In conversation with Johanna Schuck

Johanna Schuck is fascinated by “Nonviolent Communication” (GFK) based on Marshall B. Rosenberg. Thanks to the communication method, she now finds words in conflict situations instead of being silently annoyed. As a trainer, it is important to her to share her AHA moments and enthusiasm for GFK in workshops.

Johanna Schuck was a spokesperson at Ignite Talks — Inspiration and New Ideas for Tomorrow's Evolution in February 2024.

Johanna, what strategies do you use to clear up misunderstandings without getting into conflict?

When there is a misunderstanding, we are often halfway in conflict. To clarify the matter, I am using the 4 steps of the CSF.

The first step is to consider what actually happened. We often interpret so much into situations that different perspectives on the same situation can arise. Step 2: What am I feeling? If the feeling is unpleasant, such as fear or anger, then this indicates to me that a need is unfulfilled. I will pay attention to this in the third step. In step 4, I make a request. In the best case, it is concrete, feasible and achievable in the here and now.

Your presentation at Ignite was titled: 1 Conflict — 100 Possibilities. What do you mean by that?

If we look at conflicts more closely, we can see that we often argue about strategies to meet our needs. In contrast to needs, strategies are highly individual. This is where it gets exciting: when I become aware that it is a strategy, I can search for the need behind it.

For example, if I want to go swimming (strategy), my need for rest, relaxation or exercise could be behind it. When I find out for myself what I'm actually about, I can also think of other strategies that satisfy my needs.

Can you describe a process for constructively addressing and resolving conflicts?

I am naturally conflict-averse, which is why I wouldn't say that I would address and resolve every conflict by now. However, the position of the CSF helps me to make it more bearable. In conflicts, we often get tangled up in pigeonholing, which is characterized by moral assessments such as “good/bad” or “right/wrong.” At GFK, we ask: What behavior can we use to meet ourselves or others needs? The KPU (Consistent Positive Assumption) is important here. This means that everything we humans do is an attempt to satisfy our needs. People are therefore basically good at understanding the CSF.

Can you share examples from your own experience where the GFK has contributed to resolving conflict situations?

A few! In the past, I was often speechless in conflict situations, even though I was internally annoyed. But I had neither the words nor the knowledge to talk about things. Working with GFK has helped me to recognize for myself what I feel and need.

A few days ago I went on a date with a girlfriend who was late. With the 4 steps, I was able to communicate without being hurtful: Hey X, we had an appointment at 14:00, now it's 15:00. I'm frustrated because reliability is important to me. Can you promise me that if you don't make it on time, you'll let me know next time?

For me, this self-clarification (what do I feel, what do I need, what could I ask for) is the most important part of the CSF, which also works wonderfully alone. Based on this, I can then communicate with my counterpart. But I don't have to. Having clarity for me is half the battle. It helps me to relax and face conflict situations more calmly.

‍