Existing ways (models) of resolving social conflicts. Five Basic Conflict Resolution Styles 4 Model of Conflict Resolution Styles

Neustroeva Olga Viktorovna

To date, experts have developed a lot of all kinds of recommendations regarding various aspects of people's behavior in situations of conflict, the choice of appropriate strategies and means of resolving them, as well as managing them. In order to effectively resolve the conflict, it is necessary to coordinate your ideas about the current situation and develop a certain model of behavior in accordance with the current situation. conflict situation.

annotation: the article analyzes the models and strategies of conflict resolution.

Abstract: The article analyzes the models and strategies of conflict resolution.

Keywords: conflict, models, strategies.

keywords: conflicts, models, strategies.

To effectively resolve the conflict, it is necessary to coordinate their ideas about the current situation and develop a certain model of behavior in accordance with the current conflict situation.

As well as types of conflicts, the ways of their resolution can be traced to several basic models, although in specific cases, of course, there are many more options for resolving conflicts in the world than there are people. But there is a structure to many of these decisions. By decision is meant that the opponents find a mode in which the contradiction disappears so much that nothing prevents both opponents from being able to act. There are six main models to ensure this mode of newly acquired capacity in the area of the subject of the conflict.

Human behavior during conflict turns into educational process.

A variety of solutions can be, respectively, reduced to one of these basic models.

These main models are:

1. Escape

Flight and aggressive behavior to this day are a kind of swing of motivation. The main disadvantage of "resolving" the conflict by flight is, of course, that the learning process is not initiated. The conflict, which is constantly “hidden under the carpet”, sooner or later has to be dealt with.

2. Destruction of the enemy

The advantage of fighting with the goal of destruction is, of course, that the enemy is defeated both quickly and for a long time. Without any doubt, one of the advantages can be called the principle of selection (natural selection). The disadvantage of this type of conflict resolution is mainly that along with the loss of the opponent comes the loss of the alternative, i.e. development is in grave danger. With a kill strategy, errors are not corrected.

3. Submission of one to another

The main advantage of resolving the conflict through subordination was the possibility of division of labor, namely, the division of labor. The main disadvantage is that the strongest continues to win, and not the one who is really right.

4. Delegation of powers to third instances

One of the great advantages of resolving conflicts by delegation is the obligatory adherence to general principles (legal obligations), which in turn ensures objectivity, business approach and competence. The disadvantage of this conflict resolution option is that the conflicting parties find a lesser degree of individual identification with the solution than if both partners developed it independently, as well as depriving the conflicting parties of their competence in the conflict.

5. Compromise

Compromise means that a partial agreement can be reached in a certain area. But a partial agreement means, of course, partial losses.

6. Consensus

The search for consensus makes sense only in cases where the listed methods: flight, destruction, submission, delegation of authority and compromise have failed. Two conflicting parties can find a joint solution at the appropriate stage only when they are at the same stage. Consensus is possible only if the other partner in the conflict or the adversary also seeks consensus.

When resolving a conflict, it is important to consider both the actions of the participants in the conflict themselves, and the actions, the role of an intermediary, which may be the leader.

The described behavioral model is based on the ideas of D. and R. Johnson, which later became widespread in the work of E. Melibruda. The essence of this model is as follows:

Basically, four factors determine effective and constructive conflict resolution:

The conflict must be accepted and perceived adequately;

In conflict, communication should be open and effective;

It is important to jointly create an atmosphere of trust and cooperation;

Determine the essence of the conflict together.

Acceptance and perception of the adequacy of the conflict is understood as an accurate and devoid of personal hostility attitude towards the participants, an impartial assessment of both one's own actions, intentions, positions, and the actions, intentions, positions of opponents.

In particular, it is difficult to avoid the influence of a negative attitude towards an opponent who prejudices the opposing side. In his behavior is felt, seen only hostility. According to E. Melibruda: “This can lead to the so-called self-validating assumption: assuming that your partner is extremely hostile, you begin to defend yourself from him, going on the offensive. Seeing this, the partner experiences hostility towards us, and our preliminary assumption, although it was wrong, is immediately confirmed.

Based on this, it follows that when a conflict situation arises, when it is resolved, we should deliberately be as slow as possible in our assessments of other people, especially when it comes to conflict with them.

The openness and effectiveness of communication of conflicting parties is the next factor in constructive conflict resolution. Experts pay attention to such a significant moment associated with the resolution of the conflict as an open, unhindered discussion of the problem. In a process in which the parties, without embarrassment and without restraining their emotions, honestly show their understanding of what is happening, however, the discussion takes place taking into account ethical and moral standards, does not go over to “personalities”, but discusses only the disagreements that have arisen. Such a model of behavior contributes to the cessation of all kinds of rumors and omissions that arise. Very often, the open expression of views and feelings lays the foundation for building further trusting relationships between opponents.

At the same time, no matter how sharp the clash is, it must decisively rule out manifestations of rudeness.

Since the openness of communication is not only a violent outpouring of feelings, but also the organization of a constructive search for a solution to the problem, it would be nice if each of the opponents could tell the other the following: what I would like to do to resolve the conflict, what reactions I expect from the other, what am I going to do if the partner does not behave as I expect, what consequences I hope for if an agreement is reached.

If people are ready for dialogue, if they are open to each other, naturally, an atmosphere of mutual trust and cooperation is created. In fact, any conflict situation is problematic and speaking about its resolution, we assume the resolution of the problem situation. And since at least two are involved in interpersonal conflicts, we should be talking about a group solution to the problem, and it inevitably requires the cooperation of the participants in the interaction.

In order to determine the essence of the conflict, the parties to the conflict must agree on their ideas about the current situation and develop a specific strategy of behavior. It is assumed that their actions, which are step-by-step in nature, unfold in the following direction:

Step 1. Identifying the main problem.

Step 2. Determination of the secondary causes of the conflict.

Step 3. Finding possible ways to resolve the conflict.

Step 4. Joint decision to resolve the conflict.

At this stage, we are talking about choosing the most appropriate way to resolve the conflict, causing mutual satisfaction of the rivals.

Step 5. Implementation of the planned joint way to resolve the conflict.

Step 6. Evaluate the effectiveness of the efforts made to resolve the conflict.

