What are the main factors that determine the conditions for ending the conflict? Conditions and factors 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 actions 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.

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.

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

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 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 contradictions - less damage - less resentment and claims - more opportunities to reach an agreement;

balance of power: if the conflicting parties are approximately equal in capabilities, 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;

unity of values: the presence of agreement between conflicting parties about what should constitute an acceptable solution;

experience: at least one of the opponents has experience in solving similar problems, as well as knowledge of examples of resolving similar conflicts.

Main criterion resolved conflict - satisfaction of the parties result. For others, such parameters as the degree of resolution of the contradiction underlying the conflict (the degree of normalization of the parties’ relations and relationships with other people depend on this) and the victory of the right opponent are also important.

Affiliate type conflict resolution - resolving conflict through the use of constructive methods.

Its main features are that it takes place:

Constructive interaction between the leader and conflicting parties. In order for the arguments of the head of the organization to be accepted or at least listened to, the manager needs to instill trust in himself, eliminate negative feelings, observe etiquette, and correctness in handling;

Perception of the opposing side's arguments;

Willingness to compromise, mutual search for solutions; development of mutually acceptable alternatives;

The desire to combine personal and organizational factors;

Perception as a normal factor of activity.

The partnership type of conflict has its advantages. It is closer to the real solution to the problem, it allows you to find unifying factors, i.e. satisfy (maybe not always completely) the interests of the parties. Of no small importance is:

· creating a favorable work atmosphere,

· friendly interpersonal relations of team members in the process of work,

· ability to distinguish reasons from reasons,

· choose the most correct ways to resolve conflicts.

Conditions for constructive conflict resolution:

Ø cessation of conflict interaction;

Ø search for close or even common points of contact (conflict map);

Ø reducing the intensity of negative emotions;

Ø elimination of the “enemy image”;

Ø reduction of negative emotions in the opponent;

Ø an objective view of the problem;

Ø taking into account each other’s statuses;

Ø selection of the optimal resolution strategy.

Factors for constructive conflict resolution:

Ø Time: a reduction in time leads to an increase in the likelihood of choosing aggressive behavior;

Ø The third side: the participation of third parties seeking to resolve the conflict leads to a calmer course and quicker resolution;

Ø Timeliness: the sooner the parties come to a settlement, the better;

Ø Balance of Power: if the parties are approximately equal, they have no choice but to seek a compromise;

Ø Culture: a high level of general culture of opponents reduces the likelihood of a violent conflict developing;

Ø Unity of values: the existence of agreement between the conflicting parties about what should constitute an acceptable solution;

Ø Experience: the presence of experience in resolving a conflict on at least one of the parties leads to faster resolution

Ø Relationship: Good relations between the parties before the conflict speed up its resolution.

Stages of Conflict Resolution

Conflict resolution is a multi-stage process that has its own logic, i.e. stages.

1. Analytical this P(collection and assessment of information on the following issues):

Ø - object of conflict

Ø - opponent

Ø - own position

Ø - reasons and immediate cause

Ø - social environment

Ø - secondary reflection (revision of the situation taking into account the above analyzed elements).

2. Forecasting a solution option:

Ø - most favorable

Ø - least favorable

Ø - what will happen if you just stop actions.

3. Determination of criteria for conflict resolution.

4. Actions to implement the planned plan.

5. Monitoring the effectiveness of actions.

6. Error analysis.

Ways to resolve conflict

Basic tactics of influencing an opponent in a conflict.

Tactics– this 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.

Conflict resolution strategies are the main lines of action of opponents to influence the conflict situation.

Tough tactics

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

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

Tactics for capturing and holding an object conflict A. It is used in interpersonal, intergroup, interstate conflicts where the object is material.

Tactics of psychological violence (damage) – insult, rudeness, negative personal assessment, discriminatory measures, misinformation, deception, humiliation, etc.

Neutral tactics

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 leaders, friends, appeals to the media, and authorities.

Authorization. Influencing an opponent through penalties, increasing workload, imposing a ban, open refusal to carry out orders.

Demonstration tactics. It is used to attract attention to one’s person (public statements, complaints about health conditions, absenteeism from work, hunger strikes, demonstrations, etc.).

Soft tactics

Tactics for fixing your position. Based on the use of facts and logic to confirm one’s position (most often used).

Friendly tactics. Includes correct appeal, emphasizing the general, demonstrating readiness to solve the problem, providing the necessary information, offering help, etc.

