The style of behavior in the conflict is determined. Styles of behavior in a conflict situation

In real life, sometimes it is not so easy to establish the true cause of the conflict. And without this, it is impossible to find the optimal solution to pay it off. It is for such difficult cases that it is useful to know the styles of behavior in a conflict that interlocutors can use. Depending on the circumstances, it is necessary to choose a certain strategy of action. How to act in a given situation, you will learn in the article.

The main models of behavior in conflict

predictive style is distinguished by the avoidance of unwanted conflicts. A person with such a model of behavior tries not to succumb to provocations. Previously, he will conduct an analysis of hazardous areas, weigh the pros and cons. If at the same time the conflict is the only way out of the situation, then he will decide to start a dispute. With a predictive model, all options for their actions are thought out and the possible actions of the interlocutor are calculated. This style of behavior in conflict is characterized by the absence of emotional reactions or their weak expression. The preferred outcome is a compromise.

Corrective style can be characterized by a lag in assessing the situation. That is why the reaction to disagreements occurs immediately - immediately after the start of the conflict. At the same time, a person with such a model of behavior does not believe that there is a problem, but behaves very emotionally and unrestrainedly. Actions are characterized by fussiness, especially at the beginning of the conflict.

Destructive style characterized by the denial of the possibility of mutual concessions. Compromise is regarded only as a sign of weakness. Therefore, such a way out of the situation is considered unacceptable. A person with such a model of behavior constantly emphasizes the fallacy of the opponent's positions and his own correctness. At the same time, the interlocutor is accused of malicious intent, selfish motives and personal interest. A controversial situation with this way of behavior will be extremely emotionally perceived by both parties.

These were the main styles of behavior in the conflict. Within them, strategies can be distinguished.

behavior strategies

Researchers in the field of psychology distinguish five styles of behavior in

• Cooperation.
• Compromise.
• Ignoring.
• Rivalry.
• Adaptation.

Let's take a closer look at each style of behavior.

Cooperation

This is the most difficult behavior model, but at the same time the most effective of all. Its meaning is to find a solution that would satisfy the interests and needs of all participants in the conflict. To do this, the opinion of everyone is taken into account and all the proposed options are listened to. The discussion proceeds calmly, without negative emotions. Conversation uses evidence, arguments, and beliefs to achieve a result. This style of behavior in conflict resolution is based on mutual respect and therefore contributes to the preservation of strong and lasting relationships.

However, you need to be able to restrain emotions, clearly explain your interests and listen to the other side. The absence of at least one factor makes this model of behavior ineffective. In what situations is this style most appropriate?

• When a compromise is not suitable, but a common solution is needed.
• If the main goal is a collaborative work experience.
• There is an interdependent and long-term relationship with the conflicting party.
• It is necessary to exchange points of view and strengthen the personal involvement of opponents in activities.

Compromise

This is a less constructive style of behavior in conflict. Compromise nevertheless takes place, especially when it is necessary to quickly remove the accumulated tension and resolve the dispute. The model resembles "collaboration", but is performed at a superficial level. Each side is inferior to the other in some way. Therefore, as a result of a compromise, the interests of opponents are partially satisfied. Effective communication skills are required to reach a common solution.

When is a compromise effective?

• When the interests of both parties cannot be met at the same time. For example, opponents apply for one position.
• It's more important to win something than to lose everything.
• The interlocutors have equal power and make equally persuasive arguments. Then cooperation is replaced by compromise.
• Need a temporary solution as there is no time to look for another one.

Ignoring

This style of behavior of people in conflict is characterized by a conscious or unconscious avoidance of clarifying the relationship. A person who has chosen such a strategy tries not to get into unpleasant situations. If they arise, then he simply avoids discussing decisions that are fraught with disagreements. Most often there is unconscious ignoring, which is a protective mechanism of the psyche.

Some people use this model quite consciously, and this is a justified move. Ignoring is not always shirking responsibility or running away from a problem. Such a delay may be an appropriate solution for certain situations.

• If the problem that has arisen is not important for the party, and there is no point in defending your rights.
• There is no time and effort to find the optimal solution. You can return to the conflict later, or it will resolve itself.
• The opponent has a lot of power, or the other interlocutor feels that he is wrong.
• If there is a possibility of revealing dangerous details during the discussion, then the disagreement will only intensify.
• Other styles of behavior in the conflict were ineffective.
• Relationships are short-lived or unpromising, there is no need to maintain them.
• The interlocutor is (a rude person, a complainer, and so on). Sometimes it is better not to have a dialogue with such people.

Rivalry

This strategy is typical for most people, in which the interlocutor tries to pull the blanket over to his side. Only their own interests are valued, other people's needs are not taken into account, and opinions and arguments are simply ignored. The rival party is trying to force to accept its point of view in all sorts of ways.

For coercion, position and power can even be used in this style of behavior. The parties to the conflict representing the opponent are often unhappy with the solution and may sabotage it or withdraw from the relationship. Therefore, rivalry is inefficient and rarely fruitful. Moreover, the decision made in most cases turns out to be wrong, since the opinion of others is not taken into account. When is competition effective in conflict?

• When there is authority and sufficient power, and the proposed solution is seen as obvious and the most correct.
• There is no other way out and nothing to lose.
• If interlocutors (often subordinates) prefer an authoritarian style of communication.

fixture

This strategy is characterized by a refusal to fight and a change in one's own position. The situation is smoothed out by the pliability of the opponent, who believes that it is better to maintain a relationship than to quarrel and seek the right. With this style of behavior of the parties, the conflict is forgotten, but sooner or later it will make itself felt. It is not necessary to give up your interests. You can return to the discussion of the problem after a while and in a more favorable environment try to find a solution.

