1. Competition style. A person using this style is very active and prefers to resolve the conflict in his own way. He is not interested in cooperation with other people, but is capable of strong-willed decisions. This style can be effective when you have a certain amount of power, are confident that your decision or approach in a given situation is correct and have the opportunity to insist on your own.

Competition style is preferred when:

The outcome is very important to you, and you make a big bet on the resolution of the problem that has arisen;

The decision must be made quickly and you have enough power to do so;

You feel like you have no other choice and nothing to lose.

2. Style of evasion. This style is realized when a person does not defend his rights, does not want to cooperate to develop a solution to the problem, or simply avoids resolving the conflict. You can use this style when the issue at hand is not important to you, when you don't want to spend energy on it, or when you feel like you're in a hopeless situation. It is also recommended when you feel wrong and suspect that the other person is right, or when that person has more power, or you have no good reason to continue with this person. Maybe you need a respite for the moment - time to think about the situation or calm down.

3.Fitment style. A person using this style acts in conjunction with a communication partner, without trying to defend their own interests. You can use it when the outcome of a case is extremely important to another person and not very significant to you. This style is also useful in situations where you cannot prevail because the other person has more power. You can resort to such a strategy if at the moment you need to soften the situation a little, and then you intend to return to this issue and defend your position. This style is also useful if you feel that it is more important to maintain a good relationship with someone than to defend your interests.

4.Style cooperation. Following the style of cooperation, a person actively participates in resolving the conflict and defends his position, but at the same time tries to take into account the interests of the other side. This style requires more work than other approaches to conflict, since the needs, concerns and interests of both parties are first openly stated (“put on the table”), and then they are discussed. It is advisable to use this particular style if the solution of the problem is very important for both parties, and no one wants to be excluded from the solution; if you have a close long-term and interdependent relationship with the other party and both of you are able to state the essence of your interests and listen to each other; if both parties involved in the conflict have equal power or do not notice the difference in position in order to seek a solution to the problem on an equal footing.

5.Compromise style. Using it, people agree on the partial satisfaction of the desires and interests of each conflicting party. The compromise style is most effective when you and the other person want the same thing, but know that it's impossible for you to do it at the same time. You want to come to a decision quickly, you can be satisfied with a temporary solution, you are ready to change the original goal. Compromise will allow you to maintain a good relationship.

It is hardly possible to completely avoid conflicts with an active lifestyle. Arguments, even constructive ones, often develop into conflicts and stress. How to learn to minimize conflicts and get out of them without loss.

Live in modern society full of stress (see ""), and most common cause stress become conflicts in which you voluntarily or involuntarily get involved.

Finding themselves in a confrontation with someone, many asked themselves the question: how to resolve this conflict? However, more often you have to think about how to get out of a difficult situation and at the same time maintain good relations or continue further cooperation.

Psychologists are increasingly saying that conflict is a completely normal state of the individual. That any person throughout his life is in conflict with other people, entire groups, or even with himself. And the ability to find mutual understanding with the conflicting party is perhaps the most important life skill that strengthens personal and professional relationships.

However, permanent residence conflict situation can have a destructive effect on a person’s personality, because he can feel oppressed, lose confidence, his self-esteem will decrease. Therefore, it is necessary to aggravate the conflict for a final resolution.

But in order to correctly determine which is better: avoiding conflict or resolving it, it is important to know the methods and styles of conflict resolution.

Conflict Resolution Styles

Scientists distinguish 5 main styles:

• rivalry (competition)
• cooperation
• compromise
• avoidance (avoidance)
• fixture

Competition style

If a person is active and intends to resolve a conflict situation in order to satisfy his own interests, the style of competition has to be applied. As a rule, a person, moving to resolve the conflict in his favor, sometimes to the detriment of other people, forces them to accept his way of solving the problem.

In this case, choosing the style of competition, you need to have the resources to resolve the conflict in your favor, or be sure that the result obtained is the only correct one. For example, a leader may make a tough authoritarian decision, but in the future it will give the desired result. This style prepares employees for submission without unnecessary ranting, especially in difficult times for the company.

It happens that such a model of behavior is resorted to because of weakness. If a person is no longer confident in his victory in the current conflict, then he may begin to kindle a new one. This can be seen most clearly in the relationship between two children in a family, when the younger one provokes the older one to some act, receives a “bashing” from him, and already from the position of the victim complains to his parents.

Also, a person can enter into such a conflict solely due to his inexperience or stupidity, simply not realizing the consequences for himself.

Collaboration style

The style of cooperation means that the subject tries to resolve the conflict in his own favor, but at the same time must take into account the interests of the opponent. Therefore, the resolution of the conflict involves the search for an outcome beneficial to both parties. The most typical circumstances when this style is used are the following:

• if both parties to the conflict have the same resources and capabilities;
• if the resolution of this conflict is beneficial, and neither side is removed from it;
• if there is a long-standing and mutually beneficial relationship between opponents;
• if each of the parties has quite understandable goals that they can explain;
• if each of the parties has other ways out of the crisis.

Collaborative style is used when each side has time to find common interests. But such a strategy requires tolerance and is effective if no changes in the alignment of forces of the opposing sides are foreseen in the future.

Compromise style

Compromise means that the opponents are trying to find a solution in which there will be some kind of mutual concessions. The use of this style is possible if the parties have the same resources, but their interests are mutually exclusive. Then the parties will come to some kind of temporary solution, and the benefits they will receive will be short-lived.

The most interesting thing is that it is a compromise that sometimes becomes the only possible way out of the conflict. When opponents are sure that they are striving for the same result, but they understand that it is impossible to achieve this at the same time.

Avoidance (avoidance) style

The avoidance style is usually used when the potential loss in a particular conflict is much higher than the moral cost of avoiding. For example, executives very often evade making a controversial decision, postponing it indefinitely.

If we talk about other positions, for example, a middle manager, then he can allegedly lose documents, voice useless information, refer to the fact that the superior is on a business trip. But delaying the decision on this issue can further complicate the problem, so the avoidance style is best used when it will not have serious consequences.

Fixture Style

The style of adaptation is manifested in the fact that a person performs any actions, focusing on the behavior of other people, but at the same time does not seek to defend his own interests. He, as it were, recognizes in advance the dominant role of the opponent and concedes to him in their confrontation. Such a model of behavior can be justified only when, by yielding to someone, you lose too much.

• when it is necessary to maintain peaceful relations with another person or even a whole group;
• when there is not enough power to win;
• when victory is more important for your opponent than for you;
• when it is necessary to find a solution that suits both parties;
• when it is impossible to avoid conflict, and resistance can hurt.

For example, a competing company appears on the market, but with more significant financial, administrative and other resources. You can use all your strength to fight a competitor, but there is a high probability of losing. In this case, using the style of accommodation, it is better to look for a new niche in the business or sell the company to a stronger competitor.

Basic ways to resolve conflicts

All currently available conflict resolution methods can be divided into two groups:

• negative
• positive

Negative, that is, destructive, methods mean that victory will be achieved only by one of the parties, and then the result of the confrontation will be the destruction of the unity of the parties participating in the conflict.

Positive methods, on the contrary, allow maintaining the unity of the conflicting parties. But it is important to understand that such a division is rather arbitrary, since in practice both systems can be used simultaneously, while harmoniously complementing each other. After all, it is only in armed conflicts that the condition for victory is to achieve the superiority of one of the opponents.

In peaceful life, the main goal of the struggle is to change the conflict situation. But this can be achieved different ways. The most famous are:

• to the impact on the opponent and his environment;
• to a change in the balance of power;
• to false or true information the enemy about his intentions;
• to obtain a correct assessment of the situation and capabilities of the enemy.

Negative methods of conflict resolution

1. Restriction of the opponent's freedom

For example, in the course of a discussion, one can impose on an opponent a topic in which he is incompetent and can discredit himself. And you can also force the enemy to take actions that will be useful to the opposing side.

2. Disabling the governing bodies

In the course of the discussion, the policy of the leaders is actively discredited, and their position is refuted. For example, during the election campaign, many people resort to criticizing their opponents and even demonstrating their failure as politicians in favor of their position. Here, much depends on the amount of information received, which is distorted, as well as on the oratory of one of the opponents.

