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 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 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.

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. Such strategies are 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 a 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 party: 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 power: 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 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; unity of values: the existence of agreement between conflicting parties about what should constitute an acceptable solution. Conflicts are more or less manageable when their participants have general system 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: a good relationship between opponents before the conflict contribute to a more complete resolution of the contradiction.

Most conditions and factors successful resolution conflicts wears psychological character, as it reflects the characteristics of the behavior and interaction of participants. Some researchers highlight organizational, historical, legal and other factors. Let's take a closer look at them. Stopping conflict interactions– the first and obvious condition for the beginning of the resolution of any conflict. Until the two sides strengthen their position or weaken the position of a participant 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 the participants 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 the conflict, they should focus on the interests, and not on the personality of the opponent (P. O. Triffin, M. I. Mogilevsky).

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

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 participant's negative perceptions. 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 participant. 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 a positive assessment of some of the opponent’s actions, a willingness to bring positions closer together, an appeal to a third party who is authoritative for the participant, a critical attitude towards oneself, a 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 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 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.

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

- 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 by neutral persons (institutions) who help participants 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. 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, 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 the participants;

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

- 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 participants 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 is a multi-stage process that includes analysis and assessment of the situation, choosing a method conflict resolution, formation of an action plan, its implementation, evaluation of 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);

Participant (general information about him, his psychological characteristics; the participant's relationship with management; opportunities to improve your rank; his goals, interests, position; legal and moral foundations of his demands; previous actions in conflict, mistakes made; where interests coincide and where they do not, etc.);

Own position (goals, values, interests, actions in conflict; legal and moral basis own requirements, their reasoning and evidence; mistakes made and the possibility of admitting them to the participant, 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 subordinates, if the opponents have them; what 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 the participants in the conflict, witnesses to the conflict, etc.

Having analyzed and assessed the conflict situation, the participants 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 will the contradiction be resolved if you just stop active actions in 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.

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 recent participants; relieve discomfort (if it arises) in relationships with others; minimize the negative consequences of conflict in one’s own states, activities and behavior.

Conflict resolution factors

Adequacy of conflict reflection;

Openness and effectiveness of communication between conflicting parties;

Creating a climate of mutual trust and cooperation;

Determining the essence of the conflict.

Adequate perception of conflict

1. “Illusions of one’s own nobility.” In a conflict situation, we often believe that we are a victim of attacks from an evil enemy, moral principles which is very doubtful. It seems to us that truth and justice are entirely on our side and testify in our favor. In most conflicts, each of the opponents is confident in his rightness and desire for a fair resolution of the conflict, convinced that only the enemy does not want this. As a result, suspicion is often naturally stems from existing bias.

2. “Looking for the straw in the eye of another.” Each of the opponents sees the shortcomings and errors of the other, but is not aware of the same shortcomings in himself. As a rule, each of the conflicting parties tends not to notice the meaning of their own actions in relation to the opponent, but reacts with indignation to his actions.

3. “Double ethics.” Even when opponents realize what they are doing same actions in relation to each other, each of them still perceives their own actions as acceptable and legal, and the opponent’s actions as dishonest and impermissible.

4. “Everything is clear.” Very often, each of the partners oversimplifies the conflict situation, and in such a way that it confirms general idea that his virtues are good and correct, and his partner’s actions, on the contrary, are bad and inadequate.

These and similar misconceptions inherent in each of us in a conflict situation, as a rule, aggravate the conflict and prevent a constructive exit from problematic situation. If the perceptual distortion in conflict is excessive, there is a real danger of becoming trapped by one's own bias. As a result, this can lead to the so-called self-confirming assumption: assuming that the partner is extremely hostile, you begin to defend against him, going on the offensive. Seeing this, the partner experiences hostility towards us, and our preliminary assumption, although it was incorrect, is immediately confirmed. Knowing about such ideas in a conflict situation, try to more carefully analyze your feelings in specific cases.