In what situations is it better to resort to concessions?

• When the needs of another person seem to be more important, and his feelings about this are very strong.
• The subject matter of the dispute is not significant.
• If the priority is to maintain a good relationship, and not to defend your opinion.
• There is a feeling that there is not enough chance to convince the interlocutor that one is right.

Types of people in conflicts

Style can be viewed from a slightly different perspective. Psychologists also identify the types of "difficult" people that can be encountered in a controversial situation.

"Steam boiler". These are unceremonious and very rude people who are afraid of losing their authority and believe that everyone should agree with them. If it is not so important to win the dispute, then it is better to give in. Otherwise, you first need to wait for the person to let off steam, and only then defend the rightness.

"Explosive Child" Such people are not evil by nature, but are extremely emotional. They can be compared to babies who are in a bad mood. The best solution would be to let them shout out, and then calm the interlocutor and move on to finding a solution.

"Complainers". They complain about real or imagined circumstances. It is better to listen to such people first, and then repeat the essence in his own words, thus showing his interest. After that, you can deal with the conflict. If the opponent continues to complain anyway, then the optimal solution is to adopt a strategy of ignoring.

"Non-conflict". Such people always give in to please others. But words can be at odds with deeds. Therefore, the emphasis should not be on agreement with the decision, but on the fact that the opponent will keep the promise.

"Silent". Usually these are extremely secretive people who are difficult to bring to dialogue. If avoiding the problem is not an option, then you need to try to overcome the isolation of the opponent. To do this, you need to reveal the essence of the conflict, asking only open questions. You may even have to show some persistence to keep the conversation going.

conclusions

It can be summarized that there are different styles of behavior in conflict and types of "problem" people. The most correct and universal model does not exist. It is necessary to adequately assess the situation and communicate with the opponent depending on it. Only in this way will it be possible to mitigate the unpleasant consequences of the conflict in advance.

behavior conflict confrontation

When a person is in a conflict confrontation, in order to more effectively solve the problem, it is necessary to choose a certain style of behavior. In doing so, he needs to take into account his own style, the style of others involved in the conflict, as well as the nature of the conflict itself. The style of behavior in a conflict coincides in meaning with the way it is resolved.

With regard to communication between people, style is a manner of behaving, a set of characteristic techniques that distinguish the mode of action, that is, a way to overcome conflict confrontation, solve the problem that led to the conflict. [A.V. Morozov]

Styles of behavior in a conflict situation are associated with a common source of any conflict - a mismatch of interests of two or more parties. There are five such basic styles of behavior in a conflict situation. Your style of behavior in a particular conflict situation is determined by the degree of readiness in which you want to satisfy your own interests (acting passively or actively) and the interests of the other party (acting jointly or individually).

avoidance. The least degree of such readiness is the tactic of avoiding the conflict, which is sometimes called the tactic of avoidance. However, it is a very popular way of behaving in a conflict situation; it is often resorted to both by the participants in the conflict and by those who, according to their official status, should act as an intermediary in its settlement. The essence of this tactic consists in ignoring the conflict situation, refusing to recognize its existence, leaving the "stage" on which the conflict unfolds. This tactic means that a person who finds himself in a conflict situation prefers not to take any constructive steps to resolve or change it.

At first glance, it may seem that this tactic should be evaluated only negatively. But on closer examination, it turns out that, like any method, this line of behavior in a conflict has its pros and cons.

The advantages of avoidance tactics are as follows:

• 1) it is quickly feasible, since it does not require the search for either intellectual or material resources.
• 2) it makes it possible to delay or even prevent a conflict, the content of which is insignificant from the point of view of the strategic goals of a given organization or group.

But this tactic also has its downsides. Thus, under certain conditions, it can lead to an escalation of the conflict, since the reason that caused it is not overcome by the tactics of avoidance, but is only preserved. And if this problem is real, significant, then this delay can only lead to an aggravation, and not a settlement of the conflict. However, despite its shortcomings, this tactic can still be applied.

The conditions under which the tactics of care are applied [A.V. Morozov.]

• 1) the problem that caused the collision does not seem significant to the subject of the conflict; the subject of the discrepancy, in his opinion, is petty, based on taste differences, does not deserve a waste of time and effort;
• 2) an opportunity is found to achieve one's own goals in a different, non-conflict way;
• 3) a clash occurs between equal or close in strength (rank) subjects, consciously avoiding complications in their relationships;
• 4) a participant in the conflict feels wrong or has an opponent of a person with a higher rank, assertive volitional energy;
• 5) it is required to postpone an acute clash in order to gain time, to analyze the current situation in more detail, to gather strength, to enlist the support of supporters;
• 6) it is desirable to avoid further contacts with a mentally difficult person or an extremely tendentious, overly biased opponent who deliberately seeks reasons to aggravate relations.

Evasion is quite justified in the conditions of interpersonal conflict that arises for reasons of a subjective, emotional nature. This style is most often used by realists by nature. People of such a warehouse, as a rule, soberly assess the advantages and weaknesses of the positions of the conflicting parties. Even being hurt to the quick, they are wary of recklessly getting involved in a "fight", they are in no hurry to accept the challenge to aggravate the clash, realizing that often the only way to win in an interpersonal dispute is to avoid participating in it.

The tactics of leaving or avoiding is also characterized by certain actions of the participants in the conflict, specific forms of their behavior [V.P. Ratnikov]

• 1) withholding, classifying information necessary to resolve the conflict that has arisen, in order to prevent its possible aggravation when familiarizing people with "explosive" information;
• 2) refusal to recognize the very fact of the existence of the causes of the conflict, in the expectation that it, one way or another, will be resolved by itself, without the active participation of the warring parties;
• 3) delaying under certain pretexts final decision the problem that caused the confrontation.