It should be added that the step-by-step movement of rivals towards conflict resolution is impossible without the simultaneous action of such elements (factors) of this process as the adequacy of people's perception of what is happening, the openness of their relations and the presence of an atmosphere of mutual trust and cooperation.

Efforts to resolve the conflict can be made not only by persons directly involved in it, but also by a kind of outsiders - mediators. And they sometimes manage to do much more than the representatives of the confronting parties. Why is this happening?

After analyzing a number of studies on this issue, American psychologists D. Chertkoff and D. Esser came to the conclusion that in order to resolve a conflict situation, the presence of a mediator is necessary for opponents in psychological terms. The presence of a mediator allows the parties to the conflict to avoid excessive emotionality and maintain self-esteem.

Choosing a mediator and determining the terms of his powers - difficult task, M. Ingler offers recommendations that regulate the behavior of the conflicting parties and the mediator:

The parties to the conflict must regard the mediator they have chosen as representing a fair choice.

The mediator must be a neutral person not involved in the conflict.

The conflicting parties should agree to the presence of a mediator and the use of his recommendations in making a final decision.

The mediator can be most useful if he listens to the respective views of each of the parties separately.

The main task of the mediator is to collect information and clarify the problem, but not to make a decision.

If, by virtue of his official position, the mediator is subordinate to one or both of the conflicting parties, it is necessary to have guarantees that this circumstance, at the moment or in the future, will not affect his actions to resolve the conflict.

The mediator should strive to support each party in expressing their respective views and feelings, and to facilitate the integration of the points of view expressed by the parties on the issue under discussion.

The mediator should help the conflicting parties to decide what they can give each other.

The conclusions obtained during the study of the literature led to the conclusion that for effective interaction in society, it is necessary to find and apply models and strategies aimed at resolving conflicts that arise as a result of the activity and development of a person and society.

From the foregoing, we can conclude that conflicts often arise in the activities of man and society, for various reasons and proceed under different circumstances. There is no one who would enjoy the conflict, on whatever level: social, family or personal. Conflict is an existing reality that we all face. It is necessary to learn how to behave correctly in conflict situations, avoid and stop them if possible, is the basis of relationships. The main thing in resolving a conflict situation lies in arming yourself with knowledge and skills to successfully overcome it, the presence of a desire to find a solution that is beneficial for all participants (opponents). To resolve a conflict situation, the desire of all opponents to find a consensus is necessary, with an objective attitude towards each other, without affecting the personal qualities and characteristics of the participants. Conflict resolution is a joint activity of participants aimed at resolving the conflicts that have arisen, while finding solutions that would suit all participants. Bibliography.

1. Melibruda E. “I-you-we. Psychological opportunities for improving communication "M, 1986

2. Schwartz G. Management of conflict situations: Diagnostics, analysis and resolution of conflicts / Per. with German L. Kontorova. St. Petersburg: Venus Regen Publishing House, 2007.- 296p.

The regulation of the conflict is not yet its resolution, since the main structural components conflict. However, all regulation actions are either prerequisites for conflict resolution, or the actual moments of this process.

Conflict resolution is its final stage. In all diverse forms are realized different kinds ending the conflict: ending the conflict by destroying one of the parties or complete subjugation of the other; transformation of both conflicting parties in the direction of harmonizing their interests and positions on new basis; mutual reconciliation of opposing agents; mutual destruction of opposites. In the implementation of the first and last of these possibilities, the end of the conflict is accompanied by an intensification of the struggle. With the implementation of other forms, the conflict gradually fades.

Distinguish between full and incomplete conflict resolution. If there is a transformation or elimination of the basis of the conflict (reasons, subject), then the conflict is resolved completely. Incomplete resolution occurs when only some of the structural elements conflict, in particular, the content of the confrontation, its field, the motivational basis for the conflict behavior of the participants, etc.

The situation of incomplete resolution of the conflict gives rise to its resumption on the same or on a new basis.

The resolution of the conflict should be distinguished from its suppression, i.e. the forcible removal of one or both sides without eliminating the causes and subject of the confrontation.

The so-called abolition of the conflict does not lead to a resolution either - it is an attempt to get rid of the conflict by reconciliation or obscuration, and not by overcoming the opposites underlying it.

No matter how diverse conflicts are, the process of resolving them is characterized by some common features. First of all, as a stage of a broader management process, it is carried out within its necessary conditions and the principles analyzed earlier. In addition, it has its own prerequisites, specific stages, strategy and technology.

Prerequisites for resolving the conflict: 1. Sufficient maturity of the conflict, expressed in visible forms of manifestation, identification of subjects, manifestation by them of their opposing interests and positions, in the organization of conflict groups and more or less established methods of confrontation.

2. The need of the subjects to resolve the conflict and the ability to do so.
3. Availability of the necessary means and resources to resolve the conflict: material, political, cultural, and finally, human.

The process of resolving any conflict consists of at least three stages. The first - preparatory - is the diagnosis of the conflict. The second is the development of a resolution strategy and technology. The third one is direct practical activity in resolving the conflict - the implementation of a set of methods and means.

Diagnostics of the conflict includes: a) description of its visible manifestations (skirmishes, clashes, crises, etc.), b) determination of the level of development of the conflict; c) identifying the causes of the conflict and its nature (objective or subjective), d) measuring the intensity, e) determining the scope. Each of the mentioned elements of diagnostics implies an objective understanding, assessment and consideration of the main variables of the conflict - the content of the confrontation, the state of its participants, the goals and tactics of their action, and possible consequences.

It should be borne in mind that in the process of conflict development, the range of causes may expand, and emerging new causes may acquire a significant impact, the development of conflict resolution strategies is carried out taking into account possible resolution models and conflict management principles. Depending on the specific situation, the type of conflict, the level of its development and the degree of intensity, various strategies are envisaged. If the end of the conflict is supposed to be carried out in the form of a “win-lose”, “win-lose” model, then a strategy is developed to eliminate one of the parties by bringing the struggle to a victorious end. In a situation where the “win-win”, “win-win”, “win-win” model is possible, a strategy is being worked out to resolve the conflict by mutual transformation of the parties and, on the basis of this, mutual reconciliation. The weakening of the conflict, its transformation, gradual attenuation - these are the moments of the asymmetric solution of the conflict. Finally, in a situation in which neither of the parties can win the confrontation, and both lose it, it turns out to be expedient to suppress the conflict, to eliminate it mechanically. Various models of conflict resolution were formed by historical practice. Subordination of one of the warring parties to the will of the majority, an agreement based on the voluntary consent of the parties or coercion of one side by the other, a violent form of dispute resolution - these forms of the outcome of conflicts have been known for centuries.

