Conditions for constructive conflict resolution. Conditions, factors, methods of constructive conflict resolution

Sciences about the general laws of control in both living and non-living formations. The idea of ​​homeostasis (homeostasis), characteristic of living nature, was borrowed from there. The mechanisms of nature, precisely because of the presence of this idea, usually have very high reliability. Homeostasis is an adaptive property of an organism (system) - the ability to maintain certain indicators of the nature of its (her) functioning under changing (even critical (destroying some connections)) external and internal conditions. To implement it, it is necessary to have a set of channels designed so that, with appropriate reconfiguration, they can be used to perform various (initially not characteristic of them) functions, weakening, of course, the degree of provision of the main function, but not so much that it is still nominally not possible fulfill. In this connection, an opportunity arises. organize new channels to solve the required problem facing the system if the previous ones are disabled for any reason Synergetics (jointness, complementarity, cooperation) - the science of self-organization in a system as a result of interaction large number its subsystems (as different potencies). This is another way of resolving a conflict (between the environment and the organism (system)), associated in this case with the vulnerability of the channels of functioning, resolved on the basis of constructive redundancy and functional versatility of elements (in the case of optimization, associated with the peculiarities of the functioning of the object, resolved on the basis of mutual concessions ).  

In the computer center of one of the enterprises, seven managers were replaced in three years. Every time a new boss was appointed, he was introduced to the team unambiguously. Here, comrades, is your new leader. You won't find anything better. When this position was taken by the seventh manager, who invited those with whom he had worked previously to key positions, the team did not accept the newcomers. The adaptation process was delayed due to hidden conflict relations, since strong dissatisfaction arose in the team with strangers, Varangians, and outsiders who wanted to overcome the difficulties of the team straight away. Under these conditions, the team began to resist the new head of the CC. It turned out to be so strong that it almost completely blocked the feedback from the head of the computer center to the team. The ensemble of like-minded people became a hindrance in establishing these feedback connections, since it provoked a conflict situation with its rash decisions that did not take into account the collective opinion. A consultant helped cut the Gordian knot of conflict relations by proposing his program of action to the manager. It was convened general meeting team, at which the new head of the CC directly addressed the employees, without singling out either our own or others. What is stopping us from establishing friendly work and what can help? The answers to these questions were stated in writing. The head of the CC had the opportunity to clarify feedback with the team in order to make fair decisions. At the same time, he saw how the team treated him personally. Such feedback helped him self-critically evaluate his self-image, change his ideas about the correctness of his past decisions, reconsider the ways of making them, and adjust his leadership style. This made it easier for him to adapt to the team, but he was never able to completely overcome problematic difficulties in the relationship between those whom he invited to work and those who worked in the team, although he took a firm managerial position in resolving the conflict without succumbing to the pressure of his own.  

Required condition The proposed test is, first of all, a person’s readiness to understand for himself which of the five styles conflict behavior he uses most often or least often when resolving conflicts, which method he considers the most suitable and convenient, allowing him to feel quite comfortable. Undoubtedly, sincere and prompt responses that express a direct and intuitive reaction to the intended questions are important. It is also required to immediately, without thought or hesitation, record your assessment in corresponding column tables. Only if these conditions are met can one count on obtaining a general objective picture of how a given person relates to different methods of conflict resolution, which of them are this moment preferable for him.  

The ideal strategy is to finally resolve the conflict, the essence of which is to find and eliminate its causes within the framework of voluntary cooperation of the parties and end the confrontation. The conditions for this are a timely and accurate diagnosis of the problem, taking into account the interests of all parties, the presence of a common goal. Such a strategy is beneficial to everyone. Firstly, it turns opponents into partners, and therefore improves the situation within the organization. Secondly, the problem is not driven deeper, but ceases to exist altogether. Third, the benefits gained by the parties, even if they are distributed unevenly, still exceed those that could be obtained with any other strategy.  

F. Taylor and M. Weber saw destructive properties in conflicts and in their teachings they proposed measures to completely eliminate conflicts from the life of an organization. However, we know that this has not been achieved in practice. Behaviorist and then modern school management has established that in most organizations conflicts can also have constructive beginnings. Much depends on how the conflict is managed. Devastating consequences arise when the conflict is either very small or very strong. When the conflict is small, it most often goes unnoticed and thus does not find its adequate resolution. The differences seem very small to motivate participants to make the necessary changes. However, they remain and cannot but affect the efficiency general work. The conflict has reached strong condition, is usually accompanied by the development of stress among its participants. This in turn leads to decreased morale and cohesion. Tax codes and laws on the procedure for resolving collective labor conflicts at enterprises, about subsoil, about animals and flora, about the continental shelf and its use, about marine economic zones etc.). Laws that are not directly related to economics also contain rules of an economic nature (for example, liability in criminal law for theft or damage to property). Laws, with rare exceptions, are of a general regulatory nature, but private laws are also published (for example, the Federal Law of January 2, 2000 On subsoil plots, the right to use which can be granted on the terms of production sharing at the Vankor gas and oil field (in the Krasnoyarsk  

