home › Crash Test Auto › Conflict resolution strategy. Strategies for resolving conflict situations Strategies for resolving conflicts

Conflict resolution strategy. Strategies for resolving conflict situations Strategies for resolving conflicts

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

Every conflict has a certain standard pattern of development: the immediate cause leading to a clash is the incompatibility of interests and goals, the discrepancy between positions taken, actions taken and means used. In most cases, participants in conflicts lack mutual understanding, awareness of differences in assessments of differences in the views of the parties, sufficiently complete awareness of both their own desires and plans and the true intentions of opponents, knowledge of how and by what means to achieve their goals without rejecting the interests of other people involved in the conflict.

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

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

In conflictology since the 70s of the XX century. existence recognized the following five styles of conflict behavior: avoidance, accommodation, confrontation, cooperation, compromise. Having described and systematized the characteristics of various styles, the Americans Kenneth Thomas And Ralph Killman proposed when training managers to use a schematic grid, which is named after them. Graphically it is depicted 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 involved in the conflict and on the nature of the actions they take.

Individual

actions

Joint

actions

Implementation

own

interests

CONFRONTATION		COOPERATION
	COMPROMISE

EVASION		DEVICE

Active

actions

Passive

actions

Striving to satisfy

interests of other parties

Rice. 6.1. Styles of behavior in conflicts

stiy. The very style of behavior in a conflict is determined, firstly, by the extent to which one’s own interests (personal or group) are realized 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 what actions are a priority for individuals and social groups - individual or joint.

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

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

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

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

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

Device as a style of passive behavior, it is distinguished by the tendency of the conflict participants to soften, smooth out the conflict situation, maintain or restore harmony in relationships through compliance, trust, and readiness for reconciliation. Unlike evasion, this style involves taking into account the interests of opponents to a greater extent and not avoiding joint actions with them. Typically, the device is given a solution in situations where:

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

The adaptation is applicable to any type of conflict. But, perhaps, this style of behavior is most suitable for conflicts of an organizational nature, in particular along the hierarchical vertical: subordinate - superior, subordinate - boss, etc. In such situations, it is extremely necessary to value the maintenance of mutual understanding, a friendly disposition and an atmosphere of business cooperation, not to give scope to heated polemics, expressions of anger, and especially threats, to be constantly ready to sacrifice one’s own preferences if they are capable of damaging the interests and rights of the opponent.

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

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

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

Confrontation does not at all mean that brute force is necessarily used or that only the power and high rank of the one who achieves the predominance of his opinion and his own interests is relied upon. It is possible that the persistent desire to win the confrontation is based on more convincing arguments, on the ability of one of the opponents to skillfully dramatize his ideas, present them in an effective presentation, in the manner of a catchy challenge.

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

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

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

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

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

Compromise occupies a middle place in the grid of conflict behavior styles. It means the disposition of the conflict participant(s) to resolve disagreements on the basis of mutual concessions and achieve partial satisfaction of their interests. This style equally involves active and passive actions, the application of individual and collective efforts. The compromise style is preferable because it usually blocks the path to hostility and allows, albeit partially, to satisfy the claims of each of the parties involved in the conflict. Compromise is sought in situations where:

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

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

Neustroyeva Olga Viktorovna

To date, experts have developed many different recommendations regarding various aspects of people’s behavior in conflict situations, the selection of appropriate strategies and means of resolving them, as well as their management. To effectively resolve a conflict, it is necessary to coordinate your ideas about the current situation and develop a certain model of behavior in accordance with the current conflict situation.

annotation: The article analyzes models and strategies for resolving conflicts.

Abstract: The article analyzes the models and strategies of conflict resolution.

Keywords: conflict, models, strategies.

Keywords: conflicts, models, strategies.

To effectively resolve a conflict, it is necessary to coordinate your ideas about the current situation and develop a certain model of behavior in accordance with the current conflict situation.