Effective conflict resolution, i.e. resolution with the least loss of resources and the preservation of vital social structures, it is possible if there are some necessary conditions and the implementation of the noted principles of conflict management. Among the first conflictologists include: the presence of an organizational and legal mechanism for resolving conflicts; enough high level democratic culture in society; developed social activity of the main segments of the population; experience in constructive conflict resolution; development of communication links; availability of resources to implement the compensation system. As far as principles are concerned, it is primarily about a specific approach to resolving specific conflicts. Conflicts in which the opponents are divided by irreconcilable differences, and their resolution can be achieved only by the victory of one side over the other, differ significantly from conflicts of the "debate" type, where dispute is possible, maneuvers are possible, but in principle, both sides can reach a compromise. Conflicts of the “game” type are specific, where the parties act within the same rules, and the resolution of the problem here does not lead to the elimination of the entire structure of the relations that bind them. The requirements of timeliness, efficiency and publicity are no less important for the practice of conflict resolution. The launched conflict requires large resources for its resolution, because it is burdened with many destructive consequences. The lack of proper efficiency in influencing the conflict situation, among other things, reduces the effectiveness of the applied methods of work. Ignoring publicity, covert actions to eliminate the conflict hinder the mobilization of public forces to resolve the problem.

The literature distinguishes: "power", compromise and "integrative" models. The power model leads to two types of conflict outcomes: "victory-defeat", "defeat-defeat". Two other models - to the possible resolution of the conflict on the type of "win-win", "win-win". The forceful form is typical for legal conflicts.

Depending on the possible models of conflict resolution, the interests and goals of the conflicting subjects, five basic styles of conflict resolution are used, described and used in foreign management training programs. These are: styles of competition, evasion, adaptation, cooperation, compromise. The characteristics of these styles, the tactics of their choice and the technology of application are described by the American researcher of conflictology problems, Doctor of Philosophy DG Scott, in her work "Conflicts, Ways to Overcome Them".

The competition style is used when the subject is very active and intends to resolve the conflict, seeking to satisfy, first of all, his own interests to the detriment of the interests of others, forcing other people to accept his solution to the problem.

The avoidance style is used in a situation where the subject is unsure of a positive solution to the conflict for him, or when he does not want to spend energy on solving it, or in cases where he feels wrong.

The accommodation style is characterized by the fact that the subject acts in concert with others, not seeking to defend his own interests. Consequently, he yields to his opponent and resigns himself to his dominance. This style should be used if you feel that by giving in something, you lose little. The most characteristic are some situations in which the style of adaptation is recommended: the subject seeks to maintain peace and good relations with others; he realizes that the truth is not on his side; he has little power or little chance of winning; he understands that the outcome of conflict resolution is much more important for the other subject than for him.

Thus, in the case of an accommodation style, the subject seeks to develop a solution that satisfies both parties.

Collaborative style. By implementing it, the subject actively participates in resolving the conflict, defending his own interests, but trying, together with another subject, to look for ways to achieve a mutually beneficial result. Some typical situations when this style is used: both conflicting subjects have equal resources and opportunities to solve the problem; conflict resolution is very important for both sides, and no one wants to get away from it; the presence of long-term and interdependent relationships among the subjects involved in the conflict; both subjects are able to state the essence of their interests and listen to each other, both are able to explain their desires, express their thoughts and develop alternative solutions to the problem.

compromise style. It means that both sides of the conflict are looking for a solution to the problem based on mutual concessions. This style is most effective in situations where both opposing subjects want the same thing, but are sure that it is impossible for them to do it at the same time. Some cases in which the compromise style is most appropriate: both parties have the same resources and mutually exclusive interests; both sides can arrange a temporary solution; both parties can reap short-term benefits.

The style of compromise is often a happy retreat or a last chance to find some solution to a problem.

Conflict resolution methods. The whole set of methods, depending on the types of conflict resolution models, should be divided into two groups. Let's conditionally call the first group of negative methods, including all types of struggle, pursuing the goal of achieving the victory of one side over the other. The term "negative" methods in this context is justified by the expected end result of the end of the conflict: the destruction of the unity of the conflicting parties as a basic relationship. Let's call the second group positive methods, since when using them, it is supposed to preserve the basis of the relationship (unity) between the subjects of the conflict. First of all, these are various types of negotiations and constructive rivalry.

The difference between negative and positive methods is relative, conditional. IN practical activities In conflict management, these methods often complement each other.

Consider some of the methods used in the struggle of the conflicting parties. One such method is to achieve victory by obtaining the necessary freedom of action. This method is implemented by the following methods: creating freedom of action for oneself; fettering the opponent's freedom; even at the cost of some material or other losses, the acquisition of better positions in the confrontation, etc. For example, an effective method of discussion is to impose on the enemy, as a subject of discussion, such issues in which he is not very competent and where he can compromise himself.

An effective method is the use by one side of the functions and reserves of the enemy for its own purposes. Techniques in this case can be the use of the opponent's arguments in the discussion; forcing the enemy to take actions that are beneficial to the other side.

A very important method of struggle is to disable, first of all, the control centers of opposing complexes: the leading personalities of collectives and institutions, the main elements of the enemy's position. In the discussion, the main emphasis is placed on discrediting its leading participants, representing the side of the enemy, on refuting the main theses of his position.

Despite the fact that one of the main principles of conflict resolution is the principle of timeliness, efficiency, the method of delaying the case, or otherwise the "delay method" can be successfully used in the struggle. This method is a special case of choosing an appropriate place and time for delivering a decisive blow, creating an advantageous balance of forces and an advantageous situation for such a choice. The slowness of the transition to decisive action is justified by the need to concentrate large forces and resources to achieve victory.

Specific types of struggle as means of conflict resolution are selected and applied taking into account the specifics of the conflicts being resolved and the environment in which these actions are carried out.

