In the previous lessons of our training on conflict management, we covered an extensive theoretical part concerning this issue, namely: we talked about what the causes of conflicts are and what are the stages of their development. We also looked at the practical aspect and presented to your attention methods for preventing and managing conflicts. However, if due attention has been paid to theory and the knowledge gained is quite enough to understand the basics of conflict management, then practice is far from being limited to one lesson. Moreover, even a dozen lessons will not exhaust it, because the relevance of the problem is great and a huge amount of research and work is devoted to it. But we, nevertheless, still strive to provide you with the most useful and effective recommendations, which is why we continue to talk about practice.

Now we will talk about what to do in situations when the situation gets out of control and grows from potentially dangerous to posing a real threat - about what methods exist for resolving and resolving conflicts. But first, let's figure out what it is all about?

What is conflict management and resolution?

The settlement and resolution of conflicts is usually understood as a system of measures aimed at preventing conflicts and finding optimal ways out of them. For many years, this problem has not received due attention either in theory or in practice. Only in last years Communities of conflictologists and various organizations involved in applied conflictology began to form, and thematic literature began to be published. However, even now we can talk about the fact that in the sphere of conflict resolution there is some kind of efficient system, not necessary. We can even speak with confidence about the opposite state of affairs, because when resolving conflicts, a number of mistakes are often made.

Main mistakes in conflict resolution

When resolving conflicts, people usually make the following mistakes:

• Failure to timely implement appropriate conflict resolution measures
• Attempts to resolve conflicts without finding out their actual causes
• The use of exclusively aggressive methods and punitive measures or, on the contrary, purely diplomatic methods in resolving conflicts
• Using template schemes to resolve conflicts without studying their types and features.

Another, and quite significant, omission is that proper attention is not paid to the prevention of conflict situations, because how can one talk about influencing them without having information about their occurrence, without knowing what they can develop into, etc. . We have already touched on this topic in more detail in the last lesson, but given that all aspects of conflictology are closely intertwined, we should still return for a moment to the issue of conflict prevention and recall what their prevention is.

Conflict Prevention

Conflict prevention is mainly about predicting them, for example, the severity of the consequences or the time of onset. Carrying out conflict prevention activities is only possible using methods such as expert surveys, experimental and mathematical modeling, extrapolation, etc. In addition, prevention must be carried out at all levels: personal level, micro level, middle level and macro level.

Conflict prevention measures should be related to the elimination of conditions conducive to the emergence of conflicts. The basis here is such measures as eliminating the deformation of social relations, dividing society into social strata, social psychohygiene and social protection of the population, psychotherapy (individual, group, mass), psychoprophylaxis, as well as training in social interaction, education, education, etc.

All these nuances must be taken into account, because It is much easier to eliminate a problem in its bud than to deal with it later, resorting to all sorts of methods, techniques and tricks. But, of course, there are no methods that 100% guarantee that conflict will not arise, and conflicts should be perceived as an integral part of human life. And if problems arise, then you need to be fully armed, i.e. be prepared for them and be able to resolve them. So what does conflict resolution mean? How does this happen and how to learn it?

Conflict resolution

When starting a conversation about conflict resolution, it should first of all be emphasized that the very concept of “conflict resolution” has two meanings:

• Resolving conflicts by their subjects themselves
• Conflict resolution based on identifying their causes and neutralizing them, as well as taking measures to prevent open conflict between subjects

Conflict resolution, as a serious practical tool, cannot be carried out without knowledge of its features. And even this does not always guarantee that the problem situation will be resolved successfully. And this depends not so much on how specific each individual situation is and what this specificity is, but on what measures should be taken to resolve the conflict. And here we should strive to ensure that measures aimed at dealing with the fact of conflict correspond to the scheme below:

• Analysis and determination of the causes of conflicts and the reasons for the conflict behavior of their subjects (conflict cartography);
• Making a decision to enter into a conflict, taking into account its outcome;
• Implementation of a decision to enter into conflict.

In practice, in resolving a conflict, everything depends on the position of the subjects resolving it. This position can be expectant, authoritative, negatively competent, leading to escalation, rational, or based on a deep understanding of the causes of the conflict. The point of conflict resolution is to influence both its causes and its participants.

Methods for resolving conflicts can be completely different, from eliminating their causes and containing the situation to reorienting the attitudes of the participants, the purpose of which is to form in them the conviction that it is necessary to abandon destructive conflict interaction. Methods can also be socio-psychological, administrative or complex. If we consider the issue of resolution, we can distinguish between seemingly resolved conflicts, partially resolved conflicts and completely resolved conflicts.

And given the fact that conflict in the abstract cannot exist in nature, there are no universal methods of settlement and resolution suitable for any type of conflict. To resolve an interpersonal conflict, some methods are used; to resolve a family conflict, others are used; to resolve a military conflict, others are used. Approaches to conflict resolution are selected depending on their theoretical understanding.

The problem of conflict resolution and resolution today is very relevant in many countries around the world, and therefore it receives great attention. Particularly acute is the question of the role and functions of civil services, situations related to terrorist attacks, strikes and other movements that are potentially dangerous to humans, as well as the question of law and order in the army. In this regard, state governments are even developing special technologies for conducting operations to resolve conflicts and systems of behavior in conflict situations. For example, in the USA there is even a position of conflict manager.

It should also be said that the terms “resolution” and “settlement” of conflicts should not be identified with each other.

Conflict resolution - This is a set of measures aimed at eliminating the source of conflict interaction and ultimately satisfying the needs and interests of the subjects of the conflict. In the social aspect, this process can last for many years.

Conflict resolution - This is work aimed at suppressing aggressive actions and achieving compromises that suit them, which will be more beneficial for them than continuing conflict interaction. Moreover, conflict resolution through negotiations, arbitration and mediation is used in practice much more often than resolution, and is achieved many times faster than it.

EXAMPLE: The most unproductive and primitive method of resolving a conflict is the use of force (for example, the start of hostilities), because in this case, there is a high probability of significant losses by all subjects of the problem situation and even escalation of the conflict. For this reason, in addition to this method, the truce method is used.

The conclusion of a truce is largely a tactical technique or an element of strategy. A form of truce can be a renunciation of aggressive actions through intermediaries (for example, the media), a withdrawal from the line of interaction between the subjects of the conflict, a temporary renunciation of aggressive actions (for example, a temporary cessation of shelling), etc.

But the truce method is not very effective, because it is only temporary, the parties do not give each other any obligations, and no sanctions are established for violating the truce.

The most suitable method for eliminating a conflict is the conclusion of an agreement to end hostility (for example, a peace treaty). But reaching agreement is quite problematic, because... may be required to be competent in certain issues: political, cultural, economic, etc.

However, along with less effective or more radical methods, there is a better way to resolve conflicts in many aspects - negotiations, to which we will pay special attention. But before we move on to talking about negotiations, we should say a few words about how a conflict situation should be analyzed, because without knowing its features, hoping for success is, at a minimum, naive and ridiculous, and at a maximum, impractical and dangerous.

