Conflict resolution strategy in psychology. Strategies and styles of conflict resolution. Conflict Resolution Strategies

Each conflict is unique in its own way, inimitable in terms of the reasons for its occurrence, the forms of interaction of two or more parties, the outcome and consequences. In addition, the individual and any community discover their own ways of establishing and maintaining relationships with other people, their own style of behavior in conflict situations. But for all the dissimilarity of styles, conflict behavior has some common features. This is primarily due to the fact that the solution of the problem that has become a stumbling block in relations is, to a certain extent, significant for each of the opposing parties, makes them interacting partners.

Any conflict has a certain standard pattern of development: the immediate cause leading to a clash is the incompatibility of interests and goals, the discrepancy between the 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, sufficient 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 idea of \u200b\u200bthe general nature and specifics 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 realizing certain interests, a way of acting to achieve an intended goal, and at the same time a way of communication.

The behavior of the parties to the conflict develops in different ways. 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. Perhaps the superiority in strength (rank) of one side, which is unquestioningly inferior to the others. Destructive behavior, which manifests itself in destructive actions, is also not excluded.

In conflict management since the 70s of the XX century. recognized existence the following five styles of conflict behavior: evasion, accommodation, confrontation, cooperation, compromise. Having described and systematized the signs of various styles, Americans Kenneth Thomas and Ralph Killman proposed to use a schematic grid when training managers, which was named after them. It is depicted graphically as shown in Fig. 6.1.

The Thomas-Killman model demonstrates that the choice of conflict behavior depends both on the interests of the parties to the conflict and on the nature of their actions.

Individual

actions

Joint

actions

Implementation

own

interests

CONFRONTATION		COOPERATION
	COMPROMISE
EVASION		DEVICE

Active

actions

Passive

actions

Desire to satisfy

interests of other parties

Figure: 6.1. Behavior styles in conflicts

consequences. The very style of behavior in a conflict is determined, firstly, by the measure of the realization of one's own interests (personal or group) and the degree of activity or passivity in defending them. Secondly, the style of behavior is significantly influenced by the desire to satisfy the interests of other parties involved in the conflict, as well as which actions are priority for individuals, social groups - individual or joint.

What is the difference between each of the named styles of behavior in conflicts?

Evasionhow the style of behavior in conflicts is characterized by a clear lack of the desire to cooperate with someone involved in a conflict situation and make active efforts to pursue their own interests, as well as to meet opponents; the desire to get out of the conflict field, to get away from the conflict. This style of behavior is usually chosen when:

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

Evasion is quite justified in conditions of interpersonal conflict arising for reasons of a subjective, emotional nature. This style is most often used by realists by nature. People of this kind, as a rule, soberly assess the advantages and weaknesses of the positions of the conflicting parties. Even being hurt, they are wary of recklessly getting involved in a "fight", they are in no hurry to accept the challenge to aggravate the collision, realizing that often the only way to win in an interpersonal dispute is avoiding participation in it.

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

Adaptationas a style of passive behavior, it is distinguished by the tendency of the parties to the conflict to soften, smooth out the conflict situation, maintain or restore harmony in relationships through compliance, trust, readiness for reconciliation. Unlike evasion, this style presupposes taking into account the interests of opponents to a greater extent and not avoiding joint actions with them. Usually, the device is given a way out in those situations when:

• 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 side, 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 yield to each other in something, reckon with the fact that, losing little, gain more, including good relationships, mutual agreement, partnerships;
• a dead-end situation is created, requiring a weakening of the intensity of passions, making some kind of sacrifice for the sake of maintaining peace in relations and preventing confrontational actions, without compromising, of course, their principles, primarily moral;
• there is a sincere desire of one of the conflicting parties to support the opponent, while feeling quite satisfied with his kindness;
• the competitive interaction of opponents is manifested, not aimed at tough competition, inevitably causing damage to the other side.

The device is applicable for 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 - chief, etc. In such situations, it is extremely necessary to cherish the maintenance of mutual understanding, friendly disposition and an atmosphere of business cooperation, not to give room to heated polemics, expressions of anger and even more 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 style of adjustment chosen as a model for conflicting behavior may turn out to be ineffective. It is not at all acceptable in situations where the subjects of the conflict are seized by feelings of resentment and irritation, do not want to reciprocate with each other in kind, and their interests and goals do not lend themselves to smoothing and coordination.

