Strategies of behavior in conflict: rivalry (or competition); compromise; cooperation; avoidance; fixture. Conflict tactics

A strategy of behavior with a conflict is a program and an action plan aimed at implementing the set chain in a conflict, in other words, it is a solution to the problem of satisfying one's specific needs, one's specific interest in this conflict. The tactics of behavior in a conflict are the means that provide this strategy, which, ultimately, determine the style of a person's behavior in a conflict.

Modern conflict theory distinguishes five basic behavioral strategies: competition, avoidance, cooperation, accommodation, and compromise. If the coordinate system reflects the most significant principles of conflict behavior, namely, the interest in achieving personal chains and maintaining personal relationships, then we can graphically show the location of each behavior strategy (see Fig. 1). Below are five main strategies of behavior in a conflict, each of which, for clarity, is given a conditional figurative name that characterizes the main tactical actions of this strategy.

Competition, compromise, settlement, and avoidance are the four most common strategies for dealing with conflict. As can be seen from the above, they differ significantly from each other. People, entering into a conflict, do not necessarily adopt any one strategy of behavior, their combination is often observed. It depends on the type of conflict, on what level it occurs, what are the resources of the participants in the conflict, what is the significance of personal chains, etc.

The use of a strategy of competition, compromise, handling and evasion can often lead to unnecessary difficulties. Especially when they try to prove their case, instead of lowering their tone; they pretend that everything is normal or defiantly move away from the conflict, instead of finding a solution to the problem together, etc.

Figure 1. Behavioral strategies.

In some cases, these strategies are quite acceptable, but require flexibility and skill to fully use them.

To this set of techniques for resolving conflicts, one more strategy of behavior can be added - the strategy cooperation, which, unlike others, leads to the fact that there are no losers in the conflict, and both sides win.

COMPETITION (1/9) - "SHARK". Such a strategy is characterized by a type of behavior that can be figuratively represented by the behavior of a shark at the time of the attack. This type of behavior is rigidly focused on winning, regardless of their own costs, which can be defined by the expression "rushing ahead." The preference for such behavior in a conflict is often explained by a subconscious desire to protect oneself from the pain caused by a sense of defeat, because. this strategy reflects a form of power struggle in which one side emerges as the clear winner. This strategy is necessary in the event that a certain person, denounced by authority, must restore order for the sake of general well-being. It is certainly justified if someone takes control into their own hands in order to protect people from violence or rash acts. However, the Shark's strategy of behavior rarely brings long-term results - the losing side may not support a decision made against its will, or even try to sabotage it. The one who lost today may refuse to cooperate tomorrow.

Tactical actions "Sharks":

• - strictly controls the actions of the enemy and his sources of information;
• -constantly and deliberately puts pressure on the enemy by all available means;
• -uses deceit, cunning, trying to seize the position;
• - provokes the enemy to ill-conceived steps and mistakes;
• - expresses unwillingness to enter into a dialogue, as he is sure that he is right, and this confidence turns into self-confidence.

When confronted with this type of behavior in a conflict, one must remember that "Shark" is afraid when information is collected about her, and tries to block all information sources about herself, and also does not want and is afraid of an open discussion of the conflict problem, since she is not interested in it, for her, only her position is important. When entering into a conflict process, she prefers that others avoid or resolve conflicts.

Personal qualities:

• - power, authoritarianism;
• - intolerance to disagreements and dissent;
• - Orientation to the preservation of what is;
• - fear of innovations, ambiguous decisions;
• - fear of criticism of one's behavior style;
• -using one's position with the chain of achieving power;
• -ignoring collective opinions and assessments in decision-making in critical situations.

EVADE (1/1) - "TURTLE". This strategy of behavior can be compared with the behavior of a turtle, which, at the moment of danger, hides in its shell. The Turtles' tactical motto is "Leave me some and don't touch me." This is a passive-passive attitude of the victim, drawn into the conflict by circumstances. The position of the victim is attractive due to certain compensatory factors: the victim receives significant outside support; she has a lot of sympathy; she doesn't have to try to solve the problem herself. Behind seeming helplessness, there may be a feeling that the problem is becoming more desirable and enjoyable than the risk and difficulties associated with its solution. If the victim faces violence or tangible loss, she may rate the risk associated with changing her situation as unacceptably high. The tragedy of this role and the inability to get out of it lies in the deep-rooted attitude of helplessness and inability to change the environment. What causes these settings? Victims learn how to be victims from other victims. Parents teach this to their children; authoritarian parents, teachers, leaders, and social systems intimidate people into accepting the role of victims. In some cases, over-cautious habits gradually lead people into the role of victim, as people refuse to go to change the situation or themselves, although with the right approach they could bring about positive changes relatively easily.

The strategy of behavior "Skulls" can, however, be a completely reasonable step if the conflict does not affect the direct interests of the person or involvement in it does not affect his development. Such a step can also be useful if it draws attention to a running problem.

On the other hand, such behavior may push the adversary to overestimate demands or retaliate instead of participating in a joint search for solutions, and may also lead to an exorbitant increase in the problem. Quite often, conflict avoidance is consciously or unconsciously used as a punishment to force the other side to change their attitude towards the conflict.