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

The same tactic can be used within different strategies.

Types of tactics and their specificity.

The methods, or tactics, for resolving conflicts are as diverse as the conflict situations themselves. However, they can all be summarized as follows:

(1) tactics of leaving or avoiding conflict;

(2) forceful suppression or method of violence;

(3) the method of unilateral concessions or accommodations;

(4) tactics of compromise or cooperation.

It is easy to see that the basis for this classification of conflict management tactics is the degree of readiness of the parties to meet each other halfway in the confrontation that has arisen.

Tactics of leaving or avoiding conflict

The least degree of such readiness is distinguished by the tactics of avoiding the conflict, which is sometimes called the tactics (method) of avoidance. Nevertheless, it is a very popular way of behavior in a conflict situation; it is often resorted to both by the participants in the conflict and by those who, due to their official status, must act as a mediator in its resolution.

The essence of this tactic is to ignore the conflict situation, refuse to acknowledge its existence, leave the “scene” on which the conflict unfolds, and remove oneself either physically or psychologically. This tactic means that a person who finds himself in a conflict situation prefers not to take any constructive steps to resolve or change it.

At first glance, it may seem that this tactic should only be assessed negatively. But upon closer examination, it turns out that, like any method, this line of behavior in a conflict has its pros and cons.

The advantages of avoidance tactics are as follows:

(1) it is quickly feasible, since it does not require the search for either intellectual or material resources. So, for example, a manager, avoiding conflict, may not respond to another written request from a subordinate to provide him with certain benefits, since this request is unreasonable;

(2) it makes it possible to delay or even prevent conflict, the content of which is insignificant from the point of view of the strategic goals of a given organization or group. Thus, parents may close their eyes and “not mess with” their adult daughter because the skirts she wears are not of the length that, in their opinion, meets the requirements of decency.

But this tactic also has its downsides. Thus, under certain conditions, it can lead to an escalation of the conflict, since the cause that caused it is not overcome by avoidance tactics, but is only preserved. And if this problem is real and significant, then this delay can only lead to an aggravation and not a resolution of the conflict. However, despite its disadvantages, this tactic can still be used.

The tactics of withdrawal, or avoidance, are also characterized by certain actions of the participants in the conflict, specific forms of their behavior: concealment, classification of information necessary to resolve the conflict that has arisen, in order to prevent its possible aggravation when people become familiar with “explosive” information;

Refusal to recognize the very fact of the existence of the causes of the conflict, in the expectation that it will somehow be resolved by itself, without the active participation of the warring parties;

By delaying, under one pretext or another, the final solution to the problem that caused the confrontation.

Conditions under which escape tactics are used.

(1) If the reasons that gave rise to the confrontation are of little significance; if the immediate cause that gave rise to the conflict is only the “tip of the iceberg”, it only indicates the presence of other underlying preconditions for the conflict. Naturally, under these conditions, one should refrain from wasting energy on unimportant problems, saving them for solving other deep-seated problems when they are fully revealed.

(2) For certain time parameters of the conflict: if the conflict arose at a time when it is not possible to spend it on resolving the confrontation, since there are other pressing problems that are more significant from the point of view of the organization’s goals.

(3) When there is limited information available about the conflict, the necessary information is not available, and additional work cannot be done to collect data that would ensure an effective end to the conflict.

(4) If one of the conflicting parties does not have sufficient forces that are able to quickly and successfully resolve the conflict. Thus, an experienced military leader refrains from a full-scale battle until the reserves arrive, and only after their arrival begins a powerful attack on the enemy. It was precisely this tactic that Kutuzov followed during the Patriotic War of 1812.

Force suppression tactics

In many ways, the method of forceful suppression is the opposite of the considered method of care. Its use indicates a higher degree of readiness to resolve the conflict on at least one of the parties. Its essence consists in the forced imposition of its decision on one of the parties. For the use of this tactic, there are also certain prerequisites that favor its success.

Prerequisites for the use of force methods.

(1) The decisive superiority of one of the parties in the available material and psychological resources, for example, the superiority of the administration, which is in conflict with the working collective of the plant.

(2) The occurrence of an emergency requiring immediate action.

(3) The sudden need to make an unpopular decision, which will obviously be negatively received by the other side. This was precisely the decision of the Russian government in August 1998 to stop payments on government loan obligations, a default that led to a deep financial crisis. Actions of the same order also include decisions by the enterprise administration to reduce wages or increase working hours in conditions of the enterprise threatening bankruptcy.

