Many conflicts can be resolved even at the stage of their objective emergence through constant and deep analysis the entire system of connections between people in a given group or team, predicting the conflict-generating impact of all changes made, carefully thinking through the steps and words of the interested parties.

If you find yourself in a conflict, it is better to follow the path of constructive resolution. To the conditions of constructive conflict resolution relate:

1) termination of conflict interaction;
2) searching for common ground in the interests of opponents;
3) decrease in intensity negative emotions;
4) identifying and admitting one’s own mistakes;
5) objective discussion of the problem;
6) taking into account each other’s statuses (positions);
7) selection of the optimal resolution strategy.

Rice. 20.

To analyze and search for ways out of a conflict situation, we can use next algorithm(Fig. 20).

1. Assess 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- – the object of the conflict (material, social or ideal; divisible or indivisible; can it be withdrawn or replaced; what is its accessibility for each of the parties);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; goals, interests, position; legal and moral foundations of his demands; previous actions in the conflict, mistakes made; where interests coincide and where they do not, etc.);
- – own position (goals, values, interests, actions in conflict; legal and moral foundations own requirements, their reasoning and evidence; mistakes made and the possibility of admitting them to an opponent, etc.);
- – the reasons and immediate cause that led to 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.).
2. Forecast options times conflict resolution:
- – the most favorable development of events;
- – the least favorable development of events;
- – the most realistic development of events;
- – an option for resolving a contradiction when active actions in a conflict cease.
3. Measures to implement the planned plan are carried out in accordance with the chosen method of resolving the conflict. If necessary, it is done correction of a previously planned plan(return to the discussion; putting forward alternatives and new arguments; appealing to third parties; discussing additional concessions).
4. Monitoring the effectiveness of one’s own actions involves critically answering the following questions to oneself:
- – why am I doing this;
- – what I want to achieve;
- – which makes it difficult to implement the planned plan;
- – are my actions fair?
- – what actions need to be taken to eliminate obstacles to conflict resolution?
5. After the conflict is over, it is advisable to:
- – analyze the mistakes of your own behavior;
- – summarize the acquired knowledge 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, activity and behavior.

The choice of conflict resolution strategy is of great importance. The most effective are compromise and cooperation.

Compromise consists in the desire of opponents to end the conflict with partial concessions. It is characterized by the renunciation of some of the previously put forward demands, the willingness to recognize the claims of the other party as partially justified and 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 is considered the most effective strategy for dealing with conflict. It involves opponents focusing on a constructive discussion of the problem, viewing the other side not as an adversary, but as an ally in the search for a solution. It is 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 problem 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;
– offering 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 of 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.

conclusions

1. Interaction - interaction of people in the process of communication, organization joint activities.
2. The conflict can be viewed as special shape interaction and is defined as the presence of opposite tendencies among the subjects of interaction, manifested in their actions.
3. Psychological structure conflict can be described using two important concepts: a conflict situation and an incident. A conflict situation is the objective basis of a conflict, which records the emergence of a real contradiction in the interests and needs of the parties. An incident is a situation of interaction that allows its participants to realize the presence of an objective contradiction in their interests and goals.
4. All conflicts associated with the process of teaching and upbringing are pedagogical. They can be considered in positive meaning normativity this phenomenon, which not only creates problems, but is also a source of development of the educational process itself.
5. The choice of conflict resolution strategy is of great importance. The most effective are compromise and cooperation. A compromise consists in the desire of opponents to end the conflict with partial concessions. Cooperation is considered the most effective strategy for dealing with conflict. It involves opponents focusing on a constructive discussion of the problem, viewing the other side not as an adversary, but as an ally in the search for a solution.

Ending the conflictis to end the conflict for any reason.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

· elimination of one or both parties;

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

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

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

· agreement on the rules for sharing the object;

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

· refusal of both parties to encroach on this object;

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

Rice. 4.4.1. Ending Conflicts

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

Let's look at some of them.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

· culture : 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 opponents have high business and moral qualities;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

· Informal method sets optimal options everyday behavior and relationships.

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

· Localization method- binding norms to local peculiarities and living conditions.

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

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

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

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

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

Conflict resolution includes the following stages.

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

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

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

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

♦ reasons and immediate cause that led to the conflict;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ending the conflict also requires certain tactics.

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

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

Tough

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

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

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

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

Neutral

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

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

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

Soft

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

device, or concession is considered as a forced or voluntary refusal to fight and surrender of one’s positions. The adoption of such a strategy is forced by: awareness of one’s wrongness; the need to maintain good relations with the opponent; strong dependence on it; insignificance of the problem. Such a way out of the conflict is caused by significant damage received during the struggle, the threat of even more serious negative consequences, no chance of a different outcome, pressure from a third party.

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

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

Most of the conditions and factors for successful conflict resolution are psychological in nature, as they reflect the characteristics of the behavior and interaction of opponents. 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 a conflict; legal and moral foundations of one’s own demands, their reasoning and evidence; mistakes made and the possibility of admitting them to an opponent, etc.).

The 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.

2. 3. Basic forms of ending conflicts

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

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

What forms of ending conflicts exist?

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

What is conflict resolution?

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

What is conflict resolution?

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

What is conflict resolution?

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

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

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

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

What is conflict resolution?

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

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

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

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

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

What is escalation into another conflict?

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

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

What is the outcome of the conflict?

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

eliminating one or both sides

suspension of the conflict with the possibility of its resumption

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

division of the conflict object (symmetrical or asymmetrical)

agreement on the rules for sharing the object

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

refusal of both parties to encroach on this object

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

What are the criteria for resolving conflicts?

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

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

2.4. Conditions and factors for constructive conflict resolution

What are the conditions for constructive conflict resolution?

The cessation of conflict interaction is 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What are the main factors in conflict resolution?

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

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

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

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

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

Permission conflicts in work collectives

Thesis >> Management

Institutionalization, that is, the establishment of norms and rules permissions conflict. Their effectiveness is directly dependent... the best way its application. For more successful permissions conflict effective mapping conflict, developed...

Negotiations how way permissions conflicts (2)

Abstract >> Psychology

...: Kozhinova Irina Vasilievna Negotiations as way permissions conflicts Plan: Introduction general characteristics negotiations... the principle of fair division: one is given right divide (pie, powers, territory, functions...

Negotiations how way permissions conflicts (1)

Abstract >> Management

2.1 Features of negotiations. In comparison with others ways settlement and permissions conflict the advantages of negotiations are as follows: in... can develop a procedure and basic rules overcoming differences. If there is a point of disagreement...

Doctor of Psychology,
professor MOSU

Forms and criteria for ending conflicts

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

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

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

Let's explain each of them.

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

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

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

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

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

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

removal of one of the opponents from the confrontation (transfer to another department, branch; dismissal from work);
exclusion of interaction between opponents for a 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, less likely escalation of the conflict into a new confrontation.

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

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

Conditions and factors for constructive conflict resolution

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

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

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

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

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

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

When the parties join forces to end the conflict, it is necessary taking into account each other's 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

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 are solving, and how the conflict affects them; who and how supports each of the opponents; what is the reaction of management, the public, subordinates, if opponents have them; what do they know about the conflict);
secondary reflection (the subject’s idea of how his opponent perceives the conflict situation, “how he perceives me,” “my idea of the conflict,” etc.).

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

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

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

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

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

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. Understand the concerns of your subordinate. Many “vertical” conflicts arise due to the disorganization 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 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 their 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 consequence, 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.