In the article we list the main strategies of behavior in a conflict situation. We will explain how to resolve the confrontation. We will share tools that will help to extinguish any confrontation, no matter what styles of behavior in the conflict the employees choose.
From the article you will learn:
Related materials:
Main causes of conflicts
To get to the root cause of the confrontation, you can use the FAIR and CORNELIUS cartographic method. In the center of a piece of paper, write briefly what the problem is that caused the confrontation. For example, “relationships”, “job responsibilities”. On the sides of the problem, mark the parties that are directly involved in the conflict. Ask each participant to identify needs and concerns related to the issue. For example, needs - "recognition", "high salary", "difficult tasks". Fears - fears: "failure", "loss of control", "financial collapse", "uninteresting work". By analyzing and discussing their needs and concerns, the conflicting parties look at the problem through the eyes of each other, understand its essence, and develop a solution that would satisfy both of them.
An example of a conflict map according to the FAIR and CORNELIUS method
Download this and 18 more conflict resolution tools
5 Strategies for Behavior in Conflict Situations by Kenneth Thomas
American expert in the field of conflict psychology Thomas Kenneth, together with Ralph Kilmann, developed and conflict management. The model has two dimensions: human behavior based on attention to the interests of another person, and behavior based on attention to one's own interests. Thomas called the first dimension "cooperation" ("cooperativeness"), and the second - "assertiveness" ("assertiveness").
The degree of expression of "cooperation" and "assertiveness" allows us to distinguish five options for behavior in a conflict:
- Avoidance- the person does not defend his own interests and does not pay attention to the interests of the opponent.
- Competition- own interests dominate over the interests of the opposite side;
- fixture- the interests of the opponent are more important than their own;
- Cooperation- own interests, as well as the interests of the opponent, are of equal value;
- Compromise- the parties make mutual concessions, seek to remove the contradiction.
2D Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Management Model
Download the Thomas-Kilmann test
To understand and quickly resolve the confrontation in the team, you need to understand the specifics of each strategy of behavior in conflict situations. Consider the types of people's behavior in a conflict situation according to the Thomas-Kilmann method.
Strategy 1: Avoidance
An employee who chooses such a strategy of behavior in a conflict is not inclined to defend his own interests, and does not pay attention to the interests of his opponent. He pretends the problem doesn't exist. In the event that his opponent chooses a similar strategy, then the conflict fades, and the problem remains unresolved.
Characteristic features of the behavior of an employee who avoids conflicts:
- refuses dialogue, does not use forceful methods;
- denies the significance of the conflict;
- afraid to answer the opposite side.
Strategy 2. Competition
An employee who chooses this strategy of behavior in a conflict considers his own interests to be more important than the interests of his opponent. There are two ways for him: fight to win or cooperate on his own terms. The competition strategy is usually used by employees who occupy leadership positions. They use the power of authority, connections or law.
Characteristic features of the behavior of an employee who chooses a competition:
- seeks to control the actions of the opponent and put pressure on him;
- uses tricks and deceit to gain an advantage, provokes an opponent to a rash step;
- refuses constructive dialogue.
Strategy 3: Accommodate
An employee who chooses this strategy of behavior is sure that a good relationship with a colleague is more important than their own interests. Usually, he refuses to fight.
Characteristic features of the behavior of an employee who chooses a device:
- quickly agrees with the requirements of the opposite side, takes a passive position;
- does not show resistance and has no claims to victory;
- flatters the opponent.
Strategy 4. Cooperation
An employee who chooses cooperation as a strategy of behavior in confrontation uses several tactics at once - competition, concession, avoidance, compromise. This is the hardest strategy.
Characteristic features of the behavior of an employee who chooses cooperation:
- seeks to openly discuss the conflict;
- shows increased attention to the proposals of the opponent;
- ready to give up his principles, but if it is to his advantage.
Strategy 5. Compromise
An employee who compromises seeks not only to maintain good relations with an opponent, but also to bring them to a qualitatively new level. The right combination of strategies for behavior in a conflict when looking for a compromise is a solution that suits both parties. In a way, compromise is like accommodation.
