INKOVEMA Podcast „Well through time“
#210 GddZ
The value square as a polarisation square for mediation
In conversation with Prof Dr Friedemann Schulz von Thun
Friedemann Schulz von Thun, born on 6 August 1944 in Soltau, communication psychologist.
After studying psychology, philosophy and education in Hamburg (1967-1971), Schulz von Thun gained his doctorate in 1973 and qualified as a professor in 1975; since then he has been Professor of Educational Psychology at the University of Hamburg, where he worked until 2009.
He became known for his practical communication models, in particular the Communication square (four-sided model), which analyses the complexity of human communication. He presented this and other models such as the "Inner Team" in his book series Talking to each otherwhich are regarded as standard works.
In addition to his academic work, Schulz von Thun developed numerous communication training programmes for various professional groups and founded the Schulz von Thun Institute for Communication in Hamburg. His work still characterises communication psychology today and is valued internationally
Well through time.
The podcast about mediation, conflict coaching and organisational consulting.
Contents
0:04 – Welcome to the Conflict Podcast
0:15 – Conversation with Friedemann Schulz von Thun
1:22 – The beginnings of communication psychology
2:45 – Development of the continuing education market
5:43 – Humanistic psychology and authenticity
9:55 – Challenges of individual counselling
13:12 – Discussion about the value square
16:41 – Square of values as a communication tool
19:36 – Authenticity in the communication process
27:38 – Dilemmas in politics
33:29 – Communication and its limits
40:33 – Personal responsibility and serenity
51:03 – Polarisation in conflict management
57:18 – The inner team approach to communication
1:00:04 – Conclusion of the conversation
Summary
In this episode of the podcast "Gut durch die Zeit", I have an exciting conversation with Friedemann Schulz von Thun, a renowned expert in communication psychology and founder of the Schulz-von-Thun Institute. We meet in Hamburg, where we have the opportunity to talk about the Development and challenges in communication and conflict counselling to speak. Schulz von Thun shares his insights on the leadership training programmes he started in the early 1970s and reflects on how the principles of communication have changed since then.
A central topic of our conversation is the Square of values, a model developed by Schulz von Thun to visualise the tension between values. We discuss the importance of polarising these values and how this can lead to better solutions. Schulz von Thun explains how the Values square as a tool for conflict resolution and can help to find a balance between values such as honesty and politeness. This concept not only offers an opportunity to clarify conflicts, but also to develop personal responsibility in the communication process.
Another exciting aspect of our conversations concerns authenticity in communication. Schulz von Thun states that although authenticity is desirable, it can also be misleading if it is not harmonised with the perception of the situation and the requirements of the respective role. We discuss how important it is to communicate appropriately to the situation and to recognise the different inner voices within us that want to be heard in different contexts.
Despite the challenges that exist in the current global political landscape, Schulz von Thun emphasises that communication is an essential tool for overcoming dilemmas and promoting understanding between different positions. We reflect on how important it is to take a close look at one's own role and the dynamics between the parties involved in conflicts without having exaggerated expectations of one's own influence.
Finally, we emphasise the The importance of continuous self-reflection and further training in mediation practice. This applies both to the mediators themselves and to the conflict parties, who can benefit in the long term by analysing the values and dynamics of their conflicts. In this sense, this episode inspires a deeper understanding of communication, conflict resolution and personal growth.
Full transcript
[0:04]
Welcome to the Conflict Podcast
[0:00]And that also has opportunities. Wherever there is conflict, things can go downhill. That is very dangerous and can destroy relationships. But in every conflict there is also an opportunity for development, for better solutions to be found,
[0:15]
Conversation with Friedemann Schulz von Thun
[0:13]when the truth begins in pairs. Welcome to the podcast Gut durch die Zeit. The podcast about mediation, conflict coaching and organisational consulting. A podcast by Inko Fema. I am Sascha Weige and welcome you to a new episode.
[0:28]And this episode is a special one, because today I'm not in my virtual podcast studio and I'm not in my podcast room in Spinnereistraße in Leipzig either, because today I'm in Hamburg. In Hamburg, I'm sitting opposite Friedemann Schulz von Thun, once Professor of Educational Psychology at the University of Hamburg and of course well known for his Schulz-von-Thun Institute. Welcome, Friedemann Schulz von Thun.
[0:56]Hello Mr Weigel, welcome to the Institute. I travelled to Hamburg today because I had the opportunity to do a podcast directly with you here. I then set things up here and today I would like to talk to you primarily about the value square. And thus a model that is highly interesting for mediators,
[1:22]
The beginnings of communication psychology
[1:18]especially in its polarisation of values. But first, let's also take the opportunity to talk to you again about counselling and further training in the whole context of communication development, because you were a man of the first hour. Before we go into the development, how are you doing today, what are you doing now that you have given up your chair, given your wonderful farewell lecture, which is available as a podcast and which I recommend to everyone. What do your days look like today? Yes, after I retired I thought I would carry on for another five years. The interest is there, at least in German-speaking countries. And it's now been 15 years. They haven't been for 15 years.
[2:08]Did you also hand over the Schulz-von-Tun Institute at that time and not run it? Or is that still your activity, with which you kept in touch with all your colleagues and candidates for further training? During my time at university, I already had a working group that travelled the world for my communication psychology. And I thought, now I've retired from university, I'll continue to run my private institute for a bit.