In many respects, the tactics of forceful suppression, or rivalry, is opposite to the considered method. Its use indicates a more high degree willingness to resolve conflict at least, on one of the sides. Its essence lies in the forced imposition of its decision on one of the parties. There are also certain prerequisites for using this tactic [V.P. Ratnikov]

Prerequisites for the use of force methods.

• 1) A decisive predominance of one of the parties in the available material and psychological resources, for example, the preponderance of the administration, which is in conflict with the working collective of the plant.
• 2) The occurrence of an emergency requiring immediate action.
• 3) The sudden need to make an unpopular decision, which will obviously be negatively received by the other side.
• 4) Subject to the indisputable legitimacy of the actions of the party that has the power advantage, when these actions are related to the provision of vital problems for this structure, for example, the immediate dismissal of an employee who committed an act that caused serious material or moral damage to the organization.

Power tactics also have their specific manifestations at the behavioral level. Here it is expressed in the following behavioral forms:

• 1. the use of predominantly coercive, forceful methods of influence with limited involvement of educational means, which may be ineffective
• 2. the use of a rigid, commanding style of communication, calculated on the unquestioning subordination of one side of the conflict to the other side

Despite the noted serious shortcomings of the two considered tactics, they are still the most widely used in the practice of conflict management. And this massive use of methods of flight and struggle is not accidental. There are two main reasons for the particular prevalence of these particular tactics, which are equally designed to win, win one side and lose, lose the conflict of the other side. The first reason is of a historical nature; it is connected with the fact that it is the "win-lose" tactics and the tactics of avoidance, as the simplest ones, that are the first of the methods of conflict resolution mastered by people. The second reason is of a psychological nature; it consists in the fact that the use of these tactics has acquired over time an almost automatic, reflexive character, has become a stable psychological stereotype, deeply rooted in human consciousness.

Civilized methods are opposed to them: first of all: the tactics of unilateral concessions or adaptation, the tactics of compromises, mutually beneficial agreements, as well as the tactics of cooperation.

These tactics are more diverse and rich in content, although they are more difficult to implement in practice, since they require a certain level of conflictological literacy from the participants in the conflict. They are characterized by a focus on a constructive resolution of the conflict, a decrease in the level of tension that has arisen, and an increase in the level of cohesion of the organization. Mastering these tactics necessary condition effectiveness of modern management activities. The method of unilateral concessions or adaptations is one of the varieties of these tactics for the successful application of which there are also a number of specific prerequisites. [A.V. Morozov]

• 1) a participant in the conflict is not very concerned about the problem that has arisen, does not consider it significant enough for himself and therefore is willing to take into account the interests of the other side, yielding to it if he has a higher rank or adapting to it if he turns out to be a lower rank;
• 2) opponents demonstrate accommodatingness and deliberately give in to each other in something, they take into account the fact that, losing little, they gain more, including good relationships, mutual consent, partnerships;
• 3) a deadlock is created, requiring a weakening of the intensity of passions, making some kind of sacrifice for the sake of maintaining peace in relations and preventing confrontational actions, without sacrificing, of course, one's principles, primarily moral ones;
• 4) there is a sincere desire of one of the conflicting parties to support the opponent, while feeling completely satisfied with his good-heartedness;
• 5) the competitive interaction of opponents is manifested, not aimed at fierce competition, indispensable damage to the other side.
• 6) Adaptation is applicable in any type of conflict. But, perhaps, this style of behavior is most suitable for conflicts of an organizational nature, in particular, along the hierarchical vertical: subordinate - superior, subordinate - boss, etc.
• 7) In such situations, it is extremely necessary to cherish the maintenance of mutual understanding, friendly disposition and atmosphere of business cooperation, not to give scope for passionate polemics, expression of anger and even more threats, to be constantly ready to give up one's own preferences if they are capable of damaging the interests and rights of the opponent.

Of course, the style of adaptation chosen as a model of conflict behavior may turn out to be ineffective. It is not at all acceptable in situations where the subjects of the conflict are seized with a sense of resentment and irritation, do not want to respond to each other with benevolent reciprocity, and their interests and goals are not amenable to smoothing and harmonization.

The next style of behavior in a conflict situation is the style of compromise or mutual concessions. A compromise is understood as a path of mutual concessions, a mutually beneficial deal, the creation of conditions for at least partial satisfaction of the interests of the warring parties. A compromise, therefore, is a type of agreement based on the mutual adjustment of the positions of both parties on the issues under discussion, the search for a mutually acceptable position on controversial issues. Of course, a certain complex of favorable conditions is also necessary for the successful implementation of this method. [V.P. Ratnikov]

• 1) the readiness of both parties to achieve their goals through mutual concessions on the principle of "win-win".
• 2) the impossibility of resolving the conflict by force or by means of withdrawal, i.e. on a win-lose basis.