Confrontationin its focus, it is focused on, acting actively and independently, to seek the realization of its own interests without taking into account the interests of other parties directly involved in the conflict, or even to the detriment of them. The one who applies this style of behavior seeks to impose his solution to the problem on others, relies only on his own strength, does not accept joint actions. At the same time, elements of maximalism, strong-willed pressure, desire by any means, including force pressure, administrative and economic sanctions, intimidation, blackmail, etc., are manifested to force the opponent to accept the point of view he is contested, by all means to take the upper hand over him, win the conflict. As a rule, confrontation is chosen in those situations when:

• the problem is of vital importance for the party to the conflict, who believes that he has sufficient strength to quickly resolve it in his favor;
• the conflicting party takes a very advantageous for itself, in fact, a win-win position and has the ability to use it to achieve its own goal;
• the subject of the conflict is sure that the proposed solution to the problem is the best in this situation, and at the same time, having a higher rank, insists on making this decision;
• a participant in the conflict at the moment is deprived of any other choice and practically does not risk losing anything, acting decisively in defense of his interests and dooming opponents to loss.

Confrontation does not at all mean that brute force is invariably used or that a stake is placed only on the power and high rank of the one who is seeking the predominance of his opinion, his own interests. 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 their ideas, present them in a spectacular presentation, in the manner of a catchy challenge.

However, we must not forget that any pressure, in whatever "elegant" form it may take, can turn into an explosion of unbridled emotions, the destruction of respectful and trusting relationships, an overly negative reaction from those who are defeated and will not abandon their attempts to achieve revenge. Therefore, confrontation, the desire to consider oneself always right is an unsuitable style of behavior in most interpersonal conflicts, not the best option for maintaining a healthy moral and psychological atmosphere in an organization, creating conditions that allow employees to get along with each other.

Cooperation,like confrontation, it is aimed at the maximum realization by the participants of the conflict of their own interests. In contrast to the confrontational style, cooperation presupposes not an individual, but a joint search for such 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, clarification of both external manifestations and hidden causes of the conflict, the willingness of the parties to act together to achieve a common goal for all.

The style of cooperation is readily used by those who perceive the conflict as a normal phenomenon of social life, as the need to solve this or that problem without harming any side. In conflict situations, the possibility of cooperation appears in cases when:

• the problem that caused the disagreement seems to be important for 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 position at all;
• each side wishes to voluntarily and on an equal footing to discuss controversial issues in order to ultimately come to full agreement on a mutually beneficial solution to a problem that is significant for all;
• the parties involved in the conflict act like partners, trust each other, and take into account the needs, fears and preferences of opponents.

The benefits of cooperation are undeniable: each side gets maximum benefit with minimum losses. But this path of progress towards 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 your position, listen carefully to opponents explaining their interests, develop alternatives and agree on a choice of them during negotiations of a mutually acceptable solution. The reward for common efforts is a constructive, satisfactory result for everyone, jointly found the optimal way out of the conflict, as well as strengthening partnership.

Compromisetakes the middle place in the grid of styles of conflict behavior. It means the disposition of the participant (participants) in the conflict to resolve differences on the basis of mutual concessions, to achieve partial satisfaction of their interests. This style equally involves active and passive actions, the application of individual and collective efforts. The style of compromise is preferable in that it usually blocks the path to ill will, allows, albeit in part, to satisfy the claims of each of the parties involved in the conflict. Compromise is approached 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 this state of affairs and the alignment of forces, to be content with a temporary, but appropriate option for resolving contradictions;
• parties to the conflict with different ranks tend to reach an agreement in order to gain time and save strength, not to break off relations, to avoid unnecessary losses;
• opponents, assessing the current situation, adjust their goals, taking into account the changes that have occurred during the conflict;
• all other behaviors in this conflict have no effect.

The ability to compromise is a sign of realism and a high culture of communication, i.e. quality especially appreciated in management practice. However, one should not resort to it unnecessarily, rush to make compromise decisions, thereby interrupt a thorough discussion of a complex problem, artificially reduce the time for a creative search for reasonable alternatives, optimal options. Each time it is necessary to check whether the trade-off is effective in the given case, compared to, for example, cooperation, evasion or adaptation.

on the subject "Business Communication" on the topic

“Conflict: strategy of behavior and ways of resolution. Methods of conflict-free communication "

Introduction - page 3

The nature of conflicts - page 3

Conflict Management Techniques - page 5

Behavior of participants in a conflict - page 6

General scheme of conflict resolution - page 7

Conflict Resolution Strategy - page 9

Conflict-free communication techniques - page 11

Conclusion - page 12

List of used literature - page 13

Introduction

Conflicts arising in the process of interaction, communication between individuals, of course, play a destabilizing role in the team

In any conflict, each participant evaluates and correlates his interests and the interests of the opponent, asking himself the questions: what will I win, what will I lose, what is the meaning of the subject of the dispute for the opponent. On the basis of this analysis, he consciously chooses one or another strategy of behavior (withdrawal, coercion, compromise, concession or cooperation). Often the reflection of these interests occurs unconsciously, and then the behavior in the conflict interaction is saturated with powerful emotional tension and is spontaneous.