[2:45]
Development of the continuing education market
[2:40]Who knows if this is not sustainable. And lo and behold, so far it seems to be. Yes, I would like to talk to you about the beginnings. Because when you started, the world was certainly a different place when it came to the concept of communication. I can't quite put my finger on where to start, but I have the impression that the way we understand communication today, combined with an awareness of our own development, our own self-discovery, was not so well known back then or was not yet such an issue, but communication was. Was that a concept of conscious further education?
[3:21]Yes, at the beginning of the 1970s, BP approached us and said that they were doing such behavioural training for teachers. Could they do the same for our managers? Some of them behave impossibly. And the idea of partnership at eye level has not yet reached them. They are still very top-down and hierarchical. And that's where we want to do something to invest in the future.
[3:50]What was the reason for them to say that they behaved in an impossible way? Well, it must have been something extraordinary for them to be labelled like that. Yes, that was the time after 1968, when authoritarianism had fallen into disrepute. But since we were still shaped by the authoritarian state with our flesh and soul, so to speak, back then the managers and teachers from the imperial era and from the Hitler era, democracy and partnership were politically established in Bonn, but had not yet arrived in human interaction and in the nurseries and classrooms and in the departments of the companies. And there was a real need to change. And then we went to the university and asked a professor or the Department of Psychology if they could organise such a training course. Exactly. My teacher was Reinhard Tausch. He had done research on democracy in the classroom. Ah, there he was. And they said, couldn't you do something like that for our managers? And Reinhard Tausch then sent his assistants and that was us. So democracy in the lab and democracy at the workbench. Exactly, yes.
[5:11]And the communication square, which is now part of general education in Germany, which I then developed at BP, not at university, but in this continuing education scene. A model of practice, so not made fruitful from the laboratory, but... Exactly, I thought about what science has found out so far and what I've read up on, how can I explain it to practitioners and then I came up with the square and that was exactly 50 years ago. Mmm.
[5:43]
Humanistic psychology and authenticity
[5:43]Since then, a lot has happened in terms of the further training market, in terms of further training as an individual mission, i.e. to develop oneself, self-optimisation. How have you observed this, how have you helped to shape the fact that it is now considered normal to work on yourself, on your own relationship, on your own relationship with your employer? When we started at BP, we were still quite naive and thought we knew how to behave properly, how to communicate well.
[6:23]We had two dimensions, the appreciation dimension and nungerigism, and we knew what the right behavioural quadrant looked like, which we now practised in role play. But then it turned out that this was a false path, it led to an artificial, uniform ideal behaviour where people tried to talk in the same way and that neither did justice to the context, which was very different, nor to the personalities, which were also very different, and then humanistic psychology came to me at the end of the 1970s through Ruth Kohn. As a Jew, Ruth Kuhn had left Germany in 1933, just in time, and absorbed all the humanistic movements in America, so to speak, developed her own system, TCI, and then returned to Europe, to Switzerland. She was one of the first to organise the movement from North America to Europe, Germany, so to speak. That was good practice, as it is still practised in the mediation movement today. By then I was already an established professor and trainer, but I started my apprenticeship with her again.
[7:40]And from her came the message that being in tune with yourself and being authentic is something important and not the ideal behaviour you have been trained for. If you want to be a good teacher, then look inside yourself and get to know yourself and realise that the most important tool you have in your profession is yourself and the way you deal with your feelings and what comes your way. That was a bit of a coup for us as trainers. Ah yes, and then there was a shift, so to speak, from the training group that you wanted to treat the same and train the same. Towards the ideal behaviour, the supposed one, yes. In other words, normalised, standardised behaviour towards self-development, personality development, personal responsibility in the sense of I give myself an answer as to how I want to live and act. Exactly. And the way I communicate has to suit me, so that the person and their language become one and not that the speech bubbles are trained and the person behind them remains undeveloped. That's what we called the misery of the trained. The misery of the trained. Yes, where the speech bubbles were highly trained and the personal development of the person uttering the speech bubbles could not keep up.
[9:08]I sometimes wondered how this came about, also in conversation with Wolfgang Lohs, the coaching man from the very beginning, with whom I also spoke in the podcast and who also traced the development back then. You were a university tutor and the flood of students, they said at the time, when the mass university developed, made it necessary to develop tutors and train people in a multiplicative way so that they could cope with the onslaught. And there, too, I was surprised to see the university as a centre of development for coaching, which is something I've come to know more in the area of business coaching and individual coaching nowadays. And also with your values, as you describe them.
[9:55]
Challenges of individual counselling
[9:55]It seems to me to be particularly the case that this came out of the university, but then a private further education market was necessary, required or in any case obviously able to develop, that this no longer took place at the university. And the question for me now would be, so to speak, to develop this individual counselling, this individual responsibility, would that have been possible at all at the university at that time? Or was it absolutely necessary to set up a private institute, as many did, to ensure that this was the right form? Yes, was it possible at the university, is your question. I would say yes and no. It was a mass university and the academic and scientific and scientific-theoretical is at the top of the list at a university that takes pride in itself and the personal development of the students is neither possible nor a priority for most professors.
[11:01]But in Hamburg, together with my colleague Alexander Redlich, we have a... Well, we've already been on the podcast. We set up the Counselling and Training department and it was very practice-oriented. And also aimed to promote the development of students. So that you don't just leave the university as an academic, but also as a good psychologist and a developed person.