The behavior strategy of the "Turtle" leads to the fact that the true causes are driven inside and the conflict remains, it seems to be shifting to another plane, becoming deeper and more complex.

An unresolved conflict is dangerous because it affects the subconscious and manifests itself in the growth of resistance in the most various fields up to diseases.

Tactical actions "Turtle":

• -refuses to enter into a dialogue, using the tactics of demonstrative withdrawal;
• -avoids the use of forceful methods;
• - ignores all information from the enemy, does not trust the facts and does not collect them;
• -denies the seriousness and severity of the conflict;
• - systematically slows down in making decisions, always late, as he is afraid to make a reciprocal move. This is a situation of missed opportunities.

Personal qualities:

• - shyness in dealing with people;
• - impatience for criticism - accepting it as an attack on oneself personally;
• - indecision in critical situations, acts on the principle: "Maybe it will cost";
• -inability to prevent chaos and pointlessness in the conversation.

COMPROMISE (5/5) - "FOX". This strategy is characterized by a type of fox behavior that combines caution and cunning. "Fox" operates on the principle: "I will give in a little if you are also ready to give in." Balance, balance and caution are the main principles of this type of behavior. For this strategy, both personal chains and relationships are equally significant. The desire to normalize relations in any case is the weak point of this strategy in the conflict with the Shark. The compromise strategy does not involve an analysis of the amount of information, the "Fox" tolerates an exchange of views, but feels uncomfortable, because. she does not have her own position, her behavior depends on concessions from the other side. Compromise requires certain negotiating skills so that each participant achieves something. This solution of the problem implies that some finite quantity is being divided, and that in the process of dividing it, the needs of all participants cannot be completely satisfied. Nevertheless, the division equally is often perceived as the fairest solution, and if the parties cannot increase the size of the thing being divided, the equal use of the available benefits is already an achievement. The disadvantages of the compromise strategy are that one side may, for example, increase its claims in order to appear magnanimous later, or give up its positions much earlier than the other. In such cases, neither party will stick to a solution that does not meet their needs. If a compromise is reached without a thorough analysis of other possible solutions, it may not be the best way to resolve the conflict.

Tactical actions of the "Fox":

• - trades, loves people who know how to bargain;
• -uses deception, flattery to emphasize not very pronounced qualities in the enemy;
• -focused on equality in the division, acts on the principle: "All sisters - for earrings."

Personal qualities:

• - extreme caution in assessment, criticism, accusations, combined with openness. Such qualities are, of course, an element high culture personality;
• - cautious attitude to critical assessments of other people;
• - expectation of soft formulations, beautiful words;
• - the desire to convince people not to express their thoughts too sharply and openly.

SETTLING (9/1) - "TED BEAR". To illustrate this strategy of behavior in a conflict, the conditional name of a soft toy is given, which, without any effort on our part, gives us a feeling of warmth and softness. The conflict resolution strategy is aimed at the maximum in relationships and the minimum in comprehending personal chains.

The basic principle of behavior: "Whatever you want - just let's live together." This is a setting for benevolence at the expense of one's own losses, the so-called "game of hide and seek", but, of course, to a certain limit, since the instinct of self-preservation is highly developed in all people. Often such a strategy is followed by altruists, sometimes outwardly, and sometimes out of conviction. The ratio of sip opponents is important here. If the ratio of sip is not in his favor and further struggle does not make sense, then there is a reorientation to the installation, the motto of which is: "I surrender to the mercy of the winner."

A reconciliation strategy can be a smart move if a confrontation over a minor disagreement would be putting undue stress on the relationship at this stage, or if the other side is not ready for dialogue.

In the case of a serious conflict, the behavioral strategy of the "Teddy Bear" leads to the fact that the main controversial issues are not addressed and the conflict remains unresolved.

Tactical actions "Teddy Bear":

• -constant conciliation with the requirements of the enemy, i.e. makes maximum concessions;
• -constant demonstration of non-claim to victory or serious resistance;
• - indulges the enemy, flatters.

Personal qualities:

• - spinelessness - absence own opinion in difficult situations;
• - the desire to please everyone, not offend anyone, so that there are no strife and clashes;
• - follows the lead of the leaders of informal groups, his behavior is often manipulated;
• - the tendency to be distracted when participating in a conversation prevails.

COOPERATION (9/9) - SOVA. This strategy of behavior in conflict can be conditionally given the name of a bird, to which people have long attributed such qualities as wisdom and common sense. "Owl" openly recognizes the conflict, presents its interests, expresses its position and offers ways out of the conflict. He expects reciprocal cooperation from the enemy. The main principle of this strategy: "Let's leave mutual insults, I prefer ... And you?". The cooperation strategy is aimed at constructively resolving the conflict, that is, at working with the problem, not with the conflict.

"Owl" does not accept avoidance tactics, as it respects the partner, it does not exploit the weaknesses of the "Turtle" and "Teddy Bear", because it seeks dialogue in solving the problem. In relation to the “Shark”, she also behaves honestly, opposing peaceful means and common sense to her. "Owl" is characterized by a setting to end the conflict due to its escalation, if necessary, it is inclined to the negotiation process, where it always has a fan of proposals-alternatives.

When using the strategy of cooperation, the participants in the conflict become equal partners, not opponents who are interesting to each other as people with their own individualities. They are always interested not only in conflicting needs of each other, but also in their motivation. They strive for sincerity in relationships and maximum trust.

Partners recognize their conflict, emphasizing a common basis for interaction, which can be even one desire to find a way out of the situation together. They do not engage in mutual skirmishes and accusations - in the interests of the case, emotions are discarded. While looking for joint solutions, partners may be interested in the history of the conflict, but this is not an end in itself. They soberly assess their capabilities and therefore are prone to mediation, and, if necessary, to the negotiation process.

Tactical actions of the "Owl":

• - collects information about the conflict, about the essence of the problem, about the enemy;
• -calculates own resources and enemy resources to develop alternative proposals;
• -discusses the conflict openly, is not afraid of disagreements, tries to objectify the conflict;
• - if the opponent offers something sensible, reasonable, then it is accepted.

Personal qualities:

• - in any conflict, it is aimed at solving the problem, and not at blaming the individual;
• -positively relates to innovations, changes;
• -knows how to criticize without offending individuals, as they say, "on the case", based on facts;
• -uses his abilities to achieve influence on people.

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

The style of behavior in conflict is determined by:

• firstly, the measure of the implementation of one's own interests (personal or group) and the degree of activity in their upholding;
• secondly, the style of behavior is significantly influenced by the desire to satisfy the interests of other parties involved in the conflict, as well as what actions are priority for individuals, social groups- individual or joint.

What is the difference between each of these styles of behavior in conflicts and which of them suits you best in what cases?

1. Evasion (avoidance)

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

This style of behavior is usually chosen when:

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

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

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

2. Adaptation (concession)

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

• the participant in the conflict is not very concerned about the problem that has arisen, does not consider it significant enough for himself, and therefore shows a willingness to take into account the interests of the other side, yielding to it if it has a higher rank, or adapting to it if it turns out to be a lower rank;
• opponents demonstrate accommodatingness and deliberately give in to each other in something, they take into account the fact that losing little, they gain more, including good relationships, mutual consent, partnerships;
• a deadlock is created, requiring a weakening of the intensity of passions, making some kind of sacrifice for the sake of maintaining peace in relations and preventing confrontational actions, without sacrificing, of course, one's principles, primarily moral ones;
• there is a sincere desire of one of the conflicting parties to support the opponent, while feeling quite satisfied with his good-heartedness;
• the competitive interaction of opponents is manifested, not aimed at fierce competition, indispensable damage to the other side.

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

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

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

3. Confrontation

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

• the problem is vital importance for a participant in the conflict, who believes that he has sufficient power to quickly resolve it in his favor;
• the conflicting party occupies a position that is very advantageous for itself, essentially a win-win position and has the opportunity to use it to achieve its own goal;
• the subject of the conflict is sure that the option he proposes to solve the problem in this situation, and at the same time, having a higher rank, insists on making this decision, is currently deprived of another choice and practically does not risk losing anything, acting resolutely in defense of his interests and dooming opponents to lose.

However, we must not forget that any pressure, in whatever form it may take, can result in an explosion of unbridled emotions, the destruction of respectful and trusting relationships, an excessively negative reaction from those who will be defeated and will not give up trying to achieve revenge. Therefore, this style is of little use in most interpersonal conflicts, not the best option for maintaining a healthy moral and psychological atmosphere in the team, creating conditions that allow employees to get along with each other.

4. Collaboration

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

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

• the problem that caused disagreements seems important to the conflicting parties, each of which does not intend to evade its joint solution;
• the conflicting parties have approximately equal rank or do not pay attention at all to the difference in their positions;
• each side is willing to voluntarily and on an equal footing discuss the issues at issue in order to ultimately reach a full agreement on a mutually beneficial solution to a significant problem for all;
• the parties involved in the conflict act as partners and trust each other, take into account the needs, concerns and preferences of opponents.

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

5. Compromise

Compromise occupies a middle place in the grid of conflict behavior. It means the disposition of the participant (participants) of the conflict to resolve the disagreement on the basis of mutual concessions, achieving partial satisfaction of their interests. This style equally involves active and passive actions, the application of individual and collective efforts. This style is preferable because it usually blocks the way to ill will, allows, albeit in part, to satisfy the claims of each of the parties involved in the conflict. It is used in situations where:

• the subjects of the conflict are well aware of its causes and development in order to judge the actual circumstances, all the pros and cons of their own interests;
• conflicting parties of equal rank, having mutually exclusive interests, are aware of the need to come to terms with the given state of affairs and the alignment of forces, to be content with a temporary, but suitable option for resolving contradictions;
• participants in the conflict with different ranks are inclined to reach an agreement in order to gain time and save strength, not to break off relations, to avoid unnecessary losses;
• opponents, having assessed the current situation, adjust their goals, taking into account the changes that have occurred during the conflict;
• all other styles of behavior in this conflict do not bring effect.

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

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

Finding himself in a conflict situation, a person chooses, often unconsciously, one of the possible strategies of behavior:

Avoidance of the problem or avoiding it;

Fixture;

rivalry or competition;

Compromise;

Cooperation.

Unconscious choice occurs on the basis of past experience, mostly childhood. But the experience of conflict resolution in childhood is far from always suitable for new situations. If as a child you used to scream and slam the door so that your parents would listen to your opinion, then this “reception” is unlikely to be suitable when communicating with a teacher. If in adolescence or youth you were scolded, then you resentfully went to your room or entered into a heated argument, but this will not help you much (and is simply unacceptable) in a conversation with an irritated, aggressive patient.

Historical and cultural stereotypes can push the choice of an ineffective strategy of behavior. The rigid ideological standards of our past were rather oriented towards intolerance, struggle, uncompromisingness (remember the “battles for the harvest”, “conquest of nature”, etc.), and on the contrary, the mention of a tendency to compromise actually sounded like an accusation of unscrupulousness. These ideas have left an undoubted imprint on the spread of "hard" strategies of behavior in conflict situations, polemics, and negotiations. "Retreat without a fight" - such behavior, if not condemned, is often regarded as a sign of weakness. Everyone wants to be strong and authoritative, and if society sees strength not in the ability to cooperate or compromise, but in "fighting to the last" - people will choose confrontation.

Thanks to the developments of psychologists and philosophers (including Russian ones), a remarkable fact came to light: there are “two main ways of human existence and, accordingly, two attitudes towards life. The first one is life that does not go beyond the limits of direct connections in which a person lives... This is an existing attitude to life, but not recognized as such.

The second mode of existence is associated with the manifestation of reflection. It seems to suspend, interrupt this continuous flow of life and mentally takes a person beyond its limits. A person, as it were, takes a position outside of it. This is a decisive turning point. Here ends the first mode of existence.

For successful solution conflict situations and for full-fledged communication, a “reflexive” way out is vital, the result of which should be a mental transformation

situations (we look at and evaluate the situation and our behavior in it, as if from the outside). When you find yourself in a conflict situation, for its reasonable and effective solution, look at what is happening from the outside and consciously choose a strategy of behavior. This should take into account your own style, the characteristics of other people involved in the disagreement, as well as the nature of the conflict itself.

Avoidance- this behavior is expressed in self-elimination, ignoring or actual denial of the conflict. Forms of avoiding solving the problem can be different. You are silent, defiantly withdrawing, “turning off” from the discussion of the issue, or leaving, completely refusing further friendly and business relations with the “guilty” party.

The reasons for choosing such a strategy may be different:

Lack of confidence in yourself and your abilities, fear of losing;

Uncertainty of one's own position on this conflict issue;

The desire to buy additional time for serious preparation for participation in the conflict;

Lack of authority, finances, time.

If an avoidance strategy is chosen, you will save time and nerves, but in the future you may lose influence on the course of events. The conflict will either be resolved without taking into account your interests, or it will not be resolved and will grow and deepen.

“Leaving”, elimination, however, can be useful in a situation that does not directly affect your interests, or when your participation in resolving a conflict situation does not affect its development. It is likely that if you try to ignore the conflict, do not express your attitude, change the subject, leave the room, or do anything that delays the clarification of your position, then the problem will resolve itself. If not, you can do it later when you're ready for it.

Fixture - It manifests itself in a change in one's actions and attitudes under real or imagined pressure from the opposite side, susceptibility to someone else's opinion or desire to the detriment of one's own interests. It looks like this: you pretend that everything is in order, even if something hurts you very much, you prefer to put up with what is happening so as not to spoil the relationship: first you silently agree, and then you bear a grudge or

plan for revenge, or try to find workarounds to achieve your goal.

An accommodation strategy is most often resorted to if:

The conflict situation does not affect vital goals;

Maintaining relationships is more important than standing up for your interests;

The outcome is much more important to the other person;

Realize that the correctness is on the side of the opponent;

There are more important interests at the moment;

The other has more power;

It is believed that the other person can learn a useful lesson from this situation;

They can achieve the goal in a roundabout way. Accommodating in the form of conflict mitigation can be a very sensible tactic if arguing over minor disagreements threatens to ruin the relationship. There are cases when conflicts are resolved by themselves due to the fact that people continue to maintain friendly relations. However, with serious contradictions, the adaptation strategy interferes with the resolution of the controversial issue, as it does not contribute to the analysis of the situation and does not give the partner the opportunity to find out the real reason for your discontent.

This behavior is justified when you feel that by giving in a little, you lose little. If you have to give in on something important and you feel dissatisfied with it, then the strategy of adaptation is unacceptable. It also does not fit if it is obvious that the other participant in the conflict is not able to appreciate what you have done and, in turn, is not going to give up anything.

The accommodating strategy is somewhat similar to withdrawal in that it can be used to delay resolution of a problem. The main difference is that in this case you are acting together with another person, participating in the situation and agreeing to do what the other wants. After all, if an avoidance strategy is chosen, you do nothing to satisfy the interests of another person, but simply push the problem away from yourself, move away from it.

Rivalry- characterized by the achievement of individual or group goals in the face of confrontation with partners. Rivalry (or competition), as a rule, is characterized by a strong involvement of a person in the struggle, the activation of all his potentialities.

real opportunities while ignoring the interests of opponents. The basic principle of this strategy is: “For me to win, the rest must lose!”

In behavior, this is manifested in the desire to prove one's case at all costs, in pressure on the opponent (trying to convince him, and sometimes outshout him, or use power or physical force), in demands for unconditional consent and obedience, attracting new allies to strengthen a certain position.

Very often, people recognize only one way to resolve a conflict situation: the partner must give up their views, their opinions and accept their point of view, recognizing their rightness, and their wrongness or even guilt. If for a person this seems to be the only acceptable way out of the situation, then he will stubbornly defend his position, impose his point of view on the partner, and deny his arguments. In essence, he is not looking for a solution to the problem, for him there is already only one possible solution - his own.

Sometimes a person believes that he is absolutely right, and does not understand why others do not see it. Sometimes he is prevented from listening to the arguments of another by the habit of always taking over in a dispute, dominating, the desire to be the first. In some cases, the partner himself, his behavior causes an emotional protest and a desire to disagree because of the unsuccessfully chosen tone in this situation or because of the negative experience of past situations.

Thus, the reasons why a person chooses this strategy of behavior in a conflict situation can be as follows:

The need to protect one's interests (life, family, well-being, image, etc.);

Desire to establish priority, desire for leadership;

Distrust of people in general, including opponents, attributing negative motivation to the actions of a partner;

Egocentrism, inability to look at the problem from a different point of view;

Family feud, traditions of revenge (vendetta);

A critical situation that requires immediate resolution.

The strategy of competition is justified if you take control in your hands in order to protect yourself or other people from violence.

lia or reckless actions. This can be effective if you have a certain amount of power, are sure that your decision in this situation is the most correct and you have the opportunity to implement it, especially if the decision-making time is limited, and irreparable changes may occur during a long discussion. When a person takes power into his own hands, ignoring other opinions, his authority may fall somewhat, but if a positive result becomes obvious, he gains reliable supporters.

However, this strategy rarely brings long-term results: the losing side may not support a decision taken against its will, sabotage its implementation, covertly or openly oppose it. A firm that exploits its workers may suffer a strike, a people that oppresses an ethnic minority may provoke an uprising. A marriage in which one side suppresses the other can end in complete failure. Parents who demand complete obedience from their children are often deceived.

Compromise- resolution of the conflict situation through mutual concessions, when each of the parties reduces the level of their claims. The form of manifestation of a compromise can be different: both partners give in to each other for the sake of maintaining friendly relations, or their strengths (or arguments) turned out to be equal, and nothing remains but the decision to share the desired object (or unwanted duties) equally. This implies that both participants from the very beginning were looking for a fair outcome of the conflict situation.

The reasons for choosing a compromise solution are usually:

Striving for at least partial gain;

Recognition of the values ​​and interests of other people, as well as their own;

Desire to be objective;

Trying to find a way out when negotiations are deadlocked. The choice of a compromise strategy can be useful in situations where both parties have the same power and mutually exclusive interests. Sometimes compromise is the last opportunity to come up with a solution that will save the relationship and at the same time be useful to you. This strategy can be preferred from the very beginning of the conflict, especially if there is a need to reach an agreement quickly.

However, the compromise path requires certain negotiating skills so that each participant can achieve something.

This approach implies that some finite value is being divided, and that in the process of its division, the needs of all participants cannot be fully satisfied. Nevertheless, the division equally is often a fair decision: since we cannot increase the size of the divisible object (bonus, computer or apartment), equal use of it is already an achievement.

If a compromise was reached without a thorough analysis of other possible solutions or on insufficiently equal terms, then it may not be the most optimal outcome of the negotiations: neither side will be happy with a solution that does not satisfy its needs.

Cooperation - This is a strategy of behavior in which the first place is not the solution of a specific conflict situation, but the satisfaction of the interests of all its participants. Collaboration under the motto "I want everyone to win!" means finding ways to involve all stakeholders in the process of conflict resolution and striving for the benefit of all together and for each individually.

This path requires more work than other approaches to conflict. It is necessary to spend some time looking for the hidden interests and needs of all parties, listen to each other, then consider various possible solutions to the problem and make a choice.

A collaboration strategy is most effective when:

The solution of the problem is important for both parties and no one wants to completely move away from it;

There is time to work on the problem;

The parties are able to state the essence of their interests, listen and understand each other;

The parties to the conflict have equal power or want to ignore the difference in position in order to look for a way out of a difficult situation on an equal footing.

The purpose of cooperation is to develop a long-term mutually beneficial solution.

Collaborative conflict resolution strategy requires partners to:

Establish what is behind the positions of each of the parties;

Find out in what (in what aspects) the disagreements do not contradict each other (sometimes the problem itself is solved at this stage);

Contribute to the joint solution of the problem (“not opponents, but partners”);

Develop solutions that best meet the needs of each.

Sometimes cooperation outwardly resembles compromise or accommodation. This happens when, as a result of a discussion, you change your original position and partially or completely concede to your partner. But this is not because he turned out to be stronger than you or more right, but because you managed to find another, more suitable solution to your problems. Collaboration does not always lead to success, but if you start resolving a conflict situation in this way, you will most likely achieve more.

The Australian Conflict Resolution Organization, founded in 1986, develops and implements skills to help people move from confrontational to cooperative thinking. These are techniques that are effectively used in personal life, at work, in international relations. Here are some of them :

Do I want to resolve the conflict? (Be prepared to solve the problem.)

Do I see the whole picture or just my corner? (Look wider!)

What are the needs and concerns of others? (Describe them objectively.)

What can be an objective decision? (Solution options - think through as many of them as possible. Select those that best meet the needs of all participants.)

Can we work it out together? (Let's do business as equals.)

What do I want to change? (Be honest. Attack the problem, not the person.)

What new opportunities open up before me? (Look not at the "cons", but at the "pros".)

How would I feel in their place? (Let the other know you understand.)

Do we need a neutral intermediary? (Will a third party help to better understand each other and come to mutually acceptable solutions?)

How can we both win? (Look for solutions that take into account the needs of all participants.)

It happens that the tension in relations increases so much that communication, and even more so the resolution of the conflict, seems absolutely impossible. Each side begins to threaten, coerce and take revenge. Such actions cause reciprocal moves, which leads to an escalation of the conflict. Anyone who tries to offer cooperation in such a situation is perceived as weak, a loser and is exploited.

To resolve such conflicts, Ch. Osgood proposed to apply the POIR (“Gradual and Mutual Initiatives for Detention”). POIR are applicable both in international conflicts and in interpersonal ones, taking the form of "quid pro quo". POIR consists in the fact that one of the parties declares its desire to ease tension and make certain concessions, inviting the enemy to follow its example. You take a small step forward by announcing it in advance and wait for a reaction from the other side. If the adversary takes his own steps towards reconciliation, they should be answered with a little more. A quid pro quo (quid pro quo would be more accurate) is an attempt to cooperate and forget grievances while not allowing oneself to be exploited.

The strategy of cooperation loses its effectiveness in situations in which the conflict ceases to be a means to achieve the goals of the opposing parties, but becomes an end in itself. This occurs in those cases when an open clash of the parties is preceded by a long-term accumulation of tension or hostility, and the conflict becomes a means of expressing them. In fact, in these situations, it is the possibility of expressing hostility and emotions that turns out to be more important for the participants than the subject of the conflict itself.

Depending on the degree of satisfaction of the parties, five ways of behavior in the conflict can be distinguished.

1. Evasion. This is when we physically or internally move away from the conflict, get out of the conflict situation.

2. concession. In this case, we sacrifice our interests for the benefit of the other side.

3. suppression. This is the opposite of concession: we pursue our interests while completely ignoring the needs of the enemy.

4. Compromise. Mutual concession and mutual partial satisfaction of interests.

5.Cooperation. Maximum satisfaction of the interests of both parties. The foundation of cooperation is a Win/Win mindset.

It cannot be said that one of these methods is better than the other: it all depends on the situation. During the Patriotic War of 1812, the Russian army avoided combat with the French, which led to victory. And in the Great patriotic war Soviet army actively suppressed the enemy, which was correct in those conditions. When we initially took an inadequate position, it would be wise to admit it and give in. In many cases, you need to think in the spirit of win/win and strive for cooperation. In certain circumstances, a compromise may be optimal.

Example. consumer dispute

Once I bought a smartphone. It turned out to be a faulty conversational speaker. I demanded to take back the smartphone and refund my money: 10 000 rubles.

If the seller complied with my demand, then this would be normal cooperation within the framework of the consumer protection law.

However, the company took a position of evasion: they immediately accepted the smartphone, but the money in statutory I was not given a deadline.

In this situation, I was forced to turn to suppression: I filed an application with a court demanding a refund for the smartphone, as well as paying a fine, penalty and compensation for non-pecuniary damage - in total 50 000 rubles.

The store refused to give in, and the company's lawyer offered me a compromise: they pay me 25 000 rubles for the smartphone and the inconvenience caused, and I waive the rest of the requirements. I immediately agreed, the court approved the settlement agreement on these terms, and a couple of days later the seller transferred the money to me.

Example. Conflict between daughter and parents about choosing a profession

One girl wanted to become a philologist. Her parents insisted on being an engineer.

Using evasion, the child would simply avoid talking on this topic, withdrawing into himself.

If the parents' demands were met, this would be a concession.

In reality, the girl applied suppression, that is, she entered the philological faculty.

A compromise could be the situation when the child went to study as an engineer, and then in absentia as a philologist. And the parents undertook to help with obtaining a philological education, paying part of the cost of education.

Cooperation would be possible in the event of a departure from protection positions to the present interests sides. Ultimately, both the daughter and the parents want well-being, success and happiness for her. The girl likes philology, but it is difficult to make money on it. An engineer feels more confident in the modern labor market, but an unloved job makes a person unhappy and ineffective. Given these circumstances, parents could support their daughter, help them enter the best university to assist in obtaining a good job, which would result in the true well-being of the child, which is what both parties originally wanted.

Example. Business terms and conditions

Company B approached Company A with a request to reduce the cost of services by 15% due to the fact that the only client of Company B notified that the payment was reduced by 15%.

Company A could have avoided resolving this issue by saying that the issue is under review.

In case of a concession, company A would reduce the cost of its services by 15%.

In reality, company A applied suppression by suggesting that company B reduce the volume of services provided by 15%.

To reach a compromise, Company A could offer to reduce the cost of services by 7.5%.

Cooperation would be possible if company A took into account a number of circumstances. Company B used Company A for many years. Company B always paid bills on time. Company B bought a relatively large volume of services, was a large client. Company B regularly ordered additional services, unlike many other clients. Only polite, cultured, professional employees worked in company B, so there were never any claims, complaints, dissatisfaction, conflict situations. In other words, Company B was the ideal customer of Company A. Customers such as Company B are the backbone of Company A's successful, stable business. In addition, Company A often gave discounts to its other customers, including discounts of more than 15%. Given all these circumstances, company A could provide the required 15% discount or provide additional services for free and consider this not as a concession, but as a cooperation, support for its best long-term client at a difficult time for client B. In this discount, in addition to gratitude to client B, company A also had additional benefits: a guarantee that client B would not refuse the services of company A due to financial difficulties, as well as an increase in client B's loyalty.

In any conflict, each participant evaluates and correlates his own interests and the interests of the opponent, asking himself questions: what will I win, what will I lose, what is the significance of the subject of the dispute for the opponent. On the basis of such an analysis, he consciously chooses one or another strategy of behavior: withdrawal, coercion, compromise, concession or cooperation.

In any conflict, each participant evaluates and correlates his own interests and the interests of the opponent, asking himself questions: what will I win, what will I lose, what is the significance of the subject of the dispute for the opponent. On the basis of such an analysis, he consciously chooses one or another strategy of behavior (withdrawal, coercion, compromise, concession or cooperation). Often the reflection of these interests occurs unconsciously, and then the behavior in conflict interaction is saturated with powerful emotional tension and is spontaneous.

A special place in the assessment of models and strategies of behavior of a person in a conflict is occupied by the value for her of interpersonal relations with the opposing side. If for one of the rivals interpersonal relations with another rival (friendship, love, partnership, etc.) are of no value, his behavior in the conflict will be characterized by destructive content or extreme positions in the strategy (coercion, struggle, rivalry). And vice versa, the value of interpersonal relations for the subject of conflict interaction, as a rule, is a significant reason for constructive behavior in conflict or the orientation of such behavior towards compromise, cooperation, withdrawal or concession.

Coercion (struggle, rivalry). The one who chooses this strategy of behavior, first of all, proceeds from the assessment of personal interests in the conflict as high, and the interests of his opponent as low. The choice of a coercive strategy ultimately comes down to a choice: either the interest of the struggle, or the relationship.

The choice in favor of the struggle is distinguished by the style of behavior characteristic of the destructive model. With such a strategy, power, the force of law, connections, authority, etc. are actively used. It is expedient and effective in two cases. Firstly, when protecting the interests of the case from encroachments on them by a conflicting personality. For example, a conflict personality of an uncontrollable type often refuses to perform unattractive tasks, "dumps" his work on others. Secondly, when there is a threat to the existence of the organization, the team. In this case, there is a situation of "who wins". Especially often it arises in the conditions of reforming enterprises and institutions. Often, when reforming the organizational and staffing structure of an enterprise (institution), the alleged “infusion” of some departments into others is unreasonable. And in these cases, the person who defends the interests of such units must take a tough stance.

Care. The exit strategy is characterized by the desire to get away from the conflict. It is characterized low level focus on the personal interests and interests of the opponent and is mutual. In fact, it is a mutual concession.

When analyzing this strategy, it is important to consider two options for its manifestation:

1. when the subject of the conflict is not significant for any of the subjects and is adequately reflected in the images of the conflict situation;
2. when the subject of the dispute is significant for one or both parties, but is underestimated in the images of the conflict situation, i.e. the subjects of conflict interaction perceive the subject of the conflict as insignificant.

In the first case, the conflict is exhausted by the exit strategy, and in the second case, it may have a relapse.

Interpersonal relationships do not undergo major changes when choosing this strategy.

concession. A person who adheres to this strategy also seeks to get away from the conflict. But the reasons for "leaving" in this case are different. The focus on personal interests is low here, and the assessment of the opponent's interests is high, i.e. the person who adopts the concession strategy sacrifices personal interests in favor of the interests of the rival.

The concession strategy has some similarities with the coercion strategy, which consists in choosing between the value of the subject of the conflict and the value of interpersonal relationships. In contrast to the strategy of struggle in the strategy of concession, priority is given to interpersonal relationships.

When analyzing this strategy, it should be taken into account that:

• sometimes such a strategy reflects the tactics of a decisive struggle for victory. A concession here may turn out to be only a tactical step towards achieving the main strategic goal;
• a concession can cause an inadequate assessment of the subject of the conflict (understatement of its value for oneself). In this case, the adopted strategy is self-deception and does not lead to conflict resolution;
• this strategy can be dominant for a person due to his individual psychological characteristics. In particular, this is typical for a conformist personality, a conflict personality of a “conflict-free” type. Because of this, the strategy of concession can give a constructive conflict a destructive direction.

It is important to keep in mind that the strategy of concession is justified in cases where the conditions for resolving the conflict are not ripe. In this case, it leads to a temporary truce, and is an important step towards a constructive resolution of the conflict situation.

Compromise. A compromise strategy of behavior is characterized by a balance of interests of the conflicting parties at the middle level. Otherwise, it can be called a strategy of mutual concession.

The strategy of compromise not only does not spoil interpersonal relationships, but also contributes to their positive development.

