4 Myths

Arguing is a skill. Because one thing is clear: conflicts and disagreements are just as much part of human interaction as friendship, fun, and romance. We need them to express our needs and set boundaries. Yet in heated debates, the balancing act between emotional and factual levels becomes a test of the relationship. Honestly sharing our motivations while maintaining empathy for the other side is an effort that few people can consistently manage. Fortunately, there is Nonviolent Communication, or NVC.

NVC, developed by psychologist Marshall Rosenberg, is a proven model for connecting authentically with yourself and others. On the one hand, it provides an immediately usable language model (also known as the 4-step model), and on the other, it represents a mindset grounded in self-responsibility and clarity. The model also has potential not only for organizations, but for society as a whole — especially in a world that is becoming increasingly polarized.

At TheDive, we also use NVC to bring clarity to difficult work situations. In the Loop Approach, it is therefore an important part of the final module.

Because although radical honesty is one of the core principles of Nonviolent Communication, it is often misunderstood. Maya and Frederik tell you what’s really true about these myths — and what isn’t.

Maya: Maybe as a short answer up front: even after years of practicing NVC, I still have conflicts in my life. And I’m not interested in avoiding them. What I do want is to argue better — more honestly and more purposefully — because I’m tired of arguing over misunderstandings. And because I firmly believe that every conflict contains the potential for deeper understanding.

Let’s use the iceberg model to illustrate. The surface of the iceberg represents a person’s visible actions — what they say or do. The larger, hidden part beneath the water represents a person’s underlying needs. In other words: what it’s really about. NVC helps uncover that underwater part and enables us to argue about that. That’s how many conflicts can be resolved that otherwise seem irreconcilable.

But it’s also clear: just because I better understand both my own behavior and that of the other person through Nonviolent Communication doesn’t mean I have to like it. What does that mean? Even if we understand each other, we can still disagree — and still argue passionately about it.

Frederik: Recently, in a training, a participant said he couldn’t make sense of Nonviolent Communication. “People start whispering and using sweet words, but I can still tell they want to tear my head off,” he said. “Then they should just say it.”

We hear a lot that NVC is just about using nicer language. But it’s not about the words I choose at first. The core is inner clarity — becoming aware of what I need right now and what matters to me. The next step is understanding what the other person needs and what matters to them. The words used don’t really matter. That’s why we often say in our trainings: “Don’t get weird about it” and “don’t be nice — be real!”

When people who are new to NVC speak a bit awkwardly at first, it’s usually just a sign of lack of practice. It does show, however, that they’re trying to improve how they relate to others. In those moments, it can help to assume good intentions behind the words and respond in kind. Because if both people are genuinely committed to a shared way of being together, it will work — regardless of the words they use.

Maya: It’s true that you can use the tools of Nonviolent Communication — like the 4-step language model — to influence or even manipulate people. Just like you can use fire to brew tea or to burn books. The difference lies in the underlying intention: without good intent, the best tool becomes just the next weapon — but it’s not NVC.

That’s why it’s worth taking a closer look at the terms nonviolent and violence. Violence is any attempt to meet my own needs without regard for the needs of others. So if I place my well-being above the other person’s, that is not nonviolent.

But that’s the core point. The NVC language model is only a tool to repeatedly return to a connecting stance — empathy for myself and empathy for others, based on the assumption that people generally want to contribute to each other’s well-being voluntarily. Someone who manipulates is not acting from a nonviolent stance.

Frederik: In NVC, the focus is primarily on clearing up misunderstandings so we can talk about what truly matters. To assess situations appropriately, there are a few key distinctions that help me determine the next right step: an observation or an evaluation? A request or a demand?

Often it’s more helpful to say what actually happened than to share my interpretation of it. Let’s use a slightly modified example from NVC expert Klaus Karstädt: If I’m arguing with someone about the state of a room, I might say, “This place is a total mess!” To which the other person could respond, “That’s not true — it looked much worse last week!”

To avoid this stalemate, I can start the conversation like this instead: “There are three pizza boxes on the shelf. There are dishes on the table, and clothes on the floor.” Then it quickly becomes clear what I mean — and the way is open for finding a solution.

So does that mean I’m only allowed to speak in observable facts now? No. In practice, it will usually be enough to say the room is messy. Clarity becomes especially important in tense situations where the wrong word can trigger a new conflict. That’s when these key distinctions help me stay grounded in myself.

Still: sometimes we simply need to vent subjectively before we can clearly classify and translate a situation. Whether we do that face-to-face with the other person, or with a third party, or by ourselves, is another matter entirely.