(4) Subject to the indisputable legality of the actions of the party having a power advantage, when these actions are related to ensuring problems that are vital for a given structure, for example, the immediate dismissal of an employee who committed an act that caused serious material or moral damage to the organization; Such actions may include disclosure by an employee of a trade secret, failure by a medical worker to provide emergency assistance to a patient, disruption of a teacher’s classes, etc.

(5) In case of any manifestations of destructive forms of behavior on the part of members of the organization, such as, for example, drunkenness, drug addiction, theft of property, absenteeism, violation of safety regulations, etc.

Power tactics also have their specific manifestations at the behavioral level. Here it is expressed in the following behavioral forms:

The use of predominantly coercive, forceful methods of influence with limited involvement of educational means, which in the conditions considered may turn out to be as ineffective as they turned out to be unsuitable in the situation described by I.A. Krylov in the famous fable “The Cat and the Cook”;

The use of a rigid, commanding style of communication, designed for the unquestioning subordination of one side of the conflict to the other; the use, in order to ensure the success of forceful tactics, of the mechanism of competition, which was already known to the ancient Romans under the name of the “divide and conquer” method and which is often used today under the more streamlined name of the “mechanism of checks and balances”; These mechanisms are most often used in practice in the form of a combination of punishment for negligent workers and incentive measures for conscientious workers.

They are contrasted with civilized, thoroughly rationalized methods based on the “win-win” principle, primarily the tactics of unilateral concessions and the tactics of compromises, mutually beneficial agreements or cooperation.

These tactics are more diverse and rich in content, although they are more difficult to implement in practice, since they require a certain level of conflictological literacy from the participants in the conflict. They are characterized by a focus on constructive resolution of the conflict, reducing the level of tension that has arisen, and increasing the level of cohesion of the organization. Mastering these tactics is a necessary condition for the effectiveness of modern management activities.

Method of unilateral concessions, or adaptations

One of the varieties of tactics of this kind is the method of unilateral concessions, or adaptation. For the successful application of this method, there are also a number of specific prerequisites related to the specific features of the conflict situation.

Such conditions may include the following.

(1) An obvious mistake discovered during the conflict, made by one of the parties, for example, by the administration of a plant when establishing production standards for manufactured products. Under these conditions, neither avoiding the conflict nor suppressing it by force is possible, and the only possible tactic that will help the administration “save face” will be a concession to workers in the form, for example, of reducing production standards to a reasonable limit. Such a step by the administration will undoubtedly be perceived as a manifestation of its self-criticism and ability to objectively assess the demands of employees, which will ultimately lead to strengthening the unity of the team and increasing the efficiency of its work.

(2) In conditions where the significance of the necessary concession for one of the parties turns out to be incomparable with its significance for the other party. In these circumstances, by making some small concessions, one side prevents the possibility of a significant release of conflict energy by the other side and thereby again achieves the restoration of agreement. Thus, by satisfying an employee’s request for short-term emergency leave for family reasons, the manager not only prevents a possible conflict, but also acquires a new ally in the person of this employee.

(3) In anticipation of possible crisis events for the group in the near future, when it is necessary to conserve strength, energy, resources for this future and, at the cost of concessions, maintain peace and tranquility during this period. This is what governments do, for example, in the face of a military threat, hastily resolving disputes with neighboring states through individual concessions in the hope of winning them over to their side as allies in the coming war.

(4) One inevitably has to resort to the tactics of concessions when refusing them threatens one of the parties with much more serious immediate damage, when there is a situation of choice, as they say, “between life and wallet.” A similar situation often arises when negotiating with criminals who have taken hostages.

However, the method of unilateral concessions also has its weaknesses, since it does not fully, but only partially implements the “win-win” principle. After all, when using it, only one side benefits, while the other one way or another ends up at a loss, which sooner or later may turn out to be a source of new tension.

Tactics of compromise, mutual concessions

Therefore, the tactics of compromise and mutual concessions are recognized as a more reliable, effective method of conflict resolution, which in the future can become the most reliable basis for long-term cooperation. This tactic is increasingly used in democratic countries and is considered in conflictology as a classic, that is, exemplary, method of resolving conflict situations.