Analysis of a conflict situation

Analysis of a conflict situation in the process of conflict resolution is based on the following points:

• Analysis of the sources of the conflict, namely: its historical, economic, social, national and other prerequisites; subjective or objective experiences of subjects; moral and humane aspects; as well as the depth of the conflict: contradictions in the views and opinions of the parties, their positions or complete confrontation;
• Analysis of the so-called “biography” of the conflict: its history and the background against which it developed; growth; priority methods of struggle of subjects; moments of crisis and turning points; victims and other consequences;
• Analysis of the subjects of the conflict, i.e. people, groups, organizations. The indicator of the social complexity of the conflict is determined by calculating the number of participants and their real strengths;
• Analysis of positions and relationships of subjects: formal and informal, private and general; the scale of relationships, the roles of individuals and groups in the conflict; features of personal relationships between the parties - leaders and ordinary participants;
• Analysis of attitudes towards the conflict, in other words, analysis of the question of whether the parties to the conflict have the desire to resolve it, whether they plan to do this independently or rely on external influences and factors; what the parties to the conflict expect, what they hope for, what conditions they put forward, etc.

Only after sufficiently analyzing the conflict situation does it make sense to conceive negotiations and try to exert some influence on the opponent/opponents.

Negotiations as the main method of resolving conflicts

To begin with, it is worth noting that agreement between the parties to the conflict is achieved without intermediaries only in very rare cases. Mediators serve in a conflict as arbitrators, peacemakers, equalizers of the balance of interests of subjects and parties conducting negotiations. The gradual improvement of the practice of resolving conflict situations in the world in general (let alone small-level conflicts) has become the beginning of the creation of innovative methods that are based on sudden changes in the qualitative state of problem situations. And in most cases, these methods involve the use of third parties or other methods of external influence. Let us give several examples to prove this.

EXAMPLE: In world practice, there are already fully developed effective ways containment of conflicting parties. If these are micro-level conflicts (in families, at work, in a work team, etc.), then the role of mediators can be played by friends, colleagues, bosses, lawyers, etc. If these are mid- or macro-level conflicts (wars, uprisings, strikes, pickets, etc.), then army forces, police, riot police, special forces, the UN, etc. can act as mediators.

EXAMPLE: Since the UN was created in 1945, there have been over a hundred large-scale conflicts around the world, with a total death toll of approximately 20 million people. In most of these conflicts, the Security Council has resorted to the use of the veto, a power that allows an individual or group of individuals to unilaterally block any decision. But over time, the number of appeals to the UN increased, and this mechanism for ensuring security with its help became part of the arsenal of the main methods of conflict resolution, as well as their prevention.

The UN armed forces, whose activities are aimed at maintaining peace, are represented by various troops provided by UN member countries. The purpose of these armed forces- by all means to contribute to the prevention of hostilities, as well as to restore and maintain law and order, and ensure a favorable environment. Initially, they were assigned the powers to conduct negotiations, persuade opposing parties, conduct observations and all kinds of investigations.

Any activity aimed at resolving conflicts must proceed, first of all, from the premises of humanistic psychology. The position of the parties occupies a particularly important place here. Conflict resolution should be approached not from the position of “victory-defeat”, but from the position of such a mentality, the basis of which is a non-violent picture of the world, a “win-win” scheme, the desire to achieve agreement and personal growth. After all, the main task of conflict resolution is to achieve peace, stop aggressive confrontation, and find a compromise.

EXAMPLE: After the collapse of the USSR, violent conflicts arose on ethnic grounds in Tajikistan, Transnistria and South Ossetia, between Abkhazia and Georgia. To resolve conflicts, special models (Transnistrian, Georgian-Abkhaz, South Ossetian) of peacekeeping processes were developed. And their peculiarity was that Russia assumed the functions of a neutral force.

EXAMPLE: Quite a lot important also has the resolution of conflicts that resulted in strikes. Russia has extensive experience in this regard. More specifically, the Russian government often resorts to the practice of social partnership, the purpose of which is to find and conclude acceptable solutions. The most important role The organization of negotiations plays a role in the process of resolving industrial conflicts.

In addition, a special mechanism for the consideration of collective labor disputes has been developed and operates in developing and developed countries. It is provided by the ILO (International Labor Organization). For example, ILO Convention No. 154 of 1981, entitled “Collective Bargaining”, applies to all sectors of economic activity. It proclaims the main provisions for conducting negotiations within the arbitration or conciliation mechanism.

Resolving conflict relations involves carrying out certain preparatory work to ensure that the conflict is resolved not by aggressive, but by peaceful means. And the first thing you need to pay attention to here is the extinguishing of emotional intensity.

EXAMPLE: If a national conflict flared up and then turned into open armed confrontation, attempts to arrange negotiations between the conflicting parties will be useless. First of all, it is necessary to reach an agreement (for which a mediator must be used) on a cessation of hostilities, even if only temporarily.

Direct exchange of points of view will be effective only if the conflict has not yet reached the peak of its intensity, and also if the subjects have common ground.

For this reason, if there is an escalation of the conflict, the main task will be to try to prevent its parties from making direct contact, and also to, using an intermediary, begin to establish communication between the parties and exchange information between them.

But here it is very important to keep in mind that the “cold period” between the parties to the conflict should not be very long. If this condition is not met, the parties to the conflict (or at least one of them) may regard this as an unwillingness to solve the problem, as a result of which the situation may worsen and the parties will come into direct contact.

By and large, all researchers who study the problem of analysis and organization of negotiations have one common point of contact - these are the stages of the negotiation process.

The negotiation process should consist of the following stages:

• Preparing for negotiations
• Conduct of negotiations
• Analysis of negotiation results
• Implementation of agreements

And the process of finding solutions to resolve the conflict should include the following stages:

• Mutual clarification of the positions, points of view and interests of the subjects of the conflict;
• Discussion of the positions, points of view and interests of the subjects of the conflict;
• Coordination of subjects' positions and development of agreements.

The negotiations themselves will look something like this:

Preparatory stage

Before actors begin to develop agreements, they must find out and discuss each other's points of view. Experts consider negotiations as a special process during which information uncertainty is removed through the understanding of opposing positions by the subjects. This process is most intense at its beginning. For this reason, it is conventionally called research.

First stage

At the first stage special meaning has the search and finding of common ground by subjects. But here we need a clear understanding that under the same definitions, formulations and terms, subjects mean the same things. Otherwise, the agreements and agreements reached by the subjects may be disrupted, and the conflict situation may worsen, as a result of which the confrontation will intensify. Negotiations should begin with opening remarks and explanations voiced by the mediator. He is also obliged to voice the purpose of the negotiations and outline their rules.

Main stage

After the mediator has brought the parties to the conflict up to date, the main stage of negotiations begins. The subjects of the conflict are given the opportunity to express their point of view in order of priority. Next, there is a step-by-step discussion of the problem, the adoption of specific decisions and agreements, first on private issues, and then on general theme.