The main positive method of conflict resolution is negotiation. Negotiations are a joint discussion by the conflicting parties with the possible involvement of a mediator of contentious issues in order to reach an agreement. They act as a kind of continuation of the conflict and at the same time serve as a means of overcoming it. When the emphasis is on negotiations as part of the conflict, they tend to be conducted from a position of strength, with the aim of achieving a one-sided victory. Naturally, this nature of negotiations usually leads to a temporary, partial resolution of the conflict, and negotiations serve only as an addition to the struggle for victory over the enemy. If negotiations are understood primarily as a method of resolving the conflict, then they take the form of honest, open debates, calculated on mutual concessions and mutual satisfaction of a certain part of the interests of the parties.

With this concept of negotiation, both parties operate within the same rules, which helps to preserve the basis for agreement.

Fischer R. and Juri W. analyze the principled negotiation method. It consists in the requirement to solve the problem on the basis of its qualitative features, i.e. based on the merits of the case. This method, the authors write, “assumes that you seek mutual benefit wherever possible; and where your interests do not coincide, you should insist on such a result that would be justified by some just standards, regardless of the will of each of the parties. The method of principled negotiations means a tough approach to the consideration of the substance of the case, but provides a soft approach to the relations between the participants in the negotiations.

The method of principled negotiation, or "negotiation based on certain principles", is characterized by four basic rules. Each of them constitutes a basic element of negotiations and serves as a recommendation for their conduct.

1. "Make a distinction between the negotiators and the negotiator", "separate the person from the problem." Negotiations are conducted by people; with certain character traits. Discussing them is unacceptable, as this introduces an emotional factor that interferes with the solution of the problem to the course of negotiations.
2. "Focus on interests, not positions." Opponents' positions may hide their true goals, and even more so interests. Meanwhile, conflicting positions are always based on interests. Therefore, instead of arguing about positions, one should examine the interests that determine them. There are always more interests behind opposing positions than those reflected in these positions.
3. "Develop mutually beneficial options." Interest-based negotiation promotes the search for a mutually beneficial solution by exploring options that satisfy both parties. In this case, the dialogue becomes a discussion with an orientation - "we are against the problem", and not "I am against you." With this orientation, it is possible to use brainstorming. As a result, more than one alternative solution can be obtained. This will allow you to select the desired option that meets the interests of the parties involved in the negotiations.
4. "Find objective criteria." Consent as the goal of negotiations should be based on such criteria that would be neutral in relation to the interests of the conflicting parties. Only then will it be fair, stable and lasting. If the criteria are subjective, that is, not neutral with respect to any party, then the other party will feel disadvantaged, and therefore the agreement will be perceived as unfair and ultimately it will not be fulfilled. Objective criteria follow from a principled approach to the discussion of controversial issues; they are formulated on the basis of an adequate understanding of the content of these problems.

Finally, the fairness of the solutions worked out depends on the procedures used in the course of the negotiations for settling conflicting interests. Among such procedures: elimination of disagreements by drawing lots, delegation of the right to decide to an intermediary, etc. The last way to resolve the dispute, i.e. when a third party plays a key role, is widespread, its variations are numerous.

"4-step method". D. Dena. This method serves to achieve agreement between people and their fruitful cooperation. It is based on two rules: “do not interrupt communication”, because the refusal to communicate generates and means conflict; "do not use power games to win the struggle for power through coercion, threats, ultimatums." In the description by the author, the named method looks like this:

Step 1: Find time to talk.

Step 2: Prepare conditions.

Step 3: Discuss the problem. Introductory part:

Express gratitude.

Express optimism.

Remind (cardinal rules).

State the problem. An invitation to talk.

Task 1. Stick to the core process.

Task 2. Support gestures of reconciliation.

Breakthrough: Step 4: Make an agreement (if necessary): balanced; behaviorally specific; in writing.

The method works effectively if the conflicting parties are familiar with it. It is important to prepare suitable conditions for a conversation, which means, in addition to time, also a place and a favorable environment for conversation. The duration of the dialogue is determined by the time needed to achieve a breakthrough in smoothing out the conflict. The content of the conversation must be kept secret, since its untimely publicity generates rumors, gossip and increases the conflict. This means that until a certain time, until a positive result is achieved, the confidentiality of the conversation must be respected. Dialogue, its successful completion implies constant observance of the subject of discussion, exclusion from the conversation of elements that are not related to the problem under discussion (talking about colleagues, about the events of the day, etc.). During the conversation, one should constantly make gestures of reconciliation, not take advantage of the vulnerability of the other and, at the same time, not show unscrupulousness. Conversations about a problem of concern to both sides should be conducted with a focus on a mutually beneficial solution and the exclusion of illusions about its result on the principle of "win-lose". The result of the dialogue is an agreement that describes the relationship of the parties for the future, fixing in writing a balanced, coordinated behavior and actions to implement conflicting interests.

The described methods of communication and negotiations involve the interaction of individuals, teams. In life, conflicts that arise in the environment of mass communities, between not only small, but also large groups, play an important role. Such conflicts can be resolved through a variety of negotiations and types of communication. However, communication in such cases does not take the form of a dialogue, but a multi-subject discussion of problems. These are various kinds of business meetings, seminars, conferences, congresses, etc.

The use of positive conflict resolution methods is embodied in the achievement of compromises or consensuses between opposing actors. These are forms of ending conflicts, mainly of the type "win-win", "win-win", "win-win". They represent the realization of the styles of compromise and cooperation.

Compromise (from lat. compromissum) - means an agreement based on mutual concessions. For example, in politics, a compromise is a concession to some of the demands of the opposite side, a renunciation of some of their demands by virtue of an agreement with the other party.

Distinguish compromises forced and voluntary. The former are inevitably imposed by the prevailing circumstances. For example, the balance of opposing political forces is clearly not in favor of those who compromise. Or a general situation that threatens the existence of the conflicting parties (for example, the mortal danger of a thermonuclear war, if it is ever unleashed, for all mankind). The second, that is, voluntary, compromises are concluded on the basis of an agreement on certain issues and correspond to some part of the interests of all mutual active forces. On the basis of such compromises, various party blocs and political coalitions are created.