3. The delay method

This method is used to choose the right conditions for the final blow or to create a favorable balance of power. In wartime, it is actively used to lure enemy soldiers to their side. For peaceful purposes, it is successfully manifested in the discussion, if you take the floor last and give arguments that have not yet been criticized.

When using this method, there is a chance to lure the enemy into a trap prepared in advance and gain time or change the situation to a more profitable one.

Positive methods of conflict resolution

1. Negotiations

Negotiation is one of the most effective methods in conflict resolution. To achieve a truce, the form of open debate is used, which provides for mutual concessions, as well as full or partial satisfaction of the interests of both parties.

2. Method of principled negotiations

Unlike conventional negotiations, this form of conflict resolution involves following four basic rules (principles) that cannot be derogated from.

Definition of the concepts "participant in negotiations" and "subject of negotiations". For the first concept, not just a person is important, but someone with certain character traits: stress resistance, the ability to control one's behavior and emotions, the ability to listen to an opponent, the ability to restrain oneself and avoid offensive words and actions.

Orientation to common interests, and not to the position of each of the parties. After all, it is in opposing positions that the difference of interests manifests itself. Search general conditions can reconcile conflicting parties.
Thinking through solutions that are beneficial for both parties. The analysis of options that satisfy both parties leads to an agreement in any area.

Search for objective criteria. If the criteria are neutral for both parties, this will quickly lead the conflict to a logical resolution. But subjective criteria will always infringe on the interests of one of the parties. But objectivity will be achieved only if all aspects of the problem are understood.

Whatever methods and styles you use in finding a way out of a contentious situation, it is important to understand that a bad peace is better than a good quarrel. An unresolved conflict will take much more energy, time and health from you. Therefore, it is necessary to apply maximum efforts for its possible resolution.

This style implies that the person is trying to get away from the conflict. His position is not to get into situations that provoke the emergence of contradictions, not to enter into a discussion of issues fraught with disagreements. Then you don't have to get into an excited state, even if you are trying to solve the problem.

Smoothing

With this style, a person is convinced that it is not worth getting angry, because "we are all one happy team, and we should not rock the boat." Such a "slicker" tries not to let out signs of conflict, appealing to the need for solidarity. But at the same time, you can forget about the problem underlying the conflict. As a result, peace and quiet may come, but the problem will remain, which will eventually lead to an "explosion".

Compulsion

Within this style, attempts to force people to accept their point of view at any cost prevail. Anyone who tries to do this without being interested in the opinions of others usually behaves aggressively, uses power through coercion to influence others. This style can be effective where the leader has a lot of power over subordinates, but it can suppress the initiative of subordinates, create a greater likelihood that the wrong decision will be made, since only one point of view is presented. It can cause resentment, especially among younger and more educated staff.

Compromise

This style is characterized by taking the other side's point of view, but only to some extent. The ability to compromise is highly valued in managerial situations, as it minimizes ill will, which often makes it possible to quickly resolve the conflict to the satisfaction of both parties. However, using a compromise on early stage a conflict that has arisen over an important issue can shorten the time it takes to find alternatives.

Solution

This style is an acknowledgment of differences of opinion and a willingness to get acquainted with other points of view in order to understand the causes of the conflict and find a course of action acceptable to all parties. The one who uses this style is not trying to achieve his goal at the expense of others, but rather looking for the best solution. This style is the most effective in solving organizational problems. Here are some suggestions for using this style of conflict resolution: Define the problem in terms of goals, not solutions. Once the problem is identified, define solutions that are acceptable to all parties. Focus on the problem, not on the personality of the other party. Create an atmosphere of trust by increasing mutual influence and information sharing. During communication, create a positive attitude towards each other, showing sympathy and listening to the opinion of the other side.

Conflict resolution

To date, experts have developed a lot of all kinds of recommendations regarding various aspects of people's behavior in situations of conflict, the choice of appropriate strategies and means of resolving them, as well as managing them.

It is important to consider both the actions of the participants in the conflict themselves, and the actions, the role of an intermediary, which may be the leader

Leadership in conflict.

The primary task of the leader who has to resolve the conflict is to find out the true cause of the conflict, which is often quite difficult to do, since consciously or unconsciously it is most often masked by the participants in the conflict. For example, concern for business or adherence to principles in many cases masks selfish interests, hurt pride, a desire for revenge for old or new grievances, etc. The complexity of the situation lies in the fact that the substitution of the cause of the conflict can occur not only in order to explain one's position to others, but also in order to explain this to oneself. Here the psychological mechanism of self-defense works, when a person, in addition to the unseemly reasons for his actions that really drive him, comes up with some noble goals and gradually begins to believe that he is driven by the desire to achieve them. In such situations, the leader can proceed from two provisions:

1) try to answer for yourself the question of who benefits from this or that conflict resolution;

2) a person's behavior in a personal-emotional conflict is characterized by unusual verbosity, agitation, unwillingness to listen to interlocutors.

The actions of the leader, aimed at constructively resolving the conflict, are:

institutionalization of the conflict , i.e. definition of some administrative or moral rules or norms of behavior of opponents in the conflict;

legitimization of the conflict, or recognition by the conflicting parties of the rules of conduct established by the head;

structuring conflicting groups , i.e. determining the interests pursued by each of the conflicting personalities, and determining the degree and reasons for deviations of these interests from the established order in the organization;

reduction , i.e. gradual weakening and subsequent resolution of the conflict.

Many methods of conflict resolution can be divided into structural and interpersonal.

Structural methods of conflict resolution include clarification of the requirements for work; use of coordination and integration mechanisms; setting corporate overarching goals; use of a fair system of remuneration.

Clarifying job requirements and expected results from each employee and department is one of the most effective methods prevention of destructive conflicts, since in this situation the "business cover" of personal hostility of employees is eliminated.

The use of coordination and integration mechanisms is based on the principle of unity of command. Their essence lies in bringing subordinates of their right to contact the leader in the event of any contradictions between them. In this case, subordinates simply follow the decision of the leader. It is also important to create services or positions involved in integration activities, i.e. carrying out the relationship between the linear and functional divisions of the enterprise.

Establishment of corporate-wide integrated goals.

The remuneration system used in the organization will be fair if it, firstly, encourages employees to achieve corporate goals; secondly, it does not encourage unconstructive behavior of employees and departments.

The interpersonal methods of conflict resolution used are largely determined by the goals pursued by the leader, intervening in the conflict. Chief among these goals are increasing the productivity of the led team; maintaining and improving the socio-psychological climate in the team; growth of leadership authority.

The set of used interpersonal methods of conflict resolution determines the style of behavior of the leader in the conflict. These styles are: competition when the leader encourages opponents to compete, reserving the right to make the final decision; evasion , when the leader takes the position of an outside observer, not considering it expedient to spend his time and energy on conflict resolution ; cooperation when the leader forms a single working group from the conflicting parties to resolve the problem that has arisen under his own leadership; fixture when the leader is forced to accept the result of the conflict as it is, regardless of their own interests; compulsion , when the leader makes a sole decision, little interested in the opinions and feelings of subordinates; this method can be effectively used by the manager if his competence significantly exceeds the competence of his subordinates; however, its use causes hidden or open dissatisfaction, especially on the part of younger or more intelligent staff; compromise when the leader is able to offer a solution that satisfies him and both conflicting parties.

Evaluate efficiency one or another style of behavior in a conflict situation is possible according to various criteria.

conflict personalities. Throughout its labor activity some people manage to be drawn into a conflict only a few times and others do not represent a conflict-free relationship at work. The latter are called conflict personalities and among them six main types can be distinguished.

Demonstrative personalities who strive to always be in sight, to enjoy everyone's attention. If they have no other qualities that allow them to stand out, then conflicts are the only way for them to express themselves.

Rigid(non-plastic, inflexible) personalities who are distinguished by increased self-esteem, ambition, inability and unwillingness to reckon with the opinions of others. Once and for all, the established opinion of a rigid personality inevitably comes into conflict with changing conditions and causes conflict with others, towards whom they are unceremonious, and sometimes simply rude.

ultra-precise personalities, being the most conscientious, scrupulous workers. They approach everyone, starting with themselves, from a position of excessive demands. Anyone who does not meet these requirements, and these are the majority, is subjected to sharp criticism, at the same time they themselves are very sensitive to the assessment of others, especially the authorities. These features of their behavior often lead to conflicts.