Compromise is understood as the path of mutual concessions, a mutually beneficial deal, and the creation of conditions for at least partial satisfaction of the interests of the warring parties. Compromise, therefore, is a type of agreement based on mutual adjustment of the positions of both parties on the issues under discussion, the search for a mutually acceptable position on controversial issues. Of course, for the successful implementation of this method, a certain set of favorable conditions is necessary. Such conditions include:

(1) the readiness of both parties to realize their goals through mutual concessions on the “win-win” or “give-get” principle;

(2) the impossibility of resolving the conflict by force or withdrawal, that is, according to the “win-lose” principle.

It is in the implementation of this method that such a universal conflict resolution mechanism as negotiations plays a big role. The negotiation process and discussions make it possible to the greatest extent to identify points of contact between the interests of opponents, the so-called “zones of agreement.” It is extremely useful to start negotiations with questions that fall into this zone and allow the other side to say: “Yes!” But for the success of negotiations, it is necessary to comply with a number of conditions, for example, determining the place and timing of their holding, the composition of participants, the presence of intermediaries, the form of decision-making and a number of other conditions. Of course, the tactics of compromise, the most important element of which are negotiations, is not a universal, fail-safe master key to all types of conflict situations. Its use, as well as the use of other methods considered, is problematic and is associated with a number of difficulties that arise during the practical use of compromise tactics.

The most common difficulties encountered are:

(1) refusal of one of the parties from the initially taken position due to discovery during negotiations that it was unrealistic;

(2) the developed solution, due to the mutual concessions it contains, may turn out to be contradictory, unclear and therefore difficult to implement. Thus, promises made by both parties to speed up the implementation of mutual obligations may not be backed by resources;

But, despite these and some other difficulties, compromise solutions are optimal for resolving a conflict situation, because they:

Contribute to the identification and consideration of mutual interests, being aimed at a mutually beneficial result according to the “win-win” principle;

Demonstrate the parties' respect for each other's professionalism and dignity.

This is the main content of the tactics of mutually beneficial cooperation, which is recognized by science as the most effective way to regulate conflict.

Mechanisms for implementing compromise tactics

That is why the most effective in comparison with this tactic, as well as in comparison with the tactics of withdrawal, the use of force and the use of unilateral concessions, is the tactic of mutual gain. The advantage of the “win-win” approach is that both parties benefit, and therefore the decision taken becomes more durable and sustainable. In conflict literature, this tactic has been developed in the most depth and detail, including not only its prerequisites, advantages and disadvantages, but also the mechanisms for its practical implementation. These mechanisms are designed to solve two main problems:

(1) collection of comprehensive information, a complete database on the conflict;

(2) development of basic forms of behavior of conflict participants that ensure its successful resolution.

The solution to the first of these tasks is ensured by an in-depth study of the conflict situation, taking into account all the factors that caused the conflict. The most convenient way of its practical implementation is a conflict map. The main elements of a conflict map: a description of the essence of the problems that caused the conflict, a definition of the nature of the conflict, psychological or social, a list of participants in the conflict (individuals, groups, departments, organizations), and most importantly - a description of the needs of the participants in the conflict, and possibly those that arose among them concerns about the emergence of obstacles that prevent the satisfaction of certain needs.

However, mastering information about the conflict is a necessary but not sufficient condition for its successful regulation. To achieve this complex goal, it is also necessary to solve the second task - ensuring, on the basis of this information, organized actions and behavior of the participants in the conflict in a certain way. Information taken by itself is an invisible, ephemeral, poorly controlled phenomenon. It takes on visible forms only in human communication, verbal and non-verbal. Having been born in the process of communication, conflict can be overcome only in the process of communication.

The Four-Step Method for Resolving Conflict through Compromise

The transformation of conflictual relationships into relationships of agreement is achieved, as experience shows, as a result of the following actions or steps.

(1) It is necessary to allocate special time for communication, conversation, discussion. In this case, it is often necessary to overcome the desire of the other party to avoid contact and resort to escape tactics. To overcome such a desire, it is important to convince the other that overcoming disagreements is also beneficial for him. It is important not to bind the other side with any preliminary obligations, except for participation in the upcoming dialogue and excluding intimidation and threats, that is, attempts at forceful pressure. However, it is very important to agree in advance to make a decision to end the meeting only by mutual consent, in order to prevent, as far as possible, its premature ending, that is, its termination before the conditions for moving on to the next stage are created. But for this you need to follow some other steps.