Characteristic features of the behavior of an employee who chooses a compromise:
- the parties do not pretend that the problem does not exist;
- the parties are looking for a mutually beneficial solution;
- a person is ready to give up his interests if his opponent gives up his.
Negotiation, cooperation, and compromise are the right combination of strategies for dealing with conflict. Warring employees compete with each other, but do not spoil the relationship. After the conflict is resolved, the parties continue to communicate, work together, solve common problems and carry out projects. If the parties used a strategy of competition, their relationship could be permanently damaged.
5 types of behavior in a conflict situation according to Pugachev
There are 35 proverbs in the test of Vasily PUGACHEV, head of the department of personnel management at Moscow State University. Each describes how a person acts when disagreements arise. The main styles of behavior in a conflict situation depend on what is more important for a person - personal goals or relationships with others. By which strategy is closer to the opponents, one can predict the outcome of the confrontation.
Variants of tasks from the test of Vasily Pugachev
Download test
Consider the styles of behavior in a conflict situation. Let us briefly describe what strategy a person chooses in a particular case. The strategies of behavior in a conflict situation according to the Pugachev method include:
|
What should an HR manager remember in case of a conflict
If a conflict has arisen in the team, the HR manager needs to understand that early diagnosis and the choice of a behavior strategy give more chances to quickly and successfully end the confrontation. Remember that conflict will not end on its own.
One of the main causes of organizational conflict is a violation of the organizational structure as a whole. The first step is to identify these violations. Keep in mind that employees who are in conflict with each other are living people and suffer from the current situation themselves. First of all, try to understand each party and establish communication with them.
The process of conflict resolution is a laborious procedure. It takes a lot of time, so you need to prepare for it in advance. Always have several options ready. Follow the rules of behavior and communication in a conflict situation. Do not escalate the situation and do not escalate the conflict. Try to remain impartial, otherwise you risk losing good employees and greatly harming both your personal brand and the company's image.
The strategy of behavior in the conflict is considered as the orientation of the individual (group) in relation to the conflict, setting on certain forms of behavior in a conflict situation.
In psychology, there are 5 main strategies for behavior in conflict:
- competition(rivalry, confrontation), accompanied by an open struggle for one's interests;
- cooperation aimed at finding a solution that satisfies the interests of all parties;
- compromise- settlement of disagreements through mutual concessions;
- evasion (avoidance), consisting in the desire to get out of the conflict situation without solving it, without giving up one's own, but not insisting on one's own;
- fixture- the tendency to smooth out contradictions, sacrificing one's own interests. The generalized expression of these behavioral strategies is characterized as corporatism and assertiveness.
Competition strategy (rivalry). This strategy is characterized by the desire to satisfy one's interests by actively fighting the opposite side and ignoring its interests, goals, and opinions. There is no interest in collaborating with other people. Propensity to volitional decisions and actions is expressed. Own interests are satisfied to the detriment of the interests of other people; those around them are forced to accept the solution of the problem imposed on them.
This strategy can be effective when the person using it is in power. As a rule, the subject of the conflict uses this strategy when the outcome is very important for him, when he has sufficient authority and power, when the decision needs to be made quickly, when there is no other choice and nothing to lose.
Cooperation strategy. The essence of this strategy lies in the desire to fully satisfy both one's own interests and the interests of the opposite side by searching for a mutually beneficial solution based on the maximum consideration of all the interests of the parties, cooperation is carried out, encourages an open discussion of the needs and desires of opponents. To successfully use this style, it is necessary to spend some time identifying the interests and needs of each other in order to develop a way to satisfy the desires of both parties.
A cooperation strategy is recommended when solving a problem is very important for both parties, when there are close and long-term relationships, when there is time to work on the problem that has arisen, when both opponents are able to state the essence of their interests and listen to each other.
compromise strategy. The strategy is characterized by the desire to reach an agreement, provided that the opposite side does the same, and is carried out in the form of an exchange of concessions in order to develop a compromise solution. Compromise is partial satisfaction of the desires of both parties.
The strategy is effective when both opponents want the same thing, but they understand that the fulfillment of the same desire for both at the same time is impossible. In the event of a compromise, a long-term mutually beneficial solution is developed according to the principle: “I can put up with it.” The emphasis is on the thesis: "We cannot fulfill our desires at the same time, therefore it is better to have a tit in the hand than a crane in the sky."