It is in the implementation of this method that an important role is played by such universal mechanism conflict management as negotiation. The negotiation process and the holding of discussions make it possible to the greatest extent to identify points of contact between the interests of opponents, the so-called "zones of agreement." It is extremely useful to start negotiations with just the questions that are included in this zone and allow the other side to say: "Yes!" But for the success of negotiations, it is necessary to comply with a number of conditions, for example, determining the place and timing of their holding, the composition of the participants, the presence of mediators, the form of decision-making, and a number of other conditions. Of course, the tactics of compromise, the most important element of which are negotiations, is not a universal, fail-safe master key to all types of conflict situations. Its application, as well as the use of other considered methods, is problematic, associated with a number of difficulties that arise in the practical use of compromise tactics. The most common difficulties are:

• 1) the refusal of one of the parties from the originally taken position due to the discovery during the negotiations of its unrealistic;
• 2) the developed solution, due to the mutual concessions contained in it, may turn out to be contradictory, fuzzy, and therefore difficult to implement. Thus, promises made by both parties to expedite the fulfillment of mutual obligations may not be backed by resources;
• 3) contained in any compromise agreement, to one degree or another, an element of rejection of the originally taken position, its some adjustment may subsequently lead to a challenge decision. According to A.V. Morozov, the ability to compromise is a sign of realism and high culture communication, i.e., a quality that is especially valued in managerial practice. However, one should not resort to it unnecessarily, rush to accept compromise relations, thereby interrupting a detailed discussion of a complex problem, artificially reduce the time for a creative search for reasonable alternatives, optimal options. Each time it is necessary to check whether a compromise is effective in this case compared to, for example, cooperation, evasion or accommodation. [A.V. Morozov]. But, despite these and some other difficulties, compromise solutions are optimal for resolving a conflict situation, since they:
  • * contribute to the identification and consideration of mutual interests, being aimed at a mutually beneficial result on the principle of "win-win";
  • * Demonstrate respect for each other's professionalism and dignity.

Another style of behavior in a conflict situation is the style of cooperation. According to A.V. Morozova, In conflict interaction, the possibility of cooperation appears in cases where:

• 1) the problem that caused the disagreement seems to be important for the conflicting parties, each of which does not intend to evade its joint solution;
• 2) the conflicting parties have approximately equal rank or do not pay attention at all to the difference in their positions;
• 3) each side is willing to voluntarily and on an equal footing discuss the issues at issue in order to ultimately reach a full agreement on a mutually beneficial solution to a significant problem for all;
• 4) the parties involved in the conflict act as partners, trust each other, take into account the needs, concerns and preferences of opponents. The benefits of cooperation are undeniable: each side receives maximum benefit with minimal losses. But this way of moving towards a positive outcome of the conflict is thorny in its own way. It requires time and patience, wisdom and friendly disposition, the ability to express and argue one’s position, attentive listening to opponents explaining their interests, developing alternatives and agreeing on a mutually acceptable solution during negotiations. The reward for common efforts is a constructive, satisfactory result for everyone, a jointly found optimal way out of the conflict, as well as strengthening partnerships [A.V. Morozov].

Undoubtedly, the question arises: how to choose the most appropriate style of behavior in a conflict situation, taking into account both your own interests and the interests of other people? Jenny G. Scott. Gives several factors that must be considered when choosing a style of behavior in a conflict situation. When choosing an effective conflict resolution style, two aspects are key: the position of the other person in relation to you and that person's perspective. If you have more power than the other person, then you can use the competitive style and persevere to get what you want. You can force the other person into concession (that is, accommodation). However, if another person has more power, then you should already adapt. If you are trying to reach a compromise in a situation in which the positions of the parties are not equal, then you should keep in mind that the difference in power is of primary importance for the outcome of the conflict. If the person with more power does not agree to forget about this advantage in a conflict situation, then a compromise gives a better result for the one who has more power. Of course, your reaction to a conflict with a person with great power will depend on the specific situation. If you are dealing with such a person who takes a tough stance towards you, then going into a tough confrontation, apparently, is not the best option for you: you will simply lose. You should think about how important the goal is to you and whether you can achieve what you want in an open struggle. If it is important enough, then maybe you should enlist the support of other people or strengthen your own positions in some way. However, if you feel that you are in a disadvantageous position or that the danger of defeat is too great, then you should adjust to the other person and give in to him. This is true especially in cases where the possible loss is too significant - work, friendship or respect for employees.

Even if there is no difference in power, but the other person is too hard on some issue, you can choose to retreat. If a friend you value has some ideas that you disagree with, then it's better to temporarily agree with them than to insist on your own. By doing so, you can avert an explosion and show respect for a friend, as well as show how much you value your relationship. An honest and friendly approach to conflict resolution is ideal. However, you will also want to identify those situations in which you will not be able to achieve this, since the difference in positions or perspectives makes you vulnerable to an assertive or self-serving person. In such cases, it is better to recognize the difference right away and adopt a more defensive style than to waste time trying to apply those approaches that can be effective with equality or with mutual honesty and goodwill.

You may only need one approach to resolve a conflict. But in other cases, it may be necessary to use a combination of styles, especially if the conflict is complex or protracted. It may turn out that one approach is most effective for resolving one part of the conflict, and a completely different one for other parts of it. One style may be good for a temporary solution to the problem, but then, if it comes up again, a different style may be required to finally resolve the conflict.

Likewise, in some situations you can use multiple styles for different aspects of the same conflict. For example, you can reach a compromise in order to remove some obstacle to solving the problem as a whole, accommodate the interests of another person that are too important for him in some area, persevere in achieving your true needs in some aspect, completely avoid discussion other matters if you decide that they are not very important to you, and use a collaborative style to serve the deepest interests of both parties. Long term business negotiations or personal relationships are good examples of situations where different approaches can be used over time. [Gini G. Scott]

Summarizing all of the above, it must be emphasized that each of the considered styles is effective only in certain conditions, and none of them can be singled out as the best. Any person should be able to effectively use each of the five styles we have considered, to consciously make one or another choice, given specific circumstances. The best approach will be determined by the specific situation, as well as the individual psychological characteristics of a particular interaction partner. Preferring some styles over others is natural, but a rigid preference can limit a person's options. Thus, it is important to determine priorities for yourself, as well as possible alternative options. This will allow you to be more free to choose when faced with specific conflict situations. But, undoubtedly, the best teacher and adviser in choosing the optimal approach and in its effective use is a life practice.