Results of negotiations

The successful completion of negotiations depends on whether the following rules are observed:

• You should not discuss those aspects of the problem that do not bring concrete results.
• The main problem must be broken down into smaller issues and discussed step by step.
• During the negotiation process, you need to follow the established order of discussion of issues
• During the discussion, it is necessary to move from small agreements to more serious ones, as well as draw conclusions, sum up, summarize
• It is necessary to respond to any positive aspects and constructive actions and proposals of the parties
• It is necessary to attract the attention of the parties to those points that can unite them
• It is necessary to make references to agreements already reached
• Agreements need to be established regarding general principles interactions

At the main stage, when the problem is discussed, the attention of the participants is directed mainly to expressing their own position, and this stage will be of greatest importance if the subjects of the conflict (or at least one of them) are focused on resolving the issue, which will ensure realization of their own interests. In this case, a heated discussion may flare up, which may be replaced by the so-called “deaf time”, during which the natural course of negotiations is suspended.

EXAMPLE: During the negotiation process, the parties may begin to demonstrate their disinterest in meetings, contacts and any other interaction. As a result, there may be talk that the negotiations will be stopped altogether.

In such a situation, it may be effective to take a break so that each party can evaluate the situation, think alternative options behavior and problem solving, hold meetings with “your” people, or simply take a break from the conflict resolution process. In addition, informal consultations and meetings may be helpful.

If the “deaf time” is successfully overcome, then the negotiation process will return to its natural rhythm. It is here that subjects most often begin to coordinate their positions. It is important to note that depending on what issues are being discussed, agreement on positions can be understood as either compromise concepts or issues that were previously discussed, but could become part of the final solution.

However, the coordination of positions is not yet an agreement, but serves only as a general “outline”. Moreover, the approval process has two phases: searching and defining a general scheme, and further discussion of details. Finding a general outline most often means establishing the framework of the agreement, and discussing the details means editing the agreement in order to formulate its final version.

This approach is very effective when applied to many negotiations, especially when the negotiations are planned to be complex and multifaceted. It can reduce the time it takes to come to a compromise, reach agreements, and also makes the discussion more productive. By developing a general scheme of negotiations and resorting to its detailing, the participants take turns going through the main stages: clarifying each other’s positions, discussing them and agreeing on them.

Of course, the marked stages do not have to strictly correspond to the presented order. When clarifying positions, participants can immediately come to agreement on some issues or discuss their points of view, or they can move on to clarifying individual nuances at the end of the negotiations. Although, speaking in general, the sequence that we talked about above must be followed, because otherwise, negotiations may be delayed or even broken down. It all depends on the specifics of each individual situation: sometimes one stage can take only a secondary place, while another can occupy a central place, and vice versa.

Along with the negotiation method, there are a number of methods for resolving and resolving conflicts that can be used if it is not possible to negotiate.

Other methods of conflict resolution and resolution

Other methods of conflict resolution and resolution depend on the characteristics of each problem situation and should be used based on this situation.

Intrapersonal methods. They have an impact on an individual and imply adequate organization of his behavior.

EXAMPLE: The ability to justify one’s position, express an opinion or point of view without provoking a negative or aggressive reaction from another person or group of people, etc.

Structural methods. They influence the subjects of conflicts that arise due to incorrect distribution of responsibilities, rights or functions, as well as improper organization of work or an unfair remuneration system.

EXAMPLE: A clear explanation to the parties to the conflict of their functions and tasks; a specific table of rights and responsibilities; principle of unity of command, etc.

Interpersonal methods. They are considered in two aspects: external and internal. External implies the competent activity of a third party to resolve the conflict. Internal - the use of effective techniques in the process of conflict interaction and everyday communication by the subjects themselves.

EXAMPLE: Coercion, compromise, cooperation, confrontation, evasion, compliance, accommodation, empathy, etc.

Retaliatory aggression. Responsive destructive actions of one subject of the conflict in relation to another when a conflict situation arises.

EXAMPLE: Counterattack, bickering, unwillingness to make concessions, argument, etc.

Avoiding conflict. It is used when the conflict is unnecessary for one of the subjects or the problematic situation is completely banal, as well as in cases where it is necessary to solve more important issues, gain time, collect the missing information.

EXAMPLE: Smoothing, adaptation, inaction, delaying time, concessions, taking the opposite position.

Conflict suppression. It is used in cases where circumstances do not allow entering into an open conflict, it is impossible to involve the opposite party in the situation, or there is a risk of losing authority, image, etc.

EXAMPLE: The “Divide and Conquer” method, quick conflict resolution, hidden actions, etc.

This should also include a very interesting tool for conflict resolution. As such, it does not represent a method of resolution, but it serves as an indispensable assistant for any person faced with unfavorable circumstances within the framework of the topic we are considering. This tool is called a conflict resolution matrix. You can remember the matrix, write it down on a piece of paper and always keep it nearby, or you can simply understand its features. In any case, this will be useful, because... can be useful anytime, anywhere.

So, the matrix:

To understand the essence of the presented matrix, you just need to refer to the description of conflict resolution methods that we talked about at the end of the lesson. Evaluate their advantages and disadvantages, remember how they differ from each other. And in order to more accurately understand the probability with which a particular conflict is most often resolved, in brackets for each of the matrix methods there is a scheme (“win-lose”, “win-win”, etc.), which means the prospect of resolving the conflict for the party applying the method (first indicator) and for the party to which this method is directed (second indicator). The matrix is ​​extremely easy to use, so mastering it will not pose any difficulties for you.

In conclusion, it remains only to note that the considered methods of resolving and resolving conflicts are not exhaustive or the only one of their kind. The most important thing is to come to the understanding that absolutely anything that helps ensure and maintain normal relations between people can serve as such methods; everything that strengthens their respect and trust in each other.

In our next lesson we will talk in detail about a topic that is one of the most relevant in conflictology and worries many people - intrapersonal conflict.

Test your knowledge

If you want to test your knowledge on the topic of this lesson, you can take a short test consisting of several questions. For each question, only 1 option can be correct. After you select one of the options, the system automatically moves on to the next question. The points you receive are affected by the correctness of your answers and the time spent on completion. Please note that the questions are different each time and the options are mixed.

Lecture 8. Constructive conflict resolution

Questions: 1. Forms and criteria for ending conflicts

2. Conditions and factors for constructive conflict resolution

3. Logic, strategies and methods of conflict resolution

4. Negotiation process in interpersonal conflict

1. Forms and criteria for ending conflicts

The general concept that describes the ending of the conflict is the concept of the end of the conflict, i.e. this is the cessation of its existence in any form.

Other concepts are also used. Which characterize the essence of the process of ending the conflict:

attenuation

overcoming

suppression

cancellation

self-permission

extinction

settlement

elimination

settlement, etc.

The main forms of ending the conflict:

n Permission -joint activities of its participants aimed at ending opposition and solving the problem that led to the clash. Conflict resolution involves the activity of both parties to change the conditions of interaction and eliminate the causes of the conflict.

n Settlement- a third party takes part in eliminating contradictions

n Attenuation- temporary cessation of opposition while maintaining the main signs of the conflict: contradictions and tense relations.

Reasons for attenuation:

1. depletion of resources on both sides

2. loss of motivation to fight

3. reorientation of motive

n Elimination- impact on the conflict, as a result of which its main structural components are eliminated.