The theoretical and methodological basis for compromises is the provision of dialectics on the combination of opposites as a form of regulation and resolution of social contradictions and conflicts. The social base is the commonality of certain interests, values, norms (the so-called general rules of the game) as prerequisites for the interaction of social forces and institutions. In the case of a voluntary compromise, there is a commonality of basic views, principles, norms and challenges facing the interacting subjects. practical tasks. Compromise is carried out in the name of achieving common strategic goals on the tactics of social action to resolve the conflict. If the compromise is coercive, then it may consist of: a) mutual concession on certain issues in the name of ensuring a balance of private interests and goals (if the initiative to conclude a compromise comes from one of the parties in a state of conflict), b) in combining the efforts of all conflicting parties to resolve some fundamental issues related to their survival (if the initiative to compromise is mutual).

The technology of compromises is quite complex, unique in many respects, but still there is something repetitive in its structure. These are some ways of harmonizing interests and positions: consultation, dialogue, discussion, partnership and cooperation. Using them allows you to identify common values, if any, to detect the coincidence of views on certain issues, helps to reveal positions on which the conflicting parties need to make concessions, to develop a mutually acceptable agreement on the "rules of the game", or otherwise, the norms and methods of further actions in order to ensure an appropriate balance of interests and thereby resolve the conflict. The technology of compromise is a kind of art in social management, which is mastered by every experienced subject, a mature democratic organization.

Consensus (from lat. consedo) is a form of expressing agreement with the arguments of the opponent in a dispute. In scientific literature, the concept of consensus denotes public agreement on the rules for resolving conflicts. We are talking, in particular, about agreement on: a) the principles of functioning of a particular system, which is embodied in democratic structures of power to manage society; b) rules and mechanisms governing the resolution of specific conflicts. Consensus can be characterized from the content side (qualitative aspect) and the level of achievement -- the degree of consensus (quantitative side).

Consensus becomes the principle of interaction between opposing forces in systems based on democratic principles. The technology of reaching consensus is a particular problem. It, apparently, is not simpler, but more complicated than the technology of compromises. The essential elements of this technology are: a) analysis of the spectrum of social interests and organizations expressing them; b) clarification of the fields of identity and difference, objective coincidence and contradiction of priority values and goals of the acting forces; substantiation of common values and priority goals on the basis of which agreement is possible; c) systematic activity of government institutions and socio-political organizations in order to ensure public agreement on the norms, mechanisms and ways of regulating social relations and achieving those goals that are recognized as generally significant.

The considered methods of conflict resolution are far from exhausting all the ways of such action. A huge number of conflicts - social, political, organizational and managerial, and finally, ethno-national are determined, as already mentioned in previous lectures, by mistakes in politics. ruling institutions, violation of certain principles and norms of the functioning of public relations. In all these situations, various methods of conflict management and resolution can be effective provided that deformations in structures and functions are eliminated.

So, to resolve conflicts, such models as “power”, compromise and “integration”, such styles as styles of competition, avoidance, adaptation, cooperation, compromise and such methods as negative and positive are used. Negotiations stand out among the positive ones.

The purpose of conflictology- create a model of conflict resolution, strategies, methods of conflict management, study the boundary of the conflict. find ground for agreement, etc.

The dynamics of the conflict according to Antsupov and Shipilov.

Style of behavior in a conflict situation.

Conflict resolution.

Ways to resolve conflicts are varied, as are the conflict situations themselves, but they can all be reduced to some basic groups:

I. Conflict avoidance (conflict avoidance tactics).

This tactic is a very popular way of behaving in a conflict situation, both participants in the conflict and managers resort to it when they settle the conflict. The essence of tactics is ignoring the conflict, refusing to recognize its existence, self-elimination (physical or psychological).

It may seem like a bad tactic, but it has its advantages and disadvantages.

Advantages of tactics:

§ easily and quickly carried out, material and psychological resources are not needed (for example, the manager, avoiding conflict, does not respond to the employee's request for a raise wages);

§ tactics are acceptable when a conflict is brewing related to matters that are insignificant for this group.

Tactics Disadvantages:

Þ under certain conditions, this tactic can lead to an escalation of the conflict, since the cause of the conflict is not eliminated, but preserved. If the problem that leads to the conflict is significant, then the conservation of the conflict may lead to an aggravation, and not to the settlement of the conflict.

Conflict avoidance tactics are successful under certain conditions:

§ if the reason that gives rise to confrontation is the tip of the iceberg and indicates the presence of other, deep prerequisites for conflicts;

§ if the reason is rooted in the limited information available about the conflict, additional work is needed, data collection that ensures effective conflict resolution;

§ the lack of forces on one of the parties with the help of which it is possible at the moment to resolve the conflict.

Behavioral style in conflict avoidance tactics:

concealment, classification of information in order to prevent the aggravation of the conflict;

· Refusal to recognize the very fact of the existence of the causes of the conflict in the expectation that it will resolve itself.

II. The method of applying force.

The use of this method indicates the readiness to resolve the conflict, at least one of the parties.

The essence of the method- forced imposition of one's decision on one of the parties.

Prerequisites (favorable conditions):

§ the presence of a decisive preponderance of resources in one of the parties (for example, the administration of the plant copes with striking workers by recruiting new workers);

§ occurrence emergency;

§ the need to make an unpopular decision;

§ the indisputable correctness of one of the parties.

Forms of manifestation of tactics of violence:

§ use of force methods;

§ the use of a rigid, commanding style of communication;

§ the use of punishment measures while encouraging conscientious employees.

III. Tactics of concessions and compromises.

The previous tactics are designed to win one of the parties and lose the other, they are the most ancient ways of resolving conflicts, they have become a habit and are used automatically, but modern conflictology views these tactics negatively, they are dominated by an irrational approach.

Civilized methods of conflict resolution include win-win methods, the tactics of unilateral concessions or the tactics of bilateral compromises, mutually beneficial agreements. These tactics are aimed at constructive, positive conflict resolution. Mastering them is a condition of modern effective managerial activity.

Tactics of unilateral concessions (adaptation).

Prerequisites for the use of tactics:

§ a clear mistake in the relationship made by one of the parties;

§ in conditions when the future threatens with crisis events for this group and it is necessary to conserve energy for this, and at the cost of concessions on less significant problems, to maintain reserves for future crises;

§ refusal to make concessions threatens with more serious damage.

