Styles of behavior in conflict
Researchers identify the following styles of behavior in interpersonal conflict: confrontation, evasion, adaptation, compromise, cooperation, assertiveness.
1) Confrontation is a characteristically persistent, uncompromising defense of one’s interests that rejects cooperation, for which all available means are used.
2) Avoidance - associated with an attempt to avoid the conflict, not to attach great value to it, possibly due to the lack of conditions for its resolution.
3) Adaptation - presupposes the subject’s willingness to sacrifice his interests in order to maintain relationships that are placed above the subject and object of disagreement.
4) Compromise - requires concessions on both sides to the extent that through mutual concessions an acceptable solution is found for the opposing parties.
5) Cooperation - involves the parties coming together to solve a problem. With such behavior, different views on the problem are considered legitimate. This position makes it possible to understand the causes of disagreements and find a way out of the crisis that is acceptable to the opposing parties without infringing on the interests of each of them.
6) Assertive behavior (from the English assert - to assert, to defend). This behavior presupposes a person’s ability to defend his interests and achieve his goals without infringing on the interests of other people. It is aimed at ensuring that the realization of one’s own interests is a condition for the realization of the interests of interacting subjects. Assertiveness is an attentive attitude towards both yourself and your partner. Assertive behavior prevents the emergence of conflicts, and in a conflict situation helps to find the right way out of it. At the same time, the greatest effectiveness is achieved when one assertive person interacts with another similar person.
All of these styles of behavior can be either spontaneous or consciously used to achieve the desired results when resolving interpersonal conflicts.
People's behavior in the occurrence of interpersonal conflicts and in their resolution is significantly influenced by differences in the types of people, which must be taken into account when trying to prevent conflicts and resolve them. Personality characteristics are manifested in its temperament, character and level of personal development.
1. Temperament is given to a person at birth and determines the speed, pace, intensity and rhythm of a person’s mental processes and states. Classification of types of temperaments carried out by Hippocrates back in the 5th century. BC, has not undergone significant changes to this day. The behavior of sanguine people is characterized by mobility, a tendency to change impressions, responsiveness, and sociability; the behavior of phlegmatic people - slowness, stability, isolation, weak external expression of emotions, logic in judgments; behavior of choleric people - openness, sudden mood swings, instability, violent reactions; melancholics - instability, slight vulnerability, unsociability, deep emotional experiences.
Temperament has a significant impact on human behavior in interpersonal conflicts. For example, a choleric person is easy to involve in a conflict situation, while a phlegmatic person, on the contrary, is difficult to lose his temper.
2. The typology of human character traits was first developed by C. G. Jung. Later, it was studied by K. Briggs and I. Myers, who published the “Myers-Briggs Type Indicator,” with the help of which anyone interested can determine their character preferences. This typology identifies four pairs of opposing preferences:
Extroverts - Introverts
Sensory - Intuitive
Thinking - Feeling
Deciders - Perceivers
Each character type corresponds to four of the given preferences. Thus, there are sixteen character types in total. Character is formed due to the asymmetry of the left and right hemispheres of the brain by the age of seven and does not change radically throughout life. The right hemisphere forms emotions and subconscious activities, the left - logical and rational activities. Therefore, extroverts never become introverts, and vice versa. Just as left-handed people never become right-handed, although they can learn to use their other hand more effectively.
3. Despite the fact that temperament and character have a significant impact on the motivation of people’s behavior in the emergence and resolution of conflicts, their reaction to external stimuli is of a more complex nature. The final decision on action is made by the individual. The level of personal development is another important factor influencing the occurrence of interpersonal conflict.
The personality develops and improves in the process of its socialization, active assimilation and reproduction of social experience. A person has to adjust his actions in accordance with generally accepted norms and rules of behavior of others. To do this, manifestations of your temperament and character must be kept under constant control. When a person copes with this task, he has less friction with others. Problems arise when a person’s behavior is determined only by temperament and character traits, and the individual does not participate in this process, or is not able to “control himself.”
E. Shostrom in his concept divides all people into manipulators and actualizers. Manipulators are people who do not trust anyone, including themselves. Their actions are permeated by lies (falsity, fraud), unawareness (apathy, boredom), control (isolation, intentionality) and cynicism (unbelief). Manipulators are always potentially conflicting.
The opposite of manipulators are actualizers. They are characterized by honesty (transparency, sincerity, authenticity), awareness (responsiveness, vitality, interest), freedom (spontaneity, openness), trust (faith, conviction). They have deep faith in others and themselves. Actualizers have fewer problems with others, and it is easier to resolve conflicts with them.
D. Rotter divides all people into externals and internals. Externalists believe that everything that happens to them is the result of external forces, circumstances, chance, other people, etc. They tend to blame others for their failures, which is fraught with conflict situations when interacting with people. Internals believe that everything that happens to them is the result of their own efforts. They blame only themselves for all their own failures. They have an active life position, independence, responsibility for their actions, and interpersonal conflicts are unacceptable for them.
K. Leonhard developed a typology of accentuated personalities. He showed that people with an exaggerated development of certain character traits are characterized by behavior that differs from the norm, but has not yet turned into pathology. Some of the accentuations are very fertile ground for conflict situations to arise. For example, hysterical (demonstrative) accentuation is the desire to attract attention to oneself at any cost (tears, fainting, scandals, illness, boasting, a tendency to deceit and fantasy, lack of remorse, a tendency to unusual hobbies).
An in-depth understanding of the manifestations of temperament, character type, and personality traits provides a real opportunity to prevent and prevent interpersonal conflicts, to resolve them constructively, as well as to create an atmosphere of favorable interaction.
The styles and methods of behavior in conflict situations are quite diverse, as are the methods of conflict management. When we find ourselves in a conflict situation, we can choose different ways of behavior.
If saying the right word at the right moment is a great art, then remaining silent at the right time is an even greater art.
Francois de La Rochefoucauld
Download:
Preview:
Styles of behavior in conflict situations
In real life, it is not so easy to find out the true cause of the conflict and find an adequate way to resolve it.
Each of us is interested in the conflict being overcome (exhausted, suppressed or terminated) as quickly as possible.
This can be achieved both through the efforts of the opponents themselves (unilateral, coordinated or joint), or with the active participation of a third party (intermediary).
It is legitimate to talk about three models of behavior of conflict participants:
Destructive, focused on achieving personal advantages;
Conformal, associated with unilateral or mutual concessions (not to be confused with non-participation or passive resistance);
constructive, involving a joint search for a solution beneficial to everyone.
For the first time, the classification of behavioral styles in conflicts was proposed by R. Blake and J. Mouton (1964), identifying five types of behavior: coercion, withdrawal, smoothing, compromise and problem solving. Subsequently, this scheme was modernized by K. Thomas. In this regard, interesting are the studies of K.U. Thomas and R.H. Kilmenna.