(2) A favorable environment should be ensured for the entire duration of the meeting. To do this, you should create the necessary amenities for a smooth meeting. There should be no strangers in the room where the conversation is taking place; Telephone calls should also be avoided. It is also useful to pay attention to such little things as room temperature, lighting, etc. You need to prepare in advance for a lengthy discussion of the conflict and serious nervous tension. It is useful to keep the content of conversations secret until the conflict is fully resolved. Only compliance with these basic conditions for the meeting will ensure the success of the main, third step of conflict resolution.

(3) Compliance with the basic rules for discussing the problem. These negotiation techniques will be discussed in detail in a later chapter. Basic rules for discussing a problem Before starting a dialogue, you should express the optimistic hope that a mutually beneficial solution will be achieved as a result, and then it is useful to remind you of the need to comply with the previously agreed conditions for the conversation: do not interrupt the discussion prematurely, refrain from playing power games, etc. After these introductory remarks, it is advisable to move on to the next point in the conversation: to formulate the essence of the problem that has arisen and invite the interlocutor to present his vision of the situation that has arisen, which will mean the beginning of the main negotiation process. In the process of its development, one should not be distracted from the problem at hand, discuss the weather, tell jokes, etc. One should not express doubts about the success of the meeting. You need to make every effort to direct the conversation to a constructive result. You can, for example, express regret about your behavior in the past, declare your readiness to make concessions on a controversial issue, express your understanding of your interlocutor’s problems, good feelings, respect for him, and the desire to find mutually acceptable solutions. By establishing such a process of exchanging gestures of reconciliation, the decisive moment of dialogue ultimately arrives, as a result of which tensions are eased, trust is strengthened and the desired breakthrough in relationships is achieved, allowing the conclusion of an agreement to resolve the conflict on mutually beneficial terms.

(4) The conclusion of an agreement is the final part of the conflict resolution process based on compromise tactics. But in order for the agreement to become strong and feasible, it must be mutually beneficial, balanced, and compromise. Moreover, the decision must be specific, define exactly who should do what and when, and not consist of general phrases about mutual respect, sincerity, etc. It is best to put the agreement reached in writing, without relying on your memory, and give a copy of it to each party to the conflict. Of course, when discussing family problems, a written agreement may not be necessary, but in an industrial conflict it is necessary.

The considered process of conducting dialogue in order to resolve the conflict based on compromise tactics is called the four-step method. It is recommended by conflictologists as the most effective way to transform conflict behavior into cooperative relationships. These are some methods of resolving conflict through withdrawal, force, unilateral and mutually beneficial concessions. Each of these tactics is implemented using specific, unique means and mechanisms.

Four groups of positive conflict management methods

Positive methods of conflict resolution are of a completely different nature. They serve not only the purposes of resolving conflict situations, but can also play a preventive role, preventing conflicts, especially destructive ones. They can be roughly divided into four groups.

(1) Recommendations of a very general nature, relating not only to conflict interaction, but also to any type of communication between people. These include such rules as constant attention to the interlocutor, the ability to listen patiently; a benevolent, friendly, respectful attitude towards him; constantly maintaining feedback with the interlocutor and responding appropriately to his behavior; some slowdown in the pace and rhythm of the conversation if it turns out that the interlocutor is overly excited; the desire to empathize with your partner, to experience the same feelings that are characteristic of the person next to you, that is, to show the ability to sympathize, empathy.

(2) A block of methods that are used in the initial, predominantly pre-verbal phase of conversations and negotiations conducted in order to resolve a conflict situation. At this phase, it is important to give the interlocutor the opportunity to speak out more fully, without trying to interrupt him, to give him the opportunity, as they say, to “let off steam”; show by facial expressions and gestures that you understand your partner’s condition; reduce the social distance that usually separates you, even touch his shoulder, smile.

(3) The main recommendations in the second, main phase of a conversation or negotiation can be reduced to the following: you need to distract or switch the interlocutor’s attention from the subject of the conflict at least for a short time, give him a short break from emotional stress, offering at least a cup of coffee, a cigarette or just tell him something pleasant: offer to sit down, but preferably not opposite each other, since such a position, as psychologists believe, does not reduce, but increases confrontation, but next to each other, at a distance of up to half a meter, at an angle to each other; Only after these preliminary behavioral actions should we begin to discuss the problem that caused the conflict. At the same time, it is useful, if necessary, to admit one’s guilt for the emergence of a confrontation; it is necessary to admit that the interlocutor was right in those points where he was right; It is important during the discussion to emphasize the commonality, and not just the differences, in the interests of the parties; It is equally important to pay attention to the best qualities of the interlocutor that the partner has and which will help him cope with his anxiety and find the optimal way out of the current situation; Of course, it is best to resolve the issue that led to disagreement immediately or try to resolve it as soon as possible, because delay, as a rule, only aggravates the situation.

