This paper examines the formation of group norms and the conflict that arises when those norms clash with cultural values. Through a case study of a diverse student group project involving Chinese and American students, the author demonstrates how Marshall Rosenberg's Nonviolent Communication (NVC) model—which emphasizes honest self-expression and empathetic listening—can bridge cultural communication gaps. The paper outlines the four steps of NVC (observation, feelings, needs, and requests) and describes how implementing these principles transformed group dynamics by creating space for different communication styles and reducing perceived aggression.
One of the things that makes us human is our need and ability to form groups. We thrive in groups, merge into groups, and the process of civilization itself—moving from hunter-gatherers to cities—was part of group behavior. However, when groups form, interesting psychological issues occur: behaviors change, organizational dynamics emerge, bonds and alliances form and dissolve, and individual leadership styles shift (Johnson & Johnson, 2008).
One of the first processes in any group is the formation of rules, or group norms. This seems to occur almost automatically for many humans, whether on a sports field, in a classroom, or within business culture. These norms establish how members behave toward one another, how they set up leadership roles, and how they are expected to perform. When members break these rules or disagree with them so strongly that the group becomes ineffective, the situation becomes "conflictual" (Corey, 2008, pp. 149–151).
Conflict occurs in most cultures at some point or another. In many cultures, conflict is something to be avoided and requires different rules and norms for resolution. This happened to me recently during a required group project in a university course. We were a mixed group of eight students: three from mainland China and five from various ethnic backgrounds who grew up in the United States. What we did not realize at the time was that for Chinese people, directly approaching a conflictual situation is considered rude. One never confronts directly, and certainly never adopts the bluntness common in the United States, such as saying "What's wrong with you now?" or "Do you have a problem with that?" Speaking this way is not only impolite but causes native Chinese speakers to withdraw entirely from discussion. Although open discussion has value, direct phrasing is avoided.
This situation became clearer when viewed through the lens of Marshall Rosenberg's Nonviolent Communication: A Language of Life (2003). The subtitle—compassionate communication—captures its essence. Nonviolent Communication (NVC) is a conflict resolution process that focuses on two major communication paradigms: honest self-expression and empathy. These are both difficult skills in contemporary society. Honest self-expression is communicating in a kind way that engenders compassion in others, while empathy means actively listening with compassion. Both are skills we do not practice often in the modern world, yet they can make a tremendous difference when applied to difficult situations.
The NVC model consists of four major steps:
The process is feedback-oriented and requires that both honesty and concern for the other person's viewpoint be at the heart of the discussion. Emotional change can be difficult because vulnerability is often uncomfortable for most of us.
Within our group, the core issue was not disagreement about the project itself—it was that the Chinese students felt unheard and emotionally unsafe. They perceived the rest of the group as too aggressive, not truly listening, forcing opinions, and preventing genuine collaboration. The problem became clear once we understood that in the Chinese communication style, silence does not signal disengagement but thoughtfulness. What we interpreted as non-participation was actually a different way of processing and contributing.
The breakthrough came when we acknowledged that our default American communication style—direct, quick, verbal—was actually inhibiting the full participation and input of half our group. By creating space for different communication styles and pacing, we could access the full intelligence and commitment of all members.
The steps we took aligned directly with Rosenberg's NVC framework:
This structured approach transformed the dynamic. By following the four steps, we moved away from accusation and defensiveness toward shared vulnerability and mutual understanding.
"How listening and new norms improved collaboration"
You’re 63% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 1 section.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.