Just like the types of conflicts, the methods for resolving them can be traced to several basic models, although in specific cases, of course, there are many more options for resolving conflicts in the world than there are people. But there is a structure to many of these decisions. By solution is meant that the opponents find a mode in which the contradiction disappears so much that nothing interferes with the capacity of both opponents. To ensure such a mode of newly acquired capacity in the area of the subject of conflict, there are six main models.

Human behavior during conflict turns into a learning process.

The variety of solutions can accordingly be reduced to one of these basic models.

These main models are:

1. Escape

Flight and aggressive behavior to this day represent a kind of swing of motivation. The main disadvantage of “resolving” conflict by running away is, of course, that the learning process is not initiated. A conflict that is constantly “hidden under the rug” has to be dealt with sooner or later.

2. Destruction of the enemy

The advantage of fighting with the goal of destruction is, of course, that the enemy is defeated both quickly and for a long time. Without any doubt, one of the advantages can be called the principle of selection (natural selection). The disadvantage of this type of conflict resolution is mainly that along with the loss of the enemy comes the loss of an alternative, i.e. development is under serious threat. With the destruction strategy, errors are not corrected.

3. Subordination of one to another

The main advantage of resolving conflict through subordination was the possibility of division of labor, namely, division of labor. The main drawback is that the strongest continues to win, and not the one who is really right.

4. Delegation of powers to third authorities

The great advantages of resolving conflicts through delegation include mandatory adherence to general principles (legal obligations), which in turn ensures objectivity, a businesslike approach and competence. The disadvantage of this option for resolving conflict is that the conflicting parties exhibit a lesser degree of individual identification with the solution than if both partners had developed it independently, as well as depriving the conflicting parties of their competence in the conflict.

5. Compromise

Compromise means that partial agreement can be reached in a certain area. But a partial agreement means, of course, partial losses.

6. Consensus

The search for consensus makes sense only in cases where the listed methods: flight, destruction, subordination, delegation of authority and compromise have failed. Two conflicting parties can find a joint solution at the appropriate stage only when they are at the same stage. Consensus is possible only if the other conflict partner or adversary seeks consensus.

When resolving a conflict, it is important to consider both the actions of the participants in the conflict themselves, as well as the actions and role of the mediator, who can be the leader.

The described behavioral model is based on the ideas of D. and R. Johnson, which later became widespread in the work of E. Melibruda. The essence of this model is as follows:

Basically four factors determine effective and constructive conflict resolution:

The conflict must be accepted and perceived adequately;

In case of conflict, communication must be open and effective;

It is important to jointly create an atmosphere of trust and cooperation;

Jointly determine the essence of the conflict.

Acceptance and perception of the adequacy of the conflict is understood as an accurate and devoid of personal hostility attitude towards the participants, an impartial assessment of both one’s own actions, intentions, positions, and the actions, intentions, positions of opponents.

In particular, it is difficult to avoid the influence of a negative attitude towards an opponent who has a biased assessment of the opposing side. In his behavior one feels and sees only hostility. According to E. Melibruda: “This can lead to the so-called self-confirming assumption: assuming that your partner is extremely hostile, you begin to defend against him, going on the offensive. Seeing this, the partner experiences hostility towards us, and our preliminary assumption, although it was incorrect, is immediately confirmed.”

Based on this, it follows that when a conflict situation arises, when resolving it, we should deliberately be as leisurely as possible in our assessments of other people, especially if we are talking about a conflict with them.

Openness and effectiveness of communication between those in conflict is the next factor in constructive conflict resolution. Experts pay attention to such a significant point associated with conflict resolution as an open, unhindered discussion of the problem. In a process in which the parties, without hesitation or holding back emotions, honestly express their understanding of what is happening, but the discussion takes place taking into account ethical and moral standards, they do not become “personal,” but only discuss the disagreements that have arisen. This model of behavior helps to stop all kinds of rumors and omissions that arise. Very often, the open expression of views and feelings lays the foundation for building further trusting relationships between opponents.