Remedy:

1. removal of one of the opponents from the conflict

2. eliminating interaction between opponents for a long time

3. object elimination

4. elimination of object deficiency

n Evolving into another conflict - a new, more significant contradiction arises in the relations of the parties

The outcome of the conflict is the result of the struggle from the point of view of the parties. The outcomes of the conflict can be:

n eliminating one or both sides

n suspension of the conflict

n victory of one of the sides

n division of the conflict object

n agreement on the rules for sharing the object

n equivalent compensation to one of the parties for taking possession of the object of the other

n refusal of both parties to encroach

n an alternative definition of such objects that satisfy the interests of both parties

The main criterion for resolving a conflict is the satisfaction of the parties with the result.

For others, such parameters as the degree of resolution of the contradiction underlying the conflict (the degree of normalization of the parties’ relations and relationships with other people depend on this) and the victory of the right opponent are also important.

2. Conditions and factors for constructive conflict resolution

Conditions:

n Stopping conflict interactions

n Search for close or even common points of contact (conflict map)

n reducing the intensity of negative emotions

n eliminating the “image of the enemy” (in oneself. In the opponent: “from heaven to earth”)

n an objective view of the problem

n taking into account each other's statuses

n choosing the optimal resolution strategy

Factors:

n time: reducing time leads to an increase in the likelihood of choosing aggressive behavior

n third party: the participation of third parties seeking to resolve the conflict leads to a calmer course and quicker resolution

n timeliness: the sooner the parties reach a settlement, the better

n balance of power: if the parties are approximately equal, they have no other choice. In addition to finding a compromise

n experience: the presence of experience in resolving a conflict on at least one of the parties leads to faster resolution

n relationships: good relations between the parties before the conflict speed up its resolution

3.Strategies and methods for resolving conflict

Conflict resolution is a multi-stage process that has its own logic .

1. Analytical stage - collection and assessment of information on the following issues:

Object of conflict

Opponent

Own position

Reasons and immediate cause

Social environment

Secondary reflection

2. Forecasting a solution option:

Most favorable

Least favorable

What happens if you just stop doing it?

3. Actions to implement the planned plan

4. Plan correction

5. Monitoring the effectiveness of actions

6. Assessing the results of the conflict

Conflict resolution strategies - the main lines of action of opponents to get out of the conflict. The concept of strategy in our context has three significant points that should be taken into account when analyzing conflicts and choosing adequate actions.

Firstly, the strategy contains the most general guidelines and guidelines for the outcome of the conflict. Obviously, the formal-logical content of such guidelines comes down to four options:

One-way winning;

One-sided loss;

Mutual loss;

Win-win.

These options are reflected in the specific negotiation strategies of R. Fisher, W. Urey, W. Mastenbroek and other researchers. Such strategies are:

Win-lose

Lose-win

Lose-lose

Win-win

Secondly, attitudes and orientations towards results in a particular strategy are formed among the subjects of interaction on the basis of an analysis of the relationship of interests, as well as capabilities, forces and means. It is important to consider factors influencing the analysis:

- personal qualities of the conflicting person, his thinking, experience, character, temperament,

- information that the subject has about himself and his opponent. When a person receives the first conflict blow in his address, the intention attributed to the opponent is of great importance. Only a person can predict someone else's intentions. This is not characteristic of any animal. And in case of conflict, that intention is very important. Which you attribute to the attacker. Consider the following situations: a) a delicate, always polite person stepped on your foot; b) your foot was stepped on by a person about whom you know that he does not care about those around him and about you in particular. Let's assume. That both stepped on your foot with equal force. It is safe to assume that the second situation will cause you to react aggressively, while you will forgive a polite person for his behavior.

- Other subjects of social interaction located in the conflict zone

- The content of the subject of the conflict, the image of the conflict situation, as well as the motives of the subjects

Thirdly, the choice of one or another strategy in the negotiation process. Let's get back to talking about them:

Subject of the conflict;

the image of the conflict situation is adequate; the presence of favorable conditions for constructive resolution of the problem If we look at these strategies, we will see that in principle they correspond to strategies for behavior in conflict. This is not surprising, because they are a continuation of the latter. We are talking about strategies of competition, compromise, concession and cooperation. Only avoidance is missing, since if an avoidance strategy is used in a conflict, there can be no talk of its final resolution.

The most likely use of compromise is as a step forward, which is taken by at least one party, in order to resolve the conflict. The value of compromise is that it can be achieved even if the parties choose different strategies.

The basis of compromise is the technology of rapprochement concessions, or, as it is also called, bargaining. The compromise also has its drawbacks:

n reduced agreements

n ground for tricks

n deterioration of relations

The most effective method for completely resolving a conflict is cooperation. It boils down to this:

n separating people from the problem

n Focus on interests, not positions: ask “why?” and “why not?”

n offer mutually beneficial options

n use objective criteria.

Additionally, there are different ways to resolve each type of conflict.

4. Negotiation process in interpersonal conflict

In resolving interpersonal conflicts, manipulative techniques that you need to know are very often used.

The most common:

- taking individual phrases out of context

- avoiding the topic of conversation

Hints

Flattery

- ridiculing jokes

- prediction of dire consequences.

These are the so-called simple techniques. There are also more complex ones:

- imitation of problem solving

- alternative wording of questions. Requiring a “yes” or “no” answer

- Socratic questions (first “yes” technique)

- delaying the decision, etc.

In order to successfully resist manipulation, you need to know them and be able to choose the right answer. Here are some examples with answers to manipulations based on “rules of decency” and “fairness”:

Manipulations aimed at humiliating an opponent:

However, all these manipulations are obvious and simple. They can be easily countered if you know how to identify them. There is a level of manipulation that is quite problematic to identify. Most often, such manipulations occur in relationships between very close people and are long-term.

For example, in our society (especially in family relationships), manipulation through guilt and the idea of ​​sacrifice is extremely widespread. The first is formed as a reaction to child-parent relationships, the second also relies on them and is reinforced by the socialization of the idea of ​​sacrifice.

Another common manipulation is the manipulation of fidelity. I am faithful, therefore you owe me too. I am faithful not because I want to, but because I respect you and regret you. You should do the same. In case of betrayal, manipulation with guilt works.

The manipulation of ignoring is quite common. If you don’t notice your partner or any of his needs, the person thereby binds him to himself, forces him to constantly look for the reasons for such indifference and look for defects in himself.

Manipulation haunts, as a rule. Hierarchical goals and always a means of compensation and self-affirmation.

The main thing is to learn to gradually recognize manipulation and be able to resist it in a conflict.

Conflict resolution is a complex multi-step process, which, based on the diagnosis of conflicts, is expressed in the prevention, containment, and regulation of conflicts. Conflict management is characterized by developing strategies for conflict behavior, suppressing or stimulating conflicts, and reducing the level of conflict destruction. The process of resolving any conflict consists of at least three stages. The first - preparatory - is the diagnosis of the conflict. The second is developing a resolution and technology strategy. The third is direct practical activity to resolve the conflict - the implementation of a set of methods and means.

There are five basic conflict resolution strategies (cooperation, competition, avoidance, compromise, accommodation).

Avoidance, evasion (weak assertiveness is combined with low cooperation). With this strategy of behavior, the manager’s actions are aimed at getting out of the situation without giving in, but also without insisting on his own, refraining from entering into disputes and discussions, from expressing his position. In response to demands or accusations made against him, such a leader moves the conversation to another topic. He does not take responsibility for solving problems, does not want to see controversial issues, does not attach importance to disagreements, denies the existence of a conflict or generally considers it useless, and tries not to get into situations that provoke conflict.