[11:32]And that was possible to some extent and was very attractive and popular. Yes. And a second question, you had this with Roth Kuhn, who came from America. And so many, many models, many schools came to Germany from America with representatives. Mediation started that way, but NLP and transactional analysis were also such schools. Yes, Gestalt therapy came from Fritz Perls. Practically called humanistic psychology. But your school, so to speak, the Hamburg School, was always so originally located here for me in terms of observation. I would say without borrowing much from American schools. And my colleague Ulrich Pröckling has also made it clear here that there was a movement, so to speak, that was located here with Jürgen Habermas and his understanding of communication. And then in terms of practical utilisation, he also referred to the Hamburg School, so to speak. Would you be able to take something away from that? Yes, what we developed here, especially your communication models, that was…
[12:39]Originally German. I would say 95 per cent, exactly. Despite Ruth Kohn's great influence on me personally, I would say that's 95 per cent true. The communication square, which then became well-known and famous, also borrows heavily from the language psychology of Karl Bühler and Paul Watzlawick with its distinction between content and relationship aspects. He wasn't far away either, although we visited him in Eserland, but he also comes from Europe.
[13:12]
Discussion about the value square
[13:13]And the values and development agreement, which we still want to talk about, also has European roots, indeed pre-European roots. It also seemed to me in my research that there was a real discussion about where this comes from. You also wrote a very detailed essay on the development of this square, and by no means only for you, but also how it has developed elsewhere. It then came to me via Aristotle and Nikolai Hartmann and Paul Hellwig. Was that a problematic discussion beforehand?
[13:54]Why problematic? That it was made clear again, so to speak, and it seemed to me that Nikolai Hartmann had already harboured the basic idea. Yes, I discovered that then. Or it came to me because I had learnt about the square of values through Paul Hellwig, purely by chance. I was browsing aimlessly through books in the library and found it there.
[14:20]And Paul Hellwig did his doctorate under Nikolai Hartmann, but he never mentioned the source, that the whole thing came from Hartmann. I only realised that later. So I wrote in 1988 that the whole thing came from Paul Hellwig. And then it was, so to speak, a… The enlightenment, due to the scientific approach, that has to be explained again.
[14:43]Basically, we can also take the bridge to the square of values, if points are not also important in the development of counselling, i.e. also from your perspective. Because I find it amazing how the consulting market has developed in the course of corporate and political consulting, this individual consulting with so many currents coming from therapy, from the university needs of teaching and instruction, that today it is good manners to work on oneself and not just in the quiet closet, but in the form of further training. Yes, and that has to do with the fact that people have realised that people who have to deal with people, for example managers, have to be able to make contacts and build relationships and not just be experts in their traditional field. And that there was a great need for this, not just for me. I also felt that in myself. I was a late developer on the relationship level and had great difficulty on this interpersonal level. I was uninspired and inhibited. But then I realised that I wasn't the only one who needed to develop here.
[16:02]The companies have also recognised this. It was widely recognised. And that's where the boom came from. How do you look at it today, have the tasks that were set back then, or that you saw yourself as being set, been largely fulfilled? Can they be fulfilled at all? I would say that we are on the right track to a certain extent, yes.
[16:26]And I believe that there is still a lot to do. But it's worth it. And I can speak for myself and say that for me and my life and
[16:41]
Square of values as a communication tool
[16:36]It's a blessing for my relationship life that I've made progress with myself. Yes, that's a good place to start, to take a closer look at the square of values. As a mediator, I find the values square very useful as a polarisation matrix, as polarisation navigation, but as the founder and originator, I would like to simply give you the floor, so to speak, and not restrict you in any way with a question: what do you do with this values square? Oh, it's a universal thinking tool that has greatly enriched my view of the world, of life and of myself. I'm really glad that I've internalised it, so to speak. It makes me capable of judgement in some areas where I might otherwise have stuttered. Back then, at the beginning of the 70s, we had a heated discussion among managers. Some said we should be honest with each other and others said we shouldn't, we should be polite with each other. Decent, exactly. We still have to be able to get on with each other, even after this seminar. So some said, when they heard, honesty, oh please don't say what you said to me in the corridor, you think he's impossible or stupid or something.
[17:56]Please don't say that now, rather stay decent, keep the tone, be diplomatic. Exactly. And there were battles fought and one faction was in favour of honesty and then called the others facade-like and opportunistic and the others were in favour of politeness and then called the honest ones grossly bad. And that honesty and politeness belong together, that we have to look for the rainbow quality. How do I manage to be honest and polite at the same time? The rainbow only opens when two qualities are present at the same time and interpenetrate each other, sunshine and rain, then the rainbow opens. And it is the same with the qualities we should strive for in interpersonal relationships. With rainbows, you have this physical phenomenon as a metaphor, you say that the rainbow merges into two opposing things. Exactly, yes.
[18:57]Authenticity, which then had the highest rank on the Olympus of communication teachers, has also been shown to be something very important in the square of values, but must be paired with tact and diplomacy and sometimes with tactics. And the one without the other and the other without the one is always morx. Honesty without tact is morx and tact without honesty is also morx. And only when the two come together does the rainbow open. That is a fundamental realisation.