The strategy is used when the interests of both parties are mutually exclusive, when both parties have the same power, when a decision needs to be obtained quickly, when other approaches have proven ineffective. To resolve the conflict in a compromise way, one should begin with clarifying the interests of both parties and determine the area of coincidence of interests.
Evasion strategy (avoidance). The presented strategy is to evade active actions and is carried out in the form of refusal to interact with the opposite side or to ignore the conflict if it exists. When using this strategy, a person's own rights are not defended, there is no cooperation with anyone to solve the problem. The problem is ignored, the responsibility for its solution is shifted to others. Most often, this style of behavior in a conflict is used when the problem is not too important for the subject, when he does not want to spend energy on solving it.
adaptation strategy. Adaptation consists in refusing to defend one's own interests while agreeing to fully satisfy the interests of the opposite side. In this case, as a rule, the other person has more power and is interested in the outcome of events. The difference from the style of evasion is that actions are taken together with the opponent, in line with his interests..
It is worth noting that, as a rule, combinations of strategies are used in a conflict, sometimes one of them dominates. Conflict often begins with cooperative behavior, but if it fails, a rival strategy is launched, which may also be ineffective. In this case, the problem-solving strategy is again used, which leads to a successful resolution of the conflict.
It is also worth noting that all of these strategies are implemented through various tactics. So, strategy is a set of macroscopic targets, and tactics is a means to achieve these goals. The same tactic can be used in different strategies. Thus, for example, the threat is usually seen as a destructive and malevolent tactic, it can be used in an exit strategy or in a competition strategy.
The main tactics of behavior in a conflict are:
1. Rational belief. Using facts and logic to support your position and convince your opponent.
2. Capturing and holding the object of the conflict. It is used in conflicts where the object is material.
3. Physical abuse (damage). Destruction of material values, physical impact, infliction of bodily harm.
4. Psychological violence (damage). Insult, rudeness, negative personal assessment, discriminatory measures, slander, disinformation, deceit, humiliation.
5. Pressure. Presentation of demands, instructions, orders, threats, up to an ultimatum, presentation of compromising evidence, blackmail.
6. Demonstrative actions. It is used to attract the attention of others to their person. Public statements and complaints about the state of health, obviously a failed suicide attempt.
7. Coalition. Formation of alliances, increase in the support group
8. Friendly treatment. Correct treatment, emphasizing the common, demonstrating a willingness to solve a problem, offering help, providing a service.
9. Closing deals. Mutual exchange of benefits, promises, concessions.
10. Sanctions, appeal to the authorities. Use of penalties and rewards.
Tactics can be "soft" or "hard"». « Soft" is considered a tactic, the consequences of which for the opponent are pleasant or neutral. " Rigid» tactics - causes unpleasant consequences for the opponent, for example, pressure, irrevocable obligations. The use of tactics usually goes from easy to more difficult. Demands, requests are tactics direct impact, and indirect tactics can be friendly treatment, introducing a partner into a state of excitement. Can be distinguished rational(rational persuasion, deal making) and irrational(pressure, fawning, creating the effect of surprise) tactics.
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 in childhood 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 the successful resolution of 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 side 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.
Every conflict eventually has its resolution. The forms of their resolution depend on the behavioral strategy of the subjects in the process of conflict development. This part of the conflict is called the emotional side and is considered the most important.
The strategy of behavior in a conflict is the orientation of a person (group) in relation to the conflict, the installation on certain forms of behavior in a conflict situation.
K.U. Thomas and R.H. Kilmenn developed the main most acceptable strategies of behavior in a conflict situation. They point out that there are five basic styles of behavior in conflict: rivalry (competition), cooperation, compromise, avoidance (withdrawal) and accommodation. The style of behavior in a particular conflict, they point out, is determined by the extent to which you want to satisfy your own interests, while acting passively or actively, and the interests of the other side, acting jointly or individually.
