If you are facing challenges around making decisions that work for all, feel free to get in touch.

I’m not busy!

Posted on by vivslack

I’m not ‘busy’. I’m not ‘knackered’. I’m not ‘back to back’. Dare I say that?

I have made conscious choices to do less, have more space, say no to things that are no longer heartfelt… and yet in this space things come up – what does this mean for me sense of value and self-worth?; am I doing enough?. Inner criticism feeds on ideas that to be loved and worthy you should be contributing endless deep beautiful work (and always busy), knowing that there is much to do and much urgency. Sometimes I collapse under that, believe i am not enough, that if my life was worthwhile i would have more to offer. Sometimes I don’t see what i can do that’s useful, heartfelt and authentic, and there is some shame.

Yet when i check, it seems like wisdom to allow space for reflection and integration, to wait and rest until i see more clearly what to do.

This is my practice with shame – speak it aloud and see that the world doesn’t collapse when I admit what is already true. I feel my body tense up as i type, can i admit this in public? Yes, it is true, honest, and also kind of exciting, freeing!

I’d love to hear any reflections, if any of this resonates – how is it for you when you stop being busy?

Originally posted on reconnect.works – an initiative to support collaboration, based in Hebden Bridge.

Wisdom in times of uncertainty – Theory U / ULab

Posted on by vivslack

TheoryU and ULab developed from two decades of action research at MIT, and now hosted by Presencing Institute. It is a theory, framework and set of tools to build capacities we need to address the root causes of the social, environmental, and spiritual challenges we face.

A core component of ULab is working with the future as it emerges, tuning into deeper sources of wisdom – in ourselves, in others, in the collective field. It is both mysterious and scientific, and unlike anything else i have come across! I followed the ULab 1.0 course back in 2016 and found a place where social change, research and spirituality came together with a kind of mystery and an inner shift that felt significant.

I have since used ULab in a few different contexts, most recently connecting change makers in GM through GM Transformation Lab, and we are now exploring the potential for using this to bring policy makers and grassroots organisations together around systems change in GM (Greater Manchester).

I’m also following #GAIAJourney which is a ULab offering for connecting globally during the pandemic. There are people from projects all over the world (not just from Europe and Americas, which is often what is the reality when something’s called ‘Global’) – I have been in breakout rooms with people from Colombia and Uganda and Brazil and Japan and everywhere in between, groups working on so many different things from systems to individual change to local communities from health to farming to economics to alternative finance to democracy to growing food to education. I follow with wonder at this evolving movement that has come together so quickly in response to a time of great uncertainty.

If you are interested to find out more about TheoryU and ULab, and explore how it might support you and your organisation to see your next steps and emerging future, please get in touch.

Read the full post on reconnect.works (an initiative to support collaboration, based in Hebden Bridge).

Pitch 2.0

Posted on by vivslack

Whilst working in agencies for many years, we often discussed how the pitch process felt broken.

Weeks of effort would be devoted to work that would rarely be used – creative responses without relevant knowledge or constraints, and estimates of effort based on assumptions and unknowns. Clients would get back a range of different responses and corresponding costs, rarely comparable. For both sides, a lot of time and effort went into what generally ended up a decision on who had the best slides, or which finger-in-the-air costs most closely matched the budget.

One of the reasons I wanted to work as an independent was to work with clients, enabling them to adopt a different process that was more effective for both parties. I recently had the chance to do this with a great client – smart, open minded, and willing to do things differently. We spent time clarifying the objectives and audiences for the project, and their relative importance. We set clear constraints, and high level user stories that needed to be covered, but steered clear of unnecessary assumptions about the solution. We wrote this up as a brief to provide an efficient handover of knowledge, rather than as a definition of what we wanted someone to build.

Instead of a pitch, we invited 3 agencies that felt a good match for the project to run solution design days with us. We spent valuable time with their strategists, designers, and developers, discussing options, and getting a real feel for each teams’ strengths and weaknesses. We openly discussed the pros and cons of various approaches, and from each session we gained valuable insights. We paid the teams for their time, and the client left with more clarity, and a far greater understanding of how digital solutions are developed. When it came to choosing a partner, the client had a feeling for what each team would be like to work with than is possible from listening to a one hour pitch, or from reading a document.

We made a number of decisions following the solution design days, and clarified some important assumptions. We asked each provider to give an estimate for the remaining discovery work, and for the delivery phase we asked for a team size and cost per sprint. This allowed the client to compare costs on a like for like basis, and weigh this up against the relevant strengths of each team. (As is often the case at this stage, there are still significant unknowns, decisions to be made, and priorities to be set, so asking for a ‘2 week sprint cost’ rather than a ‘final cost’ is more realistic and useful.)

When the decision was made, we had already done the introductions and discussed next steps, we knew how we were going to work together, and what gaps need to be researched and defined. In essence, the client chose a partner they trust to develop a viable solution for the objectives and audiences, and both parties felt ready to get started.

Processes can always be improved, and we have gathered good, honest feedback that will be useful for the next project. Those involved felt that this was a more effective and satisfying way of developing a solution and finding a partner, than crafting an impressive pitch based largely on guesswork. It was also a lot more enjoyable, and we all learned a lot on the way.

We all know the traditional agency pitch process is broken, so let’s not waste any more time and talent on great work that the world will probably never see!

I’d love to know how other people approach finding creative and technical partners to work with, or if you think this might work for you, I’d be happy to discuss and answer any questions.

Beyond Websites

Posted on by vivslack

I have been working with a number of charities and social enterprises on their digital strategy recently, exploring where technology can make a difference in people’s lives, beyond sharing information through a website.

It feels as though digital transformation is finally moving from a buzzword to reality, as organisations recognise increasing needs and diminishing budgets.

For me, technology has always been about improving how we experience life in some way – making something easier; providing accurate and relevant information to enable choices; connecting people; enabling us to reach our full potential.

There are a rich variety of inspiring examples – tools that enable the blind to navigate the underground, that map disaster areas for more effective humanitarian relief, that connect those with needs to willing volunteers, and many more. (For more inspiration, i’d recommend following the Tech4Good Award winners.)

In health, education and social care, digital can connect people and provide information to many, when face to face services are only available for a few.

There is a temptation to notice emerging trends and innovation, and look for any opportunity to re-use this learning as we compete for people’s attention. Tinder style matching apps and peer to peer sharing sites have seen fantastic results, but that isn’t the limit, we can do much more!

Awareness of what is possible is obviously important, but people’s needs vary hugely depending on their situation and conditions. This understanding should be our primary source of inspiration.

Organisations and the people they serve are best placed to convey distinct practical and emotional needs, with experts in various fields providing creative and innovative solutions. The most effective ideas won’t follow a template, but emerge when these parties co-create together, always starting with people, and the challenges they face in living their lives.

I look forward to seeing more inspiring examples of technology improving lives, and am really excited about working with passionate organisations and individuals to create our own.

If you are trying to make a difference, and have a hunch that technology might be able to help, i’d love to chat to you,  so feel free to get in touch.