[19:36]
Authenticity in the communication process
[19:31]Yes, I agree with you. And there are so many aspects to it. I'd like to come back to authenticity, because that's a really interesting concept for me. Even though you say it used to be the highest point of communication training. Yes.
[19:47]I would go back to the origins, because she says that this is a universal idea, which already had its echoes in antiquity with Aristotle, who also made this clear, there is something ambivalent about it.
[20:00]He often described courage as a fixed, unquestionable quality. So courage per se is okay and worth striving for, and then he branched off to the left and right. So cowardice, of course, is not a virtue, the lack of courage, or youthful recklessness, as is sometimes attributed to young people, overconfidence. Cockiness is rarely good. High spirits are rarely good, exactly. And that is just as bad, not good, not a virtue. These are the foundations, so to speak, of this square of values, when you say that values as such have no fixed point, they are in a relationship of tension. Yes, they are. And in a dynamic balance, if it works. In other words, in the value square itself, values are no longer fixed, but can only be considered in their relationship of tension. I can't just look at thriftiness and say, is thriftiness good or bad, but I have to place it in relation to the other value concepts in the dynamic balance. Exactly. That's the big realisation. Every important principle, every positive quality, every positive characteristic, every value is in danger.
[21:18]If it is apodictically emphasised and lived one-sidedly, it can go astray and turn into something bad. Yes, thrift turns into avarice, courage into arrogance and that every value needs what I have called its sister virtue in order not to turn into…
[21:42]to get into the devil's kitchen. So if you take the classic example of thriftiness, the sister virtue is where you do give away money or other valuables, but in a way that seems virtuous, i.e. generously, hospitably, i.e. you like to share, you don't keep it for yourself. Giving to yourself and others and being generous, yes. But this sister virtue is also in the same danger, namely if it is practised apodictically and one-sidedly and is exaggerated and gets out of hand, then it becomes a wastefulness that is not cost-conscious, which is then to be deplored. Exactly, wastefulness then becomes the exaggeration of the sisters. It still seems clear to me in the graph that the top two values appear to be good without question. You just have to write them down and fix them. If I look at it ideally, you would see the idea that none of these points is good or bad in itself, but only in this square is it possible to discuss whether it is still frugality at that moment or whether it is already greed? Opinions can then differ greatly. Yes, so that means you still have to negotiate, including where you are.
[23:11]Because in conflicts I also have the impression that you don't immediately communicate exaggerations, perhaps because you don't know the square. Also leading into the communication by titling. With the other person. Yes, if you then say, you accuse me of being stingy, but I'm actually frugal. Instead, the first thing they say is, no, what I do is not stinginess. At that moment. And then that's explained. In other words, there's a discussion about whether the facts of the case are the right title for the argument.
[23:47]So I would see the value of finding differentiated concepts in a square. That's the typical conflict. One person says I'm frugal and you're carelessly wasteful. And then the other says that turns the facts on their head. I'm generous and you're a miser. Yes, exactly. That's where it becomes clear, the square, when two people argue, now unaccompanied or even at the beginning of the accompaniment, in mediation.
[24:18]Then I rarely hear these four terms from the parties in this area of tension; they don't have the differentiation at the moment. Whether that's tunnel vision or simply insufficient training. And the ingrained thinking, the ingrained thinking that I am the ideal and you are the scandal. And I see myself in the upper echelon of the value square and denounce you on the opposite side, in the exaggeration. Yes, and that's where the point comes in, so to speak, which also came to me in the feelings in the whole counselling development. It does have a high pedagogical component and you always have to teach something along with the counselling or support. So there is also a conceptual differentiation. Yes, the psycho-educational aspect that runs alongside, so to speak. That's not wrong at all. It's not wrong. And I at least have the impression from mediators that this can work well in conflict resolution if the parties involved are still willing to reach an agreement anyway.
[25:26]That the more differentiated description then helps to get moving and approach the other person in a face-saving way. Yes, indeed. Then I realise that the square of values, if you have recorded it or don't even name it as such, but simply throw in the terms, that it is definitely something where you say, ah yes, now I can locate myself and you are also located and now we can move. Yes, and we discover that something is sacred to you and that you stand for something and stand up for something that is good. And something else is sacred to me and I'm standing up for it. And we could perhaps form a complementary partnership. Because then the rainbow opens up. It's good that a child has a father and a mother. The father says we have an agreement. Three quarters of an hour is television, then it's over. 45 minutes are up. And the children say, 5 minutes, we still want to know how it ends. And mum says, yes, let them.
[26:31]The mother is flexible, I say, and has a big heart and that's important and understands the children's needs, and the father is in favour of sticking to the principles and the agreements, which should apply and not just be on paper. And both are so important. The firmness of principles and the situational flexibility and generosity. And the rainbow can only rise if both are present. And when the arguing parents, who have then defamed each other, say you're a bastard and look at the stopwatch when bringing up children and so on. I listen to paragraph riders, but not at home. Exactly, yes. So when the two of them discover in mediation that we both stand for something good and it's important to unite and combine these two goods and then prioritise them one way or the other depending on the situation, then they can form a partnership.
[27:34]And that's when the light comes on and we come out of the devil's cellar. Yes, I want to use this clarity to feel my way into an area that is perhaps not quite so bright. Even with other models, I sometimes feel that a mental short circuit can happen.
[27:57]For counsellors, mediators or coaches, that the model is now seduced or at least taken as an opportunity, all conflicts have this "aha" moment as a possibility and it is only a question of what is to be taught, the educational part. And then the conflicting parties are reconciled. And I wouldn't say that as my experience in conflicts or as a thesis. Nope, not at all. Yes.
[28:37]Unfortunately not. But is the thought or observation foreign to you? It is foreign to me, but I hear that it can be misunderstood. That we have a key to reconciliation and all we have to do is unlock it, something like that. It's not quite that simple in the world after all. So I don't want to impute that to the model, because the model as such is initially very situational and as a tool it is there. Yes, where it is needed. Exactly, it can't be used. But the fact that we are all human beings and have a certain social tendency, especially in conflicts, should be pacified.
[29:17]That we then harbour the hope that with such communicative tools, and by that I also mean all other communicative tools, it has become obvious that the conflicts are actually just a lack of knowledge of communication theory. No, unfortunately we can't say that. Yes, I would like to unfold that thought with you. I was pleased to see your nod in the negative. Why not? I'll go back to the position. Yes, people who have to deal with each other cause each other problems. And there are often very important reasons and backgrounds for this. Good for them if they are then able to talk about it rationally. And then the models come into play. But only then. You're not saying that the models weren't already there beforehand, but that's what led to them getting into trouble. So people get into trouble, even if they know the models.
[30:11]Yes, that is a basic social law. And it also has opportunities. Wherever there is conflict, it can lead to the abyss. It is very dangerous and can destroy relationships. But in every conflict there is also an opportunity for development, for better solutions to be found when the truth begins in pairs. This is the dual nature of every conflict and it usually arises independently of communicative circumstances. There are also conflicts that arise from the way you talk to me and so on, that have arisen from communication, communication-related conflicts, that also exists, but that is not the rule.
[30:58]Hey, you who listen to this podcast, don't forget to rate it and give feedback. Thank you very much and now it’s on.
[31:11]So you can uncover misunderstandings, you can build in further differentiations, whether emotional terminology or in communication, then parties have the chance, conflict parties have the chance or the opportunity to say or recognise.
[31:28]Now I understand you better, now I understand myself better, now we can move towards each other without losing face. But not at all, all conflicts are just a lack of communication skills. Not at all, yes. Different interests clash. Different urgent needs when resources are scarce. Different world views collide. This is all pre-communicative. That's why I'm asking this question and I'll be happy to come back to it, because there's still a lot to say about the Council, including methodologically and how we can use it. But of course I'm coming to it in today's times and my colleague Redlich, Alexander Redlich, that's right, once said quite personally and clearly here in the podcast that the developments in the European social sphere, i.e. quite simply the war, also offend him in his professional orientation. Ulrich Brückling also said that the fundamental idea of communication can be learnt and thus conflicts can be overcome or even nipped in the bud, even if the image sounds very brutal, but for conflicts it has been met with enormous irritation, if not outright rejection. And anyone who believed and hoped that this would happen is severely shaken.
[32:54]Yes, how do you look at it? You are there with a lot of wisdom and time. You observed it from the very beginning, you helped develop it. Alexander Redlich, also from the Hamburg School. I believe you also worked together directly. Yes, yes, in a counselling and training department. How do you view these developments, that the idea that only communication can help here, more communication, is clearly not working at all?
[33:29]
Communication and its limits
[33:24]Yes, because the reason for the clash is pre-communicative. So if Putin invades Ukraine, then perhaps communicative mistakes were also made in the years and decades beforehand with NATO and the expiring Soviet Union and the new Russia.
[33:50]I don't want to rule that out at all, but I wouldn't think of saying that they spoke badly to each other and misunderstandings arose that led to war. Oh no. That doesn't mean that good communication can't alleviate, resolve or settle a difficult conflict.
[34:15]So we still need communicative expertise. We don't want to put it aside, but it is not a panacea and it is not a universal remedy. Nor should its effectiveness be overestimated. It's a bit like election advertising. You can reinforce a few tendencies, but you can't change the fundamentals. And it sometimes seems to me in the discussion that the call for more communication or more diplomacy, apart from the fact that it is usually borne by ignorance of what diplomacy is actually being carried out, is accompanied by the hope that if this instrument is used correctly and with the right attitude, then the problem must be solvable and the problem, so to speak, where others are involved and have also taken attributable action. In other words, you ultimately hope that you alone have it in your hands. If I act correctly, then the other person will not wage war. And if we act correctly and are really diplomatic and really accommodating, then the other party won't strike. That's right. We don't want to overestimate communication and mediation, but we don't want to underestimate them either. So let's also look at what is possible and perhaps the culture of debate in democracy could be sustainably improved if we were to develop an awareness of dilemmas. Among politicians, but also among democratic voters.
[35:43]Because 90 per cent of politics is not about solving problems, but about shaping dilemmas. And the square of values can be very helpful in becoming clear-sighted here. And then I don't have to demonise and demonise the opponent, but I can see that he also has something important in mind.
[36:04]And that it's about looking for the rainbow, where the truth begins in pairs. And that could be very beneficial for democracy. Yes, and my experience with politicians there is that they are well aware of this dilemma, but that we as observers often underestimate the fact that the way we experience politics in the media is stage communication. It is not carried out to build a rainbow with the political opponent, but to convince third party observers. Yes, unfortunately that is the case. And it must also be said that dilemma-conscious communication is not necessarily promising. The way Trump talks is not dilemma-conscious at any point, but very successful. Very decisively, yes. I would go back to the work settings that make up your work and my work, i.e. with smaller groups, individual people. And here, too, we have the situation where we are at the end of our tether with our tools and sometimes realise that we are not succeeding.