Here is a description of these strategies of behavior in conflict:
Rivalry or competition is expressed in the desire to insist on one's own through an open struggle for one's interests, in taking a tough position of irreconcilability of antagonism in case of resistance. There may be forms of rivalry, such as the use of power, pressure, the use of a dependent position of the opponent. A conflict situation, and especially its resolution, is perceived as a matter of victory or defeat. Such a strategy is usually used when the focus on one's own interests significantly exceeds the interests of the rival (competing) side. However, the disadvantage of this strategy is the possibility of repeated outbreaks of conflict due to the deterioration of relationships.
Cooperation is the search for solutions to the conflict that fully satisfy the interests of both parties in the course of open discussion. There is a meaningful and frank analysis of disagreements in the course of decision-making. Such behavior is focused not on defending their interests at any cost, but on finding a joint solution. Cooperation is rational if the subject of disagreement has equally high value both for you and for the opponent.
Compromise is the desire to resolve differences through bilateral concessions. It is expressed in the search for such a solution. When outwardly no one wins, but no one loses either. In this case, the interests of both parties are not fully disclosed. Such a strategy leads to a decrease in hostility, allows you to relatively quickly resolve the conflict. At the same time, there is a possibility of dissatisfaction with “half-hearted” solutions.
Avoidance or withdrawal implies the desire not to take responsibility for making a decision, not to see disagreements, to deny the conflict, to consider it safe. There is a desire to get out of the situation without giving in and not insisting on one's own, refraining from disputes, discussions and objections to the opposing side. Such behavior is appropriate if the subject of disagreement is not of great value to a person, and he himself focuses on resolving the situation by itself.
Adaptation is expressed in the desire to maintain or establish favorable relations, to ensure the interests of the opponent by smoothing out differences. At the same time, there is a willingness to give in, neglecting their own interests. This is expressed in the avoidance of discussing controversial issues, in accordance with the requirements and claims. This strategy can be recognized as rational if the subject of disagreement is of less value to a person than the relationship with a rival.
For a more successful conflict resolution, it is desirable not only to choose a style, but also to draw up a conflict map developed by H. Cornelius and S. Fair.
Its essence is as follows:
1. Define the problem of conflict in general terms;
2. Find out who is involved in the conflict;
3. Identify the true needs and concerns of each of the main actors in the conflict.
Drawing up such a map, according to experts, will allow:
1) to limit the discussion to certain formal frameworks, which will greatly help to avoid excessive manifestation of emotions, since during the mapping, people can restrain themselves;
2) to create an opportunity for joint discussion of the problem, to express to people their requirements and desires;
3) to understand both their own point of view and the point of view of others;
4) create an atmosphere of empathy, i.e. the opportunity to see the problem through the eyes of other people and to acknowledge the opinions of people who previously believed that they were not understood;
5) choose new ways to resolve the conflict.
Thus, in a conflict situation or in dealing with a difficult person, you should use an approach that is more appropriate for specific circumstances and in which you can feel most comfortable.
The best advisers in choosing the optimal approach to conflict resolution are life experience and the desire not to complicate the situation and not bring the person to stress. You can, for example, achieve a compromise, adapt to the needs of another person); persistently pursue their true interests in another aspect; avoid discussing a conflict issue if it is not very important to you; use a collaborative style to serve the most important interests of both parties.
Therefore, the best way to resolve a conflict situation is to consciously choose the optimal strategy of behavior.
One of the most popular and widely used both in business and in the negotiation field is the concept Thomas - Killman, which highlights five main strategies for human behavior in a conflict situation.
The basis for identifying these behavioral strategies is the dynamics of the relationship between the degree of perseverance in satisfying one's interests (Y axis) and the degree of readiness to meet another halfway in satisfying his interests (X axis).
1. At the beginning of the axes there is a zero point, where no one's interests are satisfied. This point corresponds to the avoidance or withdrawal strategy. Such a strategy means that a person ignores the conflict situation, pretends that it does not exist, and does not take any steps to resolve or change it.
In some cases, this strategy is optimal. These include situations that are not particularly significant for us and are not worth spending our strength and material resources to resolve them. Sometimes it's better not to get involved, as our chances of improving something are close to zero.