At the same time, no matter how acute the clash may be, it must resolutely exclude manifestations of rudeness.

Since openness of communication is not only a violent outpouring of feelings, but also the organization of a constructive search for a solution to a problem, it would be good if each of the opponents could tell the other the following: what I would like to do to resolve the conflict, what reactions I expect from the other, what am I going to do if my partner does not behave as I expect, what consequences do I hope for if an agreement is reached.

If people are ready for dialogue, if they are open to each other, an atmosphere of mutual trust and cooperation is naturally created. In fact, any conflict situation is problematic, and when we talk about its resolution, we assume the resolution of the problematic situation. And since interpersonal conflicts involve at least two people, we must talk about a group solution to the problem, and it inevitably requires the cooperation of the participants in the interaction.

In order to determine the essence of the conflict, the parties to the conflict must agree on their ideas about the current situation and develop a specific strategy of behavior. It is assumed that their actions, being step-by-step in nature, unfold in the following direction:

Step 1: Identify the core problem.

Step 2. Determine the secondary causes of the conflict.

Step 3. Search for possible ways to resolve the conflict.

Step 4. Joint decision to exit the conflict.

At this stage, we are talking about choosing the most appropriate way to resolve the conflict, causing mutual satisfaction among the rivals.

Step 5. Implementation of the planned joint method of resolving the conflict.

Step 6. Assess the effectiveness of efforts made to resolve the conflict.

It should be added that the step-by-step movement of rivals towards resolving the conflict is impossible without the simultaneous action of such elements (factors) of this process as the adequacy of people’s perception of what is happening, the openness of their relations and the presence of an atmosphere of mutual trust and cooperation.

Efforts to resolve a conflict can be made not only by those directly involved in it, but also by some kind of outsiders - mediators. And they sometimes manage to do much more than representatives of the opposing sides. Why is this happening?

After analyzing a number of studies on this issue, American psychologists D. Chertkoff and D. Esser came to the conclusion that in order to resolve a conflict situation, the presence of a mediator is necessary for opponents psychologically. The presence of a mediator allows the conflict participants to avoid excessive emotionality and maintain self-esteem.

Selecting a mediator and determining his terms of reference is a difficult task; M. Ingler offers recommendations regulating the behavior of the conflicting parties and the mediator:

Conflicting parties must view their chosen mediator as representing a fair choice.

The mediator must be a neutral person not involved in the conflict.

The conflicting parties should agree to the presence of a mediator and the use of his recommendations in making the final decision.

A mediator can be most helpful if he listens to the respective views of each party individually.

The main task of the mediator is to collect information and understand the problem, but not to make a decision.

If, due to his official position, the mediator is subordinate to one or both conflicting parties, it is necessary to have guarantees that this circumstance will not currently or in the future affect his actions to resolve the conflict.

The mediator should strive to support each party in expressing their respective views and feelings, and to facilitate the integration of the parties' points of view on the issue under discussion.

The mediator should help the conflicting parties decide where they can concede to each other.

The findings obtained during the literature study led to the conclusion that for effective interaction in society it is necessary to find and apply models and strategies aimed at resolving conflicts that arise as a result of the activities and development of man and society.

From the above, we can conclude that conflicts often arise in human activity and society, for various reasons and occur under different circumstances. There is no one who enjoys conflict, on any level: social, familial or personal. Conflict is an existing reality that we all face. It is necessary to learn how to behave correctly in conflict situations, to avoid and suppress them if possible, this is the basis of relationships. The main thing in resolving a conflict situation is to arm yourself with the knowledge and skills to successfully overcome it, and to have the desire to find a solution beneficial for all participants (opponents). To resolve a conflict situation, it is necessary that all opponents desire to find consensus, with an objective attitude towards each other, without affecting the personal qualities and characteristics of the participants. Conflict resolution is a joint activity of participants aimed at resolving conflicts that have arisen, while finding solutions that would suit all participants. Bibliography.