[37:15]The parties are not taking the step that I just thought might be the right one. How do you steer yourself or what model can you use to assess whether my tools have really reached their limits and I can no longer exert any effective influence? Yes, I have already experienced that.
[37:37]How do you deal with it? What helps you to recognise this boundary? Because sometimes we think that if I try again or try again more correctly and go one step further, then the client will come round and they will make peace. Or at least come to an arrangement where they part in peace and where blood doesn't have to flow and bad blood doesn't have to flow. And sometimes it doesn't work out. But that doesn't plunge me into utter misery. Some things work out in life and some things don't work out in life.
[38:10]And we have to live with that. I can well understand the serenity and know from both training courses and discussions with colleagues that not everyone succeeds in recognising and then maintaining this serenity after the work has been done, but not the success with the client, with the parties to the conflict, but also getting into difficult issues, into serious difficulties. And the question is still important: as a mediator, did I perhaps allow myself to become entangled at a crucial point and act badly? Was I perhaps completely unable to empathise at one point for certain reasons that I can discover in supervision? That would also be important. I think mediation is a marvellous invention of the last century, but it demands a lot from the mediator. It is a very demanding skill.
[39:09]In coaching, I can engage and focus on one person and try to empathise. When I have two parties, the situation is completely different and that is very challenging. I find it very difficult work. Yes, we can't emphasise that enough here. Yes, and it's also worth it. Because we see hard work as quality. Yes, it is. And as a mediator, it's also worth looking into the matter again in supervision. Sometimes it opens your eyes. Yes, and the difficulty, I often say this, especially for mediation candidates who come from the coaching sector, from individual counselling, is that all communication is also stage communication. The opposing party to the conflict observes how we speak to the other party. And that goes back and forth. And this is not parallel coaching at the same time in the same room with two coaching claims. Exactly. They are opposing. Exactly. And that creates an energy where the air becomes leaden and you have to be able to withstand that. Is that a good diversion back to the square of values? Can we do something with it as mediators or in supervision? Can we find relief with the value square as mediators when we are in clarification processes?
[40:33]
Personal responsibility and serenity
[40:33]Have you expected too much effort or too much responsibility for the outcome of the conflict development?
[40:46]Question mark, exactly. Yes, a square of values comes to mind, which emphasises personal responsibility on the one hand. It depends on you to some extent, so be aware of that. And on the other hand, the serenity that accepts fate, that I can't win against all the windmills in this life that are stronger than me.
[41:08]This brings us back to the same point that we've just had before us, the social issue. I sometimes say this thesis, you can have done really good mediation work and the parties don't agree and go to court. Absolutely. And that also means, and this is the point, that the parties can have come to an agreement and found peace and you have done a poor job of mediation. That's also possible. Yes. And then you would decouple it a bit. It just stands out in our perhaps one-sided emphasis when the parties don't come to an agreement. So beware of any omnipotence fantasy that everything depends on you. How could we make the value square fruitful? On the one hand, it is a value… to emphasise personal responsibility in this process. Yes, and to have self-efficacy and an awareness of self-efficacy. That would be the joke for us as mediators. It would be important. If I emphasise the parties' personal responsibility, it should actually be easy for me to say that I am not responsible for the parties' decisions.
[42:18]But in this case, we have the moment when they don't reach an agreement and the mediators are certainly in self-doubt. Especially if they had the illusion of omnipotence. And that would be the slide to the bottom left. That would be the exaggerated equivalent. That would be the exaggeration of self-efficacy and self-responsibility. That really seems paradoxical. When you emphasise that you are conducting a process in which the parties themselves are supposed to develop the solution and we understand mediation in our part of the world very much in a facilitative and moderative way and less in an evaluative way, so that we don't make any suggestions or evaluate the parties' ideas as to whether they are good or bad or sensible, lawful, affordable or ethically responsible, but instead we take great care to keep our distance.
[43:15]And the responsibility lies with you and remains with you for the decision. But as soon as they say we won't come to an agreement, and not even with their help, in inverted commas, then suddenly someone inside comes and says that was bad and you weren't good enough. But that's human. If it's successful and they're in each other's arms, then of course you have a feeling of warmth in your heart and can enjoy your own beneficial influence once again. And if they break up in a mess, then it was probably nothing here.
[43:54]But the future is more open. So again, a lot of relationship offers are possible. But what would be the sister virtue that we perhaps need to or can focus on in order to enlighten ourselves a little more about how we can... So as not to slip into the illusion of omnipotence. If personal responsibility is the fundamental value that I emphasise, both for the clients and for me as a mediator, the sister virtue would be cooperation, i.e. that we work together to create something and therefore proceed in a coordinated manner?
[44:30]Yes, that would perhaps be the rainbow. I'm still involved in the cooperation. On the one hand, with my self-efficacy and self-responsibility, I'm still with myself. Now the sister virtue should emphasise the other part. So not the common part, but the other side. But the other part. Hello lovelies, whether it works out for you depends on you. And you are responsible for developing something with my help, but something that will then be sustainable. And be aware that I can't do magic, you have to do it yourselves. Sisterhood lies in this attitude. That seems to me to be a point that we don't even realise. Having them in mind at the beginning or at the start of a mediation is probably misleading because the parties say that we're just getting it wrong, that we can't manage on our own. You are our last resort. Yes, you would actually have to say no.