TOPIC 8. COMPLETION OF NEGOTIATIONS AND THEIR RESULTS

1. Conflict resolution in negotiations

2. Technology for completing negotiations

3. Psychological conditions for success in negotiations

Conflict resolution in negotiations

The complexity and multivariate development of the negotiation process implies ambiguity in the methods and forms of its completion. Many authors even use various concepts, which reflect the specificity and completeness of the termination of the negotiation processes: “settlement”, “settlement”, “suppression”, “attenuation”, “completion”, “elimination”, etc. Of these concepts, the broadest is “completion,” which means the end of the negotiation process for any reason. The main forms of ending a conflict: resolution, settlement, attenuation, elimination, escalation into another conflict.

Conflict resolution – it is a joint activity of its participants aimed at ending opposition and solving the problem that led to the clash.

Conflict resolution involves the activity of both parties to 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.

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 underlying contradiction 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.

Conflict subsides usually 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, all strength and capabilities for the fight.

Under eliminating the conflict understand the impact on it, as a result of which the main structural elements of the conflict 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 conflict (transfer to another department, branch; dismissal from work);

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

Eliminating the object of the conflict (the mother takes away the toy from the quarreling children that caused the 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.

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:

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 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.

When they talk about rationalizing a conflict, they mean a meaningful, planned influence on the behavior of the opposing parties in the direction of achieving positive consequences. The form of rational influence on the conflict is its regulation.

The concept of “regulation” should be distinguished from the concept of “resolution” of conflict. The latter denotes the process of eliminating, first of all, the basis of the conflict, its causes and subject. Conflict regulation is limited to identifying certain elements of conflict interaction and eliminating or using them in management. Regulation is the translation of a conflict into the mainstream of the “rules of the game” that are desirable for the control system, in other words, the desired pattern of conflict interaction.

The final stage of the conflict is its permission. The concepts of “resolution”, “overcoming”, “reconciliation” imply conscious intervention during the conflict. There is a huge literature on this problem. Conflictologists also use the concept of “attenuation” of conflict. However, it is not entirely adequate to the content of its final stage; it smacks of spontaneity, while conscious action dominates at this stage. The concept of “ending” the conflict is more acceptable.

The concept of “completion” of the conflict allows us to emphasize the one-sidedness of anti-conflict actions, designated by the terms “suppression” and “cancellation” of the conflict. Neither one nor the other action leads to a resolution of the conflict, since it is exclusively volitional, ignoring the objective logic of the contradiction. It is possible to suppress or cancel a conflict only temporarily, and then it inevitably arises again, since the underlying objective contradiction remains unresolved, and the elements of the conflict situation have not been eliminated.

The question of the criteria for resolving the conflict is important.

According to the American conflictologist L/. Deutsch(1976), the main criterion for conflict resolution is satisfaction of the parties with its results. Domestic teacher V. M. Afonkova(1975) identified the following criteria for conflict resolution:

Cessation of opposition;

Elimination of traumatic factors;

Achieving the goal of one of the conflicting parties;

Changing the individual's position;

Formation of the skill of active behavior of an individual in similar situations in the future.

Criteria constructive permission conflict aredegree of resolution of the contradiction, underlying conflict, and victory in no 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 important is victory right side. The affirmation of truth, the victory of justice have a beneficial effect on the socio-psychological climate of the organization, efficiency joint activities, serve as a warning to individuals who may potentially seek to achieve a legally or morally questionable 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.

Conditions and factors for conflict resolution

Majority conditions and factors successful conflict resolution is psychological character, as it reflects behavioral characteristics And interactions between opponents. Some researchers highlight organizational, historical, legal and other factors. Let's take a closer look at them.

Ending conflict interactions- 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 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 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, an adversary. It is important to understand that the problem that caused the conflict is best solved together by joining forces.

This contribute to:

Critical analysis own position and actions. Identifying and admitting your own mistakes reduces the negative perception of your opponent;

The desire to understand the interests of another. To understand does not mean to accept or justify. However, this will expand the idea of ​​the opponent and make him more objective;

Highlighting 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 contributes 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 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 strong point to return to conflict confrontation.

Another important condition is choosing the optimal resolution strategy, appropriate to the given circumstances. These strategies are discussed in the next paragraph.

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

1)time: availability of time to discuss the problem, clarify positions and interests, and develop solutions. Reducing the time by half of the available time V order to achieve agreement leads to an increase in the likelihood of choosing an alternative that is more aggressive;

2)Third side: participation V the end of the conflict between neutral persons (institutions) who help opponents solve the problem. A number of studies confirm positive influence third parties for conflict resolution;

3)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 reach an agreement.