1.The most typical style is competition , i.e. the desire for one-sided gain, satisfaction first of all of one’s own interests. From this stems the desire to put pressure on a partner, to impose one’s interests, using power through coercion.
This style can be effective if the manager has great power over subordinates, must make an unpopular decision and has enough authority to choose this step; interacts with subordinates who prefer an authoritarian style. However, educated staff may resent this style. This strategy rarely brings long-term results, since the losing party may not support a decision made against its will, or even try to sabotage it.
2.The essence of compromise style lies in the fact that the parties try to resolve differences by making mutual concessions. The ability to compromise is highly valued in management situations, as it minimizes hostility, which often makes it possible to quickly resolve the conflict, leading to the satisfaction of both parties.
However, using compromise early in a conflict over an important issue can reduce the search for alternatives, which in turn increases the likelihood of making the wrong decision. The disadvantage of this style is that one of the parties may exaggerate its demands in order to later appear generous or give in before the other. The compromise style can be used in the following situations:
Both sides have equally binding arguments and have equal power; Satisfying the desires of one of the parties does not matter too much to her; A temporary solution is possible, since there is no time to develop another; or other approaches to solving the problem turned out to be ineffective; Compromise will allow you to gain at least something rather than lose everything.
3.Fixture style means that one of the parties is not trying to defend its own interests in order to smooth out the atmosphere and restore a normal working environment. The most typical situations in which this style is applicable are the following: The most important task is to restore calm and stability, and not resolve the conflict; The subject of the disagreement is not important to one of the participants; Good relations are preferable to one's own point of view; The participant does not have enough chances to win.
It should also be remembered that with this style, as a result of "forgetting" the problem underlying the conflict, peace and quiet may occur, but the problem will remain, and ultimately an "explosion" may occur.
4. Ignoring or avoiding. Typically, this style is chosen if the conflict does not affect the direct interests of the parties or the problem that has arisen is not so important for the parties and they do not need to defend their rights and waste time on solving it. The style is also applicable when dealing with a conflicted personality. The conflicting party uses an evasive style if it:
1) believes that the source of disagreement is insignificant compared to other more important tasks;
2) knows that he cannot or even does not want to resolve the issue in his favor;
3) has little power to solve the problem in the way she desires, and subordinates can resolve the conflict themselves
4) wants to buy time to study the situation and obtain additional information before making any decision;
5) believes that solving the problem immediately is dangerous, since open discussion of the conflict can only worsen the situation;
6) when the conflict involves people who are difficult from the point of view of communication - rude people, complainers, whiners, etc.
If the causes of the conflict are subjective, this strategy is favorable. It makes it possible to calm down, comprehend the situation and come to the conclusion that there is no basis for confrontation, and maintain good relations in the future. If the conflict is objective, then this strategy leads to the loss of the participants, since time drags on, and the reasons that caused it not only persist, but can also get worse. But maintaining the situation for a long time can lead participants to seek psychological release, for example, to aggression against strangers.
5.Collaboration style . This is the most difficult of all styles, but at the same time the most effective in resolving conflict situations. This is a joint development of a solution that satisfies the interests of both parties. In the process, joint experience and broad information are acquired for subsequent integration, and an atmosphere of cooperation is created. The parties acknowledge differences of opinion and are willing to engage with other points of view in order to understand the causes of the conflict and find a course of action acceptable to all. Someone who uses this style does not try to achieve their goal at the expense of others, but rather looks for the best solution.
It has been found that where both parties win, they are more likely to implement the decisions made, since they are acceptable to them and both parties took part in the entire conflict resolution process.
To resolve conflict, this style can be used in the following cases:
1) if each of the approaches to the problem is important and does not allow compromise solutions, however, it is necessary to find a common solution;
2) the main goal is to gain joint work experience; the parties are able to listen to each other and outline the essence of their interests;
3) there are long-term, strong and interdependent relationships with the conflicting party;
4) it is necessary to integrate points of view and strengthen the personal involvement of employees in activities.
6. If the rank of an interested opponent turns out to be higher, he tries to use it to resolve the conflict in his favorforce strategy. In this case, the weaker party is the loser (“accommodating the deadlock”). The use of such a strategy is often accompanied by intimidation, blackmail, disinformation, provocations, etc. If this makes it possible to secure a profitable or at least a non-losing position, we are talking about reflexive defense. If the other side manages to force a decision that is unfavorable for it in this way, we are talking about reflexive conflict management.
Since the losing side usually does not accept defeat, the conflict at any moment can flare up with renewed vigor and no one knows how it will end. Thus, if one opponent loses, there can be no gain for the other in the long run.
But more often, conflicts do not “resolve themselves,” and if ignored, they grow and can destroy the team. Therefore, you often have to take the situation into your own hands, develop and implement options for managing them.
To do this, you can use conflict prevention and resolution strategies (the latter, depending on the situation, is implemented in two ways - coercion and persuasion).
7." Conflict Prevention Strategyis a set of activities mainly of an organizational and explanatory nature."
We can talk about improving working conditions, fair distribution of resources, remuneration, changing the structure of the organization, its management system, introducing additional integration and coordination mechanisms, ensuring strict adherence to the rules of internal life, traditions, norms of behavior, and work ethics.
8. " Strategy for overcoming conflictis aimed at forcing or persuading the conflicting parties to stop hostile actions and, by starting negotiations among themselves, to find an acceptable solution that not only excludes someone's defeat, but also indicates the direction of mobilization of social energy."
By implementing a strategy to overcome the conflict, the participant in the conflict masters the situation, shows the impossibility of achieving the desired goals through the conflict, finds out the reasons for its occurrence, boundaries, positions of the parties (what they insist on), interests (what the parties want to achieve in the end), what they have in common and together with the participants tries to find a way out of the current situation, at least on the basis of a compromise. If the parties do not want to follow reasonable arguments, the manager applies administrative measures. More specific methods are used to combat intrigue. For example, those involved in intrigues are threatened with public exposure, but at the same time they are encouraged to solve the problems that push them to such actions.
None of the styles considered can be called the best. Each of them should be used effectively and, taking into account specific circumstances, consciously make a choice in favor of one style or another.
In 1985, M. Rahim proposed a classification of conflict resolution styles, which is considered classic in the psychological literature.
“Self-orientation” means the degree to which a person strives to satisfy his own interests and needs.
“Other orientation” refers to the degree of desire or predisposition to meet the needs and expectations of others.
The combination of these parameters allows you to obtain the following conflict resolution styles:
1 Cooperation - high orientation towards oneself and others. Involves openness, sharing information, clarifying and testing differences to achieve an effective solution that is acceptable to both parties.
