Non-violent communication

Non-violent communication – a language of life

I was recently inspired after reading Nonviolent Communication by Marshall Rosenberg. The book was incredibly informative and pushed me to reflect on the communication styles influencing my life - both personally and professionally.

The book is broken up into four sessions. In this blog, I’ll walk through some of the points that stood out to me from the first session, particularly those that feel highly relevant when working in modern engineering teams.

Intro

Non-violent communication (NVC) is a process language that promotes psychological safety: expressing ourselves honestly while maintaining connection with others.

It explores how static generalisations (judgements) can influence our actions on a subconscious level and how, if we aren’t intentional, they can negatively impact collaboration and how we’re perceived by others.

Connecting with other people

Rosenberg simplifies human connection by emphasising empathy within interactions. Here, empathy goes far beyond “aww, I’m sorry to hear that” - a response most of us are already comfortable with.

The book challenges us to take this a step further and transform empathy into compassion.

So what does that look like in practice - especially during tougher conversations? For example, when giving or receiving feedback from a colleague. How do we stay empathetic when emotions run high?

Let’s get into it.

---

Looking inward: showing curiosity

Let’s be honest - it can be difficult to truly receive what someone is expressing if their tone or vocabulary isn’t something we’re typically receptive to. Working in multicultural teams makes this even more common, and it’s rarely sustainable to expect others to change first.

This is where NVC asks us to focus on what’s alive in the other person.

What on earth does “what’s alive in us” mean?

Essentially, it means putting tone and word choice on the back burner and focusing instead on what the other person is trying to communicate.

NVC gives us a guide for identifying and expressing this empathically, regardless of how skilfully (or not) the message is articulated. We do this by connecting to the person’s humanity above all else.

We aren’t responsible for each other’s feelings - but we are responsible for how we respond.

This doesn’t remove the need for respect in conversation. Rather, it asks us to listen and understand beyond subjective cultural norms.

When we focus on what’s alive in someone, we’re more likely to see the shared human experience behind their words. This creates an even playing field - a small mindset shift with the potential to connect rather than divide.

The opposite approach is filtering people through a lens of preconceived notions and judgements - a closed mind shaped by conditioning rather than curiosity.

NVC frames communication around two core questions:

1. What is alive in us?
   What am I / are you feeling and needing?

2. What can we do to make life more wonderful?
   What action can I / can you take to meet those needs?

---

NVC in the office

In Scrum and other collaborative development frameworks, communication is constant: refinement sessions, retrospectives, feedback loops, and code reviews. These environments amplify both connection and conflict.

This makes NVC particularly valuable - not as a “soft skill”, but as a technical enabler of healthy collaboration.

---

What blocks compassion

Moralistic judgement (right vs wrong)

One of the biggest blockers to compassion is evaluating people through moralistic judgements - classifying behaviour as right or wrong.

When we do this, our language shifts away from connection and towards:

• Classifying
• Analysing
• Determining levels of “wrongness”

Focusing on the level of wrongness immediately puts you against the other person. This prevents us from engaging in ways that allow everyone to continue contributing willingly to one another’s well‑being.

For example:

• If my colleague is more concerned about details than I am, they might be “picky and compulsive”.
• If I’m more concerned about them than they are, they become “sloppy and disorganised”.

There is no absolute truth here - just preferences. One does not inherently take precedence over the other.

“Just because I am right does not make you wrong.”
Two things can be true at the same time.

Judging people in this way is usually a poor expression of unmet needs. Poor, because when people hear judgement they almost always respond with defensiveness or resistance.

Even if they do change, it’s often driven by fear, guilt, or shame - not genuine willingness. Over time, this leads to what Rosenberg calls “diminished goodwill”.

Other blockers to compassion

Making comparisons
Comparing ourselves to others often leads to self‑judgement or judgement of others - both disconnecting outcomes.

Denial of responsibility
This clouds our awareness that we’re responsible for our own thoughts, feelings, and reactions.

Language patterns that shift responsibility elsewhere can include:

• “I tested the code because I had to.”
• “I reacted that way because you did X.”
• “I couldn’t help myself - I was overcome by the urge.”

These frames disconnect us from conscious choice - and actions taken from this mindset tend to cost everyone involved.

Communicating desires as demands
Demands implicitly threaten guilt or blame if the other person doesn’t comply.

When people act under threat, they associate you with that pressure. Over time, this erodes trust and compassionate engagement.

NVC doesn’t argue for constant praise or positivity, that’s just as inauthentic. Instead, it suggests people change best when they believe in the intrinsic value of the change, not because they fear consequences.

Mechanics of NVC

The first step is to express what’s alive in you.

This means:

• Describing what someone is doing
• Explaining how it affects you
• Without adding evaluation or diagnosis

Observation ≠ evaluation - and mixing the two increases the likelihood of defensiveness.

This distinction is subtle and takes practice.

Example: the “talkative colleague”

During a discussion about a colleague who dominates meetings, these statements were made:

• “My colleague talks too much.”
  → Evaluation

• “They just want to be the centre of attention.”
  → Diagnosis

• “He thinks he’s the only one who has something worth saying.”
  → Another diagnosis

Now compare that with:

“Regardless of the agenda, the colleague often shares long personal stories, which causes meetings to run over time.”

✅ This is an observation - it explains impact without attaching judgement, making it far easier to receive and act upon.

In conclusion

The goal of NVC is not to get people to do what we want.

Its purpose is to create a quality of connection and psychological safety in which everyone’s needs can be met compassionately.

Instead of telling people what we think of them, NVC invites us to clearly communicate what we need - and why it matters.