When analyzing this strategy, it is important to keep in mind the following significant points:

• compromise cannot be seen as a way to resolve conflict. Giving in is often a step towards finding an acceptable solution to a problem;
• sometimes a compromise can exhaust the conflict situation. This is possible when the circumstances that caused the tension change. For example, two employees applied for the same position, which should be vacated in six months. But after three months it was reduced, and the subject of the conflict disappeared;
• Compromise can take both active and passive forms. An active form of compromise can be manifested in the conclusion of clear contracts, the acceptance of any obligations, etc. A passive compromise is nothing more than a refusal to take any active steps to achieve certain mutual concessions under certain conditions. In other words, under specific conditions, a truce can be ensured by the passivity of the subjects of conflict interaction. Thus, the absence of unnecessary "battles" allowed the employees in the above example to maintain normal relations with each other;
• compromise conditions can be imaginary when the subjects of conflict interaction have reached a compromise based on inadequate images of the conflict situation.

The concept of “compromise” is close in content to the concept of “consensus”. Their similarity lies in the fact that both compromise and consensus reflect the mutual concessions of subjects social interaction. Therefore, when analyzing and justifying a compromise strategy, it is important to rely on the rules and mechanisms for reaching consensus in social practice.

Cooperation. The cooperation strategy is characterized by a high level of focus on both one's own interests and the interests of the opponent. This strategy is built not only on the basis of a balance of interests, but also on the recognition of the value of interpersonal relationships.

A special place in the choice of this strategy is occupied by the subject of conflict. If the subject of the conflict is of vital importance for one or both subjects of conflict interaction, then cooperation is out of the question. In this case, only the choice of struggle, rivalry is possible. Cooperation is possible only when the complex subject of the conflict allows the maneuvering of the interests of the warring parties, ensuring their coexistence within the framework of the problem that has arisen and the development of events in a favorable direction.

The cooperation strategy includes all other strategies (withdrawal, concession, compromise, confrontation). At the same time, other strategies in the complex process of cooperation play a subordinate role, they are more psychological factors in the development of relationships between the subjects of the conflict. For example, confrontation can be used by one of the participants in the conflict as a demonstration of their principled position in an adequate situation.

Being one of the most complex strategies, the cooperation strategy reflects the desire of the warring parties to jointly resolve the problem that has arisen.

Five types conflict personalities

Based on the results of research by domestic psychologists, five main types of conflict personalities can be distinguished. Consider their main features.

Conflict personality - demonstrative type:

• wants to be the center of attention;
• likes to look good in the eyes of others;
• his attitude towards people is determined by how they relate to him;
• superficial conflicts are easily given to him, admiring his suffering and stamina is inherent;
• adapts well to various situations;
• rational behavior is weakly expressed, emotional behavior is evident;
• planning its activities is carried out situationally and weakly implements it;
• painstaking systematic work avoids;
• does not avoid conflicts, feels good in a situation of conflict interaction;
• often turns out to be a source of conflict, but does not consider himself as such.

Conflict personality - rigid type:

• suspicious;
• has high self-esteem;
• needs constant confirmation of its own importance;
• often does not take into account changes in the situation and circumstances;
• straightforward and inflexible;
• with great difficulty accepts the point of view of others, does not really consider their opinion;
• the expression of respect from others takes for granted;
• the expression of hostility on the part of others is perceived as an insult;
• uncritical in relation to their actions;
• painfully touchy, hypersensitive to imaginary or real injustice.

Conflict personality - unmanaged type:

• impulsive, lacks self-control;
• behavior is difficult to predict;
• behaves defiantly, aggressively;
• often in the heat of the moment violates generally accepted norms;
• usually has a high level of claims;
• not self-critical;
• in many failures, troubles, he is inclined to blame others;
• cannot competently plan their activities or consistently implement plans;
• insufficiently developed ability to correlate their actions with goals and circumstances;
• from past experience (even bitter) derives little benefit.

Conflict personality - super precision type:

• scrupulous attitude to work;
• makes high demands on himself;
• makes high demands on others, and does it in such a way that the people with whom he works perceive it as nitpicking;
• has increased anxiety;
• overly sensitive to details;
• tends to attach undue importance to the remarks of others;
• sometimes abruptly breaks off relations with friends, acquaintances because it seems to him that he was offended;
• suffers from himself, experiences his miscalculations, failures, sometimes paying for them even with diseases (insomnia, headaches, etc.);
• restrained in external, especially emotional manifestations;
• does not feel very well the real relationships in the group.

Conflict personality - conflict-free type:

• unstable in assessments and opinions;
• has a slight suggestibility;
• internally inconsistent;
• it is characterized by some inconsistency of behavior;
• focuses on momentary success in situations;
• does not see the prospect well enough;
• depends on the opinions of others, especially leaders;
• unnecessarily striving for compromise;
• does not have sufficient willpower;
• does not think deeply about the consequences of his actions and the causes of the actions of others.

Although it may seem strange, it is appropriate here to give one important advice: Be sympathetic to people whose typical features are described above. The conflict, which has become a property of the individual, is difficult to overcome through rational self-control and willpower. "Educational" influences on the part of the leader here are also rarely beneficial. Conflict is not the fault, but the misfortune of such people. Real help can be provided by a specialist - a practical psychologist.

Mikhail Goncharov, doctor economic sciences, professor of the department government controlled and management of REA them. G.V. Plekhanov.