You've probably been there: despite your best intentions a conversation turns sore with anger or even into a heated dispute. How could anybody be so stubborn and tenacious? The behavior you'd like to see just vanishes somewhere on the horizon. How could things get so out of hand?

If you're assuming, in principle, that your counterpart is quite reasonable, «in general», then there is hope. Precisely because you might have nearly forgotten that assumption.

The concept I'll describe was written down in 1951 by Paul Helwig, a German psychologist, philosopher, stage director and screenplay writer. Later, Friedemann Schulz von Thun (a psychologist, too) added several practical extensions to it.

Let's see the 4 steps that can mitigate an acute controversy. Even better, you can avoid many a conflict if you turn applying these steps into a habit!

Step 1: Name that annoying behavior

Square of values, step 1…but don't tell, of course. This should be the easiest step, because when we're really annoyed, the perceived cause of it is at the tips of our tongues.

Imagine this, for example: You get the impression that somebody is constantly dangling after you for decisions. He or she seems incapable of making even the most basic decisions, or unwilling to make them. All the peanuts are brought to your attention.

For the sake of this example, let's name this «dependence».

Step 2: What would be the opposite, equally annoying extreme?

Square of values, step 2Now think of the exact opposite of the annoying behavior, the one that's equally annoying.

How would you call the behavior of somebody who never asks you before he or she decides? Even when you're affected by the decision? Even if it was up to you to make that decision? Let's call this behavior «always going it alone».

«dependence» and «always going it alone» are two sides of the same coin: each one is basically an overcompensation of the other one. If somebody gets the impression that she or he annoyed you by dependence, they will maybe avoid consulting you at all, even when they should. If somebody gets into a heated argument with you for always going it alone, that person may decide to specialize in dependence behavior, starting tomorrow.

Step 3: What's the grain of truth within the opposite extreme?

Square of values, step 3So you don't want to see «dependence» being replaced by «always going it alone». If always going it alone is an exggeration of something good, how des that good thing look like?

In our example, let's call this grain of truth «decisiveness». Decisiveness is good behavior, for sure. When exaggerated, it becomes always going it alone.

Step 4: What's the grain of truth within the anoying behavior?

The million dollar question: the behavior that's annoying you is an exaggeration of what? What behavior becomes «dependency», when exaggerated?

Lets call it «seeking advice». A good thing to do.

Suddenly, we can see two desirable behaviors, «seeking advice» and «decisiveness», that obviously must be balanced. Both can be exaggerated. Consider this: somebody who gets on your nerves by exhibiting «dependence» may only be «seeking advice» from you.

That's the core idea behind Paul Helwig's Square of Values, as rendered by Friedemann Schulz von Thuns: by default, annoying behavior probably isn't sick or abnormal, but just too much of a good thing.

Which explains all the harshness of some conflicts. When people get the impression that they're being considered stubborn or even mentally challenged, they are less likely to stay relaxed and open-minded. We started out assuming, in principle, that your counterpart was quite reasonable, «in general».

Square of values, step 4Successful communication depend on your willingness to acknowledge that your counterpart is quite reasonable, in general. In our example you might say:

• «I like it a lot when you want to team up with me for figuring out solutions to tricky problems.»
• «Thanks for asking me what I think about it.»
• «Thanks for asking! Two perspectives on the same issue may be helpful.»

Then, show a path of development that leads from the annoying behavior to the desired one. This can be any of the two behaviors that must be balanced. For instance, you might want to say something along the lines of:

• «Whenever we talked, I felt your suggestions were well founded and immediately applicable. May I ask you for a favor? Since you're really good at making this type of decisions, I'd like you to take on that task completely on your own for, let's say, the next three weeks. We'll review the outcome together, then. Of course we can talk anytime about the tricky stuff, too.»
• «When we talk, most of the time it seems I can't spot any substantial things you haven't already checked and covered. I'd hate to give you the impression that you need my OK for just about everything. Lets keep up the fun of discussing and talk mainly about the tricky stuff. For the rest, I really trust in your judgment!»

Want more?

Ummmm… unfortunately, the works of Paul Helwig and Friedemann Schulz von Thun are available in German, only. There are English alternatives, however.

If you happen to speak German, see Schulz von Thun's book titled "Talking to each other", Miteinander reden, 3 Bde., Bd. 2. See the classical (well, 1995…) Messages: The Communication Skills Book by Matthew McKay, Martha Davis, and Patrick Fanning if you'd like to read a recommendable English book on communication skills.