Weaknesses (disadvantage) of concession tactics - partially implements the "win-win" principle, only one side benefits.

More reliable tactics of compromise (mutual concessions), which becomes a reliable basis for long-term cooperation. This tactic is a classic (exemplary) way to resolve conflict situations.

Compromise- the path of mutual concessions, mutually beneficial deals, partial satisfaction of the interests of both warring parties, the search for mutually acceptable positions.

Conditions for using this tactic :

§ both parties are ready for mutual concessions;

§ the impossibility of resolving the conflict by force, there is no possibility of leaving.

A large role in this tactic is given to negotiations - they allow you to find out areas of agreement, points of convergence of interests.

Difficulties in applying tactics:

§ the possibility of refusal of one of the parties from the originally taken position;

§ the decision taken as a result of negotiations may be contradictory;

§ in a compromise agreement there is always an element of refusal from the originally taken position, it is possible to return to the original position.

Advantages of tactics:

§ leads to a mutually beneficial result;

§ Demonstrates respect for each other's dignity.

The problem of the cost of conflict. Covert tactics.

Conflict analysis shows that the cost of conflict can be very high.

Failure to resolve conflict:

§ anxiety;

§ feeling of loneliness;

§ stressful situation.

Resolved conflict:

§ affirmation in the soul of a sense of peace, tranquility, fun;

§ increased energy, readiness for new business;

§ feeling of expansion of opportunities, prospects;

§ health promotion.

Social consequences of failure to resolve the conflict:

§ material losses;

§ human losses.

The most positive way to a positive result is the tactics of negotiations and compromises.

Hidden action method:

§ bribery;

§ conspiracies;

§ intrigues, etc. (a historical example is the conspiracy against Caesar).

The reasons for the use of these methods are the low level of culture, the crisis in the state of society.

Negotiation as the best way to resolve conflicts.

The most important element of any method of conflict resolution is negotiation. Without negotiations it is impossible to resolve the conflict.

Negotiation - the most significant link in the activities of any manager, especially in the field of conflict resolution.

The main roles of participants and the main principles of negotiation.

The manager can participate in negotiations in different roles:

§ as a representative of a higher authority;

§ a participant in the conflict as part of one of the parties;

§ intermediary, mediator.

Each of these roles is unique, but for all participants in the conflict there are rules of conduct and codes of prohibitions (lists of prohibited techniques):

§ outright rudeness;

§ premature, hasty assessment of the intermediate results of the negotiations as a failure;

§ it cannot be assumed that a request by one of the parties to take a break is a sign of weakness;

§ It is unacceptable to evaluate the compromise proposals of the opposite side as a manifestation of the weakness of this side, since the manifestation of flexibility is a manifestation of strength.

The main objectives of the negotiations.

For the success of sentences, one must see their goals and objectives:

§ Achievement of real results - the main task of the negotiations (expressed in a written decision, which must be clear, definite, unambiguous);

§ be ready and implement the necessary change in their initial positions, adjustment of proposals, readiness to make concessions, compromise;

§ emotional support, positive psychological climate, mood, human relationships during negotiations, prerequisites for further conflicts.

Negotiation preparation:

§ creation of conditions for the start of negotiations;

§ convincing opponents of the expediency of negotiations;

§ enlist support public opinion;

The result of the preparation of negotiations is to achieve at least a meeting.

Successful negotiations require:

§ carefully analyze the essence of the conflict, this analysis can be presented in the form of a conflict analysis map, which indicates the participants, disputed issues, interests, needs of the parties that were infringed and led to the conflict;

§ using the forecast method to assume those contentious issues that may arise during the negotiations;

§ clearly present their strengths and the strengths of the parties, the formulation of possible solutions;

§ direction of relationships with partners that can be used in the future.

The main phases of negotiations and the main principles of the negotiation process.

The main phases of the negotiations:

1. Preparatory phase - can be supplemented by the above consultations.

2. Statement by each side during the negotiations of its position based on facts. Criticism of the other side (based on facts) is acceptable.

3. The phase of searching for an integral solution (discussions) - convergence of positions. It is acceptable to put pressure on a partner.

4. The final phase - making decisions or admitting failure (failure of negotiations).

Impasse in negotiations- a situation in which the presentation of all possible proposals does not lead to decision-making, but such a result also has its positive meaning:

§ the failure of negotiations allows you to clearly see the opposite positions of the parties, the essence of the dispute, disagreements;

§ The failure of negotiations can serve as an impulse, a starting point for the search for fundamentally new solutions.

But deadlock in negotiations should be avoided, and in order not to come to it, one must observe basic principles of negotiation:

§ it must be taken into account that the conflict is a complex phenomenon (social and psychological), therefore it can be resolved during negotiations only by a set of means;

§ the problem that caused the conflict should be deeply and comprehensively thought out, and only on the basis of this analysis should a line of conduct in the negotiations be developed;

§ help rather than hinder each other in achieving solutions (apply flexibility, sustainability);

§ take into account not momentary, but long-term interests of the parties;

§ carefully think through the entire course of the negotiations, even if they have reached an impasse.

FEATURES OF ORGANIZATION AND METHODOLOGY FOR LESSONS IN PSYCHOLOGY (LECTURE, SEMINAR AND PRACTICAL LESSONS").

Organizational forms of education- this is an external expression of the coordinated activity of the teacher and the student, carried out in a certain order and mode.

1) Forms of study(according to the number of students)

Mass

Collective

Group

Individual

2) Forms of study(according to the duration of the lesson)

Classic (45 m)

Twin (90m)

Arbitrary

3) Forms of study(local)

School

Extracurricular activities (excursions, acquaintance with the project at the factory)

The main form of teaching is the lesson.

Lesson- it is complete in semantic, temporal and organizational element of the educational process.

Classification of lessons according to didactic goals and place of lessons in the general system.

Combined

Lessons in learning new knowledge

Lessons in the formation of new skills

Lessons of generalization and systematization

Lessons of control and correction of knowledge, skills

Lessons practical application knowledge, skills

The university forms of education include:

practice, seminar,

laboratory,

Colloquium (one topic is deeply studied, many different sources are taken).

