conflict resolution models. Constructive Models for Conflict Resolution: A Conflictological Approach Models for Conflict Resolution with Examples

In the modern theory of intercultural communication, when solving intercultural conflicts, the so-called model of styles of intercultural conflicts (Intercultural

Conflict Style model, or ICS model). This model is based on the opposition of cultures by styles of conflict resolution, which are characterized by two features - directness and emotionality.

By sign directness There are two conflict resolution strategies - direct and indirect. Direct strategy prefers direct negotiations, an explicit verbal exchange of points of view, for such a strategy it is essential that each of the parties formulate their concerns and vision of ways out of the conflict. Cultures that favor a direct strategy prefer to resolve conflicts through open negotiations. In cultures that favor indirect strategy, more attention is paid not to what opponents say, but to how they behave, since there is a general distrust of the verbal channel of communication. This is due to the fact that the content of a verbal message in such cultures is always subordinated to maintaining one's own face and does not always reflect the real moods of opponents and their readiness for possible compromises. For indirect cultures, conflict resolution is often accompanied by the intervention of a mediator, which in this case, as a rule, is more effective than direct negotiations between opponents.

By sign emotionality distinguish between emotional and non-emotional strategy. Emotional Strategy involves the externalization of emotions that arise during conflict situations and the emphasis on emotional discomfort associated with the object of the conflict. For opponents who adhere to this strategy, calls to pause and calm down are ineffective - such a call is perceived as words that directly threaten the self-esteem of the subject, since for such an opponent the right to experience emotions and manifest them in a conflict situation is closely related to a sense of self-worth. For such a strategy, conflict resolution is possible only by recognizing the legitimacy of the corresponding emotional state of the opponent, empathizing with him, which often requires the opponent or mediator to externally display the corresponding emotions or empathy. Unemotional strategy It is based on the control of emotions and the inadmissibility of their manifestation in the conflict. For cultures of this style, the necessary level of trust can be achieved by emphatically restrained manifestation of emotions, since their open manifestation is perceived by such cultures as excessive, and therefore insincere, suspicious.

Accordingly, there are four conflict resolution strategies:

1.Discussion: open verbal discussion of mutual concerns, assuming the verbal sincerity of the communicants, appreciating a clear, logical form of presentation. This strategy is especially productive in direct non-emotional style cultures. This style is typical for American, Australian, some Scandinavian cultures and can be summarized by the American proverb: Say what you mean, and mean what you say (“Say what you think and think what you say”),
2. Involvement: like a discussion, engagement involves discussion of mutual concerns, but allows for an emotional reaction that is perceived as the most reliable expression of the real state of the communicant and serves as a confirmation of his sincerity. It is believed that this style is typical for cultures with a predominance of direct emotional strategy - for African Americans, representatives of southern European cultures, as well as Russians, and can be summarized by the Irish proverb: What is nearest the mouth is nearest the heart ("What is in the heart, then in the tongue ").
3.Fixture: this style comes to the fore in cultures with an indirect non-emotional conflict resolution strategy, it consists in the use of images, metaphors, non-verbal means of communication, as well as third parties that could mitigate tension. This style involves the ability to correctly interpret the implicit signs of emotional 118

state of the opponent, attention to non-verbal manifestations of his concern. Typical for Mexicans, Japanese, Thais.

4. Dynamic Style: Used by cultures that favor indirect emotional conflict resolution strategies. This style is characterized by the use of indirect verbal signs (hyperbole, any stories, metaphors) with a strong manifestation of emotions that serve as a real expression of concerns. From the point of view of representatives of other styles, people who are characterized by a dynamic style can be perceived as reckless, overly irrational, unable to focus on the essence. Such cultures include some Arab cultures of the Middle East, Pakistani culture.

The ability to resolve conflicts in intercultural communication largely depends on the ability to determine the communicative style of the conflict inherent in opponents, to be flexible in choosing a way to resolve the conflict, to look for common ground, first of all, not in the positions of opponents, but in their usual way of resolving conflicts. This allows you to create the necessary basis for further communication.

Analyze the situation:

The boy, the son of a Japanese diplomat working in the US, is studying at an American school. During the break, he, according to the teacher, behaved incorrectly in relation to other students. The teacher took the student to a corner and began to tell him that he had behaved incorrectly. During the conversation, the boy looked at the floor and was silent. When the teacher asked if the boy understood the essence of his remark, the child continued to look at the floor and was silent. After the conversation, the teacher complained to the director about the incorrect behavior of the student and his disrespect for the teacher. The boy, having come home, told his parents about the situation, they considered that the teacher did not behave quite correctly, and wished to meet with the director of the school.