Uncontrollable personalities, characterized by impulsiveness, thoughtlessness and unpredictability of behavior, lack of self-control. Therefore, their behavior is perceived as aggressive and causing a desire to put such a person in his place.

greedy personalities, who are always ready for conflict if, according to their rational calculations, it is possible to achieve their careeristic or mercantile goals with its help.

unwilling personalities, the lack of their own convictions and principles of which makes them a tool in the hands of the initiators of the conflict. The danger of such people lies in the fact that they have a reputation for being kind, unselfish people. Therefore, the performance of such a person as the initiator of the conflict attracts other people to him, who are more eager to protect him than to understand the cause of the conflict.

Everyone has their own, but they are not always ideal for every situation. Every day we have to defend our interests to one degree or another, to find compromises with other people. That is, the resolution of social conflicts is a normal and natural process of our life. You can avoid it only by going into complete isolation.

But even there it will not be possible to avoid conflicts - you will constantly feel a clash of your own polar interests. If you master the resolution of social conflicts, this skill can be applied in any area. As a result, in each of them you will be able to develop and strengthen the relationships you need.

"A wise man will always find a way not to start a war." I. Yamamoto.

What is conflict?

Few people think about What is conflict what it happens, what are its causes. But it is this knowledge that helps to select the necessary methods for resolving conflicts. Otherwise, unresolved conflicts, even external ones, develop into internal dissatisfaction, which not only spoils the character, but can seriously undermine health.

So, conflict is clash of opposing independent opinions of individuals, groups of people, which causes negative emotions. Also, these opinions can arise in the mind of one person. As a rule, this is a discrepancy between life values, ideas, motivation, perceptions, desires. The main ways to resolve the conflict should address people's needs for security, self-worth, closeness, privacy.

Conflict Resolution Styles

If we summarize all the existing methods of conflict resolution, we can single out the backbone of the most universal and effective. The basic conflict resolution styles look like this:

1. Competition

It is used in a situation where a person is inclined to seek to defend personal interests at the expense of others. He resolves the conflict by expressing his authoritarian opinion, which is not subject to discussion. These conflict resolution styles can only be used if you are completely sure that you are right. Otherwise, it will lead to another, more acute conflict.

2. Evasion

Conflict resolution methods may be associated with a banal flight from an unpleasant situation. This is usually done if the flight hurts less self-esteem than the defeat in the conflict. But this is only a delay in resolving the conflict, which can only aggravate it. It is worth using the method in extreme cases, when you really need a delay in collecting additional information and analyzing it.

3. Fixture

When a person is completely focused on other people, ready to give up his interests, just to extinguish the conflict - this is a typical adaptation. These styles of conflict resolution are justified if good relationships are more important to you than winning an argument. Or the conflict itself can seriously harm you.

4. Collaboration

In this case, everyone is ready to sacrifice some part of their interests in order to find a common solution suitable for all. This requires time and effort to fully assess the situation, find common interests, and then a way to implement them. This is the most efficient, but also the most time-consuming method.

5. Compromise

When the parties want to achieve the same thing, but it is impossible to achieve this together, they have to give in to each other. This is the most common way that other basic conflict resolution styles fail.

"Conflict situations are inevitable, but the smart one is looking for a way out of them, and the fool is looking for an entrance." V. Gubarev.

The main ways to resolve the conflict

All the main ways and styles of conflict resolution are conditionally divided into negative and positive. The former lead to the destruction of the unity of the parties, while the positive ones lead to its preservation. But in any case, this is a struggle between the two sides, which has its own signs. For example, each of the parties strives for one thing - the maximum concentration of all their forces in the conflict zone on a pre-selected convenient battlefield. Then it remains only to choose the right moment to attack.

The attack must end with a change in the conflict situation in its favor. This is achieved in the following ways:

Correct assessment of the capabilities and situation of the enemy.
Informing (true or false) the enemy of intentions.
Changing the balance of power;
Influence on the enemy, his situation and defense.

Various combinations of these methods are commonly used.

Fighting methods

What methods are used to fight in conflict situations? The main methods and styles of conflict resolution are aimed at ensuring that the winning side gets a free hand. This is achieved in various ways by restricting the freedom of the enemy, shaping freedom for oneself, choosing and winning a better position, etc.

Another one strategic goal are opponent's control centers. During the discussion, leading persons or institutions are discredited, the negative traits of leading persons are criticized, and much more. Here it is important to choose the right time and place for delivering a pinpoint strike, as well as the concentration of the necessary forces. Therefore, the method of dragging out the conflict, expressing one's opinion at the very last turn, is often used. In order to lure the opponent into a trap, they often use evasion from the fight. This is about negative methods.

Positive ones are based on negotiations - debates, the purpose of which is mutual concessions. For negotiations to be effective, they must be conducted according to the following principles:

Distinguishing participants in negotiations from their subject. It is necessary to discuss only the subject.
Orientation only to the interests of the parties, and not to their positions.
Drawing up a list of beneficial solutions for both parties.
Formation of objective criteria for assessing the situation.

When negotiating, it is important to reduce the emotionality of communication as much as possible. It is important to be able to:

Calmness, both verbally and non-verbally.
Control of emotions and behavior.
Be able to listen to others and pay attention to their feelings.
Understanding that with one situation different people cope differently.
Endurance without offending others.

And a few more secrets

"Any conflict will always be settled by a sage who controls himself." G. Alexandrov.

Unresolved to the end personal conflicts resume again, sometimes with a vengeance. But not all conflict situations can be completely resolved. In any case, an acute situation is a path to development, gaining trust and confidence in further relationships.

If it seems to you that the conflict is simply terrible, then you are afraid of losing a lot in it. Therefore, subconsciously ready to give in. We must be able to adequately assess the situation.

it basic ways and styles of conflict resolution, of which everyone can find the most suitable one.

LECTURE #20. Basic Interpersonal Styles of Conflict Resolution

Basic interpersonal conflict resolution styles have been developed K. Thomas . He points out that there are 5 basic styles of behavior in conflict: accommodation, compromise, cooperation, avoidance, rivalry (or competition).

The style of behavior in a particular conflict, he believes, 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 side, acting jointly or individually.

Style of competition, rivalry can be used by a person with a strong will, sufficient authority, power, not very interested in cooperation with the other side and striving first of all to satisfy his own interests. It can be used if:

1) the outcome of the conflict is very important to you and you make a big bet on your solution to the problem that has arisen;

3) you feel that you have no other choice and you have nothing to lose;

4) must make an unpopular decision and you have sufficient authority to choose this step;

5) interact with subordinates who prefer an authoritarian style.

However, it should be borne in mind that this is not the style to be used in close personal relationships, since, apart from a feeling of alienation, it cannot cause anything else. 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 is at odds with the point of view of the boss.

Collaboration style can be used if, in defending your own interests, you are forced to take into account the needs and desires of the other side. This style is the most difficult, as it requires more work. The purpose of its application is to develop a long-term mutually beneficial solution. This style requires the ability to explain your desires and listen to each other, to restrain your emotions. The absence of one of the factors makes this style ineffective. This style can be used to resolve a conflict in the following situations:

1) need to find common decision if each of the approaches to the problem is important and does not allow compromises;

2) you have a long-term, strong and interdependent relationship with the other party;

3) the main goal is to acquire joint work experience;

4) the parties are able to listen to each other and state the essence of their interests;

5) it is necessary to integrate points of view and increase the personal involvement of employees in activities. compromise style. Its essence lies in the fact that the parties seek to resolve differences with mutual concessions. In this regard, it somewhat resembles the style of cooperation, however, it is carried out at a more superficial level, since the parties are somewhat inferior to each other. This style is most effective when both parties want the same thing, but know that it is both impossible (for example, the desire to occupy the same position or the same premises for work). When using this style, the emphasis is on the decision, which can be expressed in the words: "We cannot fully fulfill our desires, therefore, it is necessary to come to a decision that each of us can agree on."

This approach to conflict resolution can be used in the following situations:

1) both parties have equally convincing arguments and have the same power;

2) the satisfaction of your desire has little to do with you great importance;

3) you may be satisfied with a temporary solution, since there is no time to develop another, or other approaches to solving the problem have not been effective;

4) compromise will allow you to gain at least something than to lose everything.

Evasion Style usually implemented when the issue at hand is not as important to you, you do not stand up for your rights, do not cooperate with anyone to develop a solution and do not want to spend time and effort on this. This style is also recommended in cases where one of the parties has more power or feels that they are not right, or believes that there are no good reasons for continuing contacts.

1) the source of disagreement is trivial and insignificant for you compared to other more important tasks, and therefore you think that it is not worth wasting energy on it;

2) you know that you cannot or even do not want to resolve the issue in your favor;

3) you have little power to solve the problem in the way you want;

4) want to buy time to study the situation and get Additional information before making any decision;

5) trying to solve the problem immediately is dangerous, since opening up and openly discussing the conflict can only worsen the situation;

6) subordinates themselves can successfully resolve the conflict;

7) you had a hard day, and solving this problem can bring additional trouble.

It should not be thought that this style is an escape from a problem or an evasion of responsibility. In fact, leaving or postponing may be a very appropriate response to a conflict situation, as it may resolve itself in the meantime, or you can deal with it later when you have sufficient information and a desire to resolve it.

Fixture Style means that you are acting in concert with the other party, but at the same time you are not trying to defend your own interests in order to smooth the atmosphere. K. Thomas believes that this style is most effective when the outcome of the case is extremely important for the other side and not very significant for you, or when you sacrifice your own interests in favor of the other side.

The fixture style can be applied in the following most typical situations:

1) the most important task is to restore calm and stability, and not to resolve the conflict;

2) the subject of the disagreement is not important to you or you are not particularly worried about what happened;

4) realize that the truth is not on your side;

5) feel like you don't have enough power or a chance to win.

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

Although relationships with other people should promote peace and harmony, conflicts are inevitable. Every sane person should have the ability to effectively resolve disputes and disagreements so that the fabric of social life is not torn with every conflict, but, on the contrary, is strengthened as a result of the ability to find and develop common interests.

To resolve a conflict, it is important to have different approaches at your disposal, be able to use them flexibly, go beyond the usual patterns and be sensitive to opportunities, act and think in a new way. At the same time, conflict can be used as a source of life experience, self-education and self-learning.

Conflicts can be great learning material if you take the time to remember what led up to the conflict and what happened in the conflict later on. Then you can learn more about yourself, about the people involved in the conflict, or about the circumstances that contributed to the conflict. This knowledge will help you make the right decision and avoid conflict in the future.

Successful conflict resolution ultimately requires both parties to be willing to resolve it. But if the desire is shown by at least one side, then this will give the other side more opportunities for a counter step. In conflicts, people seem to be shackled by mutual insults, claims and other negative emotions. It is quite difficult to take the first step towards resolving the conflict: each believes that the other must yield. Therefore, the willingness to resolve the conflict, shown by one side, can play a decisive role in resolving it as a whole.

Basic styles of behavior in conflict resolution

Well-known experts in the field of managerial psychology K. Thomas and G. Kilman distinguish five main styles of behavior in conflict situations, based on their own style, the style of other participants in the conflict, as well as the type of conflict itself. Graphically, this classification is presented in the Thomas-Kilman grid (Fig. 60). It is widely used in management training programs and allows each leader to develop their own style of conflict resolution.

The style of behavior in each particular conflict is determined by the degree of desire to satisfy one's own interests (acting passively or actively) and the interests of the opposite side of the conflict participants (acting jointly or individually).

If your reaction is passive, then you will seek to get out of the conflict; if the reaction is active, then you will try to resolve it. The desire for joint action causes an attempt to resolve this conflict together with its other participants. The desire for individual action causes a search for a way to solve a problem or avoid solving it. Five styles of behavior are identified equally include joint and individual actions, as well as passive and active behavior.

The one who uses the competitive style is always active and seeks to resolve the conflict in his own way. He

Rice. 60. in Thomas-Kilman grid

not interested in cooperation with others, but capable of strong-willed decisions, seeks first of all to satisfy his own interests at the expense of others, imposing his own decision. This path is effective when a person has a certain power. But this is an extremely inefficient method of resolving personal conflicts. The competitive style induces a sense of alienation in others. Its use in situations where the subject has no power can lead to annoying mistakes.

Using this style makes sense if the result is very important to you, if you have a certain authority and consider your option to be the best, if the decision needs to be made urgently and there is enough power for it, if there is no other way and nothing to lose, if you cannot convince the group that the situation is crisis, but the group must be led further

This style will lead to recognition if a positive result is achieved. But if the desire to establish good relations with everyone prevails, then this style should not be used.

The avoidance style is used in situations where the position is unstable and there is no cooperation with others to solve the problem. This style is appropriate to use if the problem is not very important or when one feels the fallacy of one's own position and the correctness of the position of the other side of the conflict, when the forces are not equal or when the other is endowed with power. In these cases, the desire to satisfy one's own or other interests prevails, avoiding the problem, shifting responsibility for the decision to others, the desire to postpone the decision or use other means.

The avoidance style is applied if there is communication with a psychic difficult person and if there is no reason to maintain contacts with her, as well as attempts to make a decision in a situation where it is not entirely clear what needs to be done specifically, and there is no need for this. This strategy is also expedient in cases of lack of sufficient Information. Although some consider this style an "escape" from problems and responsibilities, this behavior can be quite a constructive response to a conflict situation.

Accommodating style means that you act together with the other person, without trying to defend your own interests. This style is used when the results are very important to the other person and not very significant to you. It is useful in situations in which you can win because the other party to the conflict has power. So, you give in and do what your opponent wants. You act in this style when you sympathize with another person and try to support her.

Since, by applying such a strategy, you push your interests aside, it is better to resort to it when a positive clarification of the situation is not essential for you or when participation in the situation is not very significant. If you think that you are inferior in something very important and feel dissatisfied in this regard, then the method of adaptation in this case is not suitable. It is also not acceptable when you feel that the other person is not going to give up something or will not appreciate your contribution to solving the problem. This style should be applied when you have little to lose by retreating, when you are going to soften the situation, and then return to this issue and defend your position.

The accommodating style can be a bit like the evasive style when used as a means of postponing a problem. But the main difference is that you act together with another person, you do what he aspires to. By giving in, you can soften the conflict situation and build relationships.

Thanks to the collaborative style, you can take an active part in resolving the conflict and protect your own interests, but at the same time strive to cooperate with other participants in the conflict. This style requires more inner work compared to other strategies. First you need to identify the aspirations, goals, interests of both parties, and then discuss them. If you have time and the decision is of great importance, then this is good way obtaining the most effective result and satisfying mutual interests.

This style is most optimal when both parties have different hidden aspirations. In this case, it is difficult to determine the factor of dissatisfaction. At first it seems that both sides want the same thing, or, conversely, have opposite goals, which is a direct factor in the conflict. But there is a difference between external manifestations and hidden interests and aspirations, which are the true causes of the conflict situation.

So, in order to successfully use the style of cooperation, it is necessary to spend some time searching for internal, hidden interests in order to develop a means of satisfying the true desires of both parties. If both parties understand what the cause of the conflict is, they are able to look for new means of resolving it. However, this path requires some effort. Both parties must spend some time on this, find out their real desires, listen to each other and, finally, work out options for solving the problem. The collaborative style is the most difficult but very effective.

The essence of the compromise style is the partial satisfaction of one's own interests. You partially yield to other participants, but they do the same. Such actions may resemble cooperation, but the satisfaction of mutual needs occurs on a superficial level. Hidden, internal needs are not analyzed here.

The compromise style is most effective when both parties want the same thing, although they understand that it is impossible to satisfy their interests at the same time. The most common cases of its application: both parties have the same power and opposing interests; a decision must be reached quickly and there is no time for discussion; arranges a temporary solution; other ways are inefficient; compromise allows you to maintain a normal relationship.

It is important to understand that each of these styles is effective only under certain conditions. One must be able to adequately use each of them and make an informed choice, taking into account specific circumstances. The best approach depends on the specific situation.

Questions for self-examination

1. What are the main stages of the socialization process?

2. What is the effect of socialization?

3. Describe the concept of social attitude, its functions.

4. Analyze interpersonal relationships as the basis for the socialization of the individual.

5. What are the psychological mechanisms of interpersonal relationships?

6. Who howled small social groups?

7. What are the main functions of communication?

8. What is the structure business communication? 9 — What is the essence of the cognitive aspects of communication?

10. Describe the factors influencing the socio-psychological climate.

11. What is the essence of the concepts of "empathy" and "reflection"?

12. Analyze ways to resolve conflict situations.

1 Andreeva G. M. Social psychology. Moscow, 1980.

2. Atvater I. I am listening to you. Tips for the leader on how to listen to the interlocutor. Moscow, 1988.

3 Bodalev A. A. Perception and understanding of man by man. Moscow, 1982.

4. V. V. Boyko et al. Socio-psychological climate of the team and personality / U. V. Boyko, A. G. Kovalev, V. N. Panferov. Moscow, 1983.

5. Kazmirenko V. P. Social psychology of organizations. Klev, 1993.

6. Kornev M. N., Kovalenko A. By. Social Psychology. Kyiv, 199S.

7. Brief Dictionary of Sociology / Ed. ed. - D. M. Gvi-shiani, H. Y. Lapin. Moscow, 1988.

8. Lomov BF Methodological and theoretical problems of psychology. Moscow, 1984.

9. Mitsich P. How to conduct business conversations / Abbr. per. from Serbian-Croatian 2nd ed., ster. Moscow, 1987.

10. Obozov N. Psychology of interpersonal relations. Kyiv, 1990.

11. Panferov V. N. Cognitive standards and interaction stereotypes // Vopr. psychology. 1982. N "S.

12. Papovyan S. S. Study of the "organizational climate" in American psychology // Vopr. psychology. 1978. No. 2.

13. Petrovskaya L. A. On the conceptual scheme of socio-psychological analysis of the conflict // Theoretical and methodological problems of social psychology / Ed. G. M. Andreeva and N. H. Bogomolova. Moscow, 1977.

14. Petrovsky A. V., Shpalinsky V. V. Social psychology of the team. Moscow, 1978.

15. Psychological Dictionary / Ed. V. V. Davydov, A. V. Zaporozhets, By. F. Lomova et al. Moscow, 1983.

16. Psychology: Dictionary / Under the general. ed. A. V. Petrovsky, M. G. Yaroshevsky. 2nd ed., rev. I add. Moscow, 1990.

17 Sventsitsky A. L. Social psychology of management / Ed. E S Kuzmina. Leningrad, 1986.

18. Scott JG Conflicts and ways to overcome them. Klev, 1991

IV. Social Psychology. History, theory, empirical research / Ed. E. S. Kuzmina, V. E. Semenova. Leningrad, 1979.

20. Philosophical encyclopedia. Moscow, 1970. v. 5.

21. Yusupov Y. M. Psychology of mutual understanding. Kazan, 1991.

Conflict Resolution Styles

CONFLICT. STYLES OF CONFLICT RESOLUTION

Conflict is a phenomenon that occurs as a result of a collision of opposing actions, views, interests, aspirations, plans of different people or motives, needs of one person. AT last case talk about internal conflict.

In general, conflicts are a natural part of our lives. They may expect us when we meet a new person or a new situation. To some extent, they are even necessary for the development of the situation and relationships, for the growth of the individual, otherwise stagnation may occur. Although most often we experience a conflict situation as a serious nuisance.

Basic Conflict Resolution Styles

In a conflict situation, people consciously or subconsciously usually choose a particular style of behavior. In a particular conflict, the style of behavior is determined by how important it is for you to satisfy your own interests (acting passively or actively) and the interests of the other party (acting jointly or individually).

There are five basic conflict resolution styles.

1. Competition style is preferred when:

• a person using this style is very active and prefers to resolve the conflict in his own way. He is not interested in cooperation with other people, but is capable of strong-willed decisions.
• when you have a certain power, you are sure that your decision or approach in a given situation is correct and you have the opportunity to insist on your own.

Competition style is preferred when:

• the outcome is very important to you, and you make a big bet on solving the problem that has arisen;
• the decision must be made quickly and you have enough power to do so;
• you feel like you have no other choice and nothing to lose.

2. Avoidance style is preferred when:

• a person does not defend his rights, does not want to cooperate to develop a solution to the problem, or simply avoids resolving the conflict;
• the problem is not so important to you, and you do not want to spend energy on solving it;
• you feel like you are in a hopeless situation.
• you feel wrong and anticipate the rightness of the other person, and when this person has more power, or you have no good reason to continue the relationship with this person. Maybe you need a reprieve at the moment - time to think about the situation or calm down?

3. Fixture style is preferred when:

• a person acts together with a communication partner, not trying to defend his own interests;
• the outcome of the case is extremely important for the other person and not very significant for you;
• you cannot prevail because the other person has more power. You can resort to such a strategy if at the moment it is necessary to soften the situation somewhat, and then you intend to return to this issue and defend your position;
• you feel that it is more important to maintain a good relationship with someone than to defend your interests.

4. Collaborative style is preferred when:

• a person actively participates in resolving the conflict and defends his position, but at the same time tries to take into account the interests of the other side. This style requires more work than other approaches to conflict, since the needs, concerns and interests of both parties are first openly stated (“laid out on the table”), and then they are discussed.
• it is desirable to use this particular style if the solution of the problem is very important for both parties, and no one wants to be eliminated from the solution;
• if you have a close long-term and interdependent relationship with the other party, and both of you are able to state the essence of your interests and listen to each other;
• if both parties involved in the conflict have equal power or do not notice the difference in position in order to seek a solution to the problem on an equal footing.

5. Compromise style is preferred when:

• people agree on the partial satisfaction of the desires and interests of each conflicting party;
• you and the other person want the same thing, but you know that at the same time it is impossible for you;
• you want to come to a decision quickly, you can be satisfied with a temporary solution, you are ready to change the original goal. Compromise will allow you to maintain a good relationship.

You have seen that one or two styles are preferred for you. It's natural, but a rigid preference can limit your options. You need to learn how to use each style effectively and consciously make one or another choice, given the specific circumstances.

What behavior in a conflict situation will be the most advantageous?

1. The dynamics of the conflict. Conflict is a perceived contradiction between people that needs to be resolved. Conflict is not always effective way resolution of contradictions, because due to the strong emotions that arise in this case, thinking slows down, perception narrows, more primitive layers of the psyche become actualized. And yet, if a sober analysis shows that there is no choice, and the conflict seems to be the only available way to resolve the contradiction, one should initiate the conflict himself, since with a conscious entry into the conflict, the possibility of managing it is much higher. It should be remembered that "conflict in large doses is harmful to health."

2. Constructive conflict resolution. For a constructive resolution of conflict situations, the following recommendations should be followed: There are no winners in a conflict: two sides always lose. Therefore, it makes no sense to calculate who is more to blame, and take the pose of "insulted pride." Dare to take the first step - this is an indicator of the strength of your character and your self-respect. Start the conversation by describing a specific situation that you don't like. Try to be as objective as possible. The more detailed you are about it, the better. If possible, please provide specific examples.

Tell me how you feel about this situation. Many conflicts between people are complicated by the presence of unspoken thoughts and feelings. Sometimes just their statement, the exchange of these negative feelings allow the situation to improve. Take advantage of this in simple terms: “I was offended”, “I was scared”, “I was angry”.

Try to listen to the opposite side (although this is quite difficult). It must be remembered that you have different thoughts, different perceptions of the situation and this is what caused the conflict. Therefore, treat what was said not as the truth, but as a reflection of the position, desires and interests of your opponent.

Listen carefully, do not interrupt, do not argue. Show the interlocutor that you are listening to him really seriously and strive to come to an agreement. You can emphasize this with an approving nod of the head, a request to bring specific example, which will help you better understand the feelings and actions of the opposite side, and your interlocutor - to tune in to a frank conversation.

If the conflict is very serious, then turn to an “outsider” person who would help you listen to each other without getting lost in mutual reproaches and accusations.

It is very useful to sort out innermost thoughts. Secret thoughts are assumptions, fears, guesses about the feelings and thoughts of another. To make sure your assumptions are correct, it is best to ask the person himself. If you are asked about it, try to be quite frank, because guesses, as a rule, have real grounds. Refrain from commenting when ending any conversation. Focus on issues on which your thoughts, feelings, actions are the same, and not on problems that are shared - this will limit the zone of contradictions.

Find an opportunity to make specific proposals regarding a change in the situation, behavior, relationships ("I ask you.", "I would like to.", "I hope it's not hard for you."). At the end of the conversation, say what exactly will change if you transform the situation or your relationship. It is inappropriate to threaten and resort to ultimatums - after all, positive prospects are more attractive. Note that the person will benefit if they change their behavior or attitude at your request. This way of resolving the conflict requires a certain determination. However, if you are frank and honest in this conversation, then your relationship will not worsen, and you will earn more respect.