1. Melibruda E. “I-you-we. Psychological possibilities for improving communication" M, 1986

2. Schwartz G. Managing conflict situations: Diagnostics, analysis and resolution of conflicts / Translation from German L. Kontorova. St. Petersburg: Venus Regena Publishing House, 2007.- 296 p.

Lecture 8. Constructive conflict resolution

Questions: 1. Forms and criteria for ending conflicts

2. Conditions and factors for constructive conflict resolution

3. Logic, strategies and methods of conflict resolution

4. Negotiation process in interpersonal conflict

1. Forms and criteria for ending conflicts

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

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

attenuation

overcoming

suppression

cancellation

self-permission

extinction

settlement

elimination

settlement, etc.

The main forms of ending the conflict:

Ending the conflict

On one's own

opponents

Intervention

third parties

Attenuation

conflict

Permission

conflict

Settlement

conflict

Elimination

conflict

A loss

motive for

fight

negotiation

Cooperation

Translation of one

or both

opponents

to another

place of work (dismissal)

Reorientation

motive

Compromise

Concessions to one

from the sides

Seizure

object

conflict

Exhaustion

resources,

Elimination

deficit

object

conflict

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

n Settlement- a third party takes part in eliminating contradictions

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

Reasons for attenuation:

1. depletion of resources on both sides

2. loss of motivation to fight

3. reorientation of motive

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

Remedy:

1. removal of one of the opponents from the conflict

2. eliminating interaction between opponents for a long time

3. object elimination

4. elimination of object deficiency

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

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

n eliminating one or both sides

n suspension of the conflict

n victory of one of the sides

n division of the conflict object

n agreement on the rules for sharing the object

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

n refusal of both parties to encroach

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

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

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

2. Conditions and factors for constructive conflict resolution

Conditions:

n Stopping conflict interactions

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

n reducing the intensity of negative emotions

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

n an objective view of the problem

n taking into account each other's statuses

n choosing the optimal resolution strategy

Factors:

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

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

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

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

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

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

3.Strategies and methods for resolving conflict

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

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

Object of conflict

Opponent

Own position

Reasons and immediate cause

Social environment

Secondary reflection

2. Forecasting a solution option:

Most favorable

Least favorable

What happens if you just stop doing it?

3. Actions to implement the planned plan

4. Plan correction

5. Monitoring the effectiveness of actions

6. Assessing the results of the conflict

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

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

One-way winning;

One-sided loss;

Mutual loss;

Win-win.

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

Win-lose

Lose-win

Lose-lose

Win-win

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

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

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

- Other subjects of social interaction located in the conflict zone

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

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

Strategy type	Strategic Goals	Factors of strategy
Win-lose	Winning at the expense of your opponent's loss	Subject of the conflict; the image of the conflict situation is inflated; support for the conflictant in the form of incitement from participants in social interaction; conflict personality
Lose-win	Avoiding conflict, yielding to an opponent	Subject of the conflict; the image of the conflict situation is understated; intimidation in the form of threats, bluffs, etc.; low volitional qualities, conformist personality type
Lose-lose	Self-sacrifice for the death of the enemy	Subject of the conflict; the image of the conflict situation is inadequate; personality of those in conflict (natural or situational aggressiveness); lack of vision of other options for solving problems
Win-win	Achieving mutually beneficial agreements	Subject of the conflict; the image of the conflict situation is adequate; the presence of favorable conditions for constructive resolution of the problem

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

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

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

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

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

n reduced agreements

n ground for tricks

n deterioration of relations

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

n separating people from the problem

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

n offer mutually beneficial options

n use objective criteria.

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

4. Negotiation process in interpersonal conflict

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

The most common:

- taking individual phrases out of context

- avoiding the topic of conversation

Hints

Flattery

- ridiculing jokes

- prediction of dire consequences.