Every conflict has different causes. As a result, it can have a different degree of severity, scale and duration. The way out of each specific situation, as a rule, requires a plurality of solutions, from which it is necessary to choose the most acceptable option. At the same time, it is important to think comprehensively, perspectively, unconventionally, quickly, covering all aspects of the problem both in the business sphere and in the personal-emotional area.

It is impossible to fit conflicts under some single, universal scheme.

There are conflicts like contractions when opponents are divided by irreconcilable contradictions and you can only count on victory.

There are conflicts like debate, where a dispute is possible, sharp clashes of different points of view, but in principle both sides can count on compromises.

There are conflicts like games, where both parties operate within the same rules, so they never end and cannot end with the destruction of the entire structure of the relationship.

Accordingly, there can be no universal means of maintaining in an environment of disagreement. Many recommendations have been developed by experts. Each specific conflict must have its own "strategy" and "tactics" of behavior. These terms, although they have a military origin, are quite appropriate here, since any conflict is to some extent a sharp clash of opposing sides.

The word "strategy" comes from the Greek. strategos, which means "the art of the general". The strategy is a detailed and comprehensively developed action plan for a long period, designed to achieve goals in the future and long-term. It is developed by top management, but its implementation involves the participation of all levels of management.

The word "tactics" is also of Greek origin: ta .kti.ke literally means "to put in order". Tactics determines ways and means, forms and methods of action to achieve immediate goals in a specific situation in this moment. It is designed to ensure strategic success.

The strategy and tactics of conflict resolution lead to different styles of behavior depending on the specific situation and personality traits sides.

One of the most popular and widely used strategies for dealing with a conflict situation is the concept of C. W. Thomas and R. X. Kilman. They distinguish five main styles of behavior: rivalry (competition), ignoring, adapting, compromising, cooperation. The basis for identifying these behavioral styles is the dynamics of the relationship between the degree of perseverance in satisfying one's own interests and the degree of readiness to meet the interests of the opponent.

Rival strategy expresses the desire to satisfy only his own interest, not taking into account the interests of the partner. The principle of this strategy is "us or them", when in a fierce competition one of the parties tries to become the sole supplier of a product or service to a client. You can focus on such behavior only if you have a clear advantage in the production of a product compared to competitors. Rivalry allows you to achieve the desired result, stimulates development, promotes progress. In a number of situations, the presence of rivalry is their driving force and essence, for example, sports competitions, artistic competitions, many cases of employment, admission to educational institution competition and others.

At the same time, rivalry requires the application of all forces, which can lead to their exhaustion, human illness. Rivalry, as a rule, breaks relations between people, and not only between direct competitors. Batane forces can change, and then the former losers will try to "drown" the former winner in alliance with others. Rivalry creates the temptation to win at any cost, even to the point of using dishonest and cruel methods.

People with strength tend to overestimate their capabilities and do not react quickly enough to changes in the strength and position of their partner. Often, competition as a style of behavior is chosen automatically, without much thought, simply as an emotional reaction to an adverse impact.

The negative consequences of the rivalry strategy can be neutralized to a large extent if negotiators with a strong position skillfully and flexibly use their superiority and are able to show condescension towards opponents. In addition, we must not forget that if you are clearly stronger in the fight against an opponent by some criteria, this does not mean that the competitor (or client) considers these criteria important. Therefore, before using your competitive advantage, you need to make sure that you have worked enough with the needs of your opponent.

The strategy of ignoring (avoidance, avoidance) characteristic of a situation in which there is no satisfaction of anyone's interests. The person ignores the conflict situation, pretends that it does not exist, and does not take any steps to resolve or change it.

In some situations, this strategy is optimal. On the one hand, these include situations that are not particularly significant for us and are not worth spending our spiritual strength and material resources to resolve them.

On the other hand, often non-interference can lead to an escalation of the conflict, since the problem is not solved and the interests of the parties to the conflict remain unsatisfied. As a result, a completely solvable situation sometimes turns into an unsolvable one.

Strategy of adaptation to the opponent up to complete surrender to his demands, demonstrates an increase in compliance with the opponent. Concessions can show goodwill and serve as a positive behavioral model for the opponent. Quite often, a concession becomes a turning point in a tense situation, changing its course to a more favorable one. This strategy allows you to save resources until a more favorable moment. If the balance of power is clearly not in our favor, surrender may be the best course of action. Sometimes we give in because we recognize the correctness of the opponent.

However, concession can also do a disservice. It can be perceived by the opponent as a manifestation of the weakness of the opposite side, and lead to an escalation of his pressure and demands. In turn, we can be deceived, expecting reciprocal concessions from the opponent. In the end, yielding, we do not achieve the desired result and do not satisfy our interests.

Compromise strategy - it is a peaceful solution to the problem, when each side gets something that suits it, instead of continuing the fight and possibly losing everything. Satisfying the interests of each of the parties by half can be considered an ideal compromise.

However, a compromise often serves only as a temporary way out of an acute situation, since neither side fully satisfies its interests, and the basis for the conflict remains. If the compromise is not equal for both sides, and one of them yields more than the other, then the risk of a renewed conflict becomes even higher.

Cooperation strategy characterized by the desire to achieve the maximum possible satisfaction of their interests and the interests of the partner. The basic principle of this style of behavior is "us and them", when the client is already working with a competitor and is generally satisfied with him. Obviously, this strategy is less risky. Often people consider this option desirable, but in this particular conflict situation unrealistic. However, in many cases the situation seems to be a dead end only because each of the opponents puts forward demands that are clearly in conflict with the requirements of the other, and does not look for other options to satisfy their interests.