Answer the following questions in writing:

1. Describe the structure of the conflict and its causes. Why can this conflict be considered intercultural?
2. How do you think the teacher and the student's parents perceive this situation?
3. What conflict resolution strategy should be chosen, taking into account the causes of the situation, as well as the ways of conflict resolution accepted in the respective cultures? Imagine that you are invited to a meeting between the director and the boy's parents as a mediator. What tactic would you choose to communicate first with the director and the parents of the child separately, and then when they meet in person?

Questions for self-examination

1. What is the essence of the conflict? Formulate two main approaches to understanding the nature of conflicts.
2. What is the specificity of intercultural conflict? List and briefly describe the types of intercultural conflicts.
3. Intercultural conflict is considered as a kind of communicative conflicts. What are the main causes of communication conflicts?
4. What are the main conflict resolution strategies?
5. What is the essence of the ICS model? What conflict resolution strategies does it suggest? Which cultures are more typical of each of the identified strategies?

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. 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.

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 a learning 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 is a 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 of the conflict remain. 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 its diverse forms, various types of conflict endings are realized: ending the conflict by destroying one of the parties or completely subjugating the other; transformation of both conflicting parties in the direction of harmonizing their interests and positions on a 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 of the conflict are eliminated or transformed, 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 the framework of its necessary conditions and 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; a sufficiently high level of 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 conflict management activities, 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 implemented. 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 interacting 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 practical tasks facing the interacting subjects. 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 the policies of the ruling institutions, violation of certain principles and norms of the functioning of social 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.

Conflict Resolution- its final stage. In all its diverse forms, various types of conflict endings are realized: ending the conflict by destroying one of the parties or completely subjugating the other; transformation of both conflicting parties in the direction of harmonizing their interests and positions on a 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.

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.

Nor does the so-called abolition of the conflict lead to a resolution - this is an attempt to get rid of the conflict by reconciliation or obscuration, and not by overcoming the opposites underlying it.

Prerequisites for conflict resolution:

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.

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 noted elements of diagnostics involves 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 through the mutual transformation of the parties and, on the basis of this, mutual reconciliation. 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.

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.

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.

Compromise style is often a lucky retreat or a last chance to find some solution to a problem.

The resolution of the conflict depends on the style of behavior of its participants. According to K. Thomas and R. Killman, all styles of behavior in a conflict situation can be reduced to five types: rivalry; care; fixture; compromise; cooperation.

The classification is based on two independent parameters:

1) the degree of realization of one's own interests, the achievement of one's goals;

2) taking into account the interests of the other party.

In graphical form, this is called the Thomas-Killman grid, which allows you to analyze a specific conflict and choose a rational style of behavior (Fig. 6.2).

Rice. 6.2. Forms of behavior in conflict (Thomas-Killman grid)

Each person can use all of these behaviors to some extent, but there is usually a priority style.

Confrontation (persistence, confrontation, rivalry, competition) is characterized by the active struggle of the individual for his interests, the use of all means available to him to achieve his goals: the use of power, other means of pressure on opponents.

Adaptation (smoothing, compliance) involves a person's refusal of his own interests, the readiness to sacrifice them to another. Outward calm may result, but as the problem remains unresolved, an "explosion" may occur.

Evasion (withdrawal, avoidance) is chosen by the party that does not want to defend its rights, refrains from expressing its position, avoids the dispute, i.e. tries to get away from the conflict. The individual tries not to get into situations that provoke the emergence of contradictions, not to enter into a discussion of issues fraught with disagreements. As a result, problems accumulate, are not resolved in a timely manner, and the overall situation in the organization only worsens.

Cooperation (problem solving) is the most effective and desirable style in which the parties are ready to recognize the legitimacy of the claims of the other side and seek a common solution to the problem. This style is most effective in solving organizational problems, as it is the one that most often makes the conflict functional.

Compromise: The parties seek to resolve differences by resorting to mutual concessions. It differs from cooperation in readiness for agreement only to a certain extent. Compromise does not solve the problem radically, so tensions may subsequently escalate. However, with mutually exclusive interests and requirements of the parties, this is sometimes the only and most effective style of behavior.

One of the options for classifying conflict resolution methods (when certain conditions are created) is shown in fig. 6.3.

Rice. 6.3. Conflict resolution methods

Incomplete resolution of the conflict may lead to its resumption with even greater force. However, it is also acceptable, since contradictions are constantly renewed within the team, periodically leading to conflict.

Effective conflict resolution - with the least loss of resources and the preservation of vital social structures - is possible if certain necessary conditions are present and the principles of managing them are implemented.

The former include the presence of an organizational and legal mechanism for resolving the conflict; experience in constructive conflict resolution; development of communication links; availability of resources to implement the compensation system.

Distinguish power, compromise and integrative model of conflict resolution. 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" or "win-win".

All methods of conflict resolution are divided into two groups:

- negative, including all types of struggle, pursuing the goal of achieving the victory of one side over the other;

- positive, in which it is assumed that the basis of the relationship between the subjects of the conflict will be preserved.