Open and effective communication between conflicting parties

Most conditions and factors for successful conflict resolution is psychological in nature, as it reflects the characteristics of the behavior and interaction of opponents. The cessation of conflict interaction is the first and obvious condition for the beginning of the resolution of any conflict. 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. 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. When the parties join forces to end the conflict, it is necessary to take into account statuses (position) of each other. 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 the choice of the optimal resolution strategy appropriate to the given circumstances. The success of ending conflicts depends on how the conflicting parties take into account the factors that influence this process. These are, for example, factors such as the availability of time to discuss a problem, clarify positions and interests, develop solutions (halving the time available to reach agreement leads to an increase in the likelihood of choosing an alternative); timeliness (the parties begin to resolve the conflict in the early stages of its development); balance of power (if the conflicting parties are approximately equal in capabilities, then they are forced to look for ways to peacefully resolve the problem); culture (a high level of general culture of opponents reduces the likelihood of a violent conflict); unity of values ​​(the presence of agreement between conflicting parties about what should constitute an acceptable solution). Conflicts are more or less regulated when their participants have a common system of values, common goals, interests and relationships: good relations between opponents before the conflict contribute to a more complete resolution of the contradiction.

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. There are six main stages of conflict resolution:

1) analytical stage,

2) forecasting options for resolving the conflict,

3) defining criteria for conflict resolution,

4) implementation of the conflict resolution plan,

5) execution control,

6) analysis of results.

Analytical stage involves the collection and assessment of information on the following problems: 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; his goals, interests, position; legal and moral foundations of his demands; previous actions in the conflict, mistakes made, etc.); own position(goals, values, interests, actions in 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 next step is conflict resolution prediction. Having analyzed and assessed the conflict situation at the analytical stage, opponents predict options for resolving the conflict and determine ways to resolve it that are appropriate to their interests and situation.

Then you need to move directly to implementing the conflict resolution plan. Actions to implement the planned plan are carried out in accordance with the chosen method of conflict resolution. We need to make sure we accept correct solution way to resolve the conflict, for this we must exercise control, i.e. monitor the implementation of the conflict resolution plan.

After the conflict is over, 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 your recent opponent, minimize the negative consequences of the conflict in your own state, activity and behavior.

Thus, with design permission social conflicts, we must be guided, first of all, not by the sensory perception of the situation, when personal hostility prevents us from properly assessing the situation, but by an objective look at the facts, and the subsequent construction of a strategy to eliminate the conflict. It is important to try to give a positive assessment to your opponent’s actions, try to understand him and be prepared to minimize the influence of negative emotions.

Conclusions on the second section:

1. Thus, in the analysis of conflicts, we have established that the integral model of resolving social conflicts is more perfect than both forceful, divorce and compromise models. This strategy is recognized by conflictology as universal and suitable for any type of social conflict, the most effective and socially useful. The integral model is quite applicable to conflicts with completely different ratios of constructive and destructive functions.

2. Having studied the compromise model of resolving social conflicts, we can draw an important conclusion: it is necessary to be flexible in setting and changing your short-term goals, while constantly taking care of your long-term vital interests. After all, many equate adherence to principles with “stubbornness”, with the refusal to reconsider one’s position in a conflict, regardless of what caused this position. At the same time, it is overlooked that the interests of people and their groups are always more important than the goals that they set for themselves in order to achieve these interests.

3. When constructively resolving social conflicts, it is important to pay attention to reducing negative emotions.

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 such an impact on it, as a result of which its main structural elements. 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 important is victory right side. The affirmation of truth, the victory of justice have a beneficial effect on the socio-psychological climate of the enterprise, efficiency joint activities, and also serve as a warning to persons who may potentially seek to achieve a legally or morally dubious goal 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 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. 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: 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. 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 strengthen his rank; his goals, interests, position; legal and moral foundations of his demands; previous actions in the conflict, mistakes made; where interests coincide, and in what - no, 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.);
• reasons and immediate cause that led to the conflict;
• social environment (situation in the company; what problems the company, the opponent, solves, 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 resolving it. 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 of 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, great importance has a choice of conflict resolution strategy. 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 it is not 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 considered the most effective strategy behavior in 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 the interpersonal relationships, the level of negative emotions increases, the degree of rightness of opponents 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. Strengthening your authority will be facilitated by the ability to resolve pre-conflict and conflict situations in non-conflict ways.