Collaboration is attractive due to the strength of problem resolution, the partnership nature of relations in its course. This is the only way out of the conflict, which allows you to simultaneously achieve the desired result and not disrupt relations between partners. Successful cooperation contributes to the improvement of interpersonal and intergroup ties, strengthens the desire to continue interaction in the future.

The root of the word "collaboration" is "work". It reflects the real need for the joint application of intellectual, emotional and other efforts to solve the problem. Often this strategy takes time to be successfully implemented.

At the same time, cooperation is not always possible. It requires a mutual desire to resolve the problem jointly, taking into account the true interests of all parties.

Satisfying the interests of all parties leads to the fact that the ground on which the conflict was based disappears, and the risk of post-conflict complications is minimized. Often people prefer not to waste time on cooperation, and, for example, solve a problem from a position of strength. But in the future, they are forced to spend much more time, nerves and money to overcome the consequences that have arisen.

The choice of a strategy of behavior in conditions of acute relationships is a creative matter. It is due to many circumstances of an objective and subjective order and, in particular, the ability to negotiate with customers and competitors. The success of negotiations is largely determined by the depth of knowledge of the situation in which one has to act. The ability to ask questions, listen and hear the interlocutor often contributes to clarifying the situation. The experience of a number of well-functioning companies indicates that 20% of the statements of good negotiators are questions. Their less successful colleagues ask half as much.

In order to stay, gain a foothold in the market and feel firmly in an environment of intense competition, the SPIN technique is used as know-how - an effective technology for identifying the dynamics of supply and demand, customer needs and working with them. SPIN is an abbreviation for the definition of four types of questions that allow you to correctly assess the situation and choose a rational strategy of behavior.

situational questions provide an opportunity to receive information about the situation on the market.

Problematic issues help to find out the attitude of the client to the situation, to determine what the buyer is dissatisfied with.

Extraction questions expand the problem area, make it possible to realize the seriousness of the consequences of the identified problem.

Directed questions clarify the means, as well as the significance and value of solving the identified problems.

The conclusion follows with all obviousness: in the development of a style of behavior, the power of the question is great.

When choosing a strategy for one's behavior in an atmosphere of tense relations, it is advisable in each specific case to proceed from how important it is to achieve a result, on the one hand, and to preserve good relations with an opponent - on the other. If neither one nor the other is of great value, then, apparently, leaving, avoiding, will be optimal. If the result is fundamentally important, and the relationship is not significant, it is worth getting your way with the help of rivalry. If the relationship is most important, then it's probably best to give in. This is a fixture. If both the relationship and the outcome are essential, then it is worth putting the effort and time into achieving collaboration.

The proposed set of behavioral styles should be considered only as a program that generally reflects the logic of relationships in the process of communication. At the same time, one must be aware that the constantly changing business and social situation in the conflict makes it necessary and inevitable to adjust the tactics and strategy of action.

None of the above strategies can be called unequivocally "good" or "bad". Each of them can be optimal and provide the best affect, depending on the specific conditions for the emergence and development of the conflict. At the same time, it is cooperation that is most consistent with modern ideas about constructive long-term interaction between people.

But even under the most favorable circumstances, human relationships are not smooth and unquestionable. After all, along with the true views, opinions, positions in any group, organization, there are false points of view, implicit reasoning that do not correspond to reality. Therefore, agreement always goes hand in hand with disagreement, with criticism directed against lies, delusions and prejudices in the interests of ensuring productive business communication.

In a conflict situation, people consciously or subconsciously usually choose a particular style of behavior. There are several basic conflict resolution styles (K. W. Thomas, R. H. Kilmenn).

1. Competition style . A person using this style is very active and prefers to resolve the conflict in his own way. He is not interested in cooperation with other people, but is capable of strong-willed decisions. This style can be effective when you have a certain amount of power, are confident that your decision or approach in a given situation is correct and have the opportunity to insist on your own.

The competitive style is preferred when: the outcome is very important to you and you are betting heavily on solving a problem that has arisen; the decision must be made quickly and you have enough power to do so; you feel like you have no other choice and nothing to lose.

2. Evasion Style . This style is realized when a person does not defend his rights, does not want to cooperate to develop a solution to the problem, or simply avoids resolving the conflict. You can use this style when the issue at hand is not important to you, when you don't want to spend energy on it, or when you feel like you're in a hopeless situation. It is also recommended when you feel wrong and suspect the other person is right, or when that person has more power, or you have no good reason to continue with this person. Maybe you need a reprieve for the moment - time to reflect on the situation or calm down.

3 Fixture style . A person using this style acts in conjunction with a communication partner, without trying to defend their own interests. You can use it when the outcome of a case is extremely important to another person and not very significant to you. This style is also useful in situations where you cannot prevail because the other person has more power. You can resort to such a strategy if at the moment you need to soften the situation a little, and then you intend to return to this issue and defend your position. This style is also useful if you feel that it is more important to maintain a good relationship with someone than to defend your interests.

4. Collaboration style . Following the style of cooperation, a person actively participates in resolving the conflict and defends his position, but at the same time tries to take into account the interests of the other side. This style requires more work than other approaches to conflict, since the needs, concerns and interests of both parties are first openly stated (“laid out on the table”), and then they are discussed. It is advisable to use this particular style if the solution of the problem is very important for both parties and no one wants to be excluded from the solution; if you have a close long-term and interdependent relationship with the other party and both of you are able to state the essence of your interests and listen to each other; if both parties involved in the conflict have equal power or do not notice the difference in position in order to seek a solution to the problem on an equal footing.

5. compromise style. Using it, people converge on the partial satisfaction of the desires and interests of each conflicting party (mutual concessions). The compromise style is most effective when you and the other person want the same thing, but know that it's impossible for you to do it at the same time. You want to come to a decision quickly, you can be satisfied with a temporary solution, you are ready to change the original goal. Compromise will allow you to maintain a good relationship.