The nature of conflicts

A conflict is understood as a collision in a specific situation of opposing tendencies, motives, attitudes, interests, needs, norms or types of behavior. The conflict is determined by the fact that the conscious behavior of one of the parties (personality, group, organization as a whole) conflicts with the interests of the other party. In other words, a conflict is a situation in which the conflicting interests of one or more participants who pursue different goals collide, and the ways and methods of achieving their goals are different for them. The result of any act of one (each) of the parties depends on the chosen course of action of the other parties.

The characteristic features of conflicts include:

Uncertainty of the outcome, i.e. none of the parties to the conflict knows in advance the decisions that other parties make;

The difference in goals, reflecting both the diverging interests of different parties, and the multilateral interests of the same person; the course of action of each of the parties.

Conflict is most often associated with aggression, threats, hostility, war, etc. As a result, there is an opinion that conflict is always an undesirable phenomenon, that it should be avoided as much as possible and that it should be immediately resolved as soon as it arises (but not resolving the conflict is also a solution).

The devastating consequences of conflict arise when the conflict is either very small or very strong. When the conflict is small, then most often it goes unnoticed and does not find its adequate solution. The differences seem to be very subtle in order to induce the participants to make the necessary changes. However, they remain and cannot but affect the efficiency of the overall work. A conflict that has reached its climax is accompanied, as a rule, by the development of stress among its participants. This in turn leads to a decrease in morale and cohesion. Communication networks are being destroyed. Decisions are made in conditions of concealment or distortion of information and do not have sufficient motivating power. The organization can, as they say, disintegrate before our eyes.

Today, in Western literature, conflicts in organizations are considered as an inevitable, natural and even desirable feature of the functioning of an organization. Their presence does not necessarily signal organizational weakness, deficiencies, or leadership ineptitude.

It is believed that it is not the conflict itself that is dangerous in the organization, but its erroneous, incorrect regulation. The presence of positive properties in a conflict is often the reason that "positive" conflicts are artificially built into the structure of the organization in order to obtain the desired positive effect.

If the conflict helps to reveal a variety of points of view, provides additional information, helps to find a greater number of options, makes the group's decision-making process more effective, makes it possible for an individual to self-actualize, then this is a creative (functional) conflict in its consequences.

If as a result of the conflict, the goals of the organization as a whole are not achieved and the needs of the individual are not met, then it is destructive (dysfunctional) and leads to a decrease in personal satisfaction, group cooperation and the effectiveness of the organization.

Long-term studies of the nature of conflicts have led to the understanding that one cannot consider a conflict as an absolutely destructive phenomenon. Conflict experts have gradually moved from the expression "conflict resolution" to the term "conflict management". This transition is a recognition of the complex nature of the conflict, as well as the fact that not every conflict needs to be settled or resolved, i.e. the conflict itself, as it were, contains something that allows in some cases to speak about the benefits of the conflict. Without understanding the often positive role that the conflict plays in the life of the organization, it is impossible to use the creative potential of the conflict situation.

Conflict management techniques.

Many professionals involved in conflict resolution professionally believe that the process of conflict management depends on many factors, a significant part of which is difficult to manage. For example, the views of the individual, the motives and needs of individuals, groups. The prevailing stereotypes, perceptions, prejudices, prejudices can sometimes nullify the efforts of those who develop solutions. Depending on the type of conflict, different services can be involved in the search for solutions: the leadership of the organization, the personnel management service, the department of psychologist and sociologist, the trade union committee, the strike, the police, the courts. The resolution of the conflict is the elimination in whole or in part of the causes that gave rise to the conflict, or a change in the goals of the parties to the conflict.

Conflict Management - This is a purposeful impact to eliminate (minimize) the causes that gave rise to the conflict, or to correct the behavior of the participants in the conflict.

There are many methods of conflict management. Enlarged, they can be represented in the form of several groups, each of which has its own field of application:

Intrapersonal, i.e. methods of influencing an individual;

Structural, i.e. methods for eliminating organizational conflicts;

Interpersonal methods or styles of behavior in conflict;

Conversation;

Reactive aggressive actions.

