by Martha Lasley, MBA

Abstract
This article offers a practical approach to facilitating difficult conversations. The Authentic Communication model (developed from Nonviolent Communication) is more than a tool; it is a state of consciousness that helps people communicate honestly and openly. This approach expands emotional intelligence by developing awareness of the connection between feelings and universal human needs. Distinctions between observations and judgments, feelings and thoughts, needs and positions, and demands and requests are clarified. Authentic Communication provides a method of resolving difficult conflicts so that people feel heard. By deepening awareness of needs, we contribute to trust, safety, and improved communication. When people are understood at a deep level, they’re able to release their attachment to their positions, explore options and make requests that meet everyone’s needs.

Keywords
Authentic communication, authenticity, nonviolent communication, needs, awareness, emotional literacy, difficult, conversations, language of compassion, real conversations, challenging conversations, understanding, conflict, harmony, teamwork.

Like the Chinese word for crisis, which combines the symbols for danger and opportunity, difficult conversations can lead to either distress or harmony. We usually anticipate distress because difficult conversations often become emotional, leading us to confront, freeze, bolt, or gloss over the issues. But we could choose to expect harmony instead.

Imagine yourself at a tense planning meeting where the financial director reports, “To compete profitably, we need to lay off 20 percent of the workforce.” The marketing director responds, “That’s the stupidest idea I’ve ever heard. We need to lay you off so we can hire new people who are serious about growing the business.”  Are you ready to add fuel to the fire, would you prefer to crawl under your chair, or do you have the skills to facilitate a conversation that could satisfy everyone in the room?

Minimizing the emotions in such situations might seem like the safest course of action, but in the long run, honesty and direct engagement can promise even higher levels of performance by deepening understanding and fostering teamwork. “Many meeting facilitators call for a break when the emotional energy escalates,” notes Roger Schwarz, author of The Skilled Facilitator, “but savvy facilitators recognize that they have hit pay dirt.” (Schwarz, 2000). When a group has tapped the vein of dynamic energy that feeds conflict, they are connecting with issues that are important to them.

Authentic Communication is a practical method of dealing with human conflict that reframes how people communicate so that strong emotions are not a liability, but an opportunity to discover more satisfying options. This article describes how facilitators can use the Authentic Communication model to honor emotional energy and creatively transform conflict to serve each individual and the group as a whole.

In choosing Authentic Communication—as facilitators or individuals—we may be guided by the spirit of piano maker Theodore Steinway. “In one of our concert grand pianos,” he said, “243 taut strings exert a pull of 40,000 pounds on an iron frame. It is proof that out of great tension may come great harmony.”

Introduction to Authentic Communication
The Authentic Communication model is based on the work of Marshall Rosenberg, author of Nonviolent Communication: A Language of Life. According to Rosenberg, everything we do or say is an attempt to meet a need. I take graduate courses because I need respect.  You write a business plan because you need clarity about creating a better future.

In Rosenberg’s model, needs are by definition universal; true of every human being—everyone needs respect or clarity at one time or another. What varies is how people choose to meet these needs. Our needs might be the same, but our strategies might be in conflict.

For example, two people might need to contribute to the sustainability of organization, but one takes the position “We have to hire more people,” and another believes, “We have to fire more people.” Rosenberg suggests that understanding each other’s needs can open the door to new visions that can satisfy all parties. The key, he says, is to empathize with the needs fully and then develop strategies for fulfilling those needs (Rosenberg, 2004).

Before we can empathize with a need, we must be able to identify it. Authentic Communication recognizes that one of the key functions of emotions is to point to our met and unmet needs. If I feel frustrated, my frustration could be a clue that my need for order is not satisfied. If you feel amused perhaps that is because your need for humor is met. 

In a fast-paced work place, we often tell ourselves that we don’t have time for feelings. But ignoring them, and by extension ignoring our needs, may actually sabotage our productivity. According to Human Resources magazine “…study after study indicates that employee emotions are fundamentally related to—and actually drive—bottom-line success in a company.” (Bates, 2004, February). By paying attention to feelings and needs, Authentic Communication helps cultivate the sense that “I matter, you matter, we matter,” which can improve relationships, build team spirit and contribute to the growth of the organization.