2 Compliance (smoothing) - low orientation towards oneself and high orientation towards others. Involves attempts to downplay differences and emphasize commonalities and similarities in order to satisfy the needs of others while neglecting one's own interests.
3 Dominance (confrontation) - high orientation towards oneself and low - towards others. It assumes an orientation towards the “forceful” method of solving problems.
4 Avoidance - low orientation towards oneself and others. It involves moving aside, removing oneself (psychologically or physically) from a conflict situation.
5 Compromise - average orientation towards oneself and others. Includes tactics like “you tell me - I tell you”, i.e. both sides have something to lose in order to reach a mutually acceptable solution. It should be noted that the choice of conflict resolution style is determined by the type of specific situation. Our behavior often depends on the characteristics of the conflict situation, on who our opponent is in the conflict. So, if contradictions are not of particular importance to us (“It is not so important for me which room to conduct the lesson in”), we can use the strategy of compliance or avoidance. If the object of the conflict is of particular importance, use the strategy of dominance or compromise (“I cannot teach a lesson in another classroom, since only this class has the equipment necessary for me” or “I agree to teach the first lesson in a neighboring class, but in the second lesson I ask You should go to another office"). The dependence of the choice of behavior style on the conflict situation was established in a study that was conducted with students in grades 7–9.
It was found that adolescents prefer to use compromise as a way to resolve conflict, but their behavior changes depending on who their opponents are in the conflict.
For example, in the case of family conflicts, they prefer to use avoidance, trying to get away from the conflict with their parents. In the case of conflict communication at school, the behavior of adolescents becomes more diverse, and in addition to compromise and avoidance, they begin to actively use competition (dominance) and cooperation (about equally often). When in conflict with peers, adolescents resort to behavioral styles such as cooperation and accommodation (compliance).
The identified behavioral features are also typical for adults. Thus, in conflicts with administration representatives (vertical conflicts), strategies such as compliance or avoidance are more often used.
Lesson in 8th grade. When checking homework, the teacher calls the same student three times. All three times the boy responded with silence, although he usually did well in this subject. The result is “2” in the log. The next day, the survey begins again with that student. And when he again did not answer, the teacher removed him from the lesson. The same story repeated itself in the next two classes, followed by absenteeism and calling parents to school. But the parents expressed dissatisfaction with the teacher that he could not find an approach to their son. The teacher responded by complaining to the parents that they were not paying enough attention to their son. The conversation continued in the director's office.
Determine the behavioral styles of the participants in this conflict situation.
1. What style of behavior characterizes a teacher? Parents?
2. What style of behavior does the student demonstrate?
3. Which conflict resolution style, in your opinion, is most effective in this situation?
Cooperation, according to most researchers of conflict behavior, is considered the most effective way of behavior in conflict, since its use can reduce the likelihood of destructive development of the conflict.
Using a collaborative style can help reduce the negative factors that manifest themselves in conflict interactions.
Let's take a closer look at these factors.
Competition procedures.
Conflicting parties, as a rule, compete with each other because they believe that their goals do not coincide and are contradictory. As a result of cooperation, the desire is assumed not only to defend one’s point of view, but also to understand the opinion of the opponent. You can often find that the interests and goals of the parties are not so different, but have a lot in common, which can become the basis for finding a way out of a conflict situation.
So, for example, in a conflict situation “teacher - parents”, which may arise due to a student’s school failure, representatives of both parties may believe that their interests and goals are different and contradict each other. Whereas in fact, both parties are interested in one thing - increasing the student’s performance. Distorted perceptions and biases. In a situation of conflict, our perception of the world is distorted. The world around us is perceived in accordance with the prospects for the development of the conflict: we tend to evaluate all people and events as being on our side (“for us”) or on the other side (“against us”).
Thinking often becomes stereotypical and biased; we positively evaluate those who share our point of view and reject the opinions of those who do not share our position.
The collaborative style presupposes a trusting, positive attitude towards others, the desire to hear their point of view, and not just defend one’s own.
Emotionality.
Conflicts tend to be emotionally charged in a negative way as the parties begin to experience anxiety, irritation, frustration or anger. Flowing in the form of affect, emotions begin to prevail over reason. Cooperation presupposes an orientation towards awareness and understanding of both one’s own interests and the position of the opponent, which strengthens the activity of the mind, which begins to control emotions.
Anger is a negative emotional state that occurs in the form of affect and is caused by the sudden occurrence of an obstacle to the satisfaction of an important need for a person.
Affect is an intense, rapidly flowing short-term emotional state that completely captures a person and he ceases to control himself and may not even be aware of what he is doing.
Reduced communications.
A conflict situation can lead to communication and interaction between the parties deteriorating and declining: “Leave me alone! I do not want to talk to you!". The parties stop communicating with those who disagree with them. Interaction between opponents typically consists of attempts to defeat, belittle, expose the other side's positions, and add weight to their arguments. Cooperation, on the contrary, involves active interaction, discussion of possible solutions, which involves more frequent and intensive communication: “Let's talk, discuss the contradiction that has arisen.”
Deterioration of understanding of the main issue of the conflict.
Important points in the dispute become less clear. Generalizations emerge and new controversial issues begin to emerge as the conflict, like a whirlpool, begins to attract both other controversial issues and “innocent” outsiders: “You behave just like your father!” The parties to the conflict cease to be aware of what it really consists of or what could resolve it. Cooperation presupposes a clear awareness of one’s own interests in a conflict and following them, which prevents being drawn into the discussion of issues that are not related to them.
Rigid preferences (fixation on positions).
Participants in the conflict become hostages of their positions. Thinking becomes simplified and operates according to the “either-or” scheme (the phenomenon of “black and white” thinking). During cooperation, different opinions are discussed and have the right to “be heard.” When using a collaborative style, thinking becomes “cross-cutting,” more creative, as it embraces possible alternatives for solving a problem that could satisfy the interests of both parties.
Exaggerating differences, minimizing similarities. Because the parties become hostage to their positions, they tend to view each other and their positions as completely opposite, when in reality this may not be the case. Dividing factors begin to be exaggerated, while similarities and commonalities are underestimated. And, as a result, the conflicting parties concentrate their efforts on winning the conflict at the expense of the other side, rather than trying to find common ground for its resolution. Cooperation, on the contrary, means interaction in which achieving the goals of some participants is possible only by ensuring the interests and aspirations of its other participants. Thus, we can say that the use of a collaborative style is the most constructive in resolving conflicts that have arisen.
* * *
The ability to distinguish the important from the secondary. It would seem that it could be simpler, but life shows that it is quite difficult to do this. Almost nothing except intuition can help a person. It is necessary to analyze conflict situations, the motives of your behavior, if you try to understand what is really a “matter of life and death” and what is simply your own ambitions, and learn to discard the unimportant.