The behavior of the participants in the conflict

There are five main styles of behavior in a conflict situation:

1) adaptation, compliance: the actions of the individual are aimed at maintaining or restoring favorable relations with the opponent by smoothing out differences at the expense of their own interests.

2) evasion: an individual does not want to defend his rights, cooperate to work out a solution, refrains from expressing his position, and avoids an argument. This style suggests a tendency to avoid responsibility for decisions.

3) confrontation: competition is characterized by the active struggle of the individual for his interests, the use of all means available to him to achieve his goals: the use of power, coercion, other means of pressure on opponents, the use of the dependence of other participants on him.

4) cooperation: an individual actively participates in the search for a solution that satisfies all participants in the interaction, but without forgetting his own interests. An open exchange of views is expected, the interest of all parties to the conflict in working out a common solution.

5) compromise: the actions of the participants are aimed at finding a solution through

mutual concessions, to work out an interim solution that suits both sides, in which no one particularly gains, but also does not lose.

In this case, the classification is based on two independent parameters:

The degree of realization of one's own interests, achieving one's goals;

The level of cooperation, taking into account the interests of the other side.

Styles of avoidance and compliance do not involve the active use of confrontation in conflict resolution. With confrontation and cooperation, confrontation is a prerequisite for working out a solution. With avoidance and compliance, the resolution of the conflict is postponed, and the conflict itself is translated into a latent form. A compromise can bring only a partial resolution of the conflict interaction, since a sufficiently large zone of mutual concessions remains, and the reasons have not been completely eliminated.

General scheme of conflict resolution

1) Recognize the existence of a conflict, i.e. admit the presence of opposing goals and methods of opponents, identify these participants themselves. In practice, these issues are not so easy to solve, it can be quite difficult to admit and declare out loud that you are in a state of conflict with an employee on some issue. Sometimes the conflict has existed for a long time, people suffer, but there is no open recognition of it, everyone chooses their own form of behavior and impact on the other, but there is no joint discussion and way out of the situation.

2) Determine the possibility of negotiations. After recognizing the existence of a conflict and the impossibility of resolving it "on the fly", it is advisable to agree on the possibility of holding negotiations and to clarify which negotiations: with or without a mediator and who can be a mediator who equally suits both parties.

3) Agree on a negotiation procedure. Determine where, when and how

negotiations will begin, i.e. stipulate terms, place, procedure for

Lecture 8. Constructive conflict resolution

Questions: 1. Forms and criteria for the end of conflicts

2. Conditions and factors for constructive conflict resolution

3. Logic, strategies and methods of conflict resolution

4. Negotiation process in case of interpersonal conflict

1. Forms and criteria for the end of conflicts

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

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

decay

overcoming

suppression

cancellation

self-resolution

extinction

settlement

elimination

settlement, etc.

The main forms of ending the conflict:

Ending the conflict
On my own opponents			Intervention third parties
Attenuation conflict	Resolution conflict		Settlement conflict		Elimination conflict
Loss motive to fight		first Cooperation		Translation of one or both opponents to another place of work (dismissal)
Reorientation motive		Compromise Concessions to one from the sides		Withdrawal object conflict
Exhaustion resources,				Elimination deficit object conflict

n Resolution -joint activities of its participants aimed at ending opposition and solving the problem that led to the collision. Conflict resolution presupposes 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 the elimination of contradictions

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

Attenuation reasons:

1. resource depletion of 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.

Remedies:

1. removing one of the opponents from the conflict

2. exclusion of interaction of opponents for a long time

3. elimination of an object

4. elimination of the deficit of the object

n Escalating into another conflict - a new, more significant contradiction arises in the relationship 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 elimination of one or both sides

n suspension of conflict

n victory of one of the parties

n division of the object of conflict

n agreement on the rules for sharing the object

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

n refusal of encroachment by both sides

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

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

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

2.Conditions and factors of constructive conflict resolution

Conditions:

n Termination of conflict interaction

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

n reducing the intensity of negative emotions

n elimination of the "image of the enemy" (at home. At the opponent: "from heaven to earth")

n objective view of the problem

n accounting for each other's statuses

n choosing the optimal resolution strategy

Factors:

n time: shorter time increases the likelihood of choosing aggressive behavior

n third party: the participation of third parties seeking to resolve the conflict leads to a more calm course of its course and a speedy resolution

n timeliness: the earlier the parties commit to a settlement, the better

n balance of power: if the sides are approximately equal, they have no other choice. Besides finding a compromise

n experience: experience in conflict resolution at least one of the parties leads to the acceleration of its resolution

n relations: good relations of the parties before the conflict accelerate its resolution

3. Strategies and methods of conflict resolution

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

Causes and immediate cause

Social environment

Secondary reflection

2. Predicting solution option:

Most favorable

Least favorable

What happens if you just stop acting

3. Actions to implement the planned plan

4. Correction of the plan

5. Monitoring the effectiveness of actions

6. Assessment of 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 essential points that should be taken into account when analyzing conflicts and choosing appropriate actions.