Four Steps to Authentic Communication
Whether we are expressing what is important to us, or receiving another person’s message, Authentic Communication includes four basic steps:

Receiving (checking your understanding of another)                                         
Observation: When you … (describe your observation)
Feeling: are you feeling … (guess the emotion)                 
Need: because you need … (guess the need)?                
Request:  Would you like (me, him, her, them) to (specific action)?   

Expressing (communicating your desire to be understood)
Observation:  When …(describe your observation)          
Feeling:  I felt … (your emotion)  
Need: because I need … (your need)
Request:  Would you be willing to …(specific action)?   

To see how facilitators might use these steps in practice, let us apply them to the scenario mentioned at the beginning of this article. The financial director, Susan, has just suggested laying off 20 percent of the staff; the marketing director, Jack, responded by suggesting Susan be laid off. Noting that Jack seems the most agitated, as the facilitator, you decide to address him first. The conversation below uses the four steps from the “receiving the message” point of view. 

You:  Jack, when you heard Susan say that we should lay off 20 percent of the staff, (observation), I guess you were pretty alarmed (feeling), because you would like reassurance that the company will grow (need). Is that accurate? (request)
Jack:  Yes, she is clueless! Doesn’t she know we are launching two new products this quarter?  To have any chance of success, it is crucial that we have adequate staff on board, especially in marketing!
You:  Hearing her suggestion to lay off 20% of the workforce, (observation), are you really concerned (feeling) about the success of the two new products and ultimately the life of the company? (need)
Jack:  Yes, I care about the company’s future—I’ve been here ten years. But I also care about my job and I cannot do it without adequate staff. The last guy in her position made the same mistake and I ended up paying the price. Sales plummeted! We are still recovering, three years later.
You:  So are you worried (feeling) about the company, but also want some understanding about what it takes to adequately market products? You need the staffing and resources to do your job well and feel confident about success. (need) Is that right?
Jack:  Yes, that’s it.

Having heard Jack’s concerns, you now turn to Susan to see that she understands what Jack said. At first, she may need some help; it is not unusual, especially when tempers flare, for one person to hear a message very differently from what the other expressed. If you are not confident that Susan has heard Jack, you can check back with him or share with Susan what you have heard Jack say:
You:  Before we go on to hear your concerns Susan, I want to make sure that we have clarity about what Jack has said. Could you tell me what you heard him say?
Susan:  I hear him loud and clear. He said that I remind him of my predecessor and that I’m making the same mistakes he did. He thinks I’m screwing up.
You:  Thanks Susan. I’m glad I checked. What I heard Jack say is that he needs understanding that to successfully launch the new product this fall, he needs sufficient staff. He wants to build an effective department and is worried that he won’t have the resources to do so. Can you tell me what you just heard me say?
Susan:  Jack wants to make sure his department has the resources to adequately market these new products.
You: Right. That’s what I understood. Jack, is that what you wanted to express?
Jack:  Yes. It’s crucial that these new products do well.

Once you feel confident that Susan has understood Jack, you can check with him to see if he is ready to hear what Susan has to say:
You:  It’s important to me that everyone is understood (need), so I wonder if you are ready to hear where Susan is coming from? (request)
Jack:  I’m a little anxious, but ready to listen…

After several rounds of listening to each other in this way, Jack and Susan will come to focus on what they have in common, rather than what sets them at odds. They both care about the life of the company, fear for its future, and want to see it succeed. Having heard each other, they come up with a mutually agreeable solution. Susan agrees to postpone any layoffs in the marketing department for six months, until after they launch the new product line. Jack agrees to new sales targets and acknowledges that if they do not reach their goals, some layoffs may be necessary. Jack ends the meeting more motivated than ever to market the new line. Susan has a greater understanding and appreciation of the challenges that Jack faces in his department and agrees to get his input for future planning.