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

- imitation of problem solving

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

- Socratic questions (first “yes” technique)

- delaying the decision, etc.

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

Behavior	Expected reaction	Method of counteraction
Pathetic request to “get into position”	Evoke favor and generosity	Don't make any commitments
Creating the appearance that the opponent’s position is too complex and incomprehensible	Forcing a partner to reveal more information than he needs	Ask about what is unclear
Portrayal of a business partner, presentation of existing problems as unimportant, side issues	Show that you are a wise and experienced person who should not make life difficult for others	Firmly point out that there are many obstacles to solving problems
Posture 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 an opponent:

Behavior	Expected reaction	Method of counteraction
Indication of possible criticism of the opponent's actions from his clients or the public	Awakening feelings of danger and uncertainty	Express outrage that the other side stoops to such methods
Constant display of stubbornness, self-confidence	Force your opponent to be a supplicant by showing him that his methods are not successful	Be skeptical of the other side, do not lose confidence in yourself
Constantly emphasizing that the opponent’s arguments do not stand up to criticism	Awaken a feeling of powerlessness, an attitude that other arguments will be untenable	Politely say that the other party did not understand you correctly
Constantly asked rhetorical questions regarding the opponent’s behavior or argumentation	Generate a tendency for the opponent to respond in the expected way, or not to respond at all due to a feeling of powerlessness	Do not answer questions, unobtrusively note that the other side does not formulate the problem entirely correctly
Showing oneself as “nice and mean”, that is, demonstrating friendliness and at the same time constant indignation	Create uncertainty, disorient and frighten the opponent	Treat both friendliness and indignation from your opponent with coolness.
The desire to show that the opponent’s dependence is much greater than it actually is		Continue to ask critical questions and respond with demonstrated composure

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

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

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

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

Manipulation haunts, as a rule. Hierarchical goals and 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 a conflict.

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

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

Object of conflict

Opponent

Own position

Reasons and immediate cause

Social environment

Secondary reflection

2. Forecasting a solution option:

Most favorable

Least favorable

What happens if you just stop doing it?

3. Actions to implement the planned plan

4. Plan correction

5. Monitoring the effectiveness of actions

6. Assessing the results of the conflict

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

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

¾ One-way winning;

¾ One-sided loss;

¾ Mutual loss;

¾ Win-win.

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

¾ Win-lose

¾ Lose-win

¾ Lose-lose

¾ Win-win

Personal qualities of the conflicting person, his thinking, experience, character, temperament,

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

Other subjects of social interaction located in the conflict zone

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

Strategy type	Strategic Goals	Factors of strategy
Win-lose	Winning at the expense of your opponent's loss	Subject of the conflict; the image of the conflict situation is inflated; support for the conflictant in the form of incitement from participants in social interaction; conflict personality
Lose-win	Avoiding conflict, yielding to an opponent	Subject of the conflict; the image of the conflict situation is understated; intimidation in the form of threats, bluffs, etc.; low volitional qualities, conformist personality type
Lose-lose	Self-sacrifice for the death of the enemy	Subject of the conflict; the image of the conflict situation is inadequate; personality of those in conflict (natural or situational aggressiveness); lack of vision of other options for solving problems
Win-win	Achieving mutually beneficial agreements	Subject of the conflict; the image of the conflict situation is adequate; the presence of favorable conditions for constructive resolution of the problem

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

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

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

¾ reduced agreements

¾ soil for tricks

¾ deterioration of relations

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

¾ separating people from the problem

¾ attention to interests, not positions: ask “why?” and “why not?”

¾ offer mutually beneficial options

¾ use objective criteria.

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

IV. Negotiation process in interpersonal conflict

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

Taking individual phrases out of context

Avoiding the topic of conversation

Jokes and ridicule

Prediction of dire consequences.

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

Simulating a problem solution

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

Socratic questions (first yes technique)

Delaying a decision, etc.