For example, parents prefer not to raise the issue of what hairstyle their son wears, although they do not like it, believing that this is not such an important problem, which, perhaps, will resolve itself over time.
On the other hand, non-interference can often lead to an escalation of the conflict, since the problem is not solved and the interests of the parties to the conflict remain unsatisfied. As a result, a situation that is quite solvable at first sometimes turns into an unsolvable one.
In the course of privatization, the administration set itself the goal of obtaining the maximum number of shares, ignoring signs of discontent among the workforce. In addition to achieving personal goals, the leaders hoped to realize the plans for the development of the enterprise. However, the team felt that he had been deceived. As a result, the enterprise practically did not work for a long time, turned out to be on the verge of bankruptcy, and its shares lost their value.
2. The vertical axis expresses the desire to satisfy only one's own interest, not taking into account the interests of the partner. The higher the point is on this axis, the greater the perseverance in striving to achieve the maximum satisfaction of one's interests it corresponds to. We will call such a line of behavior a strategy of rivalry. Rivalry allows you to achieve the desired result, stimulates development, promotes progress. In a number of situations, the presence of rivalry is their driving force and essence, for example, sports competitions, artistic competitions, many cases of employment, admission to an educational institution by competition, and others.
At the same time, rivalry requires the application of all forces, which can lead to their exhaustion and illness. Rivalry, as a rule, breaks relations between people, and not only with direct competitors. A person often simply does not have enough strength for personal relationships. The balance of power may change, and then the former losers will try not to support, but to “drown” the former winner. Rivalry creates the temptation to win at any cost, even to the point of using dishonest and cruel methods.
Here is an example: A supplier who knew about his advantageous position, used it in negotiations with representatives of the consumer firm, spoke to them inflexibly and disrespectfully. He insisted on his terms, but as a result he lost clients: now they do not trust him and prefer not to do business with him.
Skillful negotiators with a strong position tend to be lenient with their opponents. On the other hand, people with strength tend to overestimate their capabilities and do not respond quickly enough to changes in the strength of their partner's position. Often, rivalry is chosen automatically, without much thought, simply as an emotional reaction to an adverse impact.
After the denomination of the ruble, bank cashiers often heard complaints about the issuance of money in metal coins or large denominations. Often their reaction to these unfair, from their point of view, claims was a retaliatory attack: “Do we have a printing press here ?!” As a result, dissatisfied customers wrote complaints about rudeness, and cashiers had many, including material, troubles.
3. The horizontal axis, directed towards increasing compliance with the opponent, demonstrates the strategy of adapting to the opponent up to complete surrender to his demands. The greater the value of the X coordinate is the point, the stronger the tendency to give in to the requirements of the partner.
Concessions can show goodwill and serve as a positive behavioral model for the opponent. Quite often, a concession becomes a turning point in a tense situation, changing its course to a more favorable one. This strategy allows you to save resources until a more favorable moment. If the balance of power is clearly not in our favor, surrender may be the best course of action. Sometimes we give in because we recognize the correctness of the opponent.
For example, an employee opposes his transfer to a lower-paid position while maintaining the same amount of work. The boss explains to the employee that he cannot keep his previous position, since there is no old position in the new staff list that came "from above". The employee gives in, not wanting to spoil relations with the boss and realizing that it is useless to argue, especially since this may end in dismissal under these conditions. He secures a promise from the boss to think about the possibility of financial compensation in the future.
However, the concession can do us a disservice. It can be perceived by the opponent as a sign of weakness and lead to an escalation of his pressure and demands. We can be deceived, expecting reciprocal concessions from the opponent. In the end, yielding, we do not achieve the desired result and do not satisfy our interests.
One of the university applicants could not resist the requests of her neighbors on the examination bench to help solve their problems during the entrance exam in mathematics. Because of this, she did not have time to fully fulfill her version, although she was well prepared. As a result, less knowledgeable applicants entered the university, while she did not.
4. In the central part of the space between the axes, there are many points of possible compromise. Satisfying the interests of each side by half can be considered an ideal compromise.
Sometimes compromise is the only possible and best peaceful solution to a problem. Each side gets something that suits them, instead of continuing the war and possibly losing everything.