Inner peace. This is a principle of attitude towards life that does not exclude a person’s energy and activity. On the contrary, it allows you to become even more active, to react sensitively to the slightest nuances of events and problems, without losing composure even at critical moments. Inner peace is a kind of protection from all unpleasant life situations; it allows a person to choose the appropriate form of behavior;
Emotional maturity and stability are essentially the ability and readiness to act worthy in any life situations;
Knowledge of how to influence events, meaning the ability to stop oneself and not “pressure” or, conversely, speed up an event in order to “control the situation” and be able to adequately respond to it;
The ability to approach a problem from different points of view, due to the fact that the same event can be assessed differently, depending on the position taken. If you consider the conflict from the position of your “I,” there will be one assessment, but if you try to look at the same situation from the position of your opponent, perhaps everything will seem different. It is important to be able to evaluate, compare, and connect different positions;
Preparedness for any surprises, the absence (or restraint) of a biased line of behavior allows you to quickly adapt, respond in a timely and adequate manner to changing situations;
Perception of reality as it is, and not as a person would like to see it. This principle is closely related to the previous one; following it helps to maintain mental stability even in cases when everything seems devoid of internal logic and meaning;
The desire to go beyond the problematic situation. As a rule, all “unsolvable” situations are ultimately solvable; there are no hopeless situations;
Observation, which is necessary not only for assessing others and their actions. Many unnecessary reactions, emotions and actions will disappear if you learn to observe yourself impartially. It is much easier for a person who can objectively assess his desires, motives, and motives, as if from the outside, to manage his behavior, especially in critical situations;
Foresight as the ability not only to understand the internal logic of events, but also to see the prospects for their development. Knowing “what will lead to what” protects against mistakes and incorrect behavior, prevents the formation of a conflict situation;
The desire to understand others, their thoughts and actions. In some cases this means coming to terms with them, in others it means correctly determining your line of behavior. Many misunderstandings in everyday life happen only because not all people are able or do not give themselves the trouble to consciously put themselves in the place of others. The ability to understand (even without accepting) an opposing point of view helps to predict people's behavior in a given situation;
The ability to extract experience from everything that happens, i.e. “learn from mistakes,” and not only from your own. This ability to take into account the causes of past mistakes and failures helps to avoid new ones.
Determine your usual way of behavior.
To do this, carefully read the proposed proverbs. Using a five-point scale, determine your personal attitude towards each proverb and its use in your usual behavior: 5 points - typical behavior, 4 - often, 3 - sometimes, 2 - rarely, 1 - completely atypical, 0 - did not understand the meaning of the proverb. Enter the result on the form.
Sum the scores obtained in columns. The largest amount indicates individual behavioral characteristics.
List of proverbs
1 A bad peace is better than a good quarrel.
2 If you can make someone else think the way you want, make him do the way you think.
3 Lays down softly, but sleeps hard.
4 The hand washes the hand.
5 One mind is good, but two are better.
6 Of two disputants, the one who shuts up first is smarter.
7 He who is stronger is more right.
8 If you don’t oil it up, you won’t go.
9 From a black sheep - even a tuft of wool.
10 Truth is what a wise man knows, not what everyone talks about.
11 Whoever strikes and runs away can fight the next day.
12 The word “victory” is clearly written only on the backs of enemies.
13 Kill your enemies with kindness.
14 A fair deal does not cause quarrels.
15 No one has the complete answer, but everyone has something to add.
17 The one who believes in victory wins the battle.
18 A good word does not cost money, but is highly valued.
19 You give me - I give you.
20 Only those who give up their monopoly on truth can benefit from the truths that others possess.
21 Whoever argues is not worth a penny.
22 He who does not retreat takes flight.
23 A gentle calf suckles two queens, but a stubborn calf sucks none.
Questions and tasks for reflection
24 He who gives makes friends.
25 Bring your worries to light and hold counsel with others.
26 The best way to resolve conflicts is to avoid them.
27 Measure seven times, cut once.
28 Meekness triumphs over wrath.
29 Better is a bird in the hand than a crane in the clouds.
30 Sincerity, honesty and trust move mountains.
31 There is nothing in the world that deserves controversy.
32 There are two kinds of people in this world: winners and losers.
33 If someone throws a stone at you, throw a piece of cotton wool in response.
34 Mutual concessions solve matters perfectly.
35 Dig and dig, tirelessly: you will get to the truth.
Answer form
Proverb number 1 2 3 4 5
Score in points
Proverb number 6 7 8 9 10
Score in points
Proverb number 11 12 13 14 15
Score in points
Proverb number 16 17 18 19 20
Score in points
Proverb number 21 22 23 24 25
Score in points
Proverb number 26 27 28 29 30
Score in points
Proverb number 31 32 33 34 35
Score in points
Sum of points
Type I II III IV V
Interpretation of values
According to E. Fromm, every person’s life strategy is focused on solving two main issues: achieving their personal goals - material, spiritual, prestigious, etc. and creating good relationships with other people.
Between these poles, different combinations are possible with a predominant orientation in one direction or another. They constitute the typology proposed below.
Type I “Turtle” - going under the shell, refusing to achieve goals and participating in relationships with other participants, one of the options for self-sufficiency (avoidance).
Type II “Shark” - a power strategy of the target, the conflict is resolved by winning only for oneself (dominance).
Type III “Little Bear” - smoothing corners: such people love to be understood and appreciated, for which they sacrifice success (compliance).
Type IV “Fox” - a strategy of cunning compromise; with good relationships, it achieves its goals (compromise).
Type V “Owl” is a wise bird, values both goals and relationships, openly defines positions and exit routes in joint work to achieve goals, strives to find solutions that satisfy all participants (cooperation).
Your typical style of behavior is determined by the maximum number of points you score for one of the specified behavior strategies. If the sum of points is equal for several types, we can talk about using several strategies for interacting with people.
Introduction
Every person has their own goals in life related to different application areas. Everyone strives to achieve something different or in their own way. But often people connected by joint business activities collide in their own interests, and then a conflict occurs, which is one of the most important enemies of the manager, because it disorganizes people, transforms them into emotions rather than reason. Therefore, one of the functions of a manager, as a person working with people, is to prevent the occurrence, smooth out the consequences of conflict, resolve disputes, and the ability to lead people from hostility of interests to cooperation and mutual understanding. But often managers who cannot concentrate in a conflict situation or take an objective position instinctively try to either prevent the conflict or postpone it, which does not provide a complete solution to problems in the business team.
Most managers at any level of management, when asked how they feel about conflicts in organizations, will answer that it is bad, undesirable, and evil for the manager. Let's ask ourselves the question: "Is development possible without the struggle of opposites?" In the life of a production team, conflicts are a reflection of the struggle of opposites at the level of the individual, social groups, and society (team) as a whole. Therefore, it would be more correct to consider conflict a norm of industrial relations.