It may take several rounds of guessing feelings and needs before both parties feel understood. Once the needs are on the table, you can encourage those involved to make requests that honor each other’s needs. Because they both feel understood, each person is more likely to listen to the other’s ideas and create strategies that work for everyone. 

Practicing Authentic Communication
The language and format of Authentic Communication may sound complex, but it is simply a new way of interacting that focuses on giving and receiving empathy. The process is visually represented in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Adapted from the work of Marshall Rosenberg (Rosenberg, 2004).

In Figure 1, the four numbered steps in the middle represent the response choices we have at each juncture:

Stimulus: We can either pass moral judgment or notice our observations.
Reaction: We can tune into what we think or what we feel.
Awareness: We can decide on a position or explore what we need.

4. Action: We can make either a demand or a request.

The words in green (judgments, thoughts, positions, demands) represent habitual ways of communicating. Unfortunately, this approach often leads people to see those who disagree with them as adversaries.  The inner options in red (observations, feelings, needs, and requests) avoid such adversary images by promoting mutual understanding.

Figure 2 describes the alternatives associated with Authentic Communication. “In every situation,” says Charles Jones, a partner in the Center for Sustainable Leadership, “we all have the power to choose between two very different frames of mind: a ‘judgmental’ frame in which we are defensive and closed minded; and a ‘generative’ frame in which we are open and curious.” (Jones, 2005). By consciously choosing a generative frame of mind at each step, we choose language that helps us understand each other, rather than language that divides or separates us.

Figure 2: Components of Authentic Communication

Principles of Practice : Sharing Observations Instead of Judgments
To practice Authentic Communication we must be especially clear about the distinction between observations and judgments. The statement, “Derek is a poor manager,” at first might sound like an observation. As far as you are concerned, it is a fact: Derek is not doing a good job—anyone who worked with him would agree. But this statement offers no clear observations. All we have is an evaluative word, “poor.” A clean observation, on the other hand, might sound like, “Derek tore up the report, pounded his fist on the table, and did not say goodbye when he left.” 

Or perhaps your evaluation comes from more subtle observations, such as “Derek raised his eyebrows when an employee suggested bonuses.”  However, we do not know what the raised eyebrows mean unless we check. Perhaps Derek raised his eyebrow because he was surprised that the employee had read his mind?  Whenever we state what we have observed, rather than how we interpreted the situation, we reduce the likelihood of misunderstanding and defensiveness and open the door to authentic conversations. 

Distinguishing Feelings from Thoughts
When I work in an organizational culture where people think they have to check their feelings at the door, I sometimes show a video of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King giving his “I have a dream” speech. When people see the way King trembles while delivering his famous words, they experience how full emotional expression enhances the connection between the speaker and the listener. Feelings reveal a person’s deepest needs, desires, and values. When we recognize feelings in others, it leads to better understanding and collaboration; when we acknowledge them in ourselves, we foster self-awareness.

Because so many of us have become accustomed to ignoring our feelings—not only in business but also in our personal relationships—they may not be easy to recognize. The two lists below suggest the rich range of feelings that may arise when our needs are or are not being met.

Examples of Feelings When Our Needs Are Met

• Amazed                                
• Energized                          
• Optimistic
• Appreciative                                  
• Engaged                                      
• Relaxed
• Calm
• Confident
• Delighted
• Encouraged
• Excited
• Happy
• Hopeful
• Inspired
• Relieved
• Surprised
• Thrilled
• Trusting
  

Examples of Feelings When Needs are Not Met

• Afraid                                    
• Disgusted                              
• Outraged
• Angry                                    
• Embarrassed                                  
• Overwhelmed
• Annoyed                                
• Envious                                 
• Sad                     
• Bored                                    
• Frustrated                              
• Shocked
• Concerned                             
• Hurt                                      
• Stressed out
• Confused                               
• Impatient                              
• Uncomfortable
• Disappointed                                   
• Irritated                                
• Uneasy
• Discouraged                          
• Nervous                                
• Worried

Someone who is unaccustomed to identifying and articulating feelings can easily confuse them with thoughts or evaluations. How often have you heard “I feel manipulated” or “I feel like leaving” or
“I feel that this conversation is going nowhere”?  These are all examples of the word “feeling” being used to describe what someone is thinking.  “Manipulated” is not a feeling; it is what I think someone is doing to me.