(4) Recommendations of a universal nature, forming a block of special, operational techniques that can be used in complex conflict situations. They involve taking into account the weaknesses and vulnerabilities in the interlocutor’s position, as well as some of his pain points as a person. So, in some cases, you should show your interlocutor that he is too harsh, adopting an emphatically polite tone for this purpose; sometimes it is necessary to show stronger aggression towards a partner than what he showed.

You can tell your interlocutor about the negative consequences of a conflict situation that may follow for him personally; and finally, sometimes it should be shown that meeting his demands can lead to negative consequences for people whose opinions he values.

Of course, all of these tactics and techniques can be refined and improved when they are used to regulate specific conflict situations, each of which is unique. An experienced leader, gradually accumulating experience in conflict management, gradually turns it into a kind of set of rules, a code of principles.

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 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.

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. 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.

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. The cessation of conflict interaction is the first and obvious condition for the beginning of the resolution of any conflict. 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. 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. When the parties join forces to end the conflict, it is necessary to take into account statuses (position) of each other. 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. The success of ending conflicts depends on how the conflicting parties take into account the factors that influence this process. These are, for example, factors such as the availability of time to discuss a problem, clarify positions and interests, develop solutions (halving the time available to reach agreement leads to an increase in the likelihood of choosing an alternative); timeliness (the parties begin to resolve the conflict in the early stages of its development); balance of power (if the conflicting parties are approximately equal in capabilities, 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); unity of values (the presence 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, common goals, interests and relationships: 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. There are six main stages of conflict resolution:

1) analytical stage,

2) forecasting options for resolving the conflict,

3) defining criteria for conflict resolution,

4) implementation of the conflict resolution plan,

5) execution control,

6) analysis of results.

Analytical stage involves the collection and assessment of information on the following problems: 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); opponent (general information about him, his psychological characteristics; the opponent’s relationship with management; his goals, interests, position; legal and moral foundations of his demands; previous actions in the conflict, mistakes made, etc.); own position (goals, values, interests, actions in a conflict; legal and moral foundations of one’s own demands, their reasoning and evidence; mistakes made and the possibility of admitting them to an opponent, etc.).

The next step is conflict resolution prediction. Having analyzed and assessed the conflict situation at the analytical stage, opponents predict options for resolving the conflict and determine ways to resolve it that are appropriate to their interests and situation.

Then you need to move directly to implementing the conflict resolution plan. Actions to implement the planned plan are carried out in accordance with the chosen method of conflict resolution. We must make sure that we have made the right decision on how to resolve the conflict, for this we must exercise control, i.e. monitor the implementation of the conflict resolution plan.

After the conflict is over, 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 your recent opponent, minimize the negative consequences of the conflict in your own state, activity and behavior.

Thus When constructively resolving social conflicts, one must be guided, first of all, not by the sensory perception of the situation, when personal hostility prevents a proper assessment of the situation, but by an objective look at the facts, and the subsequent construction of a strategy to eliminate the conflict. It is important to try to give a positive assessment to your opponent’s actions, try to understand him and be prepared to minimize the influence of negative emotions.

Conclusions on the second section:

1. Thus, in the analysis of conflicts, we have established that the integral model of resolving social conflicts is more perfect than both forceful, divorce and compromise models. This strategy is recognized by conflictology as universal and suitable for any type of social conflict, the most effective and socially useful. The integral model is quite applicable to conflicts with completely different ratios of constructive and destructive functions.

2. Having studied the compromise model of resolving social conflicts, we can draw an important conclusion: it is necessary to be flexible in setting and changing your short-term goals, while constantly taking care of your long-term vital interests. After all, many equate adherence to principles with “stubbornness”, with the refusal to reconsider one’s position in a conflict, regardless of what caused this position. At the same time, it is overlooked that the interests of people and their groups are always more important than the goals that they set for themselves in order to achieve these interests.