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

One-sided win;

One-sided loss;

Mutual loss;

Mutual winnings.

These options are reflected in the specific negotiation strategies of R. Fischer, W. Urey, W. Mastenbrook and other researchers. These strategies are:

Win-lose

Lose-win

Lose-lose

Win-win

Secondly, attitudes and benchmarks for the result in a particular strategy are formed in the subjects of interaction based on the analysis of the balance of interests, as well as opportunities, forces and means. It is important to take into account the 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 against him, the intention attributed to the opponent is of great importance. Only a person can predict someone else's intention. 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) a person stepped on your foot about whom you know that he does not care about others and about you in particular. Let's assume. That both stepped on your foot with equal force. It can be assumed with a high degree of certainty that the second situation will cause an aggressive reaction in you, while you will forgive a polite person for his behavior.

- Other subjects of social interaction 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

Third, the choice of a particular strategy in the negotiation process. Let's get back to talking about them:

Strategy type	Strategic goals	Strategy factors
Win-lose	Winning by losing to the opponent	The subject of the conflict; the image of a conflict situation is overstated; support of the conflictant in the form of incitement from the participants in social interaction; conflict personality
Lose-win	Avoiding conflict, concession to an opponent	The subject of the conflict; the image of a conflict situation is underestimated; intimidation in the form of threats, bluffs, etc .; low volitional qualities, personality of a conformist type
Lose-lose	Self-sacrifice in the name of the death of the enemy	The subject of the conflict; the image of a conflict situation is inadequate; the personality of the conflicting (natural or situational aggressiveness); lack of vision of other options for solving problems
Win-win	Reaching mutually beneficial agreements	The subject of the conflict; the image of a conflict situation is adequate; the presence of favorable conditions for a constructive resolution of the problem

If we look at these strategies, we will see that, in principle, they correspond to the strategies of behavior in the conflict. This is not surprising, because they are a continuation of the latter. These are strategies of competition, compromise, concession and cooperation. Only avoidance is absent, since in the case of using the avoidance strategy in a conflict, we cannot talk about its final resolution.

In the case of a combination of strategies, they give certain results - ways.

First party strategy	Second party strategy	Ways to resolve the conflict
Rivalry	Concession	Concession
Compromise	Compromise	Compromise
Compromise	Cooperation	a) symmetrical
Compromise	Concession
Compromise	Rivalry	b) asymmetric
Cooperation	Cooperation	Cooperation

It is most likely to use a compromise, as a step towards meeting, which is made by at least one side, in order to resolve the conflict. The value of a compromise is that it can be reached even if the parties choose different strategies.

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

n stripped-down agreements

n ground for gimmicks

n deterioration of relations

The most effective way to fully resolve the conflict is the way of cooperation. It boils down to this:

n separating people from the problem

n attention to interests, not positions: ask "why?" and "why not?"

n offer mutually beneficial options

n use objective criteria.

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

4. Negotiation process in case of interpersonal conflict

In solving interpersonal conflicts, manipulative techniques are often used that need to be known.

The most common are:

- pulling individual phrases out of context

- moving away from the topic of conversation

Hints

Flattery

- jokes-ridicule

- predicting dire consequences.

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

- simulate problem solving

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

- socratic questions (technique of the first "yes")

- delaying the decision, etc.

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

Way of behavior	Expected response	Countermeasures
Pathetic request to "get into position"	Arouse favor and generosity	Make no commitment
Making it appear that the opponent's position is too complex and incomprehensible	Forcing a partner to disclose more information than they need	Asking what exactly is not clear
Portraying a business partner, presenting existing issues as irrelevant, side issues	Show that you are an experienced person who should not make life difficult for others	Point out firmly that there are many obstacles to problem solving
Pose of "prudence" and "seriousness", authoritative statements based on "obvious" and "constructive" ideas	Fear of appearing stupid, frivolous, and unconstructive	State that some very important aspects have not yet been taken into account

Manipulations aimed at humiliating the opponent:

Way of behavior	Expected response	Countermeasure
An indication of possible criticism of the opponent's actions from his clients or the public	Awakening a sense of danger and insecurity	Express outrage that the other side is going down to such methods
Constant demonstration of stubbornness, self-confidence	Making the opponent be a supplicant by showing him that his methods are not successful	Be skeptical of the other side, do not lose self-confidence
Constantly emphasizing that the opponent's arguments do not stand up to scrutiny	Awaken a sense of powerlessness, an attitude that other arguments will fail	It is polite to say that the other side did not quite understand you correctly.
Constantly asked rhetorical questions about the opponent's behavior or reasoning	Generate the opponent's tendency to respond in the expected manner, or not to respond at all due to a feeling of powerlessness	Do not answer questions, unobtrusively notice that the other side does not formulate the problem quite correctly
Manifesting oneself as "sweet and vile", that is, a demonstration of friendliness and at the same time constant indignation	Create uncertainty, disorient and scare an opponent	Treat both friendliness and resentment from the opponent with coolness.
The desire to show that the opponent's addiction is much greater than it really is		Continue to ask critical questions, react defiantly in cold blood

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

So, for example, in our society (especially in family relationships) manipulation through guilt and the idea of \u200b\u200bsacrifice is extremely widespread. The first is formed as a reaction to parent-child relationships, the second also relies on them and is supported by the socialization of the idea of \u200b\u200bsacrifice.

Another common manipulation is loyalty manipulation. I am faithful, therefore you owe me too. I am faithful not because I want to, but because I respect you, I regret you. You should do the same. In the case of infidelity, the manipulation of the feeling of guilt is at work.

Ignore manipulation is fairly common. Do not notice the partner or any of his needs, the person thereby binds him to himself, makes him constantly look for the reasons for such indifference and look for defects in himself.

Manipulation is chasing, as a rule. Hierarchical goals are 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 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 in the development of strategies for conflict behavior, in suppression or stimulation of conflicts, in 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 the development of a resolution strategy and technology. The third is direct practical activity to resolve the conflict - the implementation of a set of methods and means.

There are five main strategies for resolving conflict (cooperation, competition, avoidance, compromise, accommodation).

Avoidance, evasion (weak assertiveness combined with low cooperativity). With this strategy of behavior, the manager's actions are aimed at getting out of the situation without yielding, but not 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 turns 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, tries not to get into situations that provoke a conflict.

Coercion (confrontation) - in this case, high assertiveness is combined with low cooperativity. The manager's actions are aimed at insisting on his own way of open struggle for his interests, the use of power, coercion. Confrontation involves the perception of the situation as victory or defeat, taking a tough position and the manifestation of irreconcilable antagonism in the event of partner resistance. Such a leader will make you accept your point of view at any cost.

Smoothing (compliance) - weak assertiveness is combined with high cooperativity. A leader's actions in a conflict situation are aimed at maintaining or restoring good relations, at ensuring the satisfaction of the other person by smoothing out disagreements. For this, he is ready to give in, neglect his interests, strive to support the other, not hurt his feelings, take into account his arguments. His motto: "You shouldn't quarrel, because we are all one happy team in the same boat, which should not be rocked."

Compromise, cooperation - high assertiveness is combined with high cooperation. In this case, the actions of the manager are aimed at finding a solution that fully satisfies both his interests and the wishes of another person in the course of an open and frank exchange of views on the problem. He tries to settle differences by giving in 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 especially loses anything, but neither gains.

There are other ways to resolve interpersonal conflicts:

coordination - coordination of tactical sub-goals and behavior in the interests of the main goal or the solution of a common problem. 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 agreement is successful, then conflicts are resolved with less cost and effort;

integrative solution to the problem. Conflict resolution is based on the assumption that there may be a solution to the 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 the behavior of a manager in a conflict, since in this case he is closest to resolving the conditions that initially gave rise to this conflict. However, a problem-solving approach to conflict is often very difficult to follow. This is due to the fact that it largely depends on the professionalism of the manager. It also takes a long time to resolve the conflict. In such circumstances, the manager must have good technology - a model for solving problems;

confrontation as a way of resolving the conflict - bringing the problem to the public. This makes it possible to freely discuss it with the involvement of the maximum number of parties to the conflict (in fact, 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 the shortcomings. The purpose of confrontation sessions is to bring people together in a non-hostile forum that encourages communication. Public and frank communication is one of the means of conflict management.

Conflict strategies are implemented through various tactics. Tactics is a set of methods of influencing an opponent, a means of implementing a strategy. The same tactics can be used within the framework of 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 just to classify conflicting personalities, 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, unrepeatable in terms of the causes of occurrence, forms of interaction of two or more parties, outcome and consequences. In addition, an individual and any community reveal their own manner of establishing and maintaining relationships with other people, their own style of behavior in conflict situations.