Behavior	Expected reaction	Method of counteraction
Pathetic request to “get into position”	Evoke favor and generosity	Don't make any commitments
Creating the appearance that the opponent’s position is too complex and incomprehensible	Forcing a partner to reveal more information than he needs	Ask about what is unclear
Portrayal of a business partner, presentation of existing problems as unimportant, side issues	Show that you are a wise and experienced person who should not make life difficult for others	Firmly point out that there are many obstacles to solving problems
Posture 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 an opponent:

Behavior	Expected reaction	Method of counteraction
Indication of possible criticism of the opponent's actions from his clients or the public	Awakening feelings of danger and uncertainty	Express outrage that the other side stoops to such methods
Constant display of stubbornness, self-confidence	Force your opponent to be a supplicant by showing him that his methods are not successful	Be skeptical of the other side, do not lose confidence in yourself
Constantly emphasizing that the opponent’s arguments do not stand up to criticism	Awaken a feeling of powerlessness, an attitude that other arguments will be untenable	Politely say that the other party did not understand you correctly
Constantly asked rhetorical questions regarding the opponent’s behavior or argumentation	Generate a tendency for the opponent to respond in the expected way, or not to respond at all due to a feeling of powerlessness	Do not answer questions, unobtrusively note that the other side does not formulate the problem entirely correctly
Showing oneself as “nice and mean”, that is, demonstrating friendliness and at the same time constant indignation	Create uncertainty, disorient and frighten the opponent	Treat both friendliness and indignation from your opponent with coolness.
The desire to show that the opponent’s dependence is much greater than it actually is	Gain authority and make the opponent doubt himself so much that he is unable to maintain his position	Continue to ask critical questions and respond with demonstrated composure

Manipulation haunts, as a rule. Hierarchical goals and 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 a conflict.

Finding himself in a conflict situation, a person chooses, often unconsciously,one of five behavioral strategies:avoidance or withdrawal; device; rivalry or competition; compromise; cooperation.

Choices are often made based on past experiences. But the experience of conflict resolution in childhood does not always apply to new situations.

If as a child you had to shout or stomp your feet in order for your parents to listen to your opinion, then this is unlikely to be suitable when arguing with colleagues. And when you were scolded, did you go to your room offended or get into a heated argument?

When meeting with an irritated, aggressive patient, a stereotype may come into play. When you are in a conflict situation, to effectively solve the problem you need to consciously choose a behavior strategy. In this case, of course, you should take into account your own style, the strategy of others involved in the conflict, as well as the nature of the conflict itself.

Avoidance - this is behavior in a conflict situation, which is expressed by self-elimination, ignoring or actual denial of the conflict.

Forms of withdrawal can be different: you remain silent, turning off from the discussion of the issue, demonstratively withdraw from negotiations, or leave offended with a complete refusal of further friendly and business relations with the conflicting party, making sarcastic remarks about the opposition.

nents behind “their backs”.

The reason for choosing this strategy may be: lack of confidence in yourself and your strengths, fear of losing; uncertainty of one’s own position on this conflict issue; the desire to gain additional time for serious preparation for participation in the conflict; lack of authority, time.

If you choose avoidance as your behavioral strategy, then you will save time and nerve cells 11, but you may lose further influence on the course of events. The conflict will either be resolved without taking into account your interests, or it will not be resolved and will grow And deepen.

However, in a situation that does not directly affect your interests, leaving can be useful. It is likely that if you try to ignore the conflict and not express your attitude towards it, the problem will solve itself. If not, you can do it later when you are ready for it.

Device - this is behavior manifested in changing actions and attitudes under real or imagined pressure from the opposite side, compliance with someone else’s opinion to the detriment of one’s own interests.

It looks like this. You pretend that everything is in order, even if something really hurts you, you prefer to put up with what is happening so as not to spoil the relationship: first you silently agree, and then you hatch a plan for revenge or try to find workarounds to achieve your goal.