3. Principles of conflict management.

Psychologists believe that conflict can be managed. The principles of conflict management are as follows:

1. Determination of the need to escalate the conflict, which is achieved through an honest and impartial answer to the following questions (these answers can be given aloud or written down, but they cannot be discussed):

a) Is it possible and desirable to eliminate the contradiction (as is known, the contradiction is the engine of progress)? b) If so, are there more peaceful, economical and "cleaner" ways to resolve it? c) If not, are you strong enough to win the conflict? d) If not, how long can it last (you need to know this in order to get out of the conflict with a minimum expenditure of mental and physical strength)?

2. Complete control over your own emotions, which, as a rule, interfere with assessing what is happening.

3. Analysis of the real causes of the conflict, which opponents can hide behind imaginary reasons.

4. Localization of the conflict, i.e., the establishment of its clear framework and the maximum desire to narrow the area of ​​contradiction.

5. Refusal to focus on self-defense, since the enthusiasm for one's own defensive actions usually prevents people from noticing changes in the environment and behavior of the "opposite side" in time.

6. Reformulating the opponent's arguments, which simply should not be refuted in the order and in the proportions in which they are presented - it is better to try to "translate" them into a language you understand, highlighting the key semantic points.

7. Sufficient activity, since, even "retreating along the entire front", you can maintain the initiative by setting:

a) the emotional tone of the relationship ("Let's talk calmly"); b) the topic of the conversation (“We are not talking about that, we will return - how to.”); in) language style(without rudeness and vulgarity); d) the roles and the degree of strictness of the rules of the game (the conflict can and should be played, resolving contradictions, in the form of a semblance of a theatrical action with specified roles and roles).

4. Control of emotions. Very important and perhaps the most difficult is the second of these principles - the control of emotions.

It happens that someone deliberately “turns on” us in order to draw us into a conflict. It is very difficult to remain calm when baseless accusations are made, or you are insulted, or make ridiculous, from your point of view, demands and claims.

It is especially important that your emotions do not prevent you from trying to understand what makes a person act in this way. If you find yourself in a situation in which someone begins to show their emotions too much, then this, as a rule, indicates that the conflict is caused by some deep interests that you need to take into account in order to find a solution to the problem and restore the relationship.

In particular, you can keep in mind the following program of action:

• If a person's reaction is too different from what one would expect in the current situation, stop and think: what underlying problems or needs does it reflect?
• Try to take the position of another person and look at things through his eyes: what can he think about the current situation?
• Look at your behavior from the other person's point of view. Have you done something that is unpleasant or incomprehensible to him? It is especially important to practice this in order to reduce the intensity of conflicts with parents that flare up. (If, for example, they restrict your freedom and constantly “nag” you for coming home late, try to look at your behavior through their eyes. And you will find a whole “bouquet” of reasons for their irritation: both the feeling that you neglect the care of your parents, and fear for you, and resentment, and fear of losing control of the situation.)
• Think about whether this person is currently under pressure from some circumstances that could cause such a reaction?
• Think about how to gently invite discussion real reasons conflict.
• Demonstrate that you are receptive to the needs of another person, that you care about him; show that you are willing to take the time to understand it.
• Be willing to put your own interests aside so that you can focus on the needs of the other person. You can take care of your interests later, but now it is important to show the person that you recognize his needs and are ready to do everything in your power to satisfy them, because you see how difficult it is for him now.

It is not so easy to follow these recommendations, because instead of the position of natural egoism, one must learn to take a “meta-position”: to be, as it were, both inside the situation and outside it; separate your interests, your point of view, your experience from what is happening to another person, and accept his interests and needs as objective reality regardless of how you feel about it.

You can take care of your interests later, but now it is important to show the person that you recognize his needs and are ready to do everything in your power to satisfy them, because you see how difficult it is for him now. It is not so easy to follow these recommendations, you need to separate your interests, your point of view, your experience from what is happening with another person, and accept his interests and needs as an objective reality, regardless of your attitude to this.

STYLES OF CONFLICT RESOLUTION

Prepared by: Mishina Ilona

. There are no conflict-free personal relationships. Conflicts are inevitable in any relationship between people.

Your style of behavior in a particular conflict is determined by the extent to which you want to satisfy your own interests (acting passively or actively) and

the interests of the other party (acting jointly or individually).

He is not very interested in cooperation with other people, but he is capable of strong-willed decisions. A rationalist might say, "I don't care that

others think. I'm going to prove to them that I have my own solution to the problem.

a person wants to satisfy his own interests to the detriment of the interests of others, forcing other people

accept your solution to the problem. To achieve the goal, he uses his own volitional qualities; and if the will of the individual is strong enough, it succeeds.

This style is implemented when you do not defend your

right, not cooperating with anyone to work out a solution to a problem, or simply avoiding resolving the conflict. You can

use this style when the problem at hand is not important to you, when you don't want to spend energy on solving it, or when you

you feel like you are in a hopeless situation. This style

I'm not going to do it now." In short, you are not trying to satisfy your own interests or the interests of another person. Instead, you walk away from the problem by ignoring it, shifting responsibility for solving it to someone else, seeking a delay in solving it, or using other methods.

Fixture style:

It means that you act together with another person, without trying to defend your own interests. You

You can use this approach when the outcome of a case is extremely important to the other person and not very significant to you. This style is also useful in situations in which you cannot prevail because the other person has more power; thus, you concede and resign yourself to what your opponent wants. You act in this style when you sacrifice your interests in favor of another person, yielding to him and pitying him. it

makes you feel comfortable with the other person's desires. This style should be used

when you feel that by giving in a little, you lose little.

Collaboration Style:

By following this style, you are actively involved in resolution

conflict and defend your interests, but at the same time try to cooperate with another person. This style requires more

longer work than most other approaches to conflict, because you first "put on the table" the needs, concerns and interests of both parties, and then discuss them. However, if you have time and solving the problem is important enough for you, then this is a good way to find a mutually beneficial result and satisfy the interests of all.

This style is especially effective when the parties have different hidden needs. The collaborative style encourages

each person to an open discussion of their needs and desires.

You give in a little in your interests to satisfy them in the rest, the other side does the same

most. In other words, you converge on partial satisfaction

his desire and the partial fulfillment of the desire of another person. The compromise style is most effective when you and

the other person wants the same thing, but you know that at the same time it is impossible for you. For example, you both want

take one position or, being on vacation together, you want to spend it differently. Hence, you work out some kind of compromise based on minor give and take. For example, in the case of a joint vacation, you can agree

as follows: "Okay, we will spend part of the holiday in the mountains, and part - on the seashore." Compromise is often successful

retreat or even the last opportunity to come to a decision

The main styles of relations between people in conflict resolution

This type of conflict is perhaps the most common. Interpersonal conflicts can be viewed as a clash of personalities in the process of their relationship. Such clashes can occur in a wide variety of spheres and areas (economic, political, industrial, socio-cultural, domestic, etc.). “Most often it arises due to a shortage of some kind of resources, for example, the presence of one prestigious vacancy with several candidates for it.”

“Interpersonal conflict is understood as an open clash of interacting subjects based on the contradictions that have arisen, acting as opposite goals that are incompatible in a particular situation. Interpersonal conflict is manifested in the interaction between two or more persons. In interpersonal conflicts, subjects confront each other and sort out their relationship directly, face to face.

Interpersonal conflicts arise both between people who meet for the first time and between constantly communicating people. In both cases, an important role in the relationship is played by the personal perception of a partner or opponent. An obstacle to finding agreement between individuals can be a negative attitude that has been formed by one opponent in relation to another. Installation is a readiness, a predisposition of the subject to act in a certain way. This is a certain direction of manifestation of the psyche and behavior of the subject, readiness for the perception of future events. It is formed under the influence of rumors, opinions, judgments about a given individual (group, phenomenon, etc.).

Interacting with other people, a person primarily protects his personal interests, and this is normal. The resulting conflicts are a reaction to obstacles to achieving goals. And on how significant the subject of the conflict seems to be for a particular individual, his conflict setting will largely depend.