1) Methods of Perception, Assimilation

Story,

Explanation,

Illustration,

Demonstration,

Work with book and document

2) Methods of Assimilation, Reproduction

Problem situation

game situation

Discussion

Experiment

Exercise

Reference abstract

mutual learning

Interrogation and control

3) Methods of Educational-Creative Expression

Independent search

artistic performance

Critical analysis of results learning activities

Parenting Methods

The literature distinguishes: "power", compromise and "integrative" models. The power model leads to two types of conflict outcomes: "victory-defeat", "defeat-defeat". Two other models - to the possible resolution of the conflict by the type of "win-win", "win-win". The forceful form is typical for legal conflicts.

Depending on the possible models for resolving conflicts, the interests and goals of the conflicting subjects, five basic styles of conflict resolution described and used in foreign management training programs. This: styles of competition, avoidance, accommodation, cooperation, compromise. The characteristics of these styles, the tactics of their choice and the technology of application are described by the American researcher of conflictology problems, Doctor of Philosophy DG Scott, in her work "Conflicts, Ways to Overcome Them".

Competition style is used when the subject is very active and intends to resolve the conflict, seeking first of all to satisfy his own interests to the detriment of the interests of others, forcing other people to accept his solution to the problem.

Evasion Style is used in a situation where the subject is unsure of a positive solution to the conflict for him, or when he does not want to spend energy on solving it, or in those cases when he feels wrong.

Fixture Style characterized by the fact that the subject acts jointly with others, not seeking to defend their interests. Consequently, he yields to his opponent and resigns himself to his dominance. This style should be used if you feel that by giving in something, you lose little. The most characteristic are some situations in which the style of adaptation is recommended: the subject seeks to maintain peace and good relations with others; he realizes that the truth is not on his side; he has little power or little chance of winning; he understands that the outcome of conflict resolution is much more important for the other subject than for him.

Thus, in the case of an accommodation style, the subject seeks to develop a solution that satisfies both parties.

Collaborative style. By implementing it, the subject actively participates in resolving the conflict, defending his own interests, but trying, together with another subject, to look for ways to achieve a mutually beneficial result. Some typical situations when this style is used: both conflicting subjects have equal resources and opportunities to solve the problem; conflict resolution is very important for both sides, and no one wants to get away from it; the presence of long-term and interdependent relationships among the subjects involved in the conflict; both subjects are able to state the essence of their interests and listen to each other, both are able to explain their desires, express their thoughts and develop alternative solutions to the problem.

compromise style. It means that both sides of the conflict are looking for a solution to the problem based on mutual concessions. This style is most effective in situations where both opposing subjects want the same thing, but are sure that it is impossible for them to do it at the same time. Some cases in which the compromise style is most appropriate: both parties have the same resources and mutually exclusive interests; both sides can arrange a temporary solution; both parties can reap short-term benefits.

The style of compromise is often a happy retreat or a last chance to find some solution to a problem.

Methods conflict resolution. The whole set of methods, depending on the types of conflict resolution models, should be divided into two groups. Let's conditionally call the first group of negative methods, including all types of struggle, pursuing the goal of achieving the victory of one side over the other. The term "negative" methods in this context is justified by the expected end result of the end of the conflict: the destruction of the unity of the conflicting parties as a basic relationship. Let's call the second group positive methods, since when using them, it is supposed to preserve the basis of the relationship (unity) between the subjects of the conflict. First of all, these are various types of negotiations and constructive rivalry.

The difference between negative and positive methods is relative, conditional. In practical conflict management activities, these methods often complement each other.

The main positive method of conflict resolution is negotiation. Negotiation- this is a joint discussion by the conflicting parties with the possible involvement of a mediator of contentious issues in order to reach an agreement. They act as a kind of continuation of the conflict and at the same time serve as a means of overcoming it. When the emphasis is on negotiations as part of the conflict, they tend to be conducted from a position of strength, with the aim of achieving a one-sided victory. Naturally, this nature of negotiations usually leads to a temporary, partial resolution of the conflict, and negotiations serve only as an addition to the struggle for victory over the enemy. If negotiations are understood primarily as a method of resolving the conflict, then they take the form of honest, open debates, calculated on mutual concessions and mutual satisfaction of a certain part of the interests of the parties.

The possibility of conflict exists in all spheres. Conflicts are born on the basis of daily differences of opinion, disagreements and confrontation of different opinions, needs, motives, desires, lifestyles, hopes, interests and personal characteristics. They represent an escalation of everyday rivalry and confrontation in the realm of principled or emotionally driven clashes that disrupt personal or interpersonal peace.

Introduction………………………………………………………………….………1.
1. Arbitration as a positional-functional model of organizing interaction……………….……….……2.
2. Characteristics of the “pressure (confrontation)” model……………….….…..6.
3. Negotiations as a model for organizing interaction in conflicts and disagreements……………………..8.
4. Model "negotiations through an intermediary"…………………………..10.
5. Counseling as a model indirect influence to resolve the conflict…………….13.
6. Representation as a model for ensuring resolution of disputes with the help of a specialist………16.
7. Peacekeeping (reconciliation of the parties) as a constructive model of conflict resolution………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………20.
References……………………………………………………………...22.

The work contains 1 file

Introduction………………………………………………………………….………1.

1. Arbitration as a positional-functional model of interaction organization…………………………………………………….……….……2.

2. Characteristics of the “pressure (confrontation)” model……………….….…..6.

3. Negotiations as a model for organizing interaction in conflicts and disagreements……………………………………………………………………..8.

4. Model "negotiations through an intermediary"…………………………..10.

5. Consulting as a model of indirect influence on conflict resolution…………………………………………………………………………….13.

6. Representation as a model for ensuring the resolution of disputes with the help of a specialist………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

7. Peacemaking (reconciliation of the parties) as a constructive model of conflict resolution………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………20.

References………………………………………………………………...22.

Introduction

The conflict is an actualized contradiction, that is, opposing values, attitudes, and motives embodied in interaction. It can be considered quite obvious that, in order to be resolved, a contradiction must necessarily be embodied in actions in their collision. It is only through the clash of actions, literal or conceivable, that the contradiction manifests itself.Thus the conflict can be resolved as a result of three types of actions: unilateral, carried out by each of the participants at their own peril and risk; mutually agreed, resulting in is a compromise; joint, or integrative. They may be based on the concurrence of opinions of the participants, the superiority of one of them, or the intervention of a third force (physical or legal).