Any organization in its life is associated with the inevitability of various types of conflicts arising within it. Conflict is a natural condition for the existence of any community of people, the source and driving force for the development of this community. This perception of conflict makes it possible to use it as a tool to influence the development of the organization by changing, if necessary, its culture, structure and thereby creating conditions for the most effective work of the team to achieve organizational goals.
Where does this fear of conflict come from? Obviously, from the inability to resolve conflict situations and prevent their occurrence. The leader views the conflict as a natural disaster instead of treating this phenomenon as a social being. Conflict is necessary for the promotion and selection of innovations, development and movement of the organization forward. At least 40% of working time is simply wasted in conflicts and disputes.
Behavioral styles and conflict resolution
Styles of behavior in conflict situations
When you are in a conflict situation, in order to more effectively solve the problem, you need to choose a certain style of behavior, taking into account your own style, the style of other people involved in the conflict, as well as the nature of the conflict itself.
In total, there are five styles of behavior in situations of disagreement, according to scientists (W. Thomas, R. Kilman): cooperation is almost always optimal; compromise is quite acceptable in some cases; avoidance (withdrawal) - recommended in case of “fires” unprovoked by the partner; adaptation - possible in cases where the opponent is really right; rivalry (competition) is the least effective, but most often used method of behavior in conflicts. Each person can use all of these styles to some extent, but usually he has priority styles that are fixed by life circumstances. The main styles of behavior in a conflict situation are associated with the common source of any conflict - the divergence of interests of two or more parties.
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). If your reaction is passive, then you will try to get out of the conflict; if it is active, you will make attempts to resolve it. You can make such assessments for yourself and for other parties involved in the conflict.
It is also necessary to analyze the conflict situation from the interaction of its participants. If you prefer cooperative action, then you will try to resolve the conflict together with the other person or group of people who are involved in it. If you prefer to act individually, you will look for your own way to solve the problem or a way to avoid solving it. The degree of cooperative behavior can also be easily assessed for you and for other people.
If you carefully consider and try on different styles, you can recognize the one you usually resort to in conflict situations; You can also identify the styles that people associated with you usually use. Each of the styles mentioned is briefly described below.
Style of competition (rivalry). A person who uses a competitive style is very active and prefers to go about resolving the conflict in his own way. He is not very interested in cooperation with other people, but he is capable of strong-willed decisions. This style is characterized by the desire to primarily satisfy one’s own interests to the detriment of the interests of others, forcing other people to accept your solution to the problem.
Evasion style. This is the second of the five main approaches to a conflict situation, and occurs when you do not stand up for your rights, do not cooperate with anyone to develop a solution to the problem, or simply avoid resolving the conflict. You can use this style when the issue at hand is not that important to you, when you don't want to spend time and effort on solving it, or when you feel like you are in a hopeless situation.
This style is also recommended in cases where you feel wrong and anticipate that the other person is right; your opponent has more power; you are forced to communicate with a difficult person; there are no serious reasons to continue contacts with him; you don’t know what to do, or there is no need to make any specific decision now; you do not have sufficient information to solve a specific problem, etc. All of these are serious reasons not to defend your own position.
Fixture style. It means that you, acting together with another person, are not trying to defend your own interests. This style is useful in cases where you cannot prevail because the other person has more power, your contribution is not very large, and you are not betting on a positive solution to the problem. You feel that by giving in a little, you are losing little. Or that in these conditions it is necessary to soften the situation somewhat.
Collaborative style. With this style, you actively participate in conflict resolution and defend your own interests, but try to cooperate with the other person. This style requires more work than most other approaches to conflict because you first lay out the needs, concerns, and interests of both parties and then discuss them. However, if you have time and the solution to the problem is important enough to you, then this is a good way to find a win-win outcome and satisfy the interests of all parties.
To successfully use the collaborative style, it is necessary to spend some time searching for hidden interests and needs in order to develop a way to satisfy the true desires of both parties. Once you both understand what is causing the conflict, you can work together to explore new alternatives or work out acceptable compromises.
Compromise style. You give in a little in your interests in order to satisfy them in the rest, the other side does the same. In other words, you agree on partially satisfying your desire and partially fulfilling the desire of another person. You do this by exchanging concessions and bargaining to reach a compromise solution.
Such actions may resemble cooperation to some extent. However, compromise occurs at a more superficial level than cooperation; you give in on something, the other person also gives in on something, and as a result you can come to a common decision. You are not looking for hidden needs and interests as you would with a collaborative style. You only consider what you tell each other about your desires.
The compromise style is most effective in cases where you and the other person have ambitions for the same object, but know that it is impossible to achieve it at the same time.
Typical cases in which the compromise style is most effective: both parties have equal power and have mutually exclusive interests; you want to get a solution quickly because it is a more economical and efficient way; you may be satisfied with a temporary solution; you can take advantage of short-term benefits; other approaches to solving the problem turned out to be ineffective; satisfying your desire is not too important for you, and you can slightly change your goal; compromise will allow you to save the relationship, and you would rather gain something than lose everything.
General approach to conflict management.
To successfully resolve conflict situations, the following provisions must be taken into account:
You should understand and accept the inevitability of encountering conflict situations in your work;
Try to identify the most likely conflict situations and learn in advance how to resolve them;
Realize the real reasons for such situations, see the difficulties of resolving them and the need to master ways to prevent them;
Participants in conflicts have different ranks, which determines their different behavior in the conflict;
The difference in age and life experience of the participants separates their positions in the conflict.
4. Styles of behavior in conflict
K. Thomas identifies five main styles of behavior in a conflict situation: competition, cooperation, compromise, evasion and adaptation. He also emphasizes that different styles of behavior can be combined in different situations:
1) the competitive style (dominance, rivalry, struggle, assertiveness) can be used by a person who has a strong will, sufficient authority, power, is not very interested in cooperation with the other party and strives primarily to satisfy his own interests. This style can be used if:
· the outcome of the conflict is very important to you, and you place a big bet on solving the problem in your favor;
· you feel that you have no other choice and have nothing to lose;
· you must make an unpopular decision, and you have enough authority to choose this step;
· you interact with subordinates who prefer an authoritarian style.
However, it should be borne in mind that this is not a style that can be used in close personal relationships, since it cannot cause anything other than alienation. It is also inappropriate to use it in a situation where you do not have sufficient power, and your point of view on some issue differs from the point of view of a more significant person;
2) the style of cooperation (cooperation, integration) can be used if, while defending your own interests, you are forced to take into account the needs and desires of the other party. This style is the most difficult as it requires longer work. The purpose of its application is to develop a long-term mutually beneficial solution. This style requires the ability to explain one’s desires, listen to each other, and restrain emotions. To resolve conflict, this style can be used in situations where:
· it is necessary to find a common solution if each of the approaches is important and does not allow compromise solutions;
· you have a strong, long-term, interdependent relationship with the other party;
· the parties are able to listen to each other and express the essence of their interests, are able to integrate points of view;
3) the style of compromise, the essence of which is that the parties seek to resolve differences through mutual concessions. In this regard, it resembles the collaborative style, however, it is carried out on a more superficial level. This style is most effective if both parties want the same thing, but know that it is impossible to achieve at the same time (for example, the desire to occupy the same position or the same premises). This approach to conflict resolution is advisable to use in the following situations:
· both sides have equally convincing arguments and have equal power;
· satisfying your desire is not too important for you;
· you may be satisfied with a temporary solution because there is no time to develop another, or other approaches have proven ineffective;
· a compromise will allow you to gain at least something rather than lose everything;
4) the avoidance style (withdrawal, avoidance, ignoring) is usually implemented when the problem is not so important to you, you do not defend your rights, do not cooperate with anyone and do not want to waste time and effort on solving it. This style is also implemented in situations where one of the parties has more power, or understands that it is wrong, or believes that there are no serious grounds for continuing contacts. The evasive style is recommended in situations where:
· the source of disagreement is insignificant for the parties compared to other more important tasks, and therefore they believe that it is not worth wasting energy on it;
· the parties want to gain time to study the situation and obtain additional information before making any decision;
· it is dangerous to try to solve the problem immediately, since open discussion of the conflict can only worsen the situation (for example, conflicts between adult children and parents);
· subordinates themselves can successfully resolve the conflict.
· One should not think that this style is always an escape from the problem or an evasion of responsibility, since often over a period of time it can resolve itself, or the parties can deal with it later when they have sufficient information;
Accommodation style means that you work with the other party, but do not try to defend your own interests in order to smooth out and restore normalcy, Thomas and Kilmann believe that this style is most effective when the outcome of the case is important to the other party and is not very significant for you, and then you sacrifice your own interests in favor of the other side. The device style can be applied in the following most typical situations when:
· the most important task is to restore calm and stability, and not resolve the conflict;
· the subject of disagreement is not important to you, it is more important to maintain good relations;
· realize that the truth is not on your side;
· feel that you do not have enough power or chance to win.
The styles or strategies of behavior chosen by the participants in the conflict are crucial for its subsequent development, and often for the final result, the outcome of the conflict. Strategies of avoidance and adaptation, as already noted, although they have different psychological content, are aimed at avoiding conflict interaction. Strategies of rivalry and cooperation are considered mainly separately, but within the framework of real interaction they can transform into each other: thus, initial attempts to reach an agreement, which were unsuccessful, can give way to a struggle between the parties; on the contrary, unsuccessful attempts at a “forceful” solution force the participants in the situation to negotiate options for resolving the conflict. None of the strategies discussed can be effective in all situations without exception, and none of them can be singled out as the best. It is important to use each of them effectively and consciously make one or another choice, taking into account specific circumstances.
5. Ways to resolve conflict situations
A conflict arises when there is an area of disagreement - a subject of dispute, a fact or issue (one or more) that has caused disagreement. Moreover, each participant in the conflict has his own idea of the situation. These ideas most often do not coincide. Conflictants react differently and most often do not know how the opponent sees the situation. Studies of causal attribution have demonstrated the existence of the so-called fundamental attribution error, which consists in the following: when explaining the actions of other people (but not their own), people clearly overestimate the role of other people's personal qualities and underestimate the role of situational circumstances.
It is within our power, if not to completely resolve the conflict, then to significantly reduce its destructive power.
First of all, let’s determine what we want to achieve, what is the psychologically ideal way out of this situation for us; often this is the resolution of contradictions, the removal of emotional stress in the partner and in oneself, that is, solving the problem that caused the conflict and restoring goodwill. How can this be achieved?
To reduce tension, you must not focus on your own state (for example, on your resentment) or your thoughts. You must try to tune in to your partner, mentally put yourself in his place and imagine what events led him to this state. Looking into your partner's eyes, watching the changes in his face, posture, and hand position, try to feel how you would feel and how you would act in this state.
You will have time to do all this while the “aggressor” can speak out. If you give him such an opportunity, and also leave a pause after this, this will allow the “rival” to defuse the tension, remove his aggressive charge and facilitate further contact. Of course, it is necessary to listen very carefully to everything that is said.
3. In the event of an aggressive attack, the best effect will be the surprise of your reaction. Let's see what the “aggressor” expects. According to his “scenario”, you must either “respond in kind”, that is, fall into irritation, anger, shout back, etc., or, being frightened, give in and admit defeat. To avoid such a development of events, your task is not to provide the expected result. A typical reaction in conflict is aggression or fear; the offended one either attacks or “surrenders.” Therefore, instead of receiving, for example, it is much more advisable to use the echo technique and “return” to the partner his statement, completely maintaining composure and politeness. As a result, tension decreases, your partner feels your respect and interest in him, and you receive full information about the causes of the conflict and the opportunity to explain something.
The conversation will go more peacefully if you tell your partner about the impression his words made, about the state in which they brought you, sincerely, directly, indelicately, without affecting the personality of the offender, but speaking exactly about the impact that you felt. For example, you should not say: “You are rude” or “You are rude to me,” but it is better to say: “I am offended by your words,” “I am upset by the way you talk to me.”
Sometimes it is also helpful to talk about your partner's emotional state, for example: “I think this is very upsetting for you.”
It is very important to make your partner feel that you respect his personality. It is necessary to avoid threats and attempts to use a partner in one’s own interests to the detriment of his own.
Let your partner feel his importance, the value of his judgments and opinions.
If necessary, refer to facts and argue your point of view.
If you see that your partner is right about something, immediately admit your mistake and try to offer a way out of the situation. This will give him the opportunity to understand that you are an honest and conscientious person.
10. If you see weaknesses in your partner's claims, use the echo technique and repeat them in slow motion. This will allow the interlocutor to look at his statements from the outside and see his own mistake without
your direct indication of it and thus will facilitate its recognition and will allow us to bring positions closer together.
11. Humor is a great way to relieve emotional stress, but it must be used very carefully. Often, a bad joke can become a cause for conflict. Particularly dangerous in this regard is humor directed against a partner. Such humor can be perceived as ridicule, mockery, although perhaps you did not want to offend anyone.
12. Emphasize your closeness with your interlocutor, find something in common between you.
13. Show that you understand the state of your interlocutor. This is especially effective when your partner is younger than you or has a lower status in the situation (for example, he is the supplicant and it is up to you to say yes or no).
There is nothing more harmful in all respects than constantly holding back your emotions simply because otherwise it is not good, not accepted, etc. What to do?