Individuals face in interpersonal conflicts, protecting not only their personal interests. They can also represent the interests of individual groups, institutions, organizations, labor collectives, society as a whole. In such interpersonal conflicts, the intensity of the struggle and the possibility of finding compromises are largely determined by the conflict attitudes of those social groups whose representatives are opponents.

“All interpersonal conflicts arising from the clash of goals and interests can be divided into three main types.

The first one presupposes a fundamental clash, in which the realization of the goals and interests of one opponent can be achieved only at the expense of infringing on the interests of another.

The second - affects only the form of relations between people, but at the same time does not infringe on their spiritual, moral and material needs and interests.

The third one is an imaginary contradiction that can be provoked either by false (distorted) information, or by an incorrect interpretation of events and facts.

“Interpersonal conflicts can also be divided into the following types:

rivalry - the desire for dominance;

Any conflict resolution or prevention is aimed at preserving the existing system of interpersonal interaction. However, the source of the conflict may be such reasons that lead to the destruction of the existing system of interaction. In this regard, there are various functions of the conflict: constructive and destructive.

Structural features include:

cognitive (the appearance of a conflict acts as a symptom of dysfunctional relationships and a manifestation of the contradictions that have arisen);

The destructive functions of conflict are associated with

destruction of existing joint activities;

This side of the conflict causes people to have a negative attitude towards them, and they try to avoid them.

In a systematic study of conflicts, the structure and elements are distinguished in them. The elements of interpersonal conflict are: the subjects of the conflict, their personal characteristics, goals and motives, supporters, the cause of the conflict. The structure of the conflict is the relationship between its elements. The conflict is always in development, so its elements and structure are constantly changing. There is a wide range of views on this issue in the literature.

AND I. Antsupov and A.I. Shipilov in the textbook "Conflictology" give a detailed table of the main periods and stages of the dynamics of the conflict. Depending on the degree of tension in relations, they distinguish differentiating and integrating parts of the conflict. The conflict itself consists of three periods:

1. pre-conflict (the emergence of an objective problem situation, awareness of an objective problem situation, attempts to solve the problem in non-conflict ways, pre-conflict situation);

For the emergence of interpersonal conflict, the presence of contradictions (objective or imaginary) is necessary. The contradictions that have arisen due to a discrepancy in the views and assessments of people on a variety of phenomena lead to a situation of dispute. If it poses a threat to one of the participants, then a conflict situation arises.

The conflict situation is characterized by the presence of opposite goals and aspirations of the parties to master one object.

In a conflict situation, the subjects and object of the conflict are identified.

The subjects of interpersonal conflict include those participants who defend their own interests, strive to achieve their goal. They always speak for themselves.

The object of interpersonal conflict is what its participants claim. This is the goal that each of the opposing subjects strives to achieve. For example, a husband or wife claims sole control over the family budget. In this case, the object of disagreement may be the family budget, if the opposing party considers its rights infringed. The subject of the conflict in such a situation are contradictions, in which the opposite interests of the husband and wife are manifested. In the above case, the subject will be the desire of the spouses to master the right to manage the family budget, i.e. the problem of mastering the object, the claims that the subjects present to each other.

Every interpersonal conflict eventually has its resolution. The forms of their resolution depend on the behavioral style of the subjects in the process of conflict development. This part of the conflict is called the emotional side and is considered the most important.

Researchers distinguish the following styles of behavior in interpersonal conflict: confrontation, evasion, adaptation, compromise, cooperation, assertiveness.

Confrontation is a characteristically persistent, uncompromising, cooperation-rejecting defense of one's interests, for which all available means are used.

All of these styles of behavior can be both spontaneous and consciously used to achieve the desired results in resolving interpersonal conflicts. The decisive influence on the choice of a model of behavior in an interpersonal conflict is exerted by the personality itself - its needs, attitudes, habits, way of thinking, style of behavior, its past experience in solving problems and behavior in conflict. A significant role is often played by its internal spiritual contradictions, searches and throwing.

“In an interpersonal conflict, the emotional foundations of its development and attempts to resolve it are distinguished. According to Dan, conflict relations between two interdependent people, in which one of them or both of them feel anger towards the other and believe that it is the other who is to blame, refer to the interpersonal. Boyko emphasizes that from the point of view of the state of interpersonal relationships, the conflict is the destruction of these relationships at the emotional, cognitive or behavioral level.

Used Books.

1. Antsupov A.Ya., Shipilov A.I. Conflictology. – M.: UNITI, 1999.- 591 pages.
2. Bolshakov A.G., Nesmelova M.Yu. Conflictology of organizations. Tutorial. - M.: M3 Press, 2001. - 182 pages.
3. Zaitsev A.K. social conflict. M.: Academia, 2000. - 464 pages.
4. Kozyrev G.I. Conflictology. Interpersonal conflicts. // Social and humanitarian knowledge / № 3, 1999.
5. Ratnikov V.P., Golub V.F. Lushakova G.S. etc. Conflictology: a textbook for universities. - M.: UNITI-DANA, 2002. - 512 pages.

Abstract review prepared by Timur Vodovozov

sites.google.com

11.8. Mediation in conflict resolution

E. G. Sorokina reflects this topic in the manual: “Mediation as one of the forms of conflict resolution is a method of intervention by a neutral third party, the purpose of which is to assist the negotiation process between the main participants in the conflict.

Taking a neutral position between the conflicting parties, the mediator helps them to overcome differences and constructively resolve the conflict, establishing and maintaining communication between the parties.

The purpose of the mediator is to ensure the transition of the parties to the conflict from confrontation, fighting each other and imposing their positions to the realization of their common interests in solving the problem that has arisen and the need to combine their efforts to find this solution. The mediator is needed, in essence, in order to direct the energy of their opposition to the fight against their common problem.

Further, E. G. Sorokina writes: “Mediation is used when the parties are unable to independently find a solution to the problem and reach an agreement during direct negotiations or overcome the impasse that arose during the negotiations.”

It is this situation that is described in one oriental parable about the division of inheritance.

One man had three sons, whom he brought up in hard work and justice. As soon as the son grew up, his father took him to work with him. But the children grew up, and their father grew old. Soon after, his father died, leaving a will. The eldest son received half of the property, the middle son received half of the remaining half, and the youngest son received half of the remaining half.

The children considered that the father acted fairly, since the eldest son worked the most, and the youngest worked the least. However, during the division, it turned out that the entire inheritance of the father was seven camels. The brothers tried to divide them, but nothing worked out for them, they would have to cut almost all the camels. They argued for more than one day, standing on the road and rearranging the poor animals back and forth, and were already hoarse from disputes, when suddenly a traveler riding a camel appeared on the road. Having approached the brothers, he asked them what the dispute was about. They told their story.

The traveler smiled and said: "Take my camel for a while and share it with him." Surprised, they accepted the camel and proceeded to divide. Four of them went to the eldest son, two to the middle and one to the youngest, and the traveler mounted his camel and left.

In this parable, two main ways of resolving the conflict are visible - with and without a mediator. Independent resolution of the conflict failed for several days. The traveler took on the role of mediator. It was he who came up with the wonderful idea of ​​giving his camel to his heirs for the time being.

When the parties are in conflict, their emotional condition, attitudes and involvement in the conflict do not allow them to look at the situation from a different point of view, to see new opportunities for a successful resolution. Often in a conflict, someone else, the mediator, is able to do this. Obviously, it is no coincidence that when we find ourselves in a similar situation, we begin to look for a third party: girlfriends, friends, loved ones. However, it should be remembered that these people themselves may be drawn into the conflict.

Since the tasks of the mediator do not include solving the problem by himself and with his own efforts, he only organizes the process of solving the problem by the participants in the conflict, the methods and techniques of the mediator's work are aimed at creating and maintaining an atmosphere of trust, establishing and implementing agreements on the principles for achieving results and the procedure for discussion, support positive steps and limiting destructive actions, etc. The role of the mediator, who is especially active at the beginning, as the discussion develops effectively, is more and more reduced to only correcting its direction: supporting constructive and suppressing destructive steps of the conflicting parties.