An adaptation strategy is resorted to if the conflict situation does not affect vital values; maintaining relationships is more important than defending your interests; awareness that the opponent is right; there are more important interests at the moment; the other has more power; believe that the other person can learn a useful lesson from this situation; can achieve their goal in a roundabout way.

Accommodation, smoothing over conflict, can be a smart tactic if arguing over minor differences could ruin a relationship. There are times when conflicts resolve themselves due to the fact that people continue to maintain friendly relations. But in a situation of serious conflict, the adaptation strategy interferes with the resolution of the controversial issue, since it does not resolve the situation and does not allow your partner to know the real reason for your dissatisfaction.

This style is best used when you feel that by giving in a little, you are losing little. If you believe that you are inferior in something important to yourself and feel dissatisfaction due to this, then in this case the adaptation strategy is unacceptable. It is also not suitable if you see that the other person will not appreciate what you have done and is not going to give up something in turn.

The coping strategy is a bit like withdrawal in that it can be used to delay and resolve a problem. The main difference is that you act together with the other person, participate in the situation and agree to do what the other wants.

When you choose an avoidance strategy, you do nothing to satisfy the interests of the other person. You simply push the problem away from yourself, walk away from it.

Rivalry or competition - characterized by strong personal involvement in the fight, activation of all your potential capabilities while ignoring the interests of your opponent.

The basic principle of this strategy is: “For me to win, you must lose.”

Rivalry is manifested by the fact that you or your partner strive at all costs to prove that you are right, resort to putting pressure on your opponent, try to convince him, shout him down, use physical force, and demand unconditional consent and obedience.

The reasons for a person’s choice of this strategy can be very different: the need to protect one’s interests: life, family, well-being, image, etc.; desire to establish priority in the team; desire for leadership; distrust of people in general, including opponents; egocentrism, inability to look at a problem from a different point of view; a critical situation that requires immediate resolution.

This strategy makes sense if you are taking control in order to protect people from violence or reckless behavior. This can be effective when you have some power and know that your decision in a given situation is the most correct and you have the opportunity to insist on it.

When you use this approach, your popularity may fall, but you will gain supporters if you get positive results quickly. However, this strategy rarely brings long-term results - the losing party may not support a decision made against its will.

Compromise - This is the resolution of a conflict situation through mutual concessions. Each side reduces the level of its claims. Both opponents are looking for a fair outcome to the conflict situation from the very beginning. The reasons for choosing a compromise solution are usually: the desire for at least a partial gain; recognition of the values and interests of other people, as well as one’s own, the desire to be objective; when negotiations have reached a dead end and compromise is the only way out.

Choosing a compromise strategy can be useful in a situation where both parties have equal power and have mutually exclusive interests. Compromise is sometimes the last opportunity to come to some kind of solution that will allow you to save the relationship and get at least something.

This approach implies that each participant has achieved something. But if a compromise was reached without careful analysis of other possible solutions or on insufficiently equal terms, it will not be the most optimal outcome of the negotiations. Neither party will adhere to a solution that does not satisfy its needs.

Cooperation - This is a strategy of behavior in which the first place is not the solution to a specific conflict situation, but the satisfaction of the interests of all its participants.

A cooperation strategy will be most effective if: solving the problem is very important for both parties, and no one wants to completely distance themselves from it; the conflicting parties have long-term and interdependent relationships; there is time to work on the problem that has arisen; the parties are able to outline the essence of their interests and listen to each other; the parties to the conflict have equal power or want to ignore the difference in position in order to seek a solution to the problem as equals.

The goal of cooperation is to develop a long-term mutually beneficial solution. Sometimes cooperation looks like compromise or accommodation. This happens when, as a result of a discussion, you change your original position and partially or completely yield to your partner. This happens not because he turned out to be stronger than you or more right, but because you found another, more optimal solution to your problems.

Cooperation does not always lead to success, but if you begin to resolve a conflict situation in this way, you will most likely achieve more.

Popular in the category: