Factors and conditions for successful conflict resolution. Types of tactics and their specifics

2. 3. Basic forms of ending conflicts

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

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

What forms of ending conflicts exist?

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

What is conflict resolution?

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

What is conflict resolution?

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

What is conflict resolution?

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

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

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

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

What is conflict resolution?

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

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

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

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

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

What is escalation into another conflict?

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

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

What is the outcome of the conflict?

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

eliminating one or both sides

suspension of the conflict with the possibility of its resumption

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

division of the conflict object (symmetrical or asymmetrical)

agreement on the rules for sharing the object

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

refusal of both parties to encroach on this object

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

What are the criteria for resolving conflicts?

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

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

2.4. Conditions and factors for constructive conflict resolution

Most of the conditions and factors for successful conflict resolution are psychological in nature, as they reflect the characteristics of the behavior and interaction of opponents. In addition, there are historical, legal and other factors.

What are the conditions for constructive conflict resolution?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What are the main factors in conflict resolution?

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

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

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

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

Permission conflicts in work collectives

Thesis >> Management

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

Negotiations how way permissions conflicts (2)

Abstract >> Psychology

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

Negotiations how way permissions conflicts (1)

Abstract >> Management

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

Ending the conflictis to end the conflict for any reason.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

· elimination of one or both parties;

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

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

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

· agreement on the rules for sharing the object;

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

· refusal of both parties to encroach on this object;

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

Rice. 4.4.1. Ending Conflicts

Majority conditions for successful conflict resolution is psychological in nature, as it reflects the characteristics of the behavior and interaction of opponents.

Let's look at some of them.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

· culture : a high level of general culture of opponents reduces the likelihood of a violent conflict developing. It has been revealed that conflicts in government bodies are resolved more constructively if opponents have high business and moral qualities;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

· Informal method establishes optimal options for everyday behavior and relationships.

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

· Localization method- linking norms to local characteristics and living conditions.

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

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

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

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

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

Conflict resolution includes the following stages.

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

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

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

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

♦ reasons and immediate cause that led to the conflict;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ending the conflict also requires certain tactics.

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

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

Tough

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

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

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

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

Neutral

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

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

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

Soft

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

device, or concession is considered as a forced or voluntary refusal to fight and surrender of one’s positions. The adoption of such a strategy is forced by: awareness of one’s wrongness; the need to maintain good relations with the opponent; strong dependence on it; insignificance of the problem. Such a way out of the conflict is caused by significant damage received during the struggle, the threat of even more serious negative consequences, the lack of chances for a different outcome, and pressure from a third party.

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

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

Most of the conditions and factors for successful conflict resolution are psychological in nature, as they reflect the characteristics of the behavior and interaction of the participants. Some researchers highlight organizational, historical, legal and other factors. Let's take a closer look at them. Stopping conflict interactions– the first and obvious condition for the beginning of the resolution of any conflict. Until the two sides strengthen their position or weaken the position of a participant through violence, there can be no talk of resolving the conflict.

Search for common or similar points of contact for the purposes and interests of the participants is a two-way process and involves an analysis of both one’s own goals and interests and the goals and interests of the other party. If the parties want to resolve the conflict, they should focus on the interests, and not on the personality of the opponent (P. O. Triffin, M. I. Mogilevsky).

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

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

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

Objective discussion of the problem, clarification of the essence of the conflict, the ability of the parties to see the main thing contributes to the successful search for a solution to the contradiction. Focusing on secondary issues and caring only about one’s own interests reduce the chances of a constructive solution to the problem. When the parties join forces to end the conflict, it is necessary taking into account each other's status (position). The party occupying a subordinate position or having junior status must be aware of the limits of concessions that its opponent can afford. Too radical demands can provoke the stronger side to return to conflict confrontation.

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

- availability of time to discuss the problem, clarify positions and interests, and develop solutions. Reducing the time available to reach agreement by half leads to an increase in the likelihood of choosing an alternative that is more aggressive;

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

- timeliness: the parties begin to resolve the conflict in the early stages of its development. Less opposition - less damage - less resentment and claims - more opportunities to come to an agreement;

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

- culture: a high level of general culture of the participants reduces the likelihood of a violent conflict developing. It has been revealed that conflicts in government bodies are resolved more constructively if the opponents have high business and moral qualities (D. L. Moiseev);

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

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

- relationship: good relations between opponents before the conflict contribute to a more complete resolution of the contradiction.

Conflict resolution is a multi-stage process that includes analysis and assessment of the situation, choosing a method for resolving the conflict, forming an action plan, its implementation, and assessing the effectiveness of one’s actions.

Analytical stage involves collecting and assessing information on the following issues:

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

Participant (general information about him, his psychological characteristics; the participant’s relationship with management; opportunities to strengthen his rank; his goals, interests, position; legal and moral foundations of his demands; previous actions in the conflict, mistakes made; where interests coincide, and in what - no, etc.);

Own position (goals, values, interests, actions in conflict; legal and moral foundations of one’s own demands, their reasoning and evidence; mistakes made and the possibility of admitting them to the participant, etc.);

The reasons and immediate cause that led to the conflict;

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

Secondary reflection (the subject’s idea of how his opponent perceives the conflict situation, how he perceives me, my idea of the conflict, etc.). Sources of information are personal observations, conversations with management, subordinates, informal leaders, one’s own friends and friends of the participants in the conflict, witnesses to the conflict, etc.

Having analyzed and assessed the conflict situation, the participants predict options for conflict resolution and determine the ones that suit their interests and situations ways to resolve it. The following are predicted: the most favorable development of events; least favorable development of events; the most realistic development of events; how the contradiction will be resolved if you simply stop active actions in the conflict.

It is important to determine conflict resolution criteria, and they must be recognized by both parties. These include: legal norms; moral principles; opinion of authority figures; precedents for solving similar problems in the past, traditions.

Actions to implement the planned plan carried out in accordance with the chosen method of conflict resolution. If necessary, it is done correction of a previously planned plan (returning to the discussion; putting forward alternatives; putting forward new arguments; appealing to third parties; discussing additional concessions).

Monitoring the effectiveness of your own actions involves critically answering the questions to yourself: why am I doing this? what do I want to achieve? What makes it difficult to implement the plan? Are my actions fair? What actions need to be taken to eliminate obstacles to conflict resolution? and etc.

At the end of the conflict It is advisable to: analyze the mistakes of your own behavior; summarize the knowledge gained and experience in solving the problem; try to normalize relations with recent participants; relieve discomfort (if it arises) in relationships with others; minimize the negative consequences of conflict in one’s own states, activities and behavior.

In the most general form, the subjective causes of any organizational conflicts associated with people, their consciousness and behavior, as a rule, are caused by three factors:

interdependence and incompatibility of the parties’ goals;
awareness of this;
the desire of each side to realize its goals at the expense of the opponent.

A different, more detailed classification of the general causes of conflicts is given by M. Meskon, M. Albert and F. Khedouri, who identify the following main causes of conflict.

Resource distribution. In almost any organization, resources are always limited, so the task of management is the rational distribution of materials, people and money between various departments and groups. Since people tend to strive to maximize resources and overestimate the importance of their work, the distribution of resources almost inevitably leads to various kinds of conflicts.
Task interdependence. The possibility of conflict exists wherever one person (group) depends on another person (group) to perform its functions. Due to the fact that any organization is a system consisting of a number of interdependent elements - departments or people, if one of them performs inadequately, as well as with insufficient coordination of their activities, the interdependence of tasks can become a cause of conflict.
Differences in goals. The possibility of conflict increases with the complexity of organizations, their further structural division and associated autonomy. As a result, individual specialized units (groups) begin to largely independently formulate their goals, which may diverge significantly from the goals of the entire organization. In the practical implementation of autonomous (group) goals, this leads to conflicts.
Differences in ideas and values. Different ideas, interests and desires of people influence their assessment of the situation, leading to a biased perception of it and an appropriate reaction to it. This gives rise to contradictions and conflicts.
Differences in behavior and life experiences. Differences in life experience, education, length of service, age, value orientations, social characteristics, and even just habits hinder mutual understanding and cooperation between people and increase the possibility of conflict.
Poor communications. Lack, distortion, and sometimes excess of information can serve as a cause, consequence and catalyst for conflict. In the latter case, poor communications intensify the conflict, preventing its participants from understanding each other and the situation as a whole.

This classification of the causes of conflict can be used in its practical diagnosis, but in general it is quite abstract. A more specific classification of the causes of the conflict is proposed by R. Dahrendorf. Using and supplementing it, we can distinguish the following types of causes of social conflicts:

1. Personal reasons (“personal friction”). These include individual traits, likes and dislikes, psychological and ideological incompatibility, differences in education and life experience, etc.

2. Structural reasons. They manifest themselves in imperfection:

communication structure: absence, distortion or contradictory information, weak contacts between management and ordinary employees, distrust and inconsistency of actions between them due to imperfections or breakdowns in communications, etc.;
role structure: inconsistency of job descriptions, various formal requirements for an employee, official requirements and personal goals, etc.;
technical structure: unequal equipment of different departments with equipment, exhausting pace of work, etc.;
organizational structure: disproportionality of various departments that disrupts the general rhythm of work, duplication of their activities, lack of effective control and responsibility, conflicting aspirations of formal and informal groups in the organization, etc.;
power structures: disproportionality of rights and duties, competencies and responsibilities, as well as the distribution of power in general, including formal and informal leadership and the struggle for it.

3. Change in organization, and above all technical development. Organizational changes lead to changes in role structures, management and other employees, which often causes dissatisfaction and conflict. Quite often they are generated by technological progress, leading to job cuts, intensification of labor, and increased qualifications and other requirements.

4. Conditions and nature of work. Harmful or dangerous working conditions, unhealthy environmental environment, poor relationships in the team and with management, dissatisfaction with the content of work, etc. - all this also creates fertile ground for conflicts to arise.

5. Distribution relations. Remuneration in the form of wages, bonuses, rewards, social privileges, etc. not only serves as a means of satisfying the various needs of people, but is also perceived as an indicator of social prestige and recognition from management. The cause of the conflict may be not so much the absolute amount of payment as the distribution relations in the team, assessed by employees from the point of view of their fairness.

6. Differences in identification. They manifest themselves in the tendency of employees to identify themselves mainly with their group (unit) and exaggerate their importance and merits, while underestimating the importance of others and forgetting about the overall goals of the organization. This kind of inclination is based on the intensity and emotional coloring of communications in primary groups, the relatively high personal significance of such groups and the issues resolved in them, group interests and group egoism. Reasons of this type often determine conflicts between various departments, as well as between individual teams and the center, the leadership of the organization.

7. The organization’s desire to expand and increase its significance. This trend is reflected by the famous Parkinson's law, according to which every organization strives to expand its staff, resources and influence, regardless of the volume of work performed. The trend towards expansion is based on the interest of each department, and above all actual and potential managers, in obtaining new, including higher and more prestigious positions, resources, power, and authority. On the way to realizing the expansion trend, there are usually similar or restraining positions of other departments and management (center), which tries to limit aspirations and retain power, control functions and resources of the organization primarily within itself. As a result of this kind of relationship, conflicts arise.

8. Difference in starting positions. This may be a different level of education, qualifications and values of personnel, and unequal working conditions and material and technical equipment, etc. various departments. Such reasons lead to misunderstanding, ambiguous perception of tasks and responsibilities, uncoordinated activities of interdependent departments and, ultimately, to conflicts.

The last three reasons characterize mainly interorganizational conflicts. In real life, conflicts are often generated not by one, but by several reasons, each of which in turn changes depending on the specific situation. However, this does not eliminate the need to know the causes and sources of conflicts in order to use and manage them constructively.

The causes of conflicts largely determine the nature of their consequences.

Negative consequences of conflict

There are two directions for assessing the consequences of conflicts: functionalist(integration) and sociological(dialectical). The first of them, which is represented, for example, by the famous American experimental scientist E. Mayo. He views conflict as a dysfunctional phenomenon that disrupts the normal existence of an organization and reduces the effectiveness of its activities. The functionalist direction focuses on the negative consequences of conflict. Summarizing the work of various representatives of this direction, we can highlight the following: negative consequences of conflicts:

destabilization of the organization, generation of chaotic and anarchic processes, decreased controllability;
distracting staff from the real problems and goals of the organization, shifting these goals towards group selfish interests and ensuring victory over the enemy;
dissatisfaction of conflict participants with their stay in the organization, increased frustration, depression, stress, etc. and, as a consequence, a decrease in labor productivity, an increase in staff turnover;
increasing emotionality and irrationality, hostility and aggressive behavior, distrust of management and others;
weakening of communication and cooperation opportunities with opponents in the future;
distracting conflict participants from solving the organization’s problems and a fruitless waste of their strength, energy, resources and time fighting each other.

Positive consequences of conflict

In contrast to the functionalists, supporters of the sociological approach to conflicts (they are represented, for example, by the largest modern German conflictologist R. Dahrendorf) consider them as an integral source of social change and development. Under certain conditions, conflicts have functional, positive results for the organization:

initiating change, renewal, progress. The new is always a negation of the old, and since behind both new and old ideas and forms of organization there are always certain people, any renewal is impossible without conflicts;
articulation, clear formulation and expression of interests, making public the real positions of the parties on a particular issue. This allows you to see the pressing problem more clearly and creates favorable conditions for solving it;
mobilization of attention, interest and resources to solve problems and, as a result, saving the organization’s working time and resources. Very often, pressing issues, especially those that concern the entire organization, are not resolved until a conflict arises, since in conflict-free, “normal” functioning, out of respect for organizational norms and traditions, as well as out of a sense of politeness, managers and employees often bypass thorny issues;
creating a sense of belonging among the conflict participants to the decision made as a result, which facilitates its implementation;
stimulating more thoughtful and informed action in order to prove that you are right;
encouraging participants to interact and develop new, more effective solutions, eliminating the problem itself or its significance. This usually happens when the parties show understanding of each other’s interests and realize the disadvantages of deepening the conflict;
developing the ability of conflict participants to cooperate in the future, when the conflict is resolved as a result of the interaction of both parties. Fair competition that leads to consensus increases the mutual respect and trust necessary for further cooperation;
release of psychological tension in relations between people, a clearer clarification of their interests and positions;
overcoming traditions of groupthink, conformism, “submissiveness syndrome” and the development of free-thinking, individuality of the employee. As a result, the staff’s ability to develop original ideas and find optimal ways to solve the organization’s problems increases;
involving the usually passive part of employees in solving organizational problems. This contributes to the personal development of employees and serves the goals of the organization;
identification of informal groups and their leaders and smaller groups, which can be used by the manager to improve management efficiency;
development of skills and abilities among conflict participants relatively painless solution to future problems;
strengthening group cohesion in case of intergroup conflicts. As is known from social psychology, the easiest way to unite a group and muffle or even overcome internal discord is to find a common enemy, a competitor. External conflict is capable of extinguishing internal strife, the causes of which often disappear over time, lose relevance, severity and are forgotten.

Of course, both negative and positive consequences of conflicts cannot be absolutized and considered outside of a specific situation. The real ratio of functional and dysfunctional consequences of a conflict directly depends on their nature, the causes that give rise to them, as well as on skillful conflict management.

Based on an assessment of the consequences of conflicts, a strategy for dealing with them in the organization is built.

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

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

Another important condition is the choice of the optimal resolution strategy appropriate to the given circumstances. Such strategies are cooperation and compromise, and only sometimes avoiding conflict.

The success of ending conflicts depends on how opponents take into account the factors that influence this process. These include: time: availability of time to discuss a problem, clarify positions and interests, and develop solutions. Reducing the time available to reach agreement by half leads to an increase in the likelihood of choosing an alternative that is more aggressive;

third party: participation in ending the conflict of neutral persons (mediators) who help opponents solve the problem;

timeliness: the parties begin to resolve the conflict in the early stages of its development. The logic is simple: less opposition - less damage - less resentment and claims - more opportunities to come to an agreement; balance of power: if the conflicting parties are approximately equal in capabilities (equal status or position), then they are forced to look for ways to peacefully resolve the problem; culture: a high level of general culture of opponents reduces the likelihood of a violent conflict developing. It has been revealed that conflicts in government bodies are resolved more constructively if opponents have high business and moral qualities; unity of values: the existence of agreement between conflicting parties about what should constitute an acceptable solution. Conflicts are more or less regulated when their participants have a common system of values, goals and interests; experience (example): at least one of the opponents has experience in solving similar problems, as well as knowledge of examples of resolving similar conflicts; relationships: good relations between opponents before the conflict contribute to a more complete resolution of the contradiction.