Coercion (adversarial) - in this case, high assertiveness is combined with low cooperation. The manager’s actions are aimed at insisting on his own through open struggle for his interests, the use of power, and coercion. Confrontation involves perceiving the situation as victory or defeat, taking a tough position and showing irreconcilable antagonism in case of resistance from the partner. Such a leader will force you to accept his point of view at any cost.

Smoothing (compliance) - weak assertiveness is combined with high cooperativeness. The actions of a leader in a situation of conflict are aimed at maintaining or restoring good relationships, at ensuring the satisfaction of the other person by smoothing out disagreements. For this, he is ready to give in, neglect his own interests, strive to support another, not hurt his feelings, and take into account his arguments. His motto: “There is no need to quarrel, since we are all one happy team, in the same boat, which should not be rocked.”

Compromise, cooperation - high assertiveness is combined with high cooperativeness. In this case, the manager’s actions are aimed at finding a solution that fully satisfies both his interests and the wishes of the other person through an open and frank exchange of views about the problem. He tries to resolve disagreements by conceding something in exchange for concessions from the other side; in the process of negotiations, he looks for intermediate “middle” solutions that suit both sides, in which no one particularly loses anything, but no one gains anything either.

There are other ways to resolve interpersonal conflicts:

coordination - coordination of tactical subgoals and behavior in the interests of the main goal or solution of a common task. Such coordination between organizational units can be carried out at different levels of the management pyramid (vertical coordination), at organizational levels of the same rank (horizontal coordination) and in the form of a mixed form of both options. If coordination is successful, then conflicts are resolved with less cost and effort;

integrative problem solving. Conflict resolution is based on the assumption that there can be a solution to a problem that eliminates all conflicting elements and is acceptable to both parties. It is believed that this is one of the most successful strategies for a manager's behavior in a conflict, since in this case he comes closest to resolving the conditions that initially gave rise to this conflict. However, the problem-solving approach to conflict is often very difficult to maintain. This is due to the fact that it largely depends on the professionalism of the manager. In addition, in this case, it takes a lot of time to resolve the conflict. In such conditions, the manager must have good technology-- model for solving problems;

confrontation as a way to resolve a conflict - bringing the problem to public attention. This makes it possible to freely discuss it with the involvement of the maximum number of participants in the conflict (essentially, this is no longer a conflict, but a labor dispute), to enter into confrontation with the problem, and not with each other, in order to identify and eliminate all shortcomings. The purpose of confrontational sessions is to bring people together in a non-hostile forum that promotes communication. Public and frank communication is one of the means of conflict management.

Strategies in conflict are implemented through various tactics. Tactics are a set of techniques for influencing an opponent, a means of implementing a strategy. The same tactics can be used within different strategies. In resolving interpersonal conflicts, the ability of subjects to correctly assess and take into account the personal and psychological characteristics of their counterparty is important. However, it is not enough to simply classify conflicting individuals; the main thing is to know what strategy and tactics to use when you have to come into contact with them.

1 . Each conflict is unique in its own way, inimitable in its causes, forms of interaction between two or more parties, outcome and consequences. In addition, an individual and any community discover their own way of establishing and maintaining relationships with other people, their own style of behavior in conflict situations.

But despite all the dissimilarity of manners and styles, conflict behavior has some general signs. This is primarily due to the fact that the solution to the problem that has become a stumbling block in the relationship is, to a certain extent, significant for each of the opposing parties, making them interacting partners. Every conflict has a certain standard development pattern:

• The immediate cause leading to the collision is
• · Incompatibility of interests and goals, discrepancy between positions held.
• · The actions taken and the means used.

In most cases, participants in conflicts lack mutual understanding, awareness of differences in assessments of differences in the views of the parties, sufficiently complete awareness of both their own desires and plans and the true intentions of opponents, knowledge of how and by what means to achieve their goals without rejecting the interests of other people involved in the conflict.

It is obvious that an effective solution to the problem that led to a conflict situation requires from each subject a clear understanding of the general nature and specificity of this type of conflict, a meaningful style of behavior, chosen taking into account the styles used by other parties. Style in this context means a way of pursuing certain interests, a course of action to achieve an intended goal, and at the same time a manner of communication.

The behavior of the participants in the conflict develops differently. It can have a constructive orientation, which is characterized by a joint search for a way out of a conflict situation that is acceptable to all parties. There may be superiority in strength (rank) of one side, to which the others are unquestioningly inferior. Destructive behavior, which manifests itself in actions of a destructive nature, is not excluded.

It is customary to distinguish five styles of behavior in a conflict situation, the classification of which is based on the Thomas-Kilmann system. It allows you to guide any person if they find themselves in a conflict situation.

Styles of behavior in a conflict situation are associated with the main source of conflict - the difference in interests and value orientations of interacting subjects.

The style of behavior of any person in a conflict is determined by:

• 1) the measure of satisfying one’s own interests;
• 2) activity or passivity of actions;
• 3) the measure of satisfaction of the interests of the other party;
• 4) individual or joint actions.

Evasion as a style of behavior in conflicts is characterized by a clear lack of desire on the part of those involved in a conflict situation to cooperate with anyone and make active efforts to realize their own interests, as well as to meet opponents; the desire to get out of the conflict field, to escape the conflict. This style of behavior is usually chosen in cases where:

• · the problem that caused the conflict does not seem significant to the subject of the conflict, the subject of the disagreement, in his opinion, is petty, based on differences in taste, and does not deserve the waste of time and effort;
• · an opportunity is discovered to achieve one’s own goals in a different, non-conflict way;
• · a clash occurs between subjects who are equal or close in strength (rank), consciously avoiding complications in their relationships;
• · the participant in the conflict feels that he is wrong or has an opponent with a person of higher rank and assertive volitional energy;
• · it is necessary to postpone an acute clash in order to gain time, analyze the current situation in more detail, gather strength, and enlist the support of supporters;
• · it is advisable to avoid further contacts with a person with a difficult mental state or an extremely tendentious, overly biased opponent who is deliberately looking for reasons to aggravate relations.

Avoidance can be completely justified in conditions of interpersonal conflict that arises for reasons of a subjective, emotional nature. This style is most often used by realists by nature. People of this type, as a rule, soberly assess the advantages and weaknesses of the positions of the conflicting parties. Even when touched to the quick, they are wary of recklessly getting involved in a fight, they are in no hurry to accept calls to escalate the clash, realizing that often the only means of winning in an interpersonal dispute is to avoid participating in it.

It is a different matter if the conflict arose on an objective basis. In such a situation, evasion and neutrality may be ineffective, since the controversial problem retains its significance, the reasons that gave rise to it do not disappear by themselves, but become even more aggravated.

Adaptation as a style of passive behavior is characterized by the tendency of conflict participants to soften, smooth out a conflict situation, maintain or restore harmony in relationships through compliance, trust, and readiness for reconciliation.