As a result, three behavior patterns are formed participants in the conflict. One of them is destructive; the other is conformal, associated with unilateral or mutual concessions (not to be confused with non-participation or passive resistance) and the third is constructive, involving a joint search for a solution that is beneficial to all parties.

In my work, I want to consider not only the theoretical aspect of our issue and present the main positional-functional models for organizing interaction: arbitration, pressure (confrontation) and negotiations, but also their application in practice

1. Arbitrage as a position-functional model

organization of interaction

In general, arbitration is the resolution of a conflict in terms of a previously established norm. In this case, there is a qualification, an assessment of a specific case, a specific conflict situation from the point of view of a general rule or norm (several rules or several norms), and a decision is made.

As a rule, the parties involved in the conflict have little involvement in the resolution of the conflict. The decision is made by the arbitrator and is preceded by a study of the incident or even a chain of incidents. The parties to the conflict can influence the process of investigation in their favor by presenting a picture of the incident to their advantage, but, according to the rules of litigation, they are obliged to truthfully contribute to the process of establishing the actual circumstances.

The basic principles governing this process can be formulated as follows1:

Trusting the arbitrator with the right to apply resolving procedures, attribution to him of competence in the application of procedural forms (norms) in resolving the conflict. The participants trust in advance the authority and wisdom of the arbitrator in making a decision that resolves their problem, or the arbitrator (arbitrator) objectively has the right to make decisions regarding the conflict situation;

Decision-making center - arbiter. The work of the arbitrator consists in a balanced assessment (qualification) of the case according to predetermined norms and rules. However, he does not necessarily need to understand the processes of conflict resolution by the participants themselves;

Competence of the arbitrator in the subject of the conflict. The arbitrator must understand the subject of the conflict. As a rule, the subject of the conflict is law, and its procedural characteristic is the legal form;

Competence of the arbitrator in the inquiry and decision-making. The arbitrator must understand the process of establishing the facts leading to the dispute and the rules of decision making.

Typical model scenarios. A typical arbitration scenario in general terms is as follows. The parties that failed to resolve the conflict in direct interaction turn to the arbitrator in the expectation that he has enough experience, resources in the form of regulations governing this type of situation.

Trust in the arbitrator in the conflict process is a key characteristic.

The arbitrator listens to the parties and makes a decision regarding the conflict situation.

Arbitration may also take place in a less extensive form: To resolve a conflict, it is enough that the arbitrator makes a decision only on the basis of observing the conflict of the participants, as happens in sports.

Appropriateness of arbitration. How appropriate is such a model? In almost any organization, the number of employees of which allows the formation of structural units, its own internal code (list of norms) can be established, and, consequently, conflict resolution through arbitration. The unconditional advantages of such a model include its “deterrent” conflicts with the use of violence or unfair methods of resolution. If the internal company code is backed up by the real skills of employees, then the number of violent conflicts will be significantly reduced. The disadvantages of this model include its inflexibility. It leaves offended and losers, because the process of agreeing on a solution with the participants in the conflict does not take place. At the same time that the number of destructive conflicts may decrease, the number of dissatisfied will increase.

It should be noted that this is a traditional and theoretically obsolete approach 2 . At least in terms of actual conflict resolution. At the same time, this form can perform the functions of cultural deterrence and contribute to a certain extent to resolution by freeing the parties for a while from the need to make decisions and demonstrating to them the fact that it is really up to them to decide. Arbitration, in this sense, is a fairly cultural form of postponing a decision until sufficient resources are available.

2. Characteristics of the “pressure (confrontation)” model

The second model of conflict resolution is pressure (confrontation).

Pressure can be defined as discrimination or, as it were, the destruction of one of the parties to the conflict by the other side. "No person - no problem" - this cynical slogan and principle demonstrates an extreme position in the whole range of pressure techniques and technologies. In life we, of course, do not encounter such radical orientations, but fundamentally pressure pursues the goal of destroying (eliminating) the other side, not so much in the physical sense, but in the sense of the ability to interfere. Although pressure (overt or covert) is a socially frowned upon model for conflict resolution, it is quite common. Pressure is the opposite of "negotiating interests."

The basic principles governing this process can be formulated as follows:

The pressure is based on the superiority of the resource. This means that only the side that has or assumes that it has a large resource can afford a pressure strategy. The hardest part is defining the resource. Very different things can act as a resource in pressure: from self-esteem to the actual possession of a weapon, from promptness in decision-making to ingenuity in arguments;

Pressure takes no other argument than force. If there is the easiest way to realize your interests with the help of force, then it will be realized if in response to pressure there is no counter-pressure or a resource that keeps the opponent from using force;

Pressure itself is conflicting in its moral nature. A person who has absorbed Christian ideals and decides to use pressure usually faces a moral dilemma: if I use force, then I can be condemned. If I do not use force, then they can defeat me.

Usually, when deciding on the use of pressure (force), the question arises: if I use force, then what can justify me in the eyes of other people? Pressure can be shown as an opponent's perspective (threat) or as a direct action (immediate pressure). In both cases, as a rule, there is a moral dilemma.

Typical model scenarios. Typical pressure model scenarios are well known and widely described in the literature. As a rule, pressure from one of the parties leads to counter pressure from the other, then the pressure from the first increases, and so on. Such dynamics in the development of the conflict is called the escalation of the conflict. Escalation unfolds with more or less equal resources on both sides. Escalation can lead to the exhaustion of resources or to the realization by the parties of the senselessness of the confrontation. In both cases, the conflict ends. It is precisely what is stopped, and not resolved, i.e., the form is exhausted. Escalation can also (which happens more often) result in one loser and one winner (win-lose).

The second scenario immediately occurs as a win-lose (winner-loser). When it is implemented, escalation does not occur, and the opponent “surrenders” almost immediately.

Appropriateness of pressure. Pressure is quite often used by the Conflicting Parties, despite the fact that it is condemned. The secret behind the prevalence of pressure as a model for conflict resolution is simple. Pressure gives quick results. However, pressure is not strategically beneficial, because it leaves dissatisfied losers, and the defeated, striving for revenge, is able to become a winner at the most unexpected time. Despite this, as a tactical means, pressure is very common.

The work contains 1 file

You may be interested