The wife was not going to give a divorce to her husband. However, she understood that he was determined, especially since, as it turned out, he had "another woman." The wife did not want to exchange the apartment and give her husband any of the property. At the same time, she became aware that, by law, he was entitled to half of the jointly acquired. The husband did not want to aggravate relations because of the children, and also to delay the divorce process in case of resistance from his wife. As a result, they agreed on mutual property concessions, and the husband agreed to an exchange option that would provide his wife with a two-room apartment, and him with a room in a “communal apartment”.
However, compromise often serves only as a temporary solution, since neither side fully satisfies its interests, and the basis for the conflict remains. If the compromise is not equal for both sides, and one of them yields more than the other, then the risk of a renewed conflict becomes even higher.
The students of the advanced training courses asked the teacher to let them go two hours earlier from the afternoon classes on the eve of the holiday, as they had certain plans for this time. The teacher considered it possible to finish the lesson an hour earlier. As a result, he did not have time to fully give the planned material, and the listeners were able to realize their plans only partially. Later, the students had significant difficulties in passing the test to this teacher, and besides, he received a remark from the curator about the premature end of the lesson.
5. Finally, another strategy of behavior in a conflict situation is expressed by points that have both high values of the X and Y coordinates. This is the strategy of cooperation. It is distinguished by the desire to achieve the maximum possible satisfaction of both its own interests and the interests of a partner. Often people consider this option desirable, but in this particular conflict situation unrealistic. However, in many cases the situation seems to be a dead end only because each of the opponents puts forward demands that are clearly in conflict with the requirements of the other, and does not look for other options to satisfy their interests. Unlike compromise, cooperation requires a transition from defending one's positions to a deeper level, at which compatibility and common interests are found.
Collaboration is attractive due to the strength of problem resolution, the partnership nature of relations in its course. This is the only way out of the conflict, which allows you to simultaneously achieve the desired result and not disrupt relations between partners. Successful cooperation contributes to the improvement of relations and the desire to continue interaction in the future.
The root of the word " cooperation" is an " work". This reflects the real need for intellectual, emotional and other efforts to achieve cooperation. This strategy often takes time to be successfully implemented.
A valuable employee insisted on an immediate increase in salary, which had long been promised to him. At that moment, the boss was not able to fulfill the promise, and the employee categorically did not want to wait. When discussing the problem, it turned out that the urgency was caused by the need to purchase materials and complete the construction of the country house before the beginning of autumn. Using his connections, the boss provided the worker with the opportunity to buy cheaper materials and hire a construction team at a reduced price. Both fully satisfied their interests.
At the same time, cooperation is not always possible. It requires a mutual desire to resolve the problem jointly, taking into account the true interests of all parties.
None of the above strategies of behavior in conflict can be called unequivocally "good" or "bad". Each of them can be optimal and provide the best effect, depending on the specific conditions for the emergence and development of the conflict. At the same time, it is cooperation that is most consistent with modern ideas about constructive long-term interaction between people.
Satisfying the interests of all conflicting parties leads to the fact that the ground on which this conflict was based disappears, and the risk of post-conflict complications is minimized. Often people prefer not to waste time on cooperation and, for example, solve a problem from a position of strength. But in the future, they are forced to spend much more time, nerves and money on overcoming the consequences that have arisen (for example, on litigation).
When choosing a strategy for one's behavior in a conflict, it is advisable in each case to proceed from how important it is to achieve a result, on the one hand, and maintain good relations with an opponent, on the other. If neither one nor the other is of great value, then, apparently, leaving will be optimal. If the result is fundamentally important, and the relationship is not significant, it is worth getting your way with the help of rivalry. If the relationship is most important, then it's probably best to give in (accommodation). If both the relationship and the outcome are essential, then it is worth putting the effort and time into achieving collaboration.
When a person uses, basically, the strategy of rivalry, he takes a big risk in the full sense of the word. He can lose partners, loved ones, health, life itself. As soon as the balance of power changes, rivals will not fail to take advantage of this. Rivalry requires constant effort and accurate information. But a leader following this strategy is unlikely to have sufficient feedback and a realistic view of the state of affairs.