Psychologists believe that conflict can be managed. Principles of conflict management following.

1. Determination of the need to escalate the conflict, which is achieved through an honest and impartial answer to the following questions (these answers can be given aloud or written down, but they cannot be discussed):

a) Is it possible and desirable to eliminate the contradiction (as you know, the contradiction is the engine of progress)?

b) If so, are there more peaceful, economical and "cleaner" ways to resolve it?

c) If not, are you strong enough to win the conflict?

d) If not, how long can it last (you need to know this in order to get out of the conflict with a minimum expenditure of mental and physical strength)?

2. Complete control over your own emotions, which, as a rule, make it difficult to evaluate what is happening.

3. Analysis of the real causes of the conflict, which opponents can hide behind imaginary reasons.

4. Localization of the conflict, i.e. the establishment of its clear framework and the maximum desire for judgment in the field of contradiction.

5. Refusal to focus on self-defense, since the enthusiasm for one's own defensive actions usually prevents people from noticing changes in the environment and behavior of the “opposing side” in time.

6. Reformulating the opponent's arguments, which simply should not be refuted in the order and in the proportions in which they are presented - it is better to try to "translate" them into a language you understand, highlighting the key semantic points.

7. Sufficient activity, since even "retreating along the entire front", you can maintain the initiative by setting:

a) the emotional tone of the relationship (Let's talk calmly);

b) the topic of the conversation (“We are not talking about that, let’s get back to ...”);

c) language style (without rudeness and vulgarity);

d) the roles and the degree of strictness of the rules of the game (the conflict can and should be played, resolving contradictions, in the form of a semblance of a theatrical action with specified roles and roles).

Very important and one of the most difficult is the second of these principles - control of emotions . Techniques and methods of self-regulation of the emotional state are auto-training, relaxation, breath control.

If you find yourself in a situation in which someone begins to show their emotions too much, then this, as a rule, indicates that the conflict is caused by some deep interests, which you need to consider in order to find a solution to the problem and restore relationships.

The main rules of conflict-free communication are as follows:

1) do not use conflictogens;

2) do not respond with a conflictogen to a conflictogen;

3) show empathy for the interlocutor;

4) make as many benevolent messages as possible.

In conflictology since the 70s of the twentieth century. the existence of the following five styles of conflict behavior is recognized: avoidance (withdrawal); adaptation (concession); confrontation (coercion, struggle, rivalry); cooperation; compromise.

Having described and systematized the features of various styles, I.E. Vorozheikin proposed a schematic grid of strategies for the behavior of an individual in conflict interaction.

So, this grid demonstrates that the choice of conflict behavior depends both on the interests of the parties involved in the conflict, and on the nature of the actions taken by them.

The style of behavior in conflict is determined by:

Firstly, the measure of the implementation of their own interests (personal or group) and the degree of activity or passivity in their defense.

Secondly, the style of behavior is significantly influenced by the desire to satisfy the interests of other parties involved in the conflict, as well as what actions are priority for individuals, social groups- individual or joint.

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

Evasion (avoidance) how the style of behavior in conflicts is characterized by a clear lack of desire on the part of the person involved in the conflict to cooperate with anyone and make active efforts to achieve their own interests, as well as to meet opponents halfway; the desire to get out of the conflict field, to get away from the conflict. This style of behavior is usually chosen when:

the problem that caused the collision does not seem significant to the subject of the conflict, the subject of the discrepancy, in his opinion, is petty, based on taste differences, does not deserve to waste time and effort;

the opportunity to achieve one's own goals in a non-conflict way is discovered;

clash occurs between equal or close in strength (rank) subjects, consciously avoiding complications in their relationships;

the participant of the conflict feels wrong or has an opponent of a person with a higher rank, assertive volitional energy;

· it is required to postpone an acute clash in order to gain time, to analyze the current situation in more detail, to gather strength, to enlist the support of supporters;

· It is desirable to avoid further contacts with a person with a difficult mental state or an extremely tendentious, overly biased opponent who deliberately seeks reasons to aggravate relations.

Evasion is quite justified in the conditions of interpersonal conflict that arises for reasons of a subjective, emotional nature. This style is most often used by realists by nature. People of such a warehouse, as a rule, soberly assess the advantages and weaknesses of the positions of the conflicting parties. Even being hurt to the quick, they are wary of recklessly getting involved in a “fight”, they are in no hurry to accept the challenge to aggravate the conflict, realizing that often the only way to win in an interpersonal dispute is to avoid participating in it.

Another thing is if the conflict arose on an objective basis. In such a situation, evasion and neutrality may turn out to be ineffective, since the controversial issue retains its significance, the causes that gave rise to it do not disappear by themselves, but are even more aggravated.

Fixture (concession)- the style of passive behavior is characterized by the tendency of the participants in the conflict to soften, smooth out the conflict situation, maintain or restore harmony in relationships through compliance, trust, readiness for reconciliation. Unlike evasion, this style takes into account the interests of opponents to a greater extent and does not avoid joint actions with them. Usually, the device is given a way out in situations where:

the participant in the conflict is not very concerned about the problem that has arisen, does not consider it significant enough for himself, and therefore is willing to take into account the interests of the other side, yielding to it if he has a higher rank or adapting to it if he turns out to be a lower rank;

Opponents demonstrate accommodatingness and deliberately give in to each other in something, they take into account the fact that losing little, they gain more, including good relationships, mutual consent, partnerships;

· a dead-end situation is created, requiring a weakening of passions, making some kind of sacrifice for the sake of maintaining peace in relations and preventing confrontational actions, without sacrificing, of course, one's own principles, primarily moral ones;

· there is a sincere desire of one of the conflicting parties to support the opponent, while feeling quite satisfied with his good-heartedness;

· the competitive interaction of opponents is manifested, not aimed at fierce competition, indispensable damage to the other side.