One of the main positive methods of conflict resolution is negotiation, which includes a set of tactics aimed at finding mutually acceptable solutions for the conflicting parties.

Negotiations are possible if the following conditions are met:

1) there is an interdependence of the conflicting parties;

2) there is no significant difference in the capabilities (strength) of the subjects of the conflict;

3) the possibility of negotiations corresponds to the stage of development of the conflict;

4) the parties involved in the negotiations are those who can actually make decisions in the current situation.

The success of negotiations depends on the stage of the conflict:

1) the occurrence of disagreements;

2) an increase in tension in relations (the formation of hostility);

3) awareness of the situation as a conflict (open rivalry);

4) conflict interaction (aggressive open actions against each other);

5) conflict resolution.

Negotiations are most effective at the stage of rivalry, hostility. At the stage of active aggressive actions, it is too late to conduct negotiations, although it is possible to return to them as these actions weaken.

Properly organized negotiations go through several stages in sequence:

1) preparation for the start of negotiations;

2) preliminary selection of a position;

3) search for a mutually acceptable solution;

4) completion.

Preparation for the start of negotiations includes diagnosing a conflict situation, determining the strengths and weaknesses of the participants in the conflict, predicting the balance of power, identifying the main participants in the negotiations and the groups they represent.

In addition to collecting information at this stage, it is necessary to clearly define:

- the purpose of the negotiations;

- possible options;

- the impact on the interests of both parties of the negative outcome of the negotiations;

- place of negotiations;

- the possible psychological atmosphere in the negotiations;

– the need of the parties to maintain good relations in the future.

Preliminary choice of position makes it possible to realize two goals of the participants in the negotiation process: to demonstrate to opponents that their interests are known and taken into account; provide room for manoeuvre. Negotiations usually begin with a statement from both sides about their desires and interests. The mediator determines the deterrents of the parties and manages them, proposes ways of making decisions (simple majority, consensus), determines procedural issues.

The search for a mutually acceptable solution lies in the fact that the parties determine each other's capabilities, the reality of the requirements and the consequences of their implementation for the interests of the other participant. Opponents present facts that are beneficial only to them, declare that they have all sorts of options. The task of the mediator at this stage is to see and use the possible combinations of interests of the participants, to contribute to the introduction of a large number of solutions, to direct the negotiations towards the search for specific proposals, to maintain a comfortable psychological atmosphere.

The conclusion of the negotiations implies the existence of a large number of options and proposals on which an agreement has not yet been reached. The parties make the last mutual concessions that may lead to a compromise. It is important for the conflicting parties to determine the concessions they can make without worsening their positions.

The method of principled negotiations, or substantive negotiations, proposed by American scientists, consists in solving problems on the basis of their qualitative properties, i.e., proceeding from the essence of the matter, and not using consistent concessions from the parties. This method involves finding mutual benefit not always, but where possible, the search for a result based on fair norms, regardless of the will of each of the parties.

Conducting principled negotiations involves observing the following four rules:

1) All people have emotions, so it can be difficult for them to communicate with each other. Before you start working on a solution to a problem, you need to separate the "problem of people" from it and solve it separately. Recommendation: make a distinction between the negotiators and the subject of negotiations;

2) revealing behind the declared positions of the participants their main interests (sometimes hidden) and focusing on interests, and not on positions;

3) decrease in the possibility of making a decision under pressure. Trying to make a decision in the presence of another increases the threat of pressure from the negotiators. Recommendation: develop mutually beneficial options;

4) search as a basis for resolving the dispute of any objective criteria that must be discussed and accepted by all parties. By accepting such criteria, both parties can hope for a fair decision. Recommendation: insist on using objective criteria.

The method of principled negotiation is more effective in reaching a gradual consensus without loss, it is less dependent on human relations.

Negotiations of various types and forms play an important role in the preparation and adoption of a mutually beneficial solution that resolves the conflict.

Skillful and competent conflict management contributes to the innovative development of the organization.

Questions and tasks for self-examination

1. What is conflict and what is its basis?

2. What are the approaches to understanding the sources and causes of conflicts?

3. How can conflicts be classified?

4. What are the positive and negative consequences of the conflict?

5. What are the differences between psychological and sociological methods of diagnosing a conflict?

7. How are styles of behavior in conflict and ways of resolving it interrelated?

8. What is the role of negotiations in conflict resolution?

conflict resolution models. Constructive Models for Conflict Resolution: A Conflictological Approach Models for Conflict Resolution with Examples

More on conflict resolution:

Read also:

new entries

conflict resolution models. Constructive Models for Conflict Resolution: A Conflictological Approach Models for Conflict Resolution with Examples

More on conflict resolution:

Read also:

Difference Between Curiosity and Curiosity

Making ferric chloride

Mom, what is generosity?

new entries