4)balance of forces: 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;

5)culture: high level general culture opponents reduces the likelihood of a violent conflict developing. It was revealed that conflicts in the authorities government controlled are resolved more constructively if the opponents have high business and moral qualities;

6)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 manageable when their participants have general system values”, common goals, interests;

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

8)relationships*, a good relationship 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.

100 RUR bonus for first order

Select job type Graduate work 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 conflictual interaction between the conflicting parties ceases. Elimination, cessation 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 only affects it 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 successful resolution conflicts

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 plurality 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.

Most of the conditions and factors for successful conflict resolution are psychological character, as it reflects the characteristics of the behavior and interaction of opponents. Some researchers highlight organizational, historical, legal and other factors. Let's look at them in more detail

Stopping conflict interactions- first and obvious condition the beginning of resolving 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 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 parties want to resolve a conflict, they must focus on the interests, not the personality of the opponent ( R. Fischer, W. Urey).\

Until the conflict is resolved, the parties maintain a stable negative attitude towards each other. 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 by:

Critical analysis of one's own position and actions. Identifying and admitting your own mistakes reduces the negative perception of your opponent;

The desire to understand the interests of another. To understand does not mean to accept or justify. However, this will expand the idea of ​​the opponent and make him more objective;

Highlighting 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 reduce 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 of a subordinate to a superior can provoke the stronger side to return to conflict confrontation.

Another important condition is choosing the optimal resolution strategy appropriate to the given circumstances. These strategies are discussed in the next paragraph.

Make stress work for you

If troubles cannot be avoided, then it is advisable to try to benefit from them as much as possible by changing the point of view:

Try to accept negative event as positive (loss of job as an opportunity to find a better one);

Treat stress as a source of energy. In a calm state, you could not do so much; in an excited state, you managed to do incomparably more. See a problem as a challenge;

Don't think of past events as failure;

You cannot be responsible for the actions of other people, but you can only control your reaction to them. The main thing is victory over emotions;

Don't try to please everyone, it's unrealistic, please yourself from time to time.

Behavior in crisis situations

There are several ways to survive serious life conflicts:

Try to look into the future in a positive light. At least for a moment, remember how you felt when everything was fine. During the war, many who survived the famine say that remembering the delicious things they ate before the war allowed them to survive the pangs of hunger and survive;

Learn physical relaxation techniques, avoid tense postures that cause stress;

Live for today: set goals for today, don't demand too much from yourself;

If necessary, solve a large and difficult task, from just the thought of which you give up, break it down into small components and begin to solve them gradually;

Do not allow yourself to drown in pity for yourself and your life, do not refuse the help of loved ones;

Remember that you are not alone. What you are experiencing now, others have endured and survived. So will it be for you.

Avoid friction in the family

Start resisting stress with your family, at home.

Find an opportunity to discuss problems at home; try to share the concerns of the other side;

Don’t “discharge yourself” at home;

Learn to listen to the problems of loved ones with positive attitude, and not as an additional burden: “Well, what happened to you again?”;

Always be together, let the problem unite you and not add additional difficulties.

Other examples of stress neutralization are presented in table. 6.2.
Table 6.2. Examples of stress neutralization methods.

Most of the conditions and factors for successful conflict resolution are psychological in nature, as they reflect the characteristics of the behavior and interaction of opponents. Some researchers highlight organizational, historical, legal and other factors. Let's take a closer look at 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 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 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 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, 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.

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 contributes 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 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, appropriate to the given circumstances. These strategies are discussed in the next paragraph.

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. 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 (institutions) who help opponents solve the problem. A number of studies (V. Cornelius, S. Fair, D. Moiseev, Y. Myagkov, S. Proshanov, A. Shipilov) confirm 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 reach 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 of 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.

Logic, strategies and methods of conflict resolution

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 strengthen his rank; his goals, interests, position; legal and moral principles his requirements; previous actions in conflict, mistakes made; where interests coincide and where they do not, etc.);

Own position (goals, values, interests, actions in a conflict; legal and moral foundations of one’s own demands, their reasoning and evidence; mistakes made and the possibility of admitting them to an opponent, etc.);

The reasons and immediate cause that led to the conflict;

Social environment (the situation in the organization, social group; what problems the organization, the opponent solves, 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 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 ways to resolve it. 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.

It is important to determine criteria for conflict resolution, and they must be 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, 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 the 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? and etc.

At the end of the conflict It is advisable to: 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.

2. Strategies for exiting the conflict. Of fundamental importance for how the conflict ends is the opponent’s choice of exit strategy. “The interaction strategies developed by its participants are often decisive for the outcome of a conflict.”