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

• The immediate cause of the collision,
• · Incompatibility of interests and goals, inconsistency of positions held.
• · The actions taken by 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, sufficient 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 specifics 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 realizing certain interests, a way of acting to achieve an intended goal and, at the same time, a manner of communication.

The behavior of the parties to the conflict develops in different ways. 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. Perhaps the superiority in strength (rank) of one side, which is unquestioningly inferior to the others. Destructive behavior, which manifests itself in destructive actions, is also not excluded.

It is customary to distinguish five styles of behavior in a conflict situation, the classification of which is based on the Thomas - Kilmenn system. It allows you to orient any person if he gets into 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 the interacting subjects.

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

• 1) a measure of satisfaction of their own interests;
• 2) the activity or passivity of actions;
• 3) a measure of meeting 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 the desire to cooperate with someone involved in a conflict situation and make active efforts to pursue his own interests, as well as to meet opponents; the desire to get out of the conflict field, to get away from the conflict. This style of behavior is usually chosen when:

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

Evasion is quite justified in conditions of interpersonal conflict arising for reasons of a subjective, emotional nature. This style is most often used by realists by nature. People of this kind, as a rule, soberly assess the advantages and weaknesses of the positions of the conflicting parties. Even being hurt, they are wary of recklessly getting involved in a fight, they are in no hurry to accept a challenge to aggravate a collision, realizing that often the only way to win in an interpersonal dispute is avoiding participation in it.

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

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

Unlike evasion, this style presupposes taking into account the interests of opponents to a greater extent and not avoiding joint actions with them. Usually, the device is given a way out in those situations when:

• 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 inferior to each other in something, reckon with the fact that, losing little,
• · Acquire more, including good relationships, mutual consent, partnerships;
• • a deadlock situation is created, requiring a weakening of the growth of passions, the making of some kind of sacrifice for the sake of maintaining peace in relations and preventing confrontational actions, without compromising, of course, their principles, primarily moral;
• • there is a sincere desire of one of the conflicting parties to prove support to the opponent, while feeling completely satisfied with his kindness;
• · The competitive interaction of opponents is manifested, aimed at fierce competition, inevitable damage to the other side.

The device is applicable for 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 - chief, etc.

In such situations, it is extremely necessary to cherish the maintenance of mutual understanding, friendly disposition and an atmosphere of business cooperation, not to give room to heated polemics, expressions of anger and even more 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 style of adjustment chosen as a model of conflict behavior may also be ineffective. It is not at all acceptable in situations where the subjects of the conflict are seized with a feeling of resentment and irritation, do not want to reciprocate with each other in kind, and their interests and goals do not lend themselves to smoothing and harmonization.

Confrontation in its direction is focused on the fact that, acting actively and independently, to achieve their own interests without taking into account the interests of other parties directly involved in the conflict, or even to the detriment of them. The one who applies this style of behavior seeks to impose his solution to the problem on others, relies only on his own strength, does not accept joint actions. At the same time, elements of maximalism, strong-willed pressure, desire by any means, including force pressure, administrative and economic sanctions, intimidation, blackmail, and forcing the opponent to accept the point of view he contested, to take over him at all costs, to win the conflict, are manifested. As a rule, confrontation is chosen in those situations when:

• · The problem is of vital importance for the party to the conflict, who believes that he has sufficient strength to quickly resolve it in his favor;
• · The conflicting party takes a very advantageous for itself, in fact, a win-win position and has the ability to use it to achieve its own goal;
• · The subject of the conflict is sure that the proposed solution to the problem is the best in this situation, and at the same time, having a higher rank, insists on making this decision;
• · A participant in the conflict at the moment is deprived of any other choice and practically does not risk losing anything, acting decisively in defense of his interests and dooming his opponents to loss.

Confrontation does not at all mean that brute force is invariably used or that only the power and high rank of the one who is seeking the prevalence of his opinion and his own interests is placed on.

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 a manner of a catchy challenge.

However, we must not forget that any pressure, in whatever elegant form it may take, can turn into an explosion of unbridled emotions, the destruction of respectful and trusting relationships, an overly negative reaction from those who are defeated and will not abandon their attempts to achieve revenge. Since confrontation, the desire to consider oneself always right is an unsuitable style of behavior in most interpersonal conflicts, not the best option for maintaining a healthy moral and psychological atmosphere in the organization, creating conditions that allow employees to get along with each other.