Develop a special strategy for behavior in difficult situations. Pay attention to the words: “to be offended”, “to be offended”, etc. They contain a reflexive particle “xia” (an abbreviation of the word “ourselves”), which implies that we are talking about something that we do to ourselves (offend yourself, insult yourself).
In one of the wise parables, Buddha says to the villagers who greeted him with ridicule and insults: “It is in your will to try to insult and humiliate me, but it is only in my will (and no one can force me to do this) to accept or not accept it. I don’t accept these insults, take them and bring them to your home.” Yes, but how do you learn to “not accept”?
First of all, just being aware of this possibility can help in itself. In addition, the most effective thing is to distract yourself from thoughts about yourself at a difficult moment, occupy your brain with other work, for example, take a research position. Think about why a person attacks, what he is trying to achieve - this is exactly what is needed. This position can be called ideal in the sense that, on the one hand, it is truly humanistic in relation to your opponent, and on the other, it best protects you. Giving up yourself and yielding to your partner turn out to be imaginary, since you are saving yourself from both humiliation and remorse. Let's remember what we already talked about. The one for whom everything is fine, who is satisfied with himself, is internally harmonious, does not need to humiliate and insult others. Therefore, you can always, with good reason, feel sorry for the “aggressor”: “Well, this person has problems,” and, thereby, completely free yourself from his influence. This does not mean at all that there is no need to resist him, even fight him. Often this needs to be done, but it is much better to do it without being “particularly burdened”, without setting yourself the goal of humiliating the other, but working directly with the subject of the conflict.
Conflicts that arise for any reason are especially acute if the parties do not possess basic partner communication skills. The choice of communication style largely determines the ability of partners to understand each other.
Ways of conducting a conversation that stimulate conflict and negative experiences, such as anger, protest, irritation, are usually called “communication barriers.” These include:
Ш negative assessments and labels (insults): “You’re lying!”, “you can’t understand the basics,” “it’s none of your business,” etc. Negative evaluative statements provoke opposition, the desire of the partner to resist; rejection of the fact that someone has the right to express assessments;
Ш advice: “My advice to you, do as I said,” “I don’t advise you to make me angry,” etc. Advice should be given only in cases where you are asked for it; in other cases, advice causes a feeling of protest in your partner;
Ш questions (that are unnecessary or impossible to answer): “What are you doing here?”, “Who are you?”, “Are you out of your mind?” and so on. Any question requires an answer, but these questions do not require an answer; it is assumed that the partner himself will understand how angry, offended, and worried you are. In a situation of conflict, your partner is unlikely to want to understand your state and will most likely try to end the conversation with questions, for example, “What is your business?”;
Sh orders: “Stop making me angry!”, “Shut up!”, “Stop crying!”. Conflict can be resolved if communication partners demonstrate equality or respect. The person giving orders thereby demonstrates superiority, the right to command, which causes a feeling of protest and a desire to challenge the order;
Ш generalizations, global conclusions from isolated cases: “Nobody loves me”, “You have never washed the dishes in your life”, “I have never seen anything good in my life”, etc. Strong emotions force a person to make hasty conclusions. Such generalizations are most often incorrect; your partner will definitely remember how he at least once washed the dishes on his own initiative, that in your life together there was both love and kindness;
Irony, causticism: “Well, you’re my hero!”, “You’re just a real beauty,” etc. In a situation of conflict, irony and sarcasticness can offend a partner and will be perceived as insults.
Interrupting, insisting on one’s own rightness, reproaches, and issuing an ultimatum also disrupt relationships and complicate the situation.
People react to these and other “communication barriers” very emotionally, most often these emotions are negative. The basic rule of effective communication is the open expression of desires and feelings, respect for the desires and feelings of the partner.
recognize the existence of a conflict, that is, recognize that the participants have opposing goals and methods;
recognize the need for negotiations by agreeing in advance (by telephone) and considering whether it is possible to resolve the conflict without intermediaries;
determine in advance the range of issues that make up the subject
conflict; at the same stage, determine what in your perception of the subject of the conflict is speculation and what is specific facts;
try to look at the subject of the conflict unemotionally; take the opponent’s position, imagine how he sees the conflict; determine for yourself what kind of compromise you are ready for and what could be the goal of negotiations;
open communication is the main condition for constructive resolution of a conflict situation. Thus, the first condition is to listen and demonstrate listening, to obtain as much information as possible. When discussing a conflict, it is desirable to find out how everyone understands the problem, to recognize their actions and actions that could lead to the conflict. Next, it is necessary to clarify: whether the behavior of each participant corresponds to the current situation; state the general problem as concisely and completely as possible, highlight issues on which the parties to the conflict either disagree or are in solidarity and understand each other.
Conflictologists note that people take certain positions in a conflict and then focus their efforts on defending them, rather than identifying their own hidden needs and interests that forced them to take these positions.
The key to conflict resolution is recognizing your own hidden desires and interests. Resolving conflicts is not about reconciling positions, but about clarifying interests that allow you to sort through solutions to the situation;
development of mutually beneficial solutions through negotiations.
There are rules for conducting a conflict conversation:
1. First, objectively describe the situation and the problem it contains as you see it;
2. give your partner the opportunity to describe his vision of the situation;
3. communicate your emotional state, positive and negative feelings; separate your emotional state from the tasks being solved;
4. in a situation where a partner’s spontaneous outburst occurs, do not respond in kind, wait until he (the partner) “cools down”; no apologies are required for the feelings experienced;
5. emphasize commonality, similarity of interests between yourself and your partners, show interest in your partner’s problems, admit that you are wrong;
6. refer to facts, not their interpretation;
7. claims are made to specific behavior, events, misunderstandings, actions of the partner, and not to his personality;
8. leave the past and future alone, find a specific solution in a specific situation;
9. avoid communication barriers;
10. openly express your desires;
11. offer specific options for getting out of the situation; ask your partner if he sees any other solution to the problem; the process of developing an agreement must be flexible, i.e. change as controversial issues are discussed.
Thus, mutual trust and the achievement of fair agreements are more likely if people are positively (cooperatively) oriented toward mutual well-being and less likely if they perceive this opportunity negatively (competitively).
The relationship between methods of behavior in conflict and the emotional characteristics of spouses
Human behavior in conflict, with all the variety of options, essentially comes down to two main strategies. One of them, which is very common, is to prevent the occurrence of incidents and conflicts in the future...
The relationship between anxiety and behavior strategies in conflict
Study of the impact of conflict on society using the example of a student group
At the second stage of our study, the subjects were offered the “Behavior Tactics in Conflict” test (see Appendix 4). Strategies in conflict are implemented through various tactics. Tactics (from Greek...
Conflict as a socio-psychological phenomenon
When analyzing conflicts based on the model under consideration, you need to keep in mind...
Conflicts and ways to resolve them
Since in real life it is not so easy to find out the true cause of the conflict and find an adequate way to resolve it, it is advisable to choose a certain strategy of behavior depending on the circumstances...