The conflict exit strategy is the main line of behavior of the opponent at its final stage. Let us recall that there are five main strategies: competition, compromise, cooperation, avoidance and adaptation (K. Thomas). The choice of strategy for exiting a conflict depends on various factors. Usually they indicate the personal characteristics of the opponent, the level of damage caused to the opponent and their own damage, the availability of resources, the status of the opponent, possible consequences, the significance of the problem being solved, the duration of the conflict, etc.

There are five strategies for getting out of conflict. Rivalry, Compromise, device, Avoiding solving the problem Cooperation.

Back in 1942, American social psychologist M. Follett pointed out the need to resolve (settle) conflicts, rather than suppress them. Among the methods, she highlighted the victory of one of the parties, compromise and integration. Integration was understood as a new solution in which the conditions of both parties are met, and neither of them suffers serious losses. Later, this method of conflict resolution was called “cooperation.”

Rice. 36.2. Dependence of the method of conflict resolution on the strategies chosen by opponents

The use of a compromise is most likely, since steps forward taken by at least one of the parties make it possible to achieve an asymmetrical (one side concedes more, the other less) or symmetrical (the parties make approximately equal mutual concessions) agreement. The value of compromise is that it can be achieved in cases where the parties choose different strategies. This happens often in life. A study of conflict resolution between a manager and a subordinate showed that one third of these conflicts end in compromise, two thirds in a concession (mostly of the subordinate) and only 1-2% of conflicts end in cooperation!

The explanation for this dispersion in the frequency of using vertical conflict resolution methods lies in the stereotypes of thinking and behavior of Russians and the characteristics of this type of conflict. Most of us are focused on confrontation, solving problems with the result: I won, he lost. For decades, this principle prevailed in interactions with those who were not like us, who did not agree with us. In addition, in conflicts between “manager and subordinate” in 60% of situations, the boss is right in his demands on the subordinate (omissions in work, dishonest performance of duties, failure to perform, etc.). Therefore, most managers consistently pursue a strategy of competition in conflict, achieving the desired behavior from their subordinates.

The considered methods of conflict resolution are implemented in practice by forceful suppression one of the parties or through negotiations (compromise, cooperation, and sometimes concession). Forceful suppression is a continuation of the application of the strategy of competition. In this case, the stronger side achieves its goals and gets the opponent to waive the initial demands. The yielding party fulfills the opponent’s demands, or apologizes for shortcomings in activity, behavior or communication. If the parties understand that the problem is important for each of them and it is worth solving it taking into account mutual interests, then they use the path negotiations Here we will briefly describe the main technologies of compromise and cooperation.

It is important to normalize relations between opponents on the eve of the negotiation process. One way to do this is PRISN technique(consistent and reciprocal initiatives in reducing tension (S. Lindskold et al.). The PRIS method was proposed by the social psychologist Charles Osgood and is successfully used in conflict resolution different levels: international, intergroup, interpersonal (B. Bethe, W. Smith). It includes the following rules:

Make sincere, public statements that one of the parties to the conflict wants to stop the escalation of the conflict;

Explain that conciliatory steps will definitely be taken. Inform what, how and when will be done;

Keep what you promise;

Encourage your opponent to exchange concessions, but do not demand them as a condition for fulfilling your own promises;

Concessions must be made over a sufficiently long period of time and even if the other party does not reciprocate. They should not lead to an increase in the vulnerability of the party implementing them. An example of the successful use of the PRSN method is the trip of Egyptian President A. Sadat to Jerusalem in 1977. Relations between Egypt and Israel were very tense at the time, and the trip increased mutual trust and paved the way for negotiations.

The compromise is based on the technology of “proximity concessions”, as it is also called - bargain. Compromise is believed to have disadvantages: disputes over positions lead to cut-rate agreements; the ground is created for tricks; a deterioration in relations is possible, as there may be threats, pressure, and breakdown of contacts; if there are several parties, bargaining becomes more complicated, etc. According to D. Lowell: compromise - a good umbrella, but a bad roof; it is expedient for a while, is often needed in inter-party struggles, and is almost never needed by the one who governs the state.

Despite this, in real life the compromise is often used. To achieve this, it can be recommended open conversation technique, which is as follows:

State that the conflict is disadvantageous to both;

Offer to stop the conflict;

Admit your mistakes already made in the conflict. They probably exist, and it costs you almost nothing to recognize them;

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 it is not worth giving up. You can give in on serious, but not fundamental things;

Express wishes for concessions required on the part of the opponent. They usually relate to your main interests in the conflict;

Calmly, without negative emotions, discuss mutual concessions, and, if necessary, adjust them;

If you manage to reach an agreement, then somehow record that the conflict has been resolved.

Way cooperation it is advisable to carry out using 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.

Focus on interests, not positions: ask “why?” and “why not?”; record basic interests and their multitude; look for common interests; explain the vitality and importance of your interests; recognize the interests of your opponent 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 criteria; use multiple criteria; use fair criteria.