Unlike evasion, this style involves taking into account the interests of opponents to a greater extent and not avoiding joint actions with them. Typically, the device is given a solution in situations where:

• · the participant in the conflict is not very concerned about the problem that has arisen, does not consider it significant enough for himself and therefore shows a willingness to take into account the interests of the other party, yielding to it if he has a higher rank or adapting to it if he is of a lower rank;
• · opponents demonstrate compliance and deliberately concede to each other in something, taking into account the fact that, while losing little,
• · acquire more, including good relationships, mutual consent, partnerships;
• · a deadlock situation is created, requiring a weakening of the growth of passions, making some kind of sacrifice in order to maintain peace in relations and prevent confrontational actions, without, of course, sacrificing one’s principles, primarily moral ones;
• · there is a sincere desire of one of the conflicting parties to prove support for the opponent, while feeling completely satisfied with their kindness;
• · competitive interaction between opponents is manifested, aimed at fierce competition, inevitably causing damage to the other side.

The adaptation is applicable to any type of conflict. But, perhaps, this style of behavior is most suitable for conflicts of an organizational nature, in particular along the hierarchical vertical: subordinate - superior, subordinate - superior, etc.

In such situations, it is extremely necessary to value the maintenance of mutual understanding, a friendly disposition and an atmosphere of business cooperation, not to give scope to heated polemics, expressions of anger, and especially threats, to be constantly ready to sacrifice one’s own preferences if they are capable of damaging the interests and rights of the opponent.

Of course, the adaptation style chosen as a model of conflict behavior may turn out to be ineffective. It is not at all acceptable in situations where the subjects of the conflict are gripped by feelings of resentment and irritation, do not want to respond to each other with friendly reciprocity, and their interests and goals cannot be smoothed out and agreed upon.

Confrontation in its focus is aimed at, acting actively and independently, achieving one’s own interests without taking into account the interests of other parties directly involved in the conflict, or even to the detriment of them. Those who use this style of behavior seek to impose their solution to the problem on others, rely only on their own strength, and do not accept joint actions. At the same time, elements of maximalism, strong-willed pressure, a desire to use any means, including forceful pressure, administrative and economic sanctions, intimidation, blackmail, are manifested to force the opponent to accept the point of view he disputes, to gain the upper hand over him at any cost, to win the conflict. As a rule, confrontation is chosen in situations where:

• · the problem is of vital importance to the conflict participant who believes that he has sufficient power to solve it quick solution in your favor;
• · the conflicting party occupies a very advantageous, essentially win-win position for itself and has the opportunity to use it to achieve its own goal;
• · the subject of the conflict is confident that the solution to the problem he proposes is the best in this situation, and at the same time, having a higher rank, insists on making this decision;
• · the participant in the conflict is currently deprived of any other choice and practically does not risk losing anything, acting decisively in defense of his interests and dooming his opponents to lose.

Confrontation does not at all mean that brute force is necessarily used or that only the power and high rank of the one who achieves the predominance of his opinion and his own interests is relied upon.

It is possible that the persistent desire to win the confrontation is based on more convincing arguments, on the ability of one of the opponents to skillfully dramatize his ideas, present them in an effective presentation, in the manner of a catchy challenge.

We must not forget, however, that any pressure, no matter how elegantly it occurs, can result in an explosion of unbridled emotions, the destruction of respectful and trusting relationships, and an excessively negative reaction from those who are defeated and will not give up trying to achieve revenge. Since confrontation, the desire to consider oneself always right, is an unsuitable style of behavior in most interpersonal conflicts, it is not the best option for maintaining a healthy moral and psychological atmosphere in the organization, or creating conditions that allow employees to get along with each other.

Cooperation, like confrontation, is aimed at maximum realization by the parties to the conflict of their own interests. But unlike the confrontational style, cooperation involves not an individual, but a joint search for a solution that meets the aspirations of all conflicting parties. This is possible subject to timely and accurate diagnosis of the problem that gave rise to the conflict situation, an understanding of both external manifestations and hidden causes of the conflict, and the willingness of the parties to act together to achieve a common goal for all.

The cooperative style is readily used by those who perceive conflict as a normal phenomenon of social life, as a need to solve a particular problem without causing damage to any party. In conflict situations, the possibility of cooperation appears in cases where:

• · the problem that has caused disagreement seems important to the conflicting parties, each of which does not intend to evade its joint solution;
• · the conflicting parties have approximately equal rank or do not pay attention to the difference in their positions at all;
• · each party wishes to voluntarily and on an equal basis discuss controversial issues in order to ultimately come to full agreement on a mutually beneficial solution to a problem that is significant to all;
• · the parties involved in the conflict act as partners, trust each other, and take into account the needs, concerns and preferences of their opponents.

The benefits of cooperation are undeniable: each party receives maximum benefits with minimal losses. But this path to a positive outcome of the conflict is thorny in its own way. It requires time and patience, wisdom and friendly disposition, the ability to express and argue one’s position, carefully listening to opponents explaining their interests, developing alternatives and an agreed choice from them during negotiations of a mutually acceptable solution. The reward for common efforts is a constructive result that suits everyone, a jointly found optimal way out of the conflict, as well as strengthening partnership interaction.

Compromise occupies a middle place in the grid of conflict behavior styles. It means the disposition of the conflict participant(s) to resolve disagreements on the basis of mutual concessions and achieve partial satisfaction of their interests.

This style equally involves active and passive actions, the application of individual and collective efforts. The compromise style is preferable because it usually blocks the path to hostility and allows, albeit partially, to satisfy the claims of each of the parties involved in the conflict. Compromise is sought in situations where:

• · the subjects of the conflict are well aware of its causes and development in order to judge the actual circumstances, all the pros and cons of their own interests;
• · conflicting parties of equal rank, having mutually exclusive interests, are aware of the need to come to terms with the given state of affairs and balance of power, to be content with a temporary but suitable option for resolving contradictions;
• · conflict participants of different ranks are inclined to reach an agreement in order to gain time and save energy, not to break off relations, and to avoid unnecessary losses;
• · opponents, having assessed the current situation, adjust their goals taking into account the changes that have occurred during the conflict;
• · all other styles of behavior in this conflict do not bring any effect.

The ability to compromise is a sign of realism and a high culture of communication, a quality that is especially valued in management practice. However, one should not resort to it unnecessarily, rush to make compromise decisions, thereby interrupting a thorough discussion of a complex problem, and artificially reduce the time for a creative search for reasonable alternatives, optimal options. Each time you need to check whether a compromise is effective in a given case compared to, for example, cooperation, evasion or accommodation.