Basic psychological forms of personality behavior in conflict
2.1 Psychological characteristics of a person’s behavior in conflict When a person finds himself in an unpleasant conflict situation, he tries to eliminate the internal disharmony that has arisen. This applies to both intrapersonal...
Basic styles of behavior of people in a conflict situation
When people interact at work, at home, in transport, in a store, conflict situations inevitably arise. Each person in a conflict situation prefers to choose the line of behavior that is most familiar to him...
Features of interpersonal conflicts in the educational environment
There are many descriptions of different styles of behavior in conflict - both in domestic and foreign psychology. One of them is the two-dimensional conflict management model proposed by K. Thomas...
Behavior in conflict and additive behavior in adolescents
The role of a consulting psychologist in resolving conflicts in management activities at an enterprise
For a psychologist in an organization, it is important to determine what type of behavior in conflict the managers working in the company are prone to. The most famous and used psychological test, Thomas-Kilmann, will help with this. TEST Behavior in conflicts 1...
Strategies for dealing with conflict
In a conflict, each participant evaluates and compares his own interests and the interests of his opponent, analyzing the answers to the following questions: what can I win and what can I lose, is the subject of the dispute so important to my opponent...
Strategy and tactics of human behavior in social conflicts
Each person has a clear understanding of the means of conflict resolution, based on his experience and understanding of the possibility of overcoming disagreements with a certain partner (or group)...
The whole variety of reactions and modes of behavior can be divided into 5 general groups.
The main styles of behavior in any conflict situation are associated with the common source of any conflict - the discrepancy between the views and interests of the two warring parties. Accordingly, the style of behavior of a maintenance employee in each specific case will be determined by how strongly he wants to satisfy his interests, as well as by whether he is ready to infringe (or take into account) the interests of the other party.
The combination of these two indicators gives 4 main styles of response in conflict and 1 auxiliary one.
Fig. 1 Styles of behavior in a conflict situation.
If the employee’s reaction is passive, then he will try to get out of the conflict situation; if it is active, he will take actions to resolve it. Likewise, he can seek a solution or avoid it, either by acting alone or by involving the opposite party.
Competition or Rivalry .
This style involves strictly following one’s interests without taking into account the interests of the opposing side. Or rather, they are taken into account, but only as a weapon that can be used to achieve the goal. A person who chooses this style strives to prove that he is right, regardless of whether it is so or not. To achieve his goal, he uses his strong-willed qualities, trying to suppress the will of his counterpart. Direct orders, shouting and aggressive behavior fit quite organically into this model. All means are good if they help achieve what you want. The main thing is to achieve a result, but how it will be done and who will suffer is not important.
This style is effective if a person has real power or if his personal and business qualities are superior to those of his opponent. It can also be used when a person knows for sure that his decision or approach is the most correct in a given situation, and he can show and prove it. The style is also applicable when decision-making time is limited and a person is able and ready to take responsibility. Finally, in a situation where a person has nothing to lose and there is no other choice but to defend his rightness by any means, this approach is also applicable.
Evasion or Avoidance.
This style is the opposite of the previous one in that here the person is already in the position of the “oppressed” side, when he does not try to defend his position, but simply “washes his hands”, avoiding the decision, and someone else makes it for him. Self-removal from the situation can be expressed in both physical and psychological withdrawal (silence, reading papers, behavior like “What, is something going on?”).
But, in this, just as in the previous style, the main character does not enter into a real dialogue with the opposite side. This means that a genuine solution to the situation is impossible, since there is always a losing side. This means that a new conflict is “just around the corner.”
Customs officials may also resort to avoidance as a style of behavior in a conflict situation. Preferring “not to fan the flames,” a person often psychologically leaves the situation. Yes, the conflict does not flare up, but it does not go away either, but continues to slowly smolder, fueled by the mutual dissatisfaction of both sides. And sometimes, one small spark is enough for it to flare up with renewed vigor.
But, nevertheless, there are situations in which this style of behavior is justified. Thus, it can be used when tension is too high, and there is clearly a need to reduce the intensity of passions. When the outcome of the conflict is not very important for you, unlike the opposite side, then you can also leave the decision to her.
If a person is not ready to defend his position right now, and he needs time to “maneuver,” avoidance can also be used. It should also be used in a situation where your position is obviously weaker than the position of the opposite party, endowed with greater power or authority. Finally, if further discussion will only “raise” new reasons for worsening the conflict, the avoidance style should also be used.
Device.
This style implies that the employee, just like the previous one, does not defend his own interests, but, unlike him, tries to find a common language with the opponent, adapting to him. Here the employee no longer leaves the situation, leaving the “rival” alone on the “battlefield”, but continues to act together with him, but only according to his rules.
The style, like the previous one, is applicable when you are not particularly “moved” by what happened, but for someone else it is much more important. Use it if it is much more important for you to preserve the relationship than to defend your position. When you feel that you have little chance of winning, and the decision of the opposite side is not so bad, you can also accept it. Finally, this style will help you give a useful lesson to your counterpart if you allow him to make a wrong decision and later realize his mistake.
Cooperation.
The most productive style of resolving any conflict, because... it implies that both parties take an equally active part in finding a solution, taking into account mutual interests. It is most effective when each party has its own specific hidden needs. For example, if there are 2 applicants for a higher position, then for one of them the opportunity to increase income may be more important, while prestige and authority are more important to the other. Accordingly, solutions can be found when both parties get what they want without prejudice to the interests of the other party.
To successfully use this style, you need to spend some time searching for such hidden needs and developing a solution that satisfies all parties involved in the conflict. To do this, you must, at a minimum, have the desire and ability to do this.
Accordingly, this style is applicable in situations where the decision is very important for both parties, and no one is ready to get rid of it. If both parties are ready, able and willing to reveal their interests and present relevant arguments, as well as listen to the opposite side. If you have a close, trusting and interdependent relationship that is important to both parties. This style is also good when there is no ready-made solution, but there is a desire and good will to find it in a joint discussion.
Compromise.
This style is similar to cooperation, but differs from it in that the interests of both parties are not fully satisfied, but only partially, through mutual concessions. There is no need to find out the deep motives and hidden interests of both parties, but you just need to come to some reasonable decision when one side cedes some of its interests in favor of the other, but at the same time retains positions that are more significant for it.
This style is best used when you do not have the time or desire to delve into the essence of the conflict, and the situation allows you to develop a quick and mutually beneficial solution. And also, if you are completely satisfied with this solution, as some kind of intermediate, temporary option. In the opposite situation, when protracted conversations have led to nothing, you should also compromise. Again, use it if the preservation of your relationship is more important than the complete satisfaction of your desires, and in addition, there is a threat of not getting even part of what you want, losing everything.