Whenever someone says, “I feel that…”, “I feel like…”, or “I feel as if…” you are about to learn what they think, not what they feel. As a facilitator, when you hear someone express a feeling that implies an action happening outside of the body—for example, “I feel rejected”—you can help translate that statement into a genuine internal feeling. “I feel rejected” may become “I feel disappointed or sad.”
To translate, simply ask, “How do you feel when you think someone is rejecting you?”

Language Often Mistaken for Feelings

• Abandoned 
• Abused       
• Attacked     
• Belittled
• Betrayed    
• Bullied        
• Coerced     
• Discounted  
• Dismissed   
• Harassed    
• Ignored      
• Intimidated
• Manipulated         
• Marginalized        
• Misunderstood      
• Neglected
• Patronized  
• Provoked    
• Rejected     
• Threatened                        

Develop Awareness of Needs before Strategies
According to the Chilean economist Manfred Max-Neef, all humans, across culture and history, share nine basic needs: subsistence, protection/security, affection, understanding, participation, leisure, creation, identity/meaning and freedom. (Max-Neef, 1992). The language used to describe needs varies from one organization to another, as the list below shows. Some of these needs may resonate more strongly with you than others.

Needs or Values Often Expressed in Organizations

• Accomplishment (Mastery / Growth / Progress)
• Choice (Autonomy / Individuality / Freedom)
• Community (Acceptance / Belonging / Collaboration)
• Connection (Relationships / Appreciation / Care)
• Contribution (Service / Impact / Results)
• Creativity (Authenticity / Ingenuity / Inspiration)
• Fun (Humor / Play / Balance)
• Harmony (Aesthetics / Order / Peace)
• Meaning (Identity / Purpose / Awareness)
• Order (Efficiency / Structure / Clarity)
• Proficiency (Competence / Success / Achievement)
• Respect (Consideration / Integrity / Trust)
• Security (Safety / Stability / Protection)
• Sustainability (Subsistence/ Continuation / Hope)
• Understanding (Learning / Consideration / Clarity)

There are many more words that describe basic needs, which we sometimes refer to as values, wants or desires. As facilitators, we invite more clarity when we distinguish between needs with the thousands of strategies we might choose to meet our needs. Team members often entangle themselves in challenging conversations by insisting on a position or premature strategy without first understanding each other’s needs. Susan and Jack, for example, were at odds because they had different positions (hiring and firing) for meeting similar needs. In their case, their needs might include some combination of accomplishment, proficiency, security or sustainability. When we insist on a solution before we have explored everybody’s needs, our plans are more likely to run into trouble. When we understand everyone’s needs first, the resulting solutions are more likely to be effective and satisfying for all involved. We get buy-in and cooperation that result in long-term productivity.

Making Requests Rather than Demands
People speak because they want something. Sometimes they want action, they may want to connect with others, or they simply want to be heard. Too often people expect others to figure out their request. When using Authentic Communication, we learn to listen for the implied request.  Sometimes we help them craft their request by saying, “It sounds like you need progress. Do you have a request?” Or if the person is unclear about what request would meet their needs, we can guess, “It looks like you need collaboration and action. Is your request to create an action plan together?”

As facilitators we can help people distinguish between making requests rather than demands. “do it my way,” only invites submission or rebellion, not teamwork. Alternatively, when people ask for what they want and show an obvious willingness to revise their proposed positions, their requests invite creativity. When groups recognize they have a full range of choices, they generate more options.

Authentic Communication in the Work Place: Dealing with Resistance
While the Authentic Communication model has only four steps (observations, feelings, needs and requests), not everyone is open to communicating, authentically or otherwise. As a facilitator, bringing unwilling adversaries to the table can be the most difficult part of the process. Nevertheless, Rosenberg has successfully facilitated unimaginable conflicts with rival gangs, warring tribes of Hutus and Tutsis, estranged family members and management and labor unions among others (Rosenberg, 2004).

One-way to get people to start talking is by using the model yourself to listen to them empathically, ideally when they’re in the same room, but separately if necessary. When the facilitator empathizes with both sides’ feelings and needs, people become more self-connected, and more willing to understand others perspectives. Here’s an example of how this might sound in the workplace:

Shaun: No way am I talking to that jerk.
You: Are you angry because you need respect?
Shaun: No. I want nothing to do with him. I’ll never get respect, so what’s the use?
Shaun: So, are you frustrated because you need a work environment where you can be productive?
Shaun: I want recognition for how hard I work.
You: So you’d like some appreciation for your contribution?
Shaun: Yes, I do great work and he just picks it apart.
You: You sound discouraged. Is it because you need freedom to work in your own way?
Shaun: Exactly! I’m tired of being micro-managed.
You: So, it sounds like you want more autonomy and choice?
Shaun: (Silence) Right. Now that I realize how important my freedom is, I want to discuss this and I also want to find out why he seems so worried.

People in conflict intuitively know they won’t be able to communicate well as long as they sit in judgment. When you empathize with them, they become more aware of their needs, and they feel more hopeful about communicating their desires to others. 

Developing Empathic Listening Skills
Today’s leaders who want to shift from paternalism to partnership must be aware of the feelings and needs of others. James Kouzes and Barry Posner, authors of The Leadership Challenge, note, “Leaders find the common thread that weaves together the fabric of human needs into a colorful tapestry.

They seek out the brewing consensus among those they would lead. To do this, they develop a deep understanding of the collective yearnings. They listen carefully for quiet whisperings in dark corners. They attend to the subtle cues. They sniff the air to get the scent. They watch the faces. They get a sense of what people want, what they value, what they dream about.” (Kouzes & Posner, 2002, p. 149-150). Yet many leaders are unsure how to engage employees fully. The following powerful questions can help: How do you feel? What do you need? What energizes you?

According to Steven Bates, of Human Resources magazine, roughly half the workers in America show up and “do what is expected of them but do not go the extra mile.” (Bates, 2004, p. 44). Carol Kinsey Goman of Kinsey Consulting Services explains why: “Employees want to commit to companies, because doing so satisfies a powerful and basic human need to connect with and contribute to something significant.” (Bates, 2004, p. 46). By connecting with what energizes employees, we can quickly engage with what inspires them and how they can contribute more meaningfully.

Facilitating Understanding
The Authentic Communication model works best if we follow one of Stephen Covey’s principles from
7 Habits of Highly Successful People, “Seek first to understand, then to be understood.” (Covey, 1990).  Seeking understanding allows us to receive frustration, complaints, and rebellion as gifts. Instead of hearing an outburst as a judgment, we can listen for the unmet needs simmering just below the emotions. Instead of seeing co-workers as whiners, we can see them as people who are hungry to get their needs met. When our boss is furious, we can ask ourselves, “What unmet need is the driving force?”

Similarly, facilitators who face intense conflict can remain grounded by focusing on needs. Anytime we’re emotionally triggered, it helps to connect to our own feelings and needs, even if only for a few moments, thereby restoring our ability to focus on those in conflict. When others’ emotions are triggered, it helps to connect with what they need, so we can help them move away from blame and toward productive strategies.

In the role of facilitator, non-verbal empathic understanding can be far more important than the words. Although trained to be unbiased, facilitators can foster understanding by empathically supporting all sides simultaneously. That does not mean we become chameleons; instead, we create opportunities for each member of the group to be fully understood. When we serve as facilitators, we can help people connect authentically by focusing on empathy.

According to facilitator Jeff Brown, a trainer for the Center for Nonviolent Communication, 90% of empathy is heart connection—honoring whatever is alive or most present, either silently or out loud (Brown, 2005). Engaging people’s hearts is far more important than sticking to the communication model, the words, or the mechanics. Mary Rose O’Reilley, author of Radical Presence, asserts that we can become fully present by listening like a cow. “Cows cock their big brown eyes at you and twitch their ears when you talk,” she says. “This is a great antidote to the critical listening that goes on in academia, where we listen for the mistake, the flaw in the argument.” (O’Reilley, 1998, p. 29). Finding fault, diagnosing and blaming crushes the spirit. Empathic listening builds awareness, deepens understanding, and serves as a catalyst for personal and organizational growth. Radical presence is the key to facilitation. Instead of another bag of tricks, facilitators create opportunities to communicate authentically by deepening emotional literacy and building needs awareness for the sake of empathic understanding.

When people feel heard, a shift occurs that melts enemy images and cultivates trust. When we listen to each other with respect and curiosity, we appreciate each other’s contributions and build on opportunities for expanding the discussion. When we engage in passionate wholehearted conversations, we pave the way for win-win solutions, shared vision, and higher productivity. Instead of leaving our honest feelings and our humanity at home, we can foster a culture that invites honest expression and receptivity.

Communicating Honestly
Honesty does not have to be brutal. Instead of equating authenticity with blurting out our cruelest thoughts, we can use honest dialogue to build awareness of what we need. Open dialogue is not about determining who is right and who is wrong or claiming higher moral ground. Openness includes pursuing what we want, but not at the expense of other stakeholders. By listening to what others need—rather than the strategies they use in an attempt to fulfill their needs—we open to new perspectives, and we develop supportive listening skills that lead to personal growth and organizational effectiveness. Instead of talking behind each other’s backs, we invite authentic communication and create opportunities for mutual satisfaction.

Conclusion
Using the Authentic Communication model allows us to facilitate the most difficult conversations with more ease. The four steps: observations, feelings, needs and requests are simple enough for anyone to use, but mastery of the process requires a radical shift in consciousness. When members of a group are in a judgmental state of mind, facilitators can help them shift their consciousness to a generative state of mind by building awareness of their own and others’ needs. When we see each other’s needs as gifts, we help people become energized, communicate authentically, and engage with each other wholeheartedly. The power of authentic communication is that people feel understood, which generates new visions or possibilities, fosters team spirit, and enhances organizational success.

References
Bates, S. (2004, February). Getting engaged.  HR Magazine, p. 44-51.
Brown, J. (personal communication, May 2, 2005).
Covey, S. (1990). Seven Habits of Highly Effective People. Free Press.
Jones, C. (personal communication, May 6, 2005).
Kouzes, J. & Posner, B. Z. (2002). The Leadership Challenge. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Max-Neef, M. & Ekins, P. (1992) Real-life Economics: Understanding wealth creation. London: Routledge
O’Reilley, M. R. (1998). Radical Presence: Teaching as Contemplative Practice. Boynton/Cook.
Rosenberg, M. (2003). Nonviolent Communication: A Language of Life. PuddleDancer Press.
Schwarz, R. (personal communication, June 18, 2000).

Websites:
Center for Nonviolent Communication: www.cnvc.org
The Center for Nonviolent Communication is a global organization whose vision is a world where all people are getting their needs met and resolving their conflicts peacefully. In this vision, people are using NVC to create and participate in networks of worldwide life-serving systems in economics, education, justice, healthcare, and peacekeeping.

Growing Compassion: www.GrowingCompassion.org
Growing Compassion offers teleclasses and events for learning to live and communicate more authentically. Practicing the language of compassion by phone helps people learn to listen empathically and express honestly.

Martha Lasley is a founding partner at Leadership that Works, a firm that offers facilitation, coaching and training for visionaries. She is the author of Courageous Visions: How to Unleash Passionate Energy in Your Life and Your Organization. She has presented several programs at the annual conference for International Association of Facilitators, including “Facilitating Difficult Conversations”, “Coaching for Personal & Organizational Transformation” and “Group Coaching for Results.” On the faculty for the Capella University MBA program, she teaches Developing and Coaching Others; Facilitating Change; Leveraging Workplace Diversity, Leading Teams; and Personal Effectiveness. You can learn more about Leadership that Works at www.LeadershipThatWorks.com

© Martha Lasley 2005