Cooperation, like confrontation, is aimed at maximizing the realization by the participants of the conflict of their own interests. But unlike the confrontational style, cooperation presupposes 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, clarification of both external manifestations and hidden causes of the conflict, the willingness of the parties to act together to achieve a common goal for all.

The style of cooperation is readily used by those who perceive the conflict as a normal phenomenon of social life, as the need to solve this or that problem without harming any side. In conflict situations, the possibility of cooperation appears in cases when:

• · The problem that caused the disagreement seems to be important for 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 at all to the difference in their positions;
• · Each party wishes to voluntarily and on an equal basis to discuss controversial issues in order, ultimately, to come to full agreement on a mutually beneficial solution to a problem that is significant for all;
• · The parties involved in the conflict act like partners, trust each other, take into account the needs, fears and preferences of opponents.

The benefits of cooperation are undeniable: each side gets maximum benefit with minimum losses. But this path of progress towards 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 your position, listen carefully to opponents explaining their interests, develop alternatives and agree on a choice of them during negotiations of a mutually acceptable solution. The reward for common efforts is a constructive, satisfactory result for everyone, jointly found the optimal way out of the conflict, as well as strengthening partnership.

Compromise takes the middle place in the grid of conflicting behavior styles. It means the disposition of the participant (participants) in the conflict to resolve differences on the basis of mutual concessions, to achieve partial satisfaction of their interests.

This style assumes active and passive actions, the application of individual and collective efforts in equal measure. The style of compromise is preferable in that it usually blocks the path to ill will, allows, albeit in part, to satisfy the claims of each of the parties involved in the conflict. Compromise is approached in situations where:

• · The subjects of the conflict are well aware of its causes and development in order to judge the actual circumstances, all for and against their own interests;
• • conflicting parties of equal rank, having mutually exclusive interests, are aware of the need to come to terms with this state of affairs and the alignment of forces, be content with a temporary but appropriate option for resolving contradictions;
• · Participants in the conflict with different ranks tend to reach an agreement in order to gain time and save strength, not to break off relations, to avoid unnecessary losses;
• · Opponents, assessing 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 have no effect.

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

• 1. Ways to resolve conflicts
• 2. The style of behavior in the conflict coincides in meaning with the way it is resolved. With regard to communication between people, style is a manner of behaving, a set of characteristic techniques that distinguish a mode of action, i.e. in this case, a way of overcoming a conflict situation, solving the problem that led to the conflict. Consequently, the path to conflict resolution lies through the five ways that were found graphically in the Thomas-Kilmenn grid, namely: evasion, accommodation, confrontation, cooperation, compromise.
• 3. Determination of the method of resolving a specific conflict of communication with the choice of a method of action equivalent to the style of conflict behavior. In this case, one has to take into account a number of significant circumstances, which in one way or another boil down to the use of incentive measures, including persuasion and coercion.
• 4. First, the main task in the settlement of any conflict is to make it functionally positive, if possible, to minimize the inevitable damage from the negative consequences of confrontation or acute confrontation.
• 5. Such a result is achievable if the parties to the conflict show an honest and benevolent approach to settling their differences, a common interest in this, if they make joint efforts to find a positive solution on the basis of consensus, ie. stable, stable agreement of all parties.
• 6. In case of consensus, it is not at all necessary that the general agreement was unanimity - a complete coincidence of the positions of all participants in the conflict settlement 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, this or that variant 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 the conflict is managed.
• 7. Secondly, a two-fold 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 case, a superficial weakening of disagreements occurs, which over time may re-discover themselves. When fully resolved, the conflict ends at both the objective and subjective levels. The conflict situation is undergoing cardinal changes, its reflection in the minds of opponents means transformation, the transformation of the enemy's image into the image of a partner, and the psychological attitude to fight and counteraction is replaced by an orientation towards reconciliation, consent, partnership cooperation.
• 8. Partial resolution does not eliminate the causes of the conflict. As a rule, it expresses only an external change in conflict behavior while maintaining an internal urge to continue the confrontation. Restraining factors are either strong-willed arguments coming from reason, or the sanction of an outside force acting on the parties to the conflict. The measures taken are aimed at persuading or forcing the conflicting parties to stop hostile actions, to exclude someone's defeat, to point out the means of promoting mutual understanding.
• 9. Thirdly, an individual or social group, correlating the interests of the conflicting parties and the parameters of their behavior, chooses 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, therefore, and method are suitable for a particular situation. Each of the methods is effective only when resolving a certain type of conflict.