3. When constructively resolving social conflicts, it is important to pay attention to reducing negative emotions.

Sciences about the general laws of control in both living and non-living formations. The idea of homeostasis (homeostasis), characteristic of living nature, was borrowed from there. The mechanisms of nature, precisely because of the presence of this idea, usually have very high reliability. Homeostasis is an adaptive property of an organism (system) - the ability to maintain certain indicators of the nature of its (her) functioning under changing (even critical (destroying some connections)) external and internal conditions. To implement it, it is necessary to have a set of channels designed so that, with appropriate reconfiguration, they can be used to perform various (initially not characteristic of them) functions, weakening, of course, the degree of provision of the main function, but not so much that it is still nominally not possible fulfill. In this connection, an opportunity arises. organize new channels to solve the required task facing the system if the previous ones are disabled for some reason. Synergetics (compatibility, complementarity, cooperation) is the science of self-organization in a system as a result of the interaction of a large number of its subsystems (as different potencies). This is another way of resolving a conflict (between the environment and the organism (system)), associated in this case with the vulnerability of the channels of functioning, resolved on the basis of constructive redundancy and functional versatility of elements (in the case of optimization, associated with the peculiarities of the functioning of the object, resolved on the basis of mutual concessions ).

In the computer center of one of the enterprises, seven managers were replaced in three years. Every time a new boss was appointed, he was introduced to the team unambiguously. Here, comrades, is your new leader. You won't find anything better. When this position was taken by the seventh manager, who invited those with whom he had worked previously to key positions, the team did not accept the newcomers. The adaptation process was delayed due to hidden conflict relations, since strong dissatisfaction arose in the team with strangers, Varangians, and outsiders who wanted to overcome the difficulties of the team straight away. Under these conditions, the team began to resist the new head of the CC. It turned out to be so strong that it almost completely blocked the feedback from the head of the computer center to the team. The ensemble of like-minded people became a hindrance in establishing these feedback connections, since it provoked a conflict situation with its rash decisions that did not take into account the collective opinion. A consultant helped cut the Gordian knot of conflict relations by proposing his program of action to the manager. A general meeting of the team was convened, at which the new head of the CC directly addressed the employees, without singling out either our own or others. What is stopping us from establishing friendly work and what can help? The answers to these questions were set out in writing. The head of the CC had the opportunity to clarify feedback with the team in order to make fair decisions. At the same time, he saw how the team treated him personally. Such feedback helped him self-critically evaluate his self-image, change his ideas about the correctness of his past decisions, reconsider the ways of making them, and adjust his leadership style. This made it easier for him to adapt to the team, but he was never able to completely overcome problematic difficulties in the relationship between those whom he invited to work and those who worked in the team, although he took a firm managerial position in resolving the conflict without succumbing to the pressure of his own.

A prerequisite for the proposed test is, first of all, a person’s willingness to understand for himself which of the five styles of conflict behavior is used by him most often or least often when resolving conflicts, which method he considers the most suitable and convenient, allowing him to feel quite comfortable. Undoubtedly, sincere and prompt responses that express a direct and intuitive reaction to the intended questions are important. You are also required to immediately, without hesitation or hesitation, record your assessment in the appropriate column of the table. Only if these conditions are met can one expect to obtain a general objective picture of how a given person relates to different methods of conflict resolution, and which of them are currently preferable for him.

The ideal strategy is to finally resolve the conflict, the essence of which is to find and eliminate its causes within the framework of voluntary cooperation of the parties and end the confrontation. The conditions for this are a timely and accurate diagnosis of the problem, taking into account the interests of all parties, the presence of a common goal. Such a strategy is beneficial to everyone. Firstly, it turns opponents into partners, and therefore improves the situation within the organization. Secondly, the problem is not driven deeper, but ceases to exist altogether. Third, the benefits gained by the parties, even if they are distributed unevenly, still exceed those that could be obtained with any other strategy.

F. Taylor and M. Weber saw destructive properties in conflicts and in their teachings they proposed measures to completely eliminate conflicts from the life of an organization. However, we know that this has not been achieved in practice. Behavioral and then modern schools of management have established that in most organizations, conflicts can also have constructive beginnings. Much depends on how the conflict is managed. Destructive consequences occur when the conflict is either very small or very strong. When the conflict is small, it most often goes unnoticed and thus does not find its adequate resolution. The differences seem very small to motivate participants