[45:32]Yes, that's 50 per cent correct. So I would have to say that a little more favourably. That seems to be an interesting path that still leads to some insights. Because if the common ground, the cooperation in mediation is practically the rainbow mentioned, then the sister virtue of personal responsibility would be something to emphasise that the parties bring with them. After all, they are already co-operating in their negative, escalating way and one of them alone cannot shape the conflict in the way they can together. It sometimes sounds cynical or ironic to some, but there is actually a spark to it. I'm still not sure whether that's the sister virtue when we work with the model there. It could also be that there are several squares of values for one and the same question. That it is perhaps the one sister virtue, serenity. I can't win against all the windmills in this life and there are forces that are stronger than me. And this resignation to fate would be a sister virtue for me, so to speak, that I can also deal successfully and with dignity with defeats and where I don't come out on top. That would be one aspect.
[46:57]And a completely different square of values would be if we emphasise the personal responsibility of the client and also feel it ourselves and then make this attitude clear. And without hiding any blame in it, it's your own fault, your own responsibility. Perhaps the conflict is beyond you. That can also be the case. Yes, you are of good will, but it is beyond your strength. These are such strong obstacles that we can't successfully part today. Yes, sometimes I also have the impression that conflicts are still a way of being overtaxed in order to stay in communication at all. And there's something paradoxically reassuring about that. Oh, I would have expected you to say that there is something reassuring about that. No, not at all. I'm more looking for an example that doesn't have anything to do with myself. Yes, or I'd like to.
[47:52]Raising children in today's world with two jobs is often a source of conflict. And I don't just have the idea that, well, you can somehow manage that better, you have to talk it out better and so on. But sometimes conflict communication is also a connecting element. In the organisation, which is better than being exhausted, everyone does their own thing. And that's even more divisive, you have to say. And unfortunately, as I said, the law of conflict of vertical opposition applies. The more I myself am affected by the conflict, the more my ability to deal with each other in a metacommunicative, conscious and appreciative way as partners plummets. Ah yes, there's the term you were looking for. Just like the paternoster, when your concern goes up, your communicative competence goes down. To that extent. When I was at university, I had colleagues who were marvellous communicators, in other words brilliant. To the point and appreciative on all sides. But when they were affected themselves, they almost became, I'm looking for the right word, as you get older you're always looking for the right words.
[49:19]As if changed. As if changed. Knew the lighthouse was at its darkest. Yes. That's also paradoxical. And they became primitive, I was looking for that word. Primitive. Yes.
[49:29]Diplomatic. Primitive and vomit-inducing and hypersensitive and all sorts of things that are human. I'm trying to walk back the parentheses. We were talking about the benefits for your own clarification and the sister virtue, and they said exactly that you need to remain calm when parties ask you to remain calm, both in individual counselling and in mediation, not to devalue yourself in terms of effectiveness. So as a mediator, you have to go in and say there's nothing I can do, it's their conflict, but also not exaggerate, it's up to me now. So they said I'm the last resort, but rather to stay cool, to remain realistic, yes, I will make a difference, it will be different with me than without, but it's still quite open where it will lead and we're all involved in that.
[50:23]Yes, and I'm not responsible for the solution, but for the process. And the responsibility for the solution lies with you, if we can make this contract.
[50:33]I think the term "responsibility" is appropriate because it doesn't immediately take the mediator out of the equation. He is indeed responsible for something. He a. wants to be paid and b. is allowed to stay involved. And that's a special feature, that the third party is allowed to stay involved in the conflict resolution. So we have now used the value square as a polarisation map. Yes, I also call it the polarisation square or the dilemma square or
[51:03]
Polarisation in conflict management
[51:00]the challenge square when we think about personal development. One person has to learn to be empathetic and understanding in conflict. The other has to learn to show their colours and speak plainly. That's where the directions of development cross. So depending on the context, it's the polarisation square, the dilemma square, the development square or the values square. It is also about resolving conflicts. And you could use this square not only as a de-escalation and as a calming aha effect, but also to realise that it's right that they are arguing. And I feel it's my responsibility to do this constructively. And I don't have to immediately lead the parties to a decision or intend to do so, but it's good if they also argue. When they clash and the opposition becomes clear.
[51:56]And the emotions that are involved are also given space for once. And these are not always just constructive, conciliatory emotions.
[52:07]It's also part of the argument that things are allowed to boil over. And if it's allowed to boil over and is endured, then perhaps there will come a time when you can talk about it again. I can really relate to that today. I got up very early today to make my way to Hamburg. I did the bare minimum I could with my eyes half open. But of course that was nothing for the family departure two hours later. It wasn't enough. And then it was good to be able to vent your anger at a distance, but communicatively connected. I was able to experience that today.
[52:49]Bracket open, rightly so. Then you have a good example of this. That was very fitting. Finally, because we are now slowly approaching the end of the interview, I would like to return to the point I announced about authentic communication. You said that for a while, it was perhaps still the pinnacle of training to be authentic. And the word training doesn't quite fit anymore? And because I often use the term to mean, as the sociologist Andreas Reckwitz put it, that the authentic is true. Historically, socio-culturally, it has been an attribution where people have rejected the social, the bourgeois and said, I'm doing mine.
[53:42]Whatever the cost, socially, the artist, the breadless artist, who has, so to speak, renounced the bourgeoisie and accepts the fact that he will become nothing in this society, but makes his own. His self-realisation is the opposite of conforming to the prevailing norms. And that one could then also look after with a piqued look from bourgeois circles, if one still wanted to attach so much value to it. Yes, with a piqued or ambivalent look. Goethe also said that you have to give yourself for something and you'd rather put up with someone who is uncomfortable than someone who just conforms and is inconspicuous. So there is at least a certain ambivalence.
[54:27]And if we now jump into our time with the further education market, people are making an effort in counselling, reading up and questioning themselves and also want to change a little and get to where they believe I am more suitable. So they also take on a form of adaptation in order to be authentic. And with this idea that I am authentic or I communicate authentically, they claim recognition from others. Look how beautifully authentic I am. That's right. And you can't criticise me at all, boss, because that's who I am. And that's how you have to want me to be. And I find that remarkably paradoxical and also illuminating for the conflicts that arise in working life, for example, when a struggle for authenticity is unleashed.
[55:28]Always with, let's say in conflict, communicative immunity. If I'm authentic, you can't criticise me at all. Because that's who I am. Yes, and you wanted it. And everyone has to be who they are, roughly speaking.
[55:45]Yes, so perhaps that's one reason why authenticity no longer plays a prominent role in our Olympus of values. It has made an enormous career for itself. Today, authenticity is also expected from politicians, from business leaders, from CEOs.
[56:05]So the is already enormous, what itself there done has. And gives Permission, itself also different to behaviour and different to give and to dress. And now must one but say, that not each The challenge and each Situation in addition suitable is, that we us unadulterated to the Expression bring. It gives also still in the Square of values next to the Authenticity the Fit on that, what the Situation me demanded in the Role. So appropriate to the situation to act, the Truth the Situation demands me something from. On mine Wise the Situation fair to become, is on mine Wise to do, the is right, there has the Authenticity quite their Place. But that I mine Role fair will and the, what the Situation me demanded, fair will, the is natural a more substantial Secondary value. Therefore speak we from Consistency. As highest Conductance the Communication be in Agreement with you itself and in Agreement with the Truth the Situation and yours Role in it. You stand on one Chessboard and the fair to become is the one and the fair to become, what the own Heart you gives up, the is the other and search the Rainbow between this both.
[57:18]
The inner team approach to communication
[57:19]When one the summarises and the Psychological and the also Sociological together, holds one always yet, the find I Yes quite Legitimate or so to speak debatable, the Idea upright, it gives a real in us, a Core, the unadulterated is and it gives the Social, the us Customisation is forced. And now is it one Question the Rating, like I now my Mixing ratio in the Life design.
[57:46]How I the together. So these Idea of the Humanism, that it this Core of the unadulterated Individuals gives, of the Indivisible, the some also then on the Soul take off and say, the is now our more emotional Core, the must in the Life Certainly a pair Compromises make. Is the actually like this? Or is the a Thought, the we still practicable utilise, but actually not more in the Science really sustainable is? Yes. Mr Weigel, with the Question make You a new Barrel on. Since need we still a new Podcast. I make the always like this. The Essence core of the People provides itself out, there prevails one inner Plurality. The is my Model from the inner Team. And it gives not the one inner Voice, the me authentic represents, but it gives there very many. And it gives inner Voices, the want itself with pleasure customise and have a Need to belong and so continue. So the is already also in me inside, in mine Soul inside and must me not so to speak sociological grafted on become. The would be now a whole new and not less exciting Chapter. And the find I also one good Path there, on the Model of the inner Teams to go.
[59:02]Since only the one Question, the means, on this Table, where the inner Team Place takes, gives it then none Determinator, the the Conversations moderated, negotiated and then decides, OK, today may you what according to say. In the inner Team, mine You? Because the would be Yes then but again the Core saved been. But when the Model so to Understand is, the gives it in us, the Voices and it gives even not the one Me, the we although feel and the we preserve want, but when we it measure want, remember, it is not there. No, and it gives there one enormous personnel Bandwidth. And when the Boss, the Head, like I it call, good developed is, the is however not always given, but when the Head good developed is, can it say to the individual team members, in this Situation are you please reserved, so Important you also otherwise are. And in this Situation must you to front, so that we appropriate to the situation act can.
[1:00:04]
Conclusion of the conversation
[1:00:04]Mr Friedemann Schulz from Thun, many Thanks to for the Conversation. The was very enlightening. Has me very pleased, Mr Weigel. Yours Visit in Hamburg. Likewise. Good Time for You. Many Thanks to, that you again with thereby was here at the Podcast to the Topic Conflict counselling, Mediation, Coaching. When you the please has, then leave behind but with pleasure a Feedback on Apple Podcast or Google Business recommend the Podcast more and subscribe him of course, when you the still not done have. The Helps us and this Podcast continue, with this Service known to become. For the Moment say goodbye I me with the best Wishes. Until to the next Times. Come good through the Time. I am Sascha Weigel, yours Chest from INKOVEMA, the Institute for Conflicts and Negotiation management.
[1:00:52]Music
Leave A Comment