Mediation (according to E. G. Sorokina) is expedient in the following cases :

Relations between the conflicting parties are strained, but in their interest is to maintain and continue relationships. In this case, an agreement between the parties as a result of negotiations with the participation of an intermediary is preferable to an administrative or judicial decision, since the parties retain independence and the right to control the decision-making process. Mediation can not only restore relationships, but also help to create new aspects in the relationship of the parties for their success;

direct communication between the parties is seriously complicated or even terminated, and the participation of a neutral party may contribute to its improvement or the resumption of a direct dialogue between opponents. The involvement of a mediator in resolving a conflict can support their desire for a solution, mainly by facilitating the mutual exchange of proposals and the development of options that meet the interests of both parties;

parties have already made independent attempts resolve the conflict, for example, through direct negotiations. However, they not only did not give a positive result, but also led the parties to a dead end and aggravated the situation. In this case, the mediator can help overcome the stalemate;

Conflicting parties inclined to reconsider their previous positions in relation to the opponent and show readiness to solve the problem. In this case, the initiative of the mediator can help the parties "save face" and develop an acceptable procedure for negotiations and reaching an agreement;

the parties are interested in monitoring the results achieved at each new stage of the conflict resolution procedure and for the final agreement. In this case, an agreement resulting from negotiations and mediation is preferable to an administrative-command decision.

One of the tasks that the mediator must solve is to establishing a special type of relationship with the participants in the conflict. In the emotional aspect, of course, it should be friendly, interested, trustworthy, but neutral attitude.

The feeling of emotional connection and understanding should not be accompanied by the conflicting impression that the mediator has “taken over” their problem or that he sees the situation through their eyes. It is important to make them feel that the mediator, although interested in a positive outcome, is not biased in favor of either side. This requirement for a mediator is enshrined in the principle of balanced, "equal" behavior in relation to all participants in the conflict and ongoing negotiations, which leaves a specific imprint on the nature of his interaction with them.

To maintain a balanced neutral position, the mediator uses special methods of behavior and interaction with negotiators: addressing both conflicting parties in turn, specific wording of questions, an equal amount of time working with each of the negotiators, etc. It must be constantly remembered that the balance achieved in this very fragile and can be broken by any wrong action.

For example, in a joint discussion of a problem, there is a break. Finishing the work, the mediator turns to one of the participants in the dialogue: “I will ask you, please, think about what you could do in this regard?”

The participant in the conflict, to whom these words are addressed, admitted later that he “had a feeling that “they” were at the same time, that they were both putting pressure on me, it seems that because of me we cannot agree.” This feeling arose only because the mediator turned to only one participant in the negotiations, only he “gave instructions”.

According to N.V. Grishina, “another feature of the mediator's work is the need to constantly maintain at the proper level the sense of responsibility of the negotiators themselves for the conflict settlement process. Unlike the counselor and psychotherapist, who may reserve the right to define the space for discussion and change it as the situation changes, the mediator does not. The circle of problems to be discussed and resolved is determined by the parties to the conflict who have addressed it. Another thing is that they themselves, in the process of joint discussion of the problem, can go beyond the initially designated range of issues, but this cannot be done by a mediator. He cannot work with problems that he sees, but for which he did not receive “sanctions” from the client. The intermediary should also not “prompt” clients.

The task of the mediator- identify all existing problems, understand them and formulate them. Here he acts in two roles - a guide, showing what is worth paying attention to, and a stenographer, who captures opinions, seeks to clarify the participants' lack of understanding, summarizes what was said and identifies priorities. In other words, from a huge stream of information, he extracts and writes down short abstracts that can be quickly read and discussed.

E. G. Sorokina drew attention to the following circumstances.

« Time factor. This is an important aspect of the mediation process to which negotiations should be given great attention. The time factor includes:

deadlines for completing negotiations. If the parties realize their responsibility for the failure of negotiations, the time factor can play a serious role in resolving the conflict. To do this, it is necessary to establish time limits within which the parties must reach an agreement. Fixed timeframes are necessary to ensure the purposeful movement of the parties to resolve the conflict;

sequence of questions. The mediator may invite the parties, individually or jointly, to draw up a list of issues for discussion in order of priority. The mediation process should start with the simplest issue and gradually move on to more complex ones. Discussion of difficult issues at the initiative of the mediator can be temporarily postponed and returned to them again at an appropriate moment. Key issues are recommended to be discussed and regulated last. Such a sequence facilitates a general agreement between the parties - after several agreements have been reached, although on less significant issues, it is psychologically easier to reach agreement on key ones;

terms for the parties to submit their proposals. The mediator may suggest that the negotiating parties reconsider their position and put forward a new proposal within a certain time, for example, by the next meeting. This technique can also help to maintain a positive momentum in the negotiations. The mediator can get the parties to reduce their demands if the issue is not resolved by a certain deadline, which in turn can help the parties to overcome the deadlock if it has arisen;

terms of fulfillment by the parties of their obligations. The mediator makes sure that the final agreement includes specific deadlines for its implementation. You can also suggest that the parties establish a “trial” or “control” period, that is, the time during which the parties could evaluate the effectiveness of the agreement reached. Of course, in this case, a criterion for evaluating such efficiency should be developed. For example, how many times within a month from the date of the adoption of the final agreement between the parties again disagreements arose on issues already settled.

Collection of information is one of the key moments in the preparation for mediation. The information collected should, in particular, relate to the subject of the conflict, its causes and stages of development. According to American researchers S. Carpenter and W. Kennedy, the mediator needs such information first of all in order to decide whether his participation in the conflict resolution is necessary. If his help is needed, then the next step should be to collect full information about the conflict on this moment. It can be obtained from three sources: direct observation, secondary sources, personal conversations.

Direct observation - this is visiting meetings and meetings of participants (parties) of the conflict, observing their behavior, finding out their opinions on controversial issues and on the opposite side.

Secondary sources are the minutes of meetings and meetings, tape and video recordings of events, scientific research data on the problem under discussion, newspaper materials, etc.

Private conversations most effective at right choice interlocutor and establishing a relationship of trust with him. The latter depends both on the subjective traits of the participant in the conversation, and on the choice of place and time of the conversation. Initially, it is best to have conversations with people who are not directly involved in the conflict. In this case, the information collector initially forms a more objective point of view on the situation.

The actual mediation process should begin with a proposal for the parties to describe in detail the nature of their differences and the history of their relationship since the start of the conflict. Additional questions to the parties will help the mediator better understand the nature of the conflict. On the initial stage mediation, it is extremely important to obtain the fullest possible information on the issues that will be the subject of discussions between the parties and the mediator.< …>

The lack of information or its different interpretation by the parties can lead to an impasse in negotiations. The advantage of an intermediary is that he has the most complete information» .

In foreign literature, the process of mediation is often called mediation. Distinguished from mediation facilitation. While mediation is usually aimed at finding reasonable compromises, the facilitator seeks to help the parties come to a common understanding of their relationship, clearly define the goals of each, and discover options that suit the interests of all.

Another form of mediation is reconciliation, in which the emphasis is not so much on resolving issues as on the process by which the conflict ends.

A third, neutral party in the negotiation process can play the role of both an intermediary and observer. For example, an observer can only participate in creating the prerequisites for the negotiations themselves.

The mediator, as a rule, participates in the preparation of the agreement. The observer, to a lesser extent than the mediator, is busy looking for a solution. Its function is to keep the parties from violating previously reached agreements or showing a hostile attitude towards each other by the very fact of their presence, which creates more favorable conditions for resolving controversial issues.

A distinction must be made between mediation and arbitration. In the first case, only recommendations are assumed to the parties participating in the conflict or negotiations, in the second - the issuance of a conclusion that may not suit anyone, but which both parties are obliged to follow.

In practice, it is possible to consistently use procedures: first, mediation, and if they did not lead to success, then arbitration.

The mediator must be competent neutral person which enjoys the confidence of the conflicting parties. At the same time, competence is understood as knowledge of both the problem underlying the conflict and the procedural aspects of mediation and negotiation. Neutrality implies that the mediator is not an apologist for any of the parties involved in the conflict. The slightest bias on his part can significantly complicate the situation.

The mediator is only an assistant, he cannot, and should not, make decisions for the participants in the conflict. After analyzing the situation, the mediator proposes ways out of the crisis, acting only as an adviser, whose proposals are advisory in nature. The parties may reject the recommendations without giving reasons, although it is desirable to give such an explanation - the next proposal may have a greater chance of success. It is not the job of the mediator to consider who is to blame for the conflict. The search for the guilty leads, as a rule, to the complication of the conflict situation. Therefore, the main attention of the mediator should be focused on resolving the conflict with the least losses for both parties.