Adaptation is applicable in any type of conflict. But this style of behavior is most suitable for conflicts of an organizational nature, in particular along the hierarchical vertical: subordinate - superior, subordinate - boss, etc.

In such situations, it is imperative to cherish the maintenance of mutual understanding, friendly disposition and an atmosphere of business cooperation, not to give room for impassioned polemics, the expression of anger and even more threats, to be constantly ready to give up one's own preferences, if they are capable of: damaging the interests and rights of the opponent.

At the same time, this style is unacceptable in situations where the subjects of the conflict are seized with a sense of resentment and irritation, do not want to respond to each other with benevolent reciprocity, and their interests and goals cannot be smoothed and harmonized.

Confrontation- in its orientation, it is focused on acting actively and independently to achieve its own interests, regardless of other parties directly involved in the conflict, and even to the detriment of them. The one who uses this style of behavior seeks to impose his solution to the problem on others, relies only on his own strength, and does not accept joint actions. At the same time, elements of maximalism, strong-willed pressure, a desire to use any means, including forceful pressure, administrative sanctions, intimidation, blackmail, etc., are manifested to force the opponent to accept the point of view disputed by him, by all means to prevail over him, to win in conflict. As a rule, confrontation is chosen in situations where:

- the problem is of vital importance to the participant in the conflict, who believes that he has sufficient power for her quick decision in your favor;

- the conflicting party occupies a very advantageous, win-win position and has the opportunity to use it to achieve its own goal;

- the subject of the conflict is sure that the option he proposes to solve the problem in this situation, and at the same time, having a higher rank, insists on making this decision, is currently deprived of any other choice and practically does not risk losing anything, acting resolutely in defense their interests and dooming opponents to lose.

Confrontation does not mean at all that brute force is necessarily used or that only the power and high rank of the one who seeks the superiority of his opinion, his own interests are staked. It is possible that the persistent desire to win the confrontation is based on more convincing arguments, on the ability of one of the opponents to skillfully formulate their ideas, present them in a spectacular presentation, in a catchy manner.

However, we must not forget that any pressure, no matter how “elegant”, cultural form it takes, can result in an explosion of unbridled emotions, the destruction of respectful and trusting relationships, an excessively negative reaction on the part of those who will be defeated and will not give up trying to achieve revenge. Therefore, this style is of little use in most interpersonal conflicts, not the best option for maintaining a healthy moral and psychological atmosphere in the unit, creating conditions that allow employees to get along with each other.

Cooperation, as well as confrontation, is aimed at the maximum realization by the participants of the conflict of their own interests. But cooperation presupposes not an individual, but a joint search for a solution that meets the aspirations of all the conflicting parties. This is possible on condition of timely and accurate diagnosis of the problem that gave rise to the conflict situation, understanding how external manifestations, and the hidden causes of the conflict, the willingness of the parties to act together to achieve a common goal for all.

This style is used by those who perceive conflict as a normal phenomenon of social life, as a need to solve a particular problem without harming any party. IN conflict situations The possibility of cooperation appears in cases where:

- the problem that caused the disagreement seems to be important for the conflicting parties, each of which does not intend to evade its joint solution;

- the conflicting parties have approximately equal rank or do not pay attention at all to the difference in their positions;

- each party wishes to discuss the disputed issues voluntarily and on an equal footing in order to ultimately reach a full agreement on a mutually beneficial solution to a significant problem for all;

- the parties involved in the conflict act as partners and trust each other, take into account the needs, concerns and preferences of opponents.

The benefits of cooperation are undoubted, each side receives maximum benefit with minimal losses. But this way of moving towards a positive outcome of the conflict is thorny in its own way. It requires time, patience, wisdom, friendly disposition, the ability to express and argue one's position, attentive listening to opponents explaining their interests, development of alternatives and an agreed choice of them during negotiations of a mutually acceptable solution.

Compromise occupies a middle place in the grid of conflict behavior. It means the disposition of the participant (participants) of the conflict to resolve the disagreement on the basis of mutual concessions, achieving partial satisfaction of their interests.

This style equally involves active and passive actions, the application of individual and collective efforts. This style is preferable because it usually blocks the path to ill will, allows, albeit in part, to satisfy the claims of each of the parties involved in the conflict. It is used in situations where:

· the subjects of the conflict are well aware of its causes and development in order to judge the real circumstances, all the pros and cons of their own interests;

· conflicting parties equal in rank, having mutually exclusive interests, are aware of the need to come to terms with the given state of affairs and the alignment of forces, to be content with a temporary, but suitable option for resolving contradictions;

· the parties to the conflict, having different ranks, are inclined to reach an agreement in order to gain time and save strength, not to break relations, to avoid unnecessary losses;

Opponents, having assessed the current situation, adjust their goals, taking into account the changes that have occurred during the conflict;

All other styles of behavior in this conflict do not bring effect.

The ability to compromise is a sign of realism and a high culture of communication; a quality that is especially valued in management practice. However, one should not resort to it unnecessarily, rush to make compromise decisions, thereby interrupt a detailed discussion of a complex problem, artificially reduce the time for a creative search for reasonable alternatives, optimal options.

Each time it is necessary to check whether a compromise is effective in this case compared to, for example, cooperation, evasion or accommodation.

The style of behavior in a conflict coincides in meaning with the way it is resolved. Therefore, the path to conflict resolution lies through the same five methods that found a graphic representation in the grid proposed above and considered by I.E. Vorozheykin.