Conditions, factors, methods of constructive conflict resolution.

2. 3. Basic forms of ending conflicts

Among the control actions in relation to the conflict, its resolution occupies a central place. Not all conflicts can be prevented. Therefore, it is very important to be able to constructively resolve conflicts.

In conflictology, it has become traditional to designate the final stage in the dynamics of conflict with the term conflict resolution. You can also use other concepts that reflect the specificity and completeness of the cessation of conflict actions, for example, “attenuation”, “overcoming”, “suppression”, “extinction”, “self-resolution”, “quenching”, “settlement”, “elimination”, “settling”, etc. The complexity and multivariate development of the conflict imply ambiguity in the methods and forms of its completion.

What forms of ending conflicts exist?

Of these concepts, the broadest is the end of the conflict, which is the end of the conflict for any reason. The main forms of ending a conflict: resolution, settlement, attenuation, elimination, escalation into another conflict.

What is conflict resolution?

Conflict resolution is Team work of its participants, aimed at ending the opposition and solving the problem that led to the clash. Conflict resolution involves the activity of both parties to transform the conditions in which they interact, to eliminate the causes of the conflict. To resolve the conflict, it is necessary to change the opponents themselves (or at least one of them), their positions that they defended in the conflict. Often the resolution of a conflict is based on changing the attitude of opponents towards its object or towards each other.

What is conflict resolution?

Conflict resolution differs from resolution in that a third party takes part in eliminating the contradiction between opponents. Its participation is possible both with the consent of the warring parties and without their consent. When a conflict ends, the contradiction underlying it is not always resolved. Only about 62% of conflicts between managers and subordinates are resolved or managed. In 38% of conflicts, the contradiction is not resolved or escalates. This happens when the conflict dies down (6%), develops into another (15%) or is resolved administratively (17%).

What is conflict resolution?

The fading of the conflict is a temporary cessation of opposition while maintaining the main signs of the conflict: contradiction and tense relations. The conflict moves from an “overt” form to a hidden one. Conflict subsides usually as a result of:

depletion of the resources of both sides necessary for the fight;

loss of motive to fight, reduction in the importance of the object of the conflict;

reorientation of the motivation of opponents (the emergence of new problems that are more significant than the struggle in the conflict).

What is conflict resolution?

By eliminating a conflict we mean such an impact on it, as a result of which the main structural elements conflict. Despite the “unconstructiveness” of elimination, there are situations that require quick and decisive influence on the conflict (threat of violence, loss of life, lack of time or material capabilities). Resolving the conflict is possible using the following methods:

removal of one of the opponents from the conflict (transfer to another department, branch; dismissal from work)

exclusion of interaction between opponents for a long time (sending one or both on a business trip, etc.)

eliminating the object of the conflict (the mother takes the toy that caused the conflict from the quarreling children)

elimination of the shortage of the object of the conflict (the third party has the opportunity to provide each of the conflicting parties with the object that they sought to possess)

What is escalation into another conflict?

The escalation into another conflict occurs when a new, more significant contradiction arises in the relations of the parties and the object of the conflict changes.

The main forms of ending the conflict (Fig. 2).

What is the outcome of the conflict?

The outcome of the conflict is considered as the result of the struggle from the point of view of the state of the parties and their attitude towards the object of the conflict. The outcomes of the conflict can be:

eliminating one or both sides

suspension of the conflict with the possibility of its resumption

victory of one of the parties (mastery of the object of the conflict)

division of the conflict object (symmetrical or asymmetrical)

agreement on the rules for sharing the object

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

refusal of both parties to encroach on this object

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

What are the criteria for resolving conflicts?

The question of the criteria for resolving the conflict is important. The main criteria for conflict resolution are the satisfaction of the parties with the results of the conflict, the cessation of opposition, the elimination of traumatic factors, the achievement of the goal of one of the conflicting parties, a change in the position of the individual, and the formation of the skill of active behavior of the individual in similar situations in the future.

The criteria for constructive conflict resolution are the degree to which the contradiction underlying the conflict is resolved and the victory of the right opponent in it. It is important that when resolving a conflict, a solution is found to the problem that caused it. The more completely the contradiction is resolved, the greater the chances for normalization of relations between the participants, the less likely it is for the conflict to escalate into a new confrontation. No less important is victory right side. The affirmation of truth and the victory of justice have a beneficial effect on the socio-psychological climate of the organization, the effectiveness of joint activities, and serve as a warning to individuals who could potentially seek to achieve a legally or morally dubious goal through conflict. It must be remembered that the wrong side also has its own interests. If you ignore them altogether and do not strive to reorient the motivation of the wrong opponent, then this is fraught with new conflicts in the future.

2.4. Conditions and factors for constructive conflict resolution

Most conditions and factors successful resolution conflicts are psychological in nature, as they reflect the characteristics of the behavior and interaction of opponents. In addition, there are historical, legal and other factors.

What are the conditions for constructive conflict resolution?

Termination of conflict interaction is the first and obvious condition the beginning of resolving any conflict. As long as some measures are taken from one or both sides to strengthen their position or weaken the opponent’s position through violence, there can be no talk of resolving the conflict.

The search for common or similar points of contact in the goals and interests of opponents is a two-way process and involves an analysis of both one’s own goals and interests and the goals and interests of the other party. If the parties want to resolve a conflict, they must focus on the interests, not the personality of the opponent.

When resolving a conflict, a stable negative attitude of the parties towards each other remains. It is expressed in a negative opinion about the opponent and in negative emotions towards him. To begin to resolve the conflict, it is necessary to soften this negative attitude. The main thing is to reduce the intensity of negative emotions experienced towards your opponent.

At the same time, it is advisable to stop seeing your opponent as an enemy, an adversary. It is important to understand that the problem that caused the conflict is best solved together by joining forces. This is facilitated, firstly, by a critical analysis of one’s own position and actions. Identifying and admitting your own mistakes reduces negative perceptions of your opponent. Secondly, you must try to understand the interests of the other. To understand does not mean to accept or justify. However, this will expand your understanding of your opponent and make him more objective. Thirdly, it is advisable to highlight the constructive principle in the behavior or even in the intentions of the opponent. There are no absolutely bad or absolutely good people or social groups. Everyone has something positive, and it is necessary to rely on it when resolving a conflict.

It is important to reduce the negative emotions of the opposite party. Among the techniques are such as a positive assessment of some of the opponent’s actions, readiness to bring positions closer together, turning to a third party who is authoritative for the opponent, a critical attitude towards oneself, balanced own behavior, etc.

An objective discussion of the problem, clarification of the essence of the conflict, and the ability of the parties to see the main thing contribute to the successful search for a solution to the contradiction. Focusing on secondary issues and caring only about one’s own interests reduces the chances of a constructive solution to the problem.

When the parties join forces to end the conflict, it is necessary to take into account each other’s statuses (positions). The party occupying a subordinate position or having junior status must be aware of the limits of concessions that its opponent can afford. Too radical demands can provoke strong point to return to conflict confrontation.

Another important condition is the choice of the optimal resolution strategy appropriate to the given circumstances.

What are the main factors in conflict resolution?

The success of ending conflicts depends on how the conflicting parties take into account the factors that influence this process. These include the following:

time: availability of time to discuss the problem, clarify positions and interests, and develop solutions. Cutting the time available to reach agreement by half leads to an increased likelihood of choosing a more aggressive alternative.

third party: participation in ending the conflict by neutral persons (institutions) who help opponents solve the problem. Practice confirms the positive influence of third parties on conflict resolution

timeliness: the parties begin to resolve the conflict in the early stages of its development. The logic is simple: less opposition - less damage - less resentment and claims - more opportunities to come to an agreement conflictsAbstract >> Ethics

And values. Intrapersonal conflict- How is that rule, conflict motivation, feelings,... ways permissions conflicts. "Force" methods permissions conflicts. P. Carneval and D. Pruitt believe that frequent recourse to force permissions conflicts ...

2.4 Conditions for successful conflict resolution

Granting a concession is an integral part of the negotiation process and is used according to various reasons, including: giving up something before it is taken away; reduction of losses; show of strength; understanding that the opposing side is right and deserves concessions; demonstrating sincerity of intentions; way out of the deadlock; desire to push negotiations; transition to more important issues.

Concessions can be procedural, substantive and psychological.

Concessions are used to achieve the following goals: to develop a compromise; find a way out of the deadlock; develop constructive solutions; find a way to “sweeten the pill”; achieve the completion of a certain stage.

Ways to reduce resistance to settlement proposals:

Continue to inform the other party;

Anticipate opponents' objections to the proposal and, even before introducing the proposal, respond to these objections;

Listen carefully and objectively to the statements of the opposing side.

It is necessary to learn from the information provided by the other party;

Show with the help of documents how the proposal will satisfy the interests of the other party;

Make sure that the other party understands all the “advantages” of the proposal

before going on to describe the specific details of its implementation;

Offer to inform absent representatives of the opposing side about the value of your proposal. The results of negotiations taking place at the horizontal level are once again stated when moving vertically, with a detailed statement of all the reasons and arguments:

Do not confuse or put pressure on the other side, as the process can unnecessarily become confrontational;

Demonstrate the ability to “keep your word” regarding a settlement proposal.

Provide information that will convince the opposing party of your ability to fully comply with the agreement.

Both partners, the speaker and the listener, can control the effectiveness of communication, and each can play a role in both increasing and decreasing the effectiveness of communication. Overcoming avoidance: combating this involves managing the attention of a partner, the audience, and one's own attention.

The first of the most effective techniques for attracting attention is using a neutral phrase. Its essence boils down to the fact that at the beginning of the speech a phrase is pronounced that is not directly related to the main topic, but for some reason it certainly has meaning for all those present and therefore attracts their attention.

The second technique of attracting attention is the technique of enticement. Its essence lies in the fact that the speaker first pronounces something in a difficult-to-perceive manner, for example, very quietly, incomprehensibly, too monotonously or unintelligibly. The listener has to make special efforts to understand at least something, and these efforts require concentration of attention. As a result, the speaker lures the listener into his network. In this technique, the speaker seems to provoke the listener to use methods of concentrating attention and then uses them.

Another important technique for concentrating attention is to establish eye contact between the speaker and the listener Establishing eye contact is a technique widely used in any communication, not only in mass communication, but also in personal, intimate, etc. By looking intently at a person, we attract his attention, constantly moving away from someone's gaze, we show that we do not want to communicate.

The ability to maintain attention is associated with awareness of the same factors that are used when attracting attention, but this time it is a fight against the fact that the attention of another is distracted by some other people’s stimuli that do not come from us. The listener's attention can be distracted by any stimulus extraneous to the given interaction - a loud knock on the door, one's own thoughts off topic, etc.

The first group of techniques for maintaining attention essentially boils down to eliminating, if possible, all extraneous influences and isolating yourself from them as much as possible. Therefore, this group can be called isolation techniques.

If, from the speaker’s point of view, the maximum he can do is to isolate communication from external factors, then for the listener it is also important to be able to isolate himself from internal factors. Most often, interference is expressed in the fact that the interlocutor, instead of listening carefully to the speaker, is busy preparing his own remark, thinking about arguments, thinking through the interlocutor’s previous thoughts, or simply waiting for the end of his speech to intervene himself. In any of these cases, the result is the same - the listener’s attention is diverted to himself, inward, he misses something, and the effectiveness of communication decreases. Therefore, the method of isolation for the listener is the skills of one’s own listening, the ability not to be distracted by one’s thoughts and not to lose information.

Another group of techniques for maintaining attention is the technique of imposing rhythm. A person’s attention constantly fluctuates, and if you don’t make a special effort to restore it all the time, then it will inevitably slip away and switch to something else. Monotonous, monotonous presentation especially contributes to such distraction. Constantly changing the characteristics of voice and speech is the easiest way to set the desired rhythm of conversation.

The next group of techniques is accentuation techniques. They are used in cases where it is necessary to especially draw the partner’s attention to certain, important, from the speaker’s point of view, points in the message, situation, etc.

Accentuation techniques can be divided into direct and indirect. Direct emphasis is achieved through the use of various service phrases, the meaning of which is to attract attention, such as, for example, please pay attention, etc. and so on. Indirect emphasis is achieved due to the fact that places to which attention needs to be drawn are distinguished from the general structure of communication due to contrast - they are organized in such a way as to contrast with the surrounding background and therefore automatically attract attention.

The reliability of a source is, in fact, authority. The more a person trusts the interlocutor, the greater his reliability. This indicator consists of competence and objectivity, defined as disinterest - the less the listener thinks that they want to convince him, the more he trusts the speaker.

Interesting fact, identified in studies of the influence of authority, is as follows. It turned out that if the listener trusts the speaker, then he perceives and remembers his conclusions very well and practically does not pay attention to the course of reasoning. If there is less trust, then he is cooler about conclusions, but he is very attentive to the arguments and the course of reasoning. It is obvious that for different purposes of communication it is necessary to manage the trust of the listener in different ways. So, when teaching, it is better to have average authority, and when agitating, it is better to have high authority.

Studies have also been conducted to determine whether to formulate the main conclusions in the message or leave this work for the listener. S. Hovland and W. Mendell argue that people with high interest and a high intellectual level do not need to be prompted to draw a conclusion - they will make it on their own, but in the case of a low level of education, conclusions are necessary.

The problem of constructing the logical structure of a message also includes the study of the comparative effectiveness of one-sided and two-sided argumentation.

Summarizing the results of research on argumentation, we can say the following. A two-way argumentative message is preferable and more effective: in educated audiences; when it is known that the audience disagrees with the communicator; when there is a possibility of counter-propaganda in the future. One-sided argumentation is better when the positions of the recipient and the communicator are similar and further counter-propaganda is not expected. A two-way argumentative message in groups with a low educational level is not only ineffective, but even causes negative effects.

In communication, it is important to be able to control the direction of your partners’ thinking. The effectiveness of communication depends significantly on how deeply the partners are involved in communication. And this latter is closely related to how consciously a person approaches the solution of certain issues, whether he simply listens and looks, or not only listens, but also thinks about what he hears and sees. To increase the effectiveness of communication, it is important to have the opportunity, or at least a chance, to engage and direct the interlocutor’s thinking in the right direction.

In order to be understood by your interlocutor, you must take into account your partner’s logic whenever possible. To do this, it is necessary to roughly imagine positions, as well as individual and socio-role characteristics, since the acceptability or unacceptability of a particular logic for a partner mainly depends on his initial orientation.

Understanding a partner, an adequate understanding of his point of view, goals, individual characteristics is the main condition for overcoming all barriers without exception, because The more the speaker takes into account the characteristics of the listener, the more successful the communication will be.

For both negotiated and mediated negotiations, it is essential that the settlement agreement provides procedural, substantive and psychological satisfaction. High degree dissatisfaction of one or more participants in one or all three of the above areas leads to the continuation of the conflict after its formal end, that is, post-conflict.

Therefore, post-conflict is negative behavior as a result of conscious or subconscious residual dissatisfaction (with an essentially psychological procedure) that occurs when a conflict is considered resolved when it was not resolved, was resolved unfairly, or was resolved in such a way that it negatively affected someone who was not originally a participant.

Thus, we can conclude that the most effective way Conflict resolution is negotiation. The constructive possibilities of negotiations and mediation are extremely high. One of the significant advantages this method is that its use is possible both in vertical conflicts (“vertical negotiations”: boss - group of workers; labor collective- enterprise administration), and in horizontal ones (“horizontal negotiations”: head of department - head of department; group of workers - group of workers). In case of special severity conflict situation or the impossibility of negotiating on your own, mediation technology is used as an addition to the negotiation method.

However, there are also dysfunctional consequences of the negotiation process.

The negotiation method is effective within a certain corridor, beyond which the negotiation process loses its effectiveness as a method of conflict resolution and becomes a way of maintaining a conflict situation. Negotiation has its scope for positive action, but it is not always the optimal way to resolve conflict. Delaying negotiations, gaining time to concentrate resources, masking destructive actions through negotiations, misinforming the opponent during negotiations are negative aspects of the negotiation process. Thus, we can conclude: effective strategy negotiations are, first of all, a strategy of agreement, search and enhancement of common interests and the ability to combine them in a way that will not subsequently cause a desire to violate the agreement reached. IN real life Managers of various ranks often simply lack the culture of the negotiation process, negotiation skills, and the desire to enter into communication with their opponents.

List of used literature

1. Verenko I.S. Conflictology, - M.: Swiss, 2006

2. Kozer L.A. Functions of social conflict // American sociological thought. - M., 1996.

3. V.M. Serykh, V.N. Zenkov, V.V. Glazyrin et al. Sociology of Law: Textbook / Ed. prof. V.M. Gray. M., 2004. P. 248

4. Khudoikina T.V. Resolution of legal disputes and conflicts through conciliation procedures // Scientific works. Russian Academy of Legal Sciences. Issue 4. In 3 volumes. Volume 2. M., 2004. pp. 79 – 82

5. Vitryansky V.V. Alternative dispute resolution in Russia // Alternative Methods Dispute Resolution: Mediation and Arbitration: Materials international conference. Moscow. May 29 - 30, 2000 M., 2004. P. 69 – 75

6. Antsupov A.Ya., Shipilov A.I. Conflictology: Textbook for universities. 2nd ed., revised. and additional M., 2004

7. Lyashko A.V. Forms and means of resolving legal conflicts // Law and society: from conflict to consensus: St. Petersburg, 2004. P. 225

8. Klementieva A. Ya. Training “Behavior in Conflict Conditions” // Social conflict. – № 2. – 1997

9. Van de Flirt E., Janssen O. Intragroup conflict behavior: describing, explanatory and recommendatory approaches // Social conflict. – No. 2. – 1997

V.M. Serykh, V.N. Zenkov, V.V. Glazyrin et al. Sociology of Law: Textbook / Ed. prof. V.M. Gray. M., 2004. P. 248

Antsupov A.Ya., Shipilov A.I. Conflictology: Textbook for universities. 2nd ed., revised. and additional M., 2004.

Verenko I.S. Conflictology, - M.: Swiss, 2006

Vitryansky V.V. Alternative dispute resolution in Russia // Alternative methods of dispute resolution: mediation and arbitration: Proceedings of the international conference. Moscow. May 29 - 30, 2000 M., 2004. P. 69 - 75

Kozer L.A. Functions of social conflict // American sociological thought. - M., 1996.

Lyashko A.V. Forms and means of resolving legal conflicts // Law and society: from conflict to consensus: St. Petersburg, 2004. P. 225

Van de Flirt E., Janssen O. Intragroup conflict behavior: describing, explanatory and recommendatory approaches // Social conflict. – No. 2. – 1997

Khudoikina T.V. Resolution of legal disputes and conflicts through conciliation procedures // Scientific works. Russian Academy of Legal Sciences. Issue 4. In 3 volumes. Volume 2. M., 2004. pp. 79 - 82

Klementieva A.Ya. Training “Behavior in Conflict Conditions” // Social Conflict. – No. 2. - 1997

Caused by periodically arising conflict situations between the administration and employees. 3. Development of measures to improve conflict resolution at Bolshoi Gostiny Dvor OJSC 3.1 Development of recommendations for conflict resolution at the Bolshoi Gostiny Dvor OJSC I propose to build a conflict resolution process on the following provisions: 1. resolution process...

th model of conflict resolution. 1.2 Basic principles The basic principles governing the negotiation process are in the book by B.I. Hasan’s “Constructive Psychology of Conflict” are formulated as follows: the parties must show the will to reach an agreement. Negotiations cannot take place without the participants realizing their necessity. When at least one of the parties does not understand why it needs...

To the destruction of the existing system of interaction. Any conflict resolution or prevention is aimed at preserving the existing system of interpersonal interaction. 2. Negotiations as a way to resolve conflicts Negotiations represent a broad aspect of communication, covering many areas of an individual’s activity. As a method of resolving conflicts, negotiations are a set of...

How to influence the image, so ideally conflict situations as such should not arise at all. 3.3. The emergence and methods of resolving conflicts between employees at the Pushkin Confectionery. In the “Pushkin Confectionery”, as, naturally, in any other catering enterprise in the hotel sector - restaurant business Every day in the process of activity there is a large...

100 RUR bonus for first order

Select type of work Thesis Course work Abstract Master's thesis Report on practice Article Report Review Test Monograph Problem Solving Business Plan Answers to Questions Creative work Essay Drawing Works Translation Presentations Typing Other Increasing the uniqueness of the text Master's thesis Laboratory work Online help

Find out the price

Any social conflict has a rather complex internal structure. It is advisable to analyze the content and characteristics of the course of a social conflict in three main stages: the pre-conflict stage, the conflict itself and the conflict resolution stage.

1. Pre-conflict stage. No social conflict arises instantly. Emotional stress, irritation and anger usually accumulate over some time, so the Pre-conflict stage sometimes drags on so much that the root cause of the conflict is forgotten. The pre-conflict stage is the period during which the conflicting parties evaluate their resources before deciding to take aggressive actions or retreat. Such resources include material assets with which you can influence an opponent, information, power, connections, prestige, etc. At the same time, there is a consolidation of the forces of the warring parties, a search for supporters and the formation of groups participating in the conflict. Initially, each of the conflicting parties is looking for ways to achieve goals, avoid frustration without influencing the opponent. When all attempts to achieve what is desired are in vain, the individual or social group determines the object that interferes with the achievement of goals, the degree of his “guilt,” the strength and possibilities of counteraction. This moment in the pre-conflict stage is called identification. In other words, it is a search for those who interfere with the satisfaction of needs and against whom aggressive social action should be taken. The pre-conflict stage is also characterized by the formation of a strategy or even several strategies by each of the conflicting parties.

2 . The conflict itself. This stage is characterized, first of all, by the presence of an incident, i.e. social actions aimed at changing the behavior of rivals. This is an active, active part of the conflict. Thus, the entire conflict consists of a conflict situation that forms at the pre-conflict stage and an incident. The actions that constitute an incident can vary. But it is important for us to divide them into two groups, each of which is based on specific human behavior. The first group includes the actions of rivals in a conflict that are open in nature. It could be a verbal debate economic sanctions, physical impact, political struggle, sports competition and so on. Such actions, as a rule, are easily identified as conflicting, aggressive, hostile. Since an open “exchange of blows” is clearly visible from the outside during the conflict, sympathizers and simply observers can be drawn into it. Observing the most common street incident, you can see that those around you rarely remain indifferent: they are indignant, sympathize with one side and can easily be drawn into active actions. Thus, active open actions usually expand the scope of the conflict, they are clear and predictable.

3 . Conflict resolution. An external sign of conflict resolution can be the end of the incident. It is completion, not temporary cessation. This means that conflict interaction between the conflicting parties ceases. Elimination, termination of the incident is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for resolving the conflict. Often, having stopped active conflict interaction, people continue to experience a frustrating state and look for its cause. And then the conflict that had died out flares up again. Resolution of the social conflict is possible only when the conflict situation changes. This change may take different shapes. But the most effective change in a conflict situation, allowing to extinguish the conflict, is considered to be the elimination of the cause of the conflict. Indeed, in a rational conflict, eliminating the cause inevitably leads to its resolution. However, in the case of high emotional tension, eliminating the cause of the conflict usually does not affect the actions of its participants in any way or affects it, but very weakly. Therefore, for emotional conflict the most important point changes in the conflict situation should be considered a change in the attitudes of the rivals relative to each other. An emotional conflict is completely resolved only when the opponents stop seeing each other as an enemy. It is also possible to resolve a social conflict by changing the demands of one of the parties: the opponent makes concessions and changes the goals of his behavior in the conflict. For example, seeing the futility of the struggle, one of the rivals yields to the other, or both make concessions at the same time. Social conflict can also be resolved as a result of the depletion of the resources of the parties or the intervention of a third force, creating an overwhelming advantage for one of the parties, and, finally, as a result of the complete elimination of the rival. In all these cases, a change in the conflict situation certainly occurs.

Conditions for successful conflict resolution

In modern conflictology, the following conditions for conflict resolution are formulated.

1) Timely and accurate diagnosis of the causes of the conflict. This involves identifying objective contradictions, interests, goals and delineating the “business zone” of a conflict situation. A model for exiting a conflict situation is created.

2) Mutual interest in overcoming contradictions based on mutual recognition of the interests of each party.

3) Joint search for a compromise, i.e. ways to overcome the conflict. Constructive dialogue between the warring parties is of decisive importance.

The post-conflict stage involves the elimination of contradictions of conflicting interests, goals, attitudes, and the elimination of socio-psychological tension in society. Post-conflict syndrome, when relations worsen, may be the beginning of repeated conflicts at a different level with other participants.

Modern conflictology in democratic countries identifies the main priorities for conflict resolution. A feature of a democratic society is the recognition of the admissibility of conflicts and the multiplicity of divergent interests.

In R. Dahrendorf's conflict theory, successful conflict management requires the presence of value prerequisites, the level of organization of the parties, and equality of opportunity for both parties to the conflict.

Doctor of Psychology,
professor MOSU

Among the control actions in relation to the conflict, its resolution occupies a central place. Not all conflicts can be prevented. Therefore, it is very important to be able to come out of them constructively.

Forms and criteria for ending conflicts

In modern conflictology has become traditional the final stage in dynamics conflict call "conflict resolution". In a broad sense, it is more correct to talk about completion, which consists in ending the conflict for any reason. Resolution, along with settlement, attenuation, elimination and development into another conflict is a form of completion conflict.

Personnel employee, based on the current situation, it is advisable to be able to use the listed options for exiting conflict interaction, and for this you should use the tips given below.

First of all, let's schematically display the main forms of completion conflict.

Let's explain each of them.

Conflict resolution is a joint activity of its participants aimed at ending opposition and solving the problem that led to the clash. It presupposes the activity of both parties to transform the conditions in which they interact, to eliminate the causes of the conflict. To resolve the conflict, it is necessary to change the opponents themselves (or at least one of them) and the positions they defend. Often resolution is based on a change in the opponents’ attitude towards the object of the conflict or towards each other.

Conflict resolution differs from resolution in that a third party takes part in eliminating the contradiction between opponents. Its participation is possible both with and without the consent of the warring parties.

When a conflict ends, the contradiction underlying it is not always resolved. Only about 62% of conflicts between managers and subordinates are resolved or managed. In 38% of conflicts, the contradiction is not resolved or escalates. This happens when the conflict dies down (6%), develops into another (15%) or is resolved administratively (17%).

Decay of conflict- this is a temporary cessation of opposition while maintaining the main signs of the conflict: contradictions and tense relations. The conflict moves from an “overt” form to a hidden one. Attenuation usually occurs as a result of:

• loss of motivation for confrontation (the object of the conflict has lost its relevance);
• reorientation of motive, switching to urgent matters, etc.;
• depletion of resources, strength and ability to fight.

Under eliminating the conflict understand the impact on it, as a result of which its main structural elements are eliminated. Despite the “unconstructiveness” of elimination, there are situations that require quick and decisive influence on the conflict (threat of violence, loss of life, lack of time or material capabilities). Resolving the conflict is possible using the following methods:

• removal of one of the opponents from the confrontation (transfer to another department, branch; dismissal from work);
• eliminating interaction between opponents long time(sending one or both on a business trip, etc.);
• elimination of the conflict object (depriving those in conflict of the opportunity to have access to the conflict object).

Unfortunately, heads of organizations and personnel departments quite often commit the sin of using this particular method of ending a conflict.

Evolving into another conflict occurs when a new, more significant contradiction arises in the relations of the parties and the object of the conflict changes.

Now about criteria for conflict resolution . According to the American conflict expert M. Deutsch, the main criterion for resolving a conflict is the satisfaction of the parties with its results. Prominent domestic conflict expert A.Ya. Antsupov considers the criteria for constructive conflict resolution degree of resolution of the contradiction underlying the conflict and victory of the right opponent. It is important that when resolving a conflict, a solution is found to the problem that caused it. The more completely the contradiction is resolved, the greater the chances for normalization of relations between the participants, the less likely it is for the conflict to escalate into a new confrontation.

No less significant is the victory of the right side. The affirmation of truth and the victory of justice have a beneficial effect on the socio-psychological climate of the enterprise, the effectiveness of joint activities, and, in addition, serve as a warning to persons who could potentially seek to achieve a goal that is dubious from a legal or moral point of view through conflict.

Also, do not forget that the wrong side also has its own interests. If you ignore them altogether and do not strive to reorient the motivation of the wrong opponent, then this is fraught with new conflicts in the future.

Conditions and factors for constructive conflict resolution

Stopping conflict interactions- the first and obvious condition for the beginning of the resolution of any conflict. As long as some measures are taken from one or both sides to strengthen their position or weaken the opponent’s position through violence, there can be no talk of resolving the conflict.

Search for common or similar points of contact for the purposes and interests of opponents involves an analysis of both one’s own goals and interests and the goals and interests of the other party. If the parties want to resolve a conflict, they must focus on the interests, not the personality of the opponent.

When resolving a conflict, a stable negative attitude of the parties towards each other remains. It is expressed in a negative opinion about the opponent and in negative emotions towards him. To begin to resolve the conflict, it is necessary to soften this negative attitude. Main - reduce the intensity of negative emotions experienced in relation to the opponent.

At the same time it is expedient stop seeing your opponent as an enemy, adversary. It is important to understand that the problem that caused the conflict is best solved together by joining forces. This is facilitated, firstly, by a critical analysis of one’s own position and actions - identifying and admitting one’s own mistakes reduces the negative perception of the opponent. Secondly, you must try to understand the interests of the other. To understand does not mean to accept or justify. However, this will expand your understanding of your opponent and make him more objective. Thirdly, it is advisable to highlight the constructive principle in the behavior or even in the intentions of the opponent. There are no absolutely bad or absolutely good people or social groups. Everyone has something positive, and it is necessary to rely on it when resolving a conflict.

Important reduce the negative emotions of the opposite party. Among the techniques are such as a positive assessment of some of the opponent’s actions, readiness to bring positions closer together, turning to a third party who is authoritative for the opponent, a critical attitude towards oneself, balanced own behavior, etc.

Objective discussion of the problem, clarification of the essence of the conflict, the ability of the parties to see the main thing contribute to the successful search for a solution to the contradiction. Focusing on secondary issues and caring only about one’s own interests reduces the chances of a constructive solution to the problem.

When the parties join forces to end the conflict, it is necessary taking into account each other’s statuses (positions). The party occupying a subordinate position or having junior status must be aware of the limits of concessions that its opponent can afford. Too radical demands can provoke the stronger side to return to conflict confrontation.

Another important condition is choosing the optimal resolution strategy appropriate to the given circumstances. Such strategies include cooperation and compromise, and only sometimes avoiding conflict.

The success of ending conflicts depends on how opponents take into account the factors that influence this process. These include:

• time: availability of time to discuss the problem, clarify positions and interests, and develop solutions. Reducing the time available to reach agreement by half leads to an increase in the likelihood of choosing an alternative that is more aggressive;
• Third side: participation in ending the conflict of neutral persons (mediators) who help opponents solve the problem;
• timeliness: the parties begin to resolve the conflict in the early stages of its development. The logic is simple: less opposition - less damage - less resentment and claims - more opportunities to come to an agreement;
• balance of forces: if the conflicting parties are approximately equal in capabilities (equal status or position), then they are forced to look for ways to peacefully resolve the problem;
• culture: high level the common culture of opponents reduces the likelihood of a violent conflict developing. It was revealed that conflicts in the authorities government controlled are resolved more constructively if opponents have high business and moral qualities;
• unity of values: the existence of agreement between the conflicting parties about what should constitute an acceptable solution. Conflicts are more or less regulated when their participants have a common system of values, goals and interests;
• experience (example): at least one of the opponents has experience in solving similar problems, as well as knowledge of examples of resolving similar conflicts;
• relationship: good relations between opponents before the conflict contribute to a more complete resolution of the contradiction.

Conflict resolution algorithm

Conflict resolution is a multi-stage process that includes analysis and assessment of the situation, choosing a method for resolving the conflict, forming an action plan, its implementation, and assessing the effectiveness of one’s actions.

Analytical stage involves collecting and assessing information on the following issues:

• the object of the conflict (material, social or ideal; divisible or indivisible; can it be withdrawn or replaced; what is its accessibility for each of the parties);
• opponent (general information about him, his psychological characteristics; the opponent’s relationship with management; opportunities to improve your rank; his goals, interests, position; legal and moral foundations of his demands; previous actions in the conflict, mistakes made; where interests coincide and where they do not, etc.);
• own position (goals, values, interests, actions in conflict; legal and moral foundations own requirements, their reasoning and evidence; mistakes made and the possibility of admitting them to an opponent, etc.);
• reasons and immediate cause that led to the conflict;
• social environment (situation in the company; what problems the company, the opponent are solving, and how the conflict affects them; who and how supports each of the opponents; what is the reaction of management, the public, subordinates, if opponents have them; what do they know about the conflict);
• secondary reflection (the subject’s idea of ​​how his opponent perceives the conflict situation, “how he perceives me,” “my idea of ​​the conflict,” etc.).

Sources of information are personal observations, conversations with management, subordinates, informal leaders, one’s own friends and friends of opponents, witnesses to the conflict, etc.

Having analyzed and assessed the conflict situation, opponents predict options for conflict resolution and determine the ones that suit their interests and situations strategies for its resolution. Forecasted:

The most favorable development of events;
- the least favorable development of events;
- the most realistic development of events;
- how the contradiction will be resolved if you simply stop active actions in the conflict.

It is important to determine conflict resolution criteria, and they must be recognized by both parties. These include:

Legal norms;
- moral principles;
- opinion authority figures;
- precedents for solving similar problems in the past;
- traditions.

Activities to implement the planned plan carried out in accordance with the chosen method of conflict resolution. If necessary, it is done correction of a previously planned plan(returning to the discussion; putting forward alternatives; putting forward new arguments; appealing to third parties; discussing additional concessions).

Monitoring the effectiveness of your own actions involves critically answering questions to yourself:

• Why am I doing this?
• what do I want to achieve?
• What makes it difficult to implement the plan?
• Are my actions fair?
• What actions need to be taken to eliminate obstacles to conflict resolution?

By end of the conflict advisable:

• analyze the mistakes of your own behavior;
• summarize the knowledge gained and experience in solving the problem;
• try to normalize relations with a recent opponent;
• relieve discomfort (if it arises) in relationships with others;
• minimize the negative consequences of the conflict in one’s own state, activities and behavior.

As noted above, the choice of conflict resolution strategy is of great importance. The most effective are compromise and cooperation. Compromise consists in the desire of opponents to end the conflict with partial concessions. It is characterized by the rejection of some of the previously put forward demands, the willingness to recognize the claims of the other party as partially justified, and the willingness to forgive. Compromise is effective in the following cases:

Understanding by the opponent that he and the opponent have equal opportunities;
- presence of mutually exclusive interests;
- satisfaction with the temporary solution;
- threats to lose everything.

Today, compromise is the most commonly used strategy for ending conflicts. To achieve this, it can be recommended open conversation technique, which is as follows:

• declare that the conflict is unprofitable for both parties to the conflict;
• propose to end the conflict;
• admit your mistakes that have already been made in the conflict (they probably exist, and admitting them costs you almost nothing);
• make concessions to your opponent, where possible, on what is not the main thing for you in the conflict. In any conflict, you can find a few little things in which nothing is worth giving up. You can give in on serious, but not fundamental things;
• express wishes about concessions required on the part of the opponent (they, as a rule, relate to your main interests in the conflict);
• calmly, without negative emotions, discuss mutual concessions, and, if necessary, adjust them;
• if we managed to reach an agreement, then somehow record that the conflict has been resolved.

Cooperation is considered the most effective strategy for dealing with conflict. It presupposes that opponents are focused on a constructive discussion of the problem, viewing the other side not as an adversary, but as an ally in the search for a solution. Most effective in situations: strong interdependence of opponents; the tendency of both to ignore differences in power; the importance of the decision for both parties; open-mindedness of the participants.

It is advisable to carry out the method of cooperation according to the method "principled negotiations". It boils down to this:

• separating people from the problem: separate the relationship with your opponent from the problem; put yourself in his place; do not act on your fears; show your willingness to deal with the problem; be firm on the issue and soft on the people;
• attention to interests, not positions: ask “why?” and “why not?”; record basic interests and many of them; look for common interests; explain the vitality and importance of your interests; recognize your opponent's interests as part of the problem;
• offer mutually beneficial options: Don't look for a single answer to a problem; separate the search for options from their evaluation; expand the range of options for solving the problem; seek mutual benefit; find out what the other side prefers;
• use objective criteria: be open to the other side's arguments; do not give in to pressure, but only to principle; For each part of the problem, use objective and fair criteria; use several criteria at once.

Resolving conflicts between a manager and a subordinate

To resolve conflicts between a manager and a subordinate, we can recommend the following.

1. The manager needs to interest the subordinate in the solution to the conflict that he envisions. You can change the motivation of a subordinate's behavior different ways- from explaining the incorrectness of his position to offering certain concessions if the leader is wrong in something.

2. Give reasons for your demands in the conflict. It is advisable to support persistence in demands on a subordinate with convincing arguments and legal norms.

3. Know how to listen to a subordinate in a conflict. A manager sometimes makes the wrong decision due to lack of necessary information. A subordinate could give it, but the manager does not bother to listen to him, and this makes it difficult to resolve the conflict.

4. Delve into the concerns of your subordinate. Many “vertical” conflicts arise due to the disorder of the subordinate’s activities and his perception of the workload as excessive. A more reasonable attitude of the boss towards the interests of the subordinate, sometimes even demonstrating that his problems are not indifferent to the management, makes the subordinate more accommodating, less conflicting and compromising.

5. Without special need, do not escalate the conflict with your subordinate. After a conflict escalates, it is difficult to resolve it, as interpersonal relationships deteriorate, the level of negative emotions increases, and the degree to which opponents are right decreases as a result of mutual rudeness.

6. Raising your voice in a conflict dialogue with a subordinate is not the best argument. Research shows that in 30% of conflicts with subordinates, managers are rude, yell, etc. Rudeness is a sign that the leader does not control the situation and himself. The word is the main means of influencing a subordinate and it should be used to resolve the conflict, and not to aggravate it.

7. The transition from “you” to “you” is actual humiliation of the subordinate. This gives him the moral right to respond in kind. When resolving a conflict, it is important to maintain a professional distance in relation to a subordinate and address him as “you”.

8. If the manager is right, then it is advisable for him to act calmly, relying on his official status. The calmness of the leader and his self-confidence enhance the justice of the boss’s demands in the eyes of the subordinate.

9. Leverage support from senior management and the public. This is necessary in a situation where the subordinate is intransigent and the manager is right. It is important that support is not aimed at increasing pressure on the subordinate, but at resolving the contradiction.

10. Do not abuse the opportunities of your official position. Official position is a solid advantage in a conflict with a subordinate. Inexperienced managers, to resolve the conflict in their favor, use such methods of influencing the opponent as increasing his workload, creating inconveniences and difficulties for him, applying disciplinary sanctions, etc. Such actions embitter the subordinate, make him uncompromising, and make it difficult to resolve the conflict.

11. Do not prolong the conflict with your subordinate. In addition to the loss of working time, long-term conflicts are fraught with mutual grievances and, as a result, the loss of the advantages of the right in the conflict. As the duration of the conflict increases, the probability of victory for the subordinate increases and this probability for the leader decreases.

12. Don't be afraid to compromise. Especially in cases where the leader is not confident that he is right.

13. If you are wrong in a conflict, then it is better not to delay and give in to your subordinate. You need to find the courage to admit this to yourself, and, if necessary, apologize to your subordinate. It is advisable to do this one on one, pointing out to the subordinate that he also made mistakes (which usually happens).

14. Remember that a conflict leader is not always a bad leader. The main thing is to be fair, demanding of yourself and your subordinates, solve problems, and not just aggravate relationships.

15. A leader with conflict is always an inconvenient leader. The ability to resolve pre-conflict and conflict situations in non-conflict ways will contribute to strengthening your authority.

Ending the conflictis to end the conflict for any reason.

The complexity of this process implies the diversity of its basic forms.

Conflict resolution- it is a joint activity of its participants aimed at ending opposition and solving the problem that led to the clash. It presupposes the activity of both parties to transform the conditions in which they interact, to eliminate the causes of the conflict. To resolve the conflict, it is necessary to change the opponents themselves, their positions that they defended in the conflict. Often the resolution of a conflict is based on changing the attitude of opponents towards its object or towards each other.

Conflict resolution- eliminating contradictions between opponents with the participation of a third party, which is possible both with and without the consent of the warring parties.

Decay of conflict- temporary cessation of opposition while maintaining the main signs of the conflict: contradictions and tensions. The conflict moves from obvious to hidden form. Conflict subsidence is possible:

· when there is a loss of motivation for confrontation (the object of the conflict has lost its
relevance);

· when reorienting the motive, switching to other things, etc.;

· when resources, all strength and capabilities for the fight are depleted.

Resolving Conflict- such an impact on it, as a result of which the main structural elements of the conflict are eliminated. This is possible using the following methods:

· removal of one of the opponents from the conflict (transfer to another department, branch; dismissal from work) or exclusion of interaction between opponents for a long time (sending one or both on a business trip, etc.);

· removal of the object of the conflict (the mother takes away from the quarreling children the toy that caused the conflict);

· eliminating the deficit of the conflict object (the mother adds candy to one of the quarreling children, who had less).

Evolving into another conflict- a new, more significant contradiction arises in the relations of the parties and the object of the conflict changes.

Outcome of the conflictis considered as a result of the struggle from the point of view of the state of the parties and their attitude towards the object of the conflict. The outcomes of the conflict can be:

· elimination of one or both parties;

· suspension of the conflict with the possibility of its resumption;

· victory of one of the parties (mastery of the object of the conflict);

· division of the conflict object (symmetrical or asymmetrical);

· agreement on the rules for sharing the object;

· equivalent compensation to one of the parties for taking possession of the object of the other
side;

· refusal of both parties to encroach on this object;

· alternative definition of such objects that satisfy the interests of both parties.

Rice. 4.4.1. Ending Conflicts

Majority conditions for successful conflict resolution wears psychological character, as it reflects the characteristics of the behavior and interaction of opponents.

Let's look at some of them.

Termination of conflict interaction - the first and obvious condition for the beginning of the resolution of any conflict. As long as some measures are taken by one or both sides to strengthen their position or weaken the opponent’s position through violence, there can be no talk of resolving the conflict.

Search for common or similar points of contact opponents is a two-way process and involves an analysis of both their goals and interests and the goals and interests of the other side. If the parties want to resolve a conflict, they must focus on the interests, not the personality of the opponent.

Reduce the intensity of negative emotions, experienced in relation to the opponent. When resolving a conflict, a stable negative attitude of the parties towards each other remains. To begin to resolve the conflict, it is necessary to soften this negative attitude.

Stop seeing your opponent as an enemy, adversary, understand that it is better to solve the problem together by joining forces. This is facilitated by: a critical analysis of one’s own position and actions, understanding the interests of another, highlighting a constructive principle in the behavior or even in the intentions of the opponent. Revealing the content of these positions, you can see that admitting your own mistakes reduces the negative perception of your opponent. Understanding does not mean acceptance or justification; rather, it expands the understanding of the opponent, makes him more objective, and, finally, there are no absolutely bad or absolutely good people or social groups, everyone has something positive, and this is what you need to rely on when resolving conflict.

Important reduce the negative emotions of the opposite party. Among the techniques are such as a positive assessment of some of the opponent’s actions, readiness to bring positions closer together, turning to a third party who is authoritative for the opponent, a critical attitude towards oneself, one’s own balanced behavior, etc.

Objective discussion of the problem, clarification of the essence of the conflict, the ability of the parties to see the main thing contributes to the successful search for resolution of the contradiction. Focusing on secondary issues and caring only about one’s own interests reduces the chances of a constructive solution to the problem.

When the parties join forces to end the conflict, it is necessary taking into account each other's status (position). The party occupying a subordinate position or having junior status must be aware of the limits of concessions that its opponent can afford. Too radical demands can provoke the stronger side to return to conflict confrontation.

Another important condition is choosing the optimal resolution strategy, corresponding to the specific situation.

Success ending conflicts depends on how the conflicting parties take into account the factors influencing this process:

· time : availability of time to discuss the problem, clarify positions and interests, and develop solutions. Reducing the time available to reach agreement by half leads to an increase in the likelihood of choice
an alternative that is more aggressive;

· Third side : participation in ending the conflict of neutral persons (institutions) who help opponents solve the problem. A number of studies (V. Cornelius, S. Fair, D. Moiseev, Yu. Myagkov, S. Proshanov, A. Shipilov) confirm positive influence third parties for conflict resolution;

· timeliness : the parties begin to resolve the conflict in the early stages of its development. The logic is simple: less opposition - less damage - less resentment and claims - more opportunities to come to an agreement;

· balance of power : if the conflicting parties are approximately equal in capabilities (equal status, position, weapons, etc.), then they are forced to look for ways to peacefully resolve the problem. Conflicts are resolved more constructively when there is no work dependence between opponents;

· culture : a high level of general culture of opponents reduces the likelihood of a violent conflict developing. It has been revealed that conflicts in government bodies are resolved more constructively if opponents have high business and moral qualities;

· unity of values : the existence of agreement between the conflicting parties about what should constitute an acceptable solution. In other words, “...conflicts are more or less regulated when their participants have a common system of values” (V. Yadov), common goals, interests;

· experience (example) : at least one of the opponents has experience in solving similar problems, as well as knowledge of examples of resolving similar conflicts;

· relationship : good relations between opponents before the conflict contribute to a more complete resolution of the contradiction. For example, in strong families, where there are sincere relationships between spouses, conflicts are resolved more productively than in problem families.

Like any other interaction between people, conflict is characterized by a certain regulatory regulation. This makes it possible to make a conflict situation more stable and manageable, and to determine the long-term nature of its development and resolution. The normative regulation of conflicts has its own characteristics, determined both by the nature of the norms themselves and by the specifics of the confrontation between the parties. The range of measures used is quite wide.

Moral standards. Any conflict affects moral ideas about good and evil, right and wrong behavior, honor and dignity, etc. At the same time, many moral norms have never been and are not now generally accepted and the same for different social groups, and most often they are not clearly formulated.

Religious norms. Such norms are typical for most of those faiths where religious rules apply to a wide area of ​​human life. At the same time, interreligious conflicts are most often difficult to regulate by religious norms, which are clearly insufficient to resolve the contradictions that arise.

Rules of law, which, as a rule, are unambiguous, enshrined in relevant acts and sanctioned by the state. The positive point in this case is that in the minds of people they are of an official nature and cannot be changed under pressure from the parties or under the influence of someone’s preferences.

Regulatory in nature are of various kinds hostel rules and etc.

The presence of certain norms that can prevent or resolve a conflict situation also presupposes a certain system for their implementation.

A.V. Dmitriev identifies several methods of normative regulation.

· Informal method sets optimal options everyday behavior and relationships.

· Formalization method- written or oral fixation of norms in order to eliminate the uncertainty of the demands expressed by opponents and differences in their perception. When the parties disagree, it is worth returning to the starting points of their interaction.

· Localization method- linking norms to local characteristics and living conditions.

· Individualization method- differentiation of norms taking into account the personal characteristics and resources of people.

· Information method- explanation of the need and benefits of compliance with standards.

· Beneficial contrast method- norms are deliberately raised and then “released”, being fixed at a psychologically acceptable level, which is most often higher than the starting level.

In case of violation of any norms, a mechanism for applying sanctions comes into play. Various institutions, officials, and surrounding people intervene in the situation and are called upon to apply the law in one form or another.

In the areas considered, all components of the conflict are affected.

Conflict resolution includes the following stages.

Analytical stage involves collecting and assessing information on issues such as:

♦ object of the conflict (material or ideal; divisible or indivisible; can it be withdrawn or replaced; what is its accessibility for each of the parties);

♦ opponent (data about him, his psychological characteristics; the opponent’s relationship with management; opportunities to strengthen his rank; his goals, interests; legal and moral foundations of his demands; actions in conflict, mistakes; where interests coincide and where they do not and etc.);

♦ own position (goals, values, interests, actions in conflict; legal and moral basis of demands, their reasoning; mistakes, the possibility of their recognition, etc.);

♦ reasons and immediate cause that led to the conflict;

♦ social environment (situation in the organization, social group; what problems are solved by the organization, the opponent, how the conflict affects them; who supports each opponent and how; what is the reaction of management, the public, subordinates, if opponents have them; what they know about the conflict);

♦ secondary reflection (the subject’s idea of ​​how the opponent perceives the conflict situation, the subject himself and the subject’s idea of ​​the conflict, etc.).

Sources of information are personal observations, conversations with management, subordinates, informal leaders, one’s own friends and friends of opponents, witnesses to the conflict, etc.

Forecasting conflict resolution options opponents and determining ways to resolve it that are appropriate to their interests and situation. The following are predicted: the most favorable development of events; least favorable development of events; the most realistic development of events; how the contradiction will be resolved if you simply stop active actions in the conflict.

Defining criteria for conflict resolution, recognized by both parties. These include: legal norms; moral principles; opinion of authority figures; precedents for solving similar problems in the past, traditions.

Actions to implement the planned plan carried out in accordance with the chosen method of conflict resolution. If necessary, corrections are made to the previously planned plan.

Monitoring the effectiveness of your own actions- critical answers to the questions: “Why am I doing this? What do I want to achieve? What makes it difficult to implement the plan? Are my actions fair? What is needed to eliminate the obstacles to conflict resolution?” - and etc.

At the end of the conflict - analysis of results; generalization of acquired knowledge and experience; attempts to normalize relations with a recent opponent, relieve discomfort in relations with others, minimize the negative consequences of the conflict in one’s own state, activity and behavior.

Ending the conflict also requires certain tactics.

Tactics - it is a set of techniques for influencing an opponent, a means of implementing a strategy.

In conflicts, the development of options for using tactics usually goes from soft to harder. Of course, it is quite possible for a sharp, sudden use of harsh methods in relation to an opponent (for example, a surprise attack, the start of a war, etc.), nevertheless, they distinguish hard, neutral And soft types of tactics to influence an opponent.

Tough

Pressure tactics - presentation of demands, instructions, orders, threats, up to an ultimatum, presentation of compromising materials, blackmail. In conflicts, “vertical” is used in two out of three situations.

Tactics of physical violence (damage) - destruction of material assets, physical impact, causing bodily harm, blocking someone else’s activities, etc.

Tactics of capturing and holding the object of conflict. It is used in interpersonal, intergroup, interstate conflicts where the object is material. For conflicts between groups and states, it is most often presented as a complex activity where political, military, economic and other means are used.

Tactics of psychological violence (damage) - insult, rudeness, negative personal assessment, discriminatory measures, misinformation, deception, humiliation, dictatorship in interpersonal relationships. It causes offense in the opponent, hurts pride, dignity and honor.

Neutral

Coalition tactics. The goal is to strengthen your rank in the conflict. It is expressed in the formation of unions, increasing the support group at the expense of managers, friends, etc., appeals to the media, and authorities.

Authorization. Influencing an opponent through punishment, increasing the workload, imposing a ban, establishing blockades, failure to comply with orders under any pretext, or open refusal to comply.

Demonstration tactics. It is used to attract the attention of others to one’s person (public statements, complaints about health, absenteeism from work, a demonstrative attempt at suicide, hunger strikes, demonstrations, etc.).

Soft

Tactics for justifying your position most often used. Based on the use of facts and logic to confirm one’s position (persuasion, requests, making proposals, etc.).

Friendly tactics. Includes correct address, emphasizing the general, demonstrating readiness to solve the problem, presenting the necessary information, offering help, providing a service, apologizing, and encouraging.

Transaction tactics. Provides for the mutual exchange of benefits, promises, concessions, and apologies.

The same tactics can be used in different strategies. Thus, threat or pressure, considered as destructive actions, can be used in the event of the unwillingness or inability of one of the parties to a conflict situation to concede beyond certain limits.

Of fundamental importance for how the conflict ends is the opponent’s choice exit strategies out of him. It was previously noted that the strategy for exiting the conflict is the main line of behavior of the opponent at its final stage. Let us recall that back in 1942, the American social psychologist M. Follett, pointing out the need to resolve rather than suppress conflicts, identified compromise And integration as ways to ensure victory for one of the parties. Integration was understood as a new solution when the conditions of both parties are met, but neither side suffers serious losses. Later this method was called “cooperation”.

Today, five main strategies are most often distinguished: competition, compromise, cooperation, avoidance And device(K. Thomas). The choice of strategy for exiting a conflict depends on various factors. They usually point to the personal characteristics of the opponent, the level of damage caused or received, the availability of resources, the opponent’s status, consequences, duration of the conflict, etc. Let’s consider the feasibility of using each strategy.

Rivalry - imposing a preferred solution on the other side. It is believed that this strategy is detrimental to solving problems, since it does not give the opponent the opportunity to realize his interests. Rivalry is justified in the following cases: the proposed solution is clearly constructive; the benefit of the result for the entire group, organization, and not for an individual or microgroup; lack of time to persuade the opponent. Rivalry is advisable in extreme and fundamental situations, when there is a shortage of time and a high probability of dangerous consequences.

Compromise consists in the desire of opponents to end the conflict with partial concessions. It is characterized by the rejection of some of the previously put forward demands, the willingness to recognize the claims of the other party as partially justified, and the willingness to forgive. Compromise is effective in the following cases: the opponent understands that he and the opponent have equal capabilities; the presence of mutually exclusive interests; threats to lose everything.

device, or concession is considered as a forced or voluntary refusal to fight and surrender of one’s positions. The adoption of such a strategy is forced by: awareness of one’s wrongness; need to preserve good relations with an opponent; strong dependence on it; insignificance of the problem. Such a way out of the conflict is caused by significant damage received during the struggle, the threat of even more serious negative consequences, the lack of chances for a different outcome, and pressure from a third party.

Avoiding solving the problem or avoidance, is an attempt to get out of the conflict at a minimum cost. The opponent moves to her after unsuccessful attempts realize your interests using active strategies. Avoidance is used when there is a lack of energy and time to resolve a contradiction, a desire to gain time, or an unwillingness to solve the problem at all.

Cooperation - the most effective strategy for dealing with conflict. It involves opponents focusing on a constructive discussion of the problem, viewing the other side not as an adversary, but as an ally in the search for a solution. Most effective in situations: strong interdependence of opponents; the tendency of both to ignore differences in power; the importance of the decision for both parties; open-mindedness of the participants.