• 1. Ways to resolve conflicts
• 2. The style of behavior in a conflict coincides in meaning with the method of resolving it. Regarding communication between people, style is a manner of behavior, a set of characteristic techniques that distinguish the way of action, i.e. in this case, a way to overcome a conflict situation, to solve the problem that led to the conflict. Therefore, the path to conflict resolution lies through the five ways that are graphically represented in the Thomas-Kilmann grid, namely: avoidance, accommodation, confrontation, cooperation, compromise.
• 3. Determining a method for resolving a specific communication conflict with the choice of a method of action that is equivalent to the style of conflict behavior. In this case, it is necessary to take into account a number of significant circumstances, which in one way or another come down to the use of incentive measures, including persuasion and coercion.
• 4. Firstly, the main task in resolving any conflict is to, if possible, give it a functionally positive character, to minimize the inevitable damage from negative consequences confrontation or intense confrontation.
• 5. This result is achievable if the parties to the conflict show an honest and friendly approach to resolving their differences, a common interest in this, if they make joint efforts to find a positive solution based on consensus, i.e. sustainable, stable agreement of all parties.
• 6. With consensus, it is not at all necessary that the general agreement be unanimity - a complete coincidence of the positions of all participants in the conflict resolution process. It is enough that there is no objection from any of the opponents, because consensus is incompatible with the negative position of at least one of the parties involved in the conflict. Of course, one or another version of consent depends on the nature and type of the conflict, the nature of the behavior of its subjects, as well as on who and how manages the conflict.
• 7. Secondly, a twofold outcome of a particular conflict is possible - its full or partial resolution. In the first case, an exhaustive elimination of the causes that caused the conflict situation is achieved, and in the second option, there is a superficial weakening of disagreements, which over time can re-emerge. With complete resolution, the conflict ends at both the objective and subjective levels. The conflict situation is undergoing dramatic changes, its reflection in the minds of opponents means transformation, the transformation of the image of the enemy into the image of a partner, and the psychological orientation towards struggle and opposition is replaced by an orientation towards reconciliation, agreement, partnership cooperation.
• 8. Partial resolution does not eradicate the causes of the conflict. As a rule, it expresses only an external change in conflict behavior while maintaining the internal motivation to continue the confrontation. The restraining factors are either strong-willed arguments coming from the mind, or the sanction of an outside force influencing the participants in the conflict. The measures taken are aimed at convincing or forcing the conflicting parties to stop hostile actions, to exclude anyone’s defeat, and to point out means to promote mutual understanding.
• 9. Thirdly, an individual or social group, correlating the interests of the conflicting parties and the parameters of their behavior, choose a priority method for resolving the conflict, the most accessible and acceptable in the given conditions. It is necessary to understand that not every style, and therefore not every method, is suitable for a specific situation. Each method is effective only when resolving a certain type of conflict.

Communication between participants, the central point of which is negotiation, is of great importance in resolving conflict situations. When planning to conduct a conversation with his opponent, the leader must first, as completely as possible, analyze the current situation. The tasks of the conflict resolution manager are as follows:

It is necessary to find out the cause of the conflict;

Determine your opponent's goals;

Outline areas of convergence of points of view with the opponent;

Clarify the behavioral characteristics of your opponent.

The research conducted in this way makes it possible to get a general idea of ​​all aspects of the conflict situation. To do this, you should analyze the situation by asking the following questions:

Cause of the conflict. Do the conflicting parties understand the cause of the conflict? Do you need help to resolve the conflict? Where is the cause of the conflict? Have those in conflict asked for help?

The goal of those in conflict. What exactly are the goals of the conflicting parties? Does everyone strive for these goals equally? How do these goals fit with the overall goals of the organization? Is there a common goal that could unite the efforts of those in conflict? Do the parties' disagreements relate to the goal of the activity or the means to achieve it?

Areas of convergence. On what issues could those in conflict develop common views? This concerns problems of the business and emotional atmosphere.

Subjects of the conflict. Who is the leader? How do people treat each other? What are the features of linguistic and non-linguistic factors of communication? Do generally accepted norms of behavior apply among those in conflict?

A preliminary analysis of the situation is a necessary component of effective conversation. When conducting a conversation, the leader must maintain control over the situation, i.e., direct the course of the conversation in the right direction, in accordance with the formulated purpose of the conversation. Negotiations must proceed dynamically. Analysis of the situation, deliberate choice of course of action, effective discussion of the situation with its participants - these are ways to turn an emerging conflict into a tool effective solution problems, finding the best solution and even as a means of improving people's relationships.

In conflict situations, people exhibit different behaviors, such as:

Avoidance is a reaction to a conflict in which a person ignores (actually denies) the very existence of a conflict, believes that there are no disagreements and therefore refrains from arguing, discussing, objecting to the other side, without conceding or insisting on his own. In other words, the person seeks to distance himself from the situation. Reasons for avoidance: there may not actually be a problem; there is a problem, but it is so insignificant that you should not pay attention to it; I have many other problems more important than this; I won't be able to solve this problem; all this is useless and will lead to nothing; possibility of loss; I don't like conflict situations; This is a very unpleasant situation for me; over time everything will work out; I'm afraid that I will be directly associated with this problem or with the participants in the conflict.

Adaptation is a style of behavior in a conflict in which a party partially or completely refuses to satisfy its interests, that is, it “surrenders” to the other side. The adapting party is ready to give in, neglecting its own interests, and agrees to the demands and claims of the opposing party. Reasons for accommodation: I have more important interests; I value communication with this person, so I don’t want to offend him; I don’t want the conflict to deepen; the desire to make a “gesture of goodwill”; desire to get rid of conflict; none of the basic principles (values) are in danger; the enemy is right; adapting now will help me in the future. In addition, many of the reasons for conflict avoidance apply to passive and active accommodation, the deliberate desire to appease an opponent or simply “give in.”

Competition is a style of behavior characterized by a high degree of persistence in satisfying one’s own interests and lack of compliance in satisfying the interests of other partners. At the same time, for the party demonstrating this behavior, the result is of greatest interest and it does not matter at all what its relationship with other parties to the conflict will be. Competition does not necessarily lead to violence and in some cases stimulates talent. Reasons for competition: distrust of others, especially those who show interest; underestimating the strength of the other side; rules of behavior accepted in a given environment; perceiving another person's behavior as offensive; fair play within the law and rules.

Compromise - both sides make mutual concessions to some extent, in other words, from the total load, each side takes on a portion less than what it initially determined for itself. If this concerns one side, then this is not a compromise, but a concession. However, this is an unstable condition, the development of which may necessitate further compromises. The result of a compromise is varying degrees of satisfaction and dissatisfaction on all sides. In a conflict of principles, compromise is usually not possible. Reasons for compromise: negotiations are at an impasse, compromise is the only way out; It is better to agree on something than to agree on nothing; respite for further concentration of resources; compromise yields gains in another; Losing will cost less than winning.

Cooperation - unlike compromise, makes it possible to fully satisfy the interests of partners, ensures fruitful, profitable relationships in the future and, therefore, is the most effective. However, this approach requires a lot of effort, creativity, imagination and concentration of other resources, and takes a lot of time because it implies that the interests of one party will not be satisfied if the interests of the other party are not satisfied.

Let us consider a person’s behavior in a conflict situation from the point of view of its compliance with psychological standards. This model of behavior is based on the ideas of E. Melibruda, W. Siegert and L. Lang. Its essence is as follows. It is believed that constructive conflict resolution depends on the following factors:

Adequacy of the perception of the conflict, that is, a fairly accurate assessment of the actions and intentions of both the enemy and one’s own, not distorted by personal biases;

Openness and effectiveness of communication, readiness for a comprehensive discussion of problems, when participants honestly express their understanding of what is happening and ways out of a conflict situation,

creating an atmosphere of mutual trust and cooperation.

It is useful for a leader to know what character traits and behavioral characteristics of a person are characteristic of a conflict personality. These qualities may include the following:

Inadequate self-esteem of one’s capabilities and abilities, which can be either overestimated or underestimated. In both cases, it may contradict the adequate assessment of others;

The desire to dominate at all costs where it is possible and impossible;

Conservatism of thinking, views, beliefs, unwillingness to overcome outdated traditions;

Excessive adherence to principles and straightforwardness in statements and judgments, the desire to tell the truth at all costs;

A certain set of emotional personality traits: anxiety, aggressiveness, stubbornness, irritability.

K.U. Thomas and R.H. Kilman developed the basic most acceptable strategies for behavior in a conflict situation. They point out that there are five basic styles of conflict behavior: accommodation, compromise, cooperation, ignoring, rivalry or competition. The style of behavior in a particular conflict, they point out, is determined by the extent to which you want to satisfy your own interests, while acting passively or actively, and the interests of the other party, acting jointly or individually. We will give recommendations on the most appropriate use of a particular style, depending on the specific situation and the nature of the person’s personality.

The style of competition and rivalry can be used by a person who has a strong will, sufficient authority, power, who is not very interested in cooperation with the other party and who seeks first of all to satisfy his own interests. It can be used if the outcome of the conflict is very important and a big bet is placed on an unambiguous solution to the problem that has arisen; if the leader has sufficient power and authority; if there is no other choice and there is nothing to lose; if the manager adheres to an authoritarian style in communicating with subordinates. However, it should be borne in mind that this is not a style that can be used in close personal relationships, since it cannot cause anything other than a feeling of alienation. It is also inappropriate to use it in a situation where you do not have sufficient power, and your point of view on some issue differs from the point of view of your boss.

The cooperative style can be used if, while defending his own interests, the leader is forced to take into account the needs and desires of the other party. This style is the most difficult as it requires longer work. The purpose of its application is to develop a long-term mutually beneficial solution. This style requires the ability to explain your desires, listen to each other, and restrain your emotions. The absence of one of these factors makes this style ineffective. To resolve a conflict, this style can be used in the following situations: it is necessary to find a common solution; if each of the approaches to the problem is important and does not allow compromise solutions; the relationship with the other party is long-term, strong and interdependent; the parties are able to listen to each other and outline the essence of their interests; it is necessary to integrate points of view and strengthen the personal involvement of employees in activities.

Compromise style. Its essence lies in the fact that the parties seek to resolve differences through mutual concessions. In this regard, it is somewhat reminiscent of the style of cooperation, but it is carried out on a more superficial level, since the parties are inferior to each other in some way. This style is the most effective, both parties want the same thing, but know that it is impossible to achieve at the same time. For example, the desire to occupy the same position or the same work premises. When using this style, the emphasis is not on a solution that satisfies the interests of both parties. This approach to conflict resolution can be used in situations where: both parties have equally convincing arguments and have the same power; a temporary solution is acceptable because there is no time to develop another, or other approaches to solving the problem have proven ineffective; compromise allows you to gain at least something rather than lose everything.

The avoidance style is usually implemented when the problem at hand is not so important for the conflicting party, there are no plans for cooperation to develop a solution; there is no time and energy to solve it. This style is also recommended in cases where one of the parties has more power or feels that he is in the wrong, or believes that there are no serious reasons for continuing contact. The avoidance style can be recommended for use in the following situations: the source of disagreement is trivial and insignificant compared to other more important tasks; there are few resources to solve the problem in the desired way; it is necessary to gain time to obtain additional information before making any decision; trying to solve the problem immediately is dangerous, since opening and openly discussing the conflict can only worsen the situation; subordinates themselves can successfully resolve the conflict. You should not think that this style is an escape from a problem or an evasion of responsibility. In fact, leaving or delaying may be an appropriate response to a conflict situation, since in the meantime it may resolve itself, or it can be dealt with later.

The accommodation style means that the resolution of a conflict situation occurs jointly with the other party, but at the same time one’s own interests are not defended in order to restore a normal working atmosphere. This style is most effective when the outcome of the case is extremely important for one party and not very significant for the other. The adaptation style can be applied in the following most typical situations: the most important task is to restore stability, not resolve conflict; the subject of disagreement is not significant; It is better to maintain good relationships with people; not enough resources or chances to win.

A manager has to resolve conflicts not only in the business sphere, but also in the personal and emotional sphere. When resolving the latter, other methods are used, since in them, as a rule, it is difficult to identify the object of disagreement and there is no visible conflict of interests. In a conflict situation or when dealing with a difficult person, you should use an approach that is more appropriate to the specific circumstances and in which the latter would feel comfortable. The best prerequisites for choosing the optimal approach to conflict resolution are life experience and the desire not to complicate the situation and not bring a person to stress. You can reach a compromise, adapt to the needs of another person (especially a partner or loved one); persistently pursue the realization of one’s true interests in another aspect; avoid discussing a conflict issue if it is not very important; use a collaborative style to satisfy the most important interests of both parties. That's why the best way Resolving a conflict situation is a conscious choice of the optimal strategy of behavior.

Just as no leadership style can be effective in all situations without exception, none of the conflict resolution styles discussed can be singled out as the best. We must learn to use each of them effectively and consciously make one or another choice, taking into account specific circumstances.

You can also resolve conflicts using questionnaires, in this way you can identify where the dissatisfaction of subordinates lies.

Sociological questionnaire

1) Indicate your gender:

1. Male;

2. Female.

2) Please indicate your age: ___________________

3) Your education: ______________________

4) How long have you worked in this company?

1. Up to 6 months;

2. Less than 1 year;

3. More than 1 year.

5) Are you satisfied with your relationships with the organization’s management and colleagues?

2. More likely yes than no;

3. Rather no than yes;

6) Have you ever had a desire to change jobs in the last 6 months?

7) Do you think that team cohesion significantly increases labor productivity and work efficiency?

2. More likely yes than no;

3. Rather no than yes;

8) Do you consider yourself a conflict person?

2. Possible;

4. I find it difficult to answer.

9) How often do you find yourself involved in conflicts at work?

1. This happens very often;

2. From time to time I find myself a participant in conflict;

3. Sometimes you have to participate in a conflict;

4. I manage to avoid conflicts;

5. I find it difficult to answer.

10) Does your organization hold employee meetings to discuss the state of the company, corporate culture and labor productivity?

1. Conducted regularly;

2. Rarely carried out;

3. Not carried out.

11) The main conflicts that arise in an organization occur between:

1. Manager and subordinate;

2. By the subordinates themselves.

12) What situation is typical for your organization in the event of a conflict between employees and the manager, if the truth is on the employee’s side?

1) employees do not interfere, choose a neutral position;

2) workers do not interfere, but gradually reduce labor productivity;

3) workers are openly indignant, while maintaining the same levels of labor productivity;

4) workers are openly indignant and gradually reduce productivity;

5) employees are indignant, threaten with dismissal, court action, etc.;

13) When a conflict arises, what position does the leader take?

1. Observer;

2. Active participant.

14) How often do clashes occur in your organization?

1) very often;

2) periodically;

3) sometimes;

15) Has your organization previously conducted social research?