All the time, the inferior does not have the opportunity to fulfill himself, to achieve something. They don't reckon with him, they "ride" him. Such a person is prone to an inferiority complex and depression with all the ensuing consequences. According to research, people with low self-esteem tend to perceive injustice passively. They are more concerned with maintaining good relationships than protecting their own interests.
The one practicing predominantly the strategy of leaving finds himself in social isolation, materially and personally vegetates. Such a person has a high risk of alcoholism, drug addiction, or another unfavorable option for avoiding the real difficulties of life.
A person who mainly uses compromise can be perceived as a slippery, unprincipled person with whom one must keep one's eyes open.
Gravitating in the vast majority of situations to cooperate, he risks being in the role of Leopold the cat, unsuccessfully calling: "Guys, let's live together." He can be perceived as a spineless, boring person, unable to stand up for himself.
As you know, the cat Leopold was helped by the fact that he took "ozverin". Similarly, a person who is able to demonstrate different forms of behavior - from perseverance, toughness to generosity and flexibility, will be perceived with respect, they will really be reckoned with.
Most people tend to use only one or two of the five strategies described for dealing with conflict situations. For example, in our culture, with its rich totalitarian past, the choice of either rivalry or capitulation to those in power is typical. Rivalry flourishes in the current conditions of the struggle for existence, for example, in the form of "showdowns." A common type of strategy in our country is also leaving, reflected in the proverb: "My hut is on the edge." Compromise, stigmatized under Soviet rule as petty-bourgeois opportunism, is hardly beginning to gain ground. Very often, the ability to achieve it is considered the height of skill in resolving problem situations. Perhaps less often than other strategies in all spheres of our life, so far there is cooperation.
M. Wiener and K. Rey, developing the idea of productive interaction between people, identify several groups of factors that contribute to successful cooperation:
Factors related to the environment -
1. History of cooperation or cooperation in society.
2. Collaborating groups that are leaders in the field in the eyes of society.
3. Favorable political and social climate.
Factors related to cooperation members -
4. Mutual respect, understanding and trust.
5. Suitable contacts of cooperation members.
6. Participants of cooperation see their interests in it.
7. Ability to make mutual concessions.
Factors related to the process and structure of cooperation -
8. Collaboration members share both the process itself and the result.
9. Multilevel decision making.
10. Flexibility of positions.
11. Development of specific roles and policies.
12. Adaptability.
Communication factors -
13. Open and frequent meetings.
14. Organization of informing and formal communication links.
Goal Factors -
15. Specific goals and objects, aspirations.
16. General point of view.
17. Special task, goal.
Resource Factors -
18. Availability of financing, material support.
19. Experienced, skillful leaders.
Models of conflict development according to Grishina
According to N. Grishina, there are three main models for the development of conflicts in the workforce. Their main features can also be considered as typical characteristics of the dynamics of conflict behavior in various fields. The models are arranged according to the degree of growth of destructive tendencies and the complexity of solving the problem:
- labor dispute. This model is characterized by the presence of disagreements on some particular issue, but at the same time - cooperation based on mutual interest in a common cause, and confidence in the possibility of reaching an agreement. Partners maintain good personal relations, show goodwill towards each other. The impact on the partner is made through argumentation, persuasion. The likelihood of a successful outcome of the conflict is high.
- Formalization of relations. At this level, the zone of disagreement is wider - there is disagreement on a number of issues. Opponents have doubts about the possibility of reaching an agreement. Communication between them is limited, personal, informal aspects of interaction leave it. Sometimes, however, they refuse to discuss controversial issues, avoiding a possible aggravation of relations, and offer to turn to official forms of decision-making (“how the management decides”, “let the members of the team decide”, etc.). The outcome of such a conflict is ambiguous, its transition to other options is possible.
- psychological antagonism. With this development of events, the zone of disagreement is uncertain and tends to expand. Opponents tend to exaggerate the differences between them and show reluctance to seek agreement. Their relationship becomes hostile, communication is reduced to a minimum. Attempts to interact, if they are made, are rather in the spirit of hostility. Mutual psychological rejection exacerbates the conflict situation. Under these conditions, there is a high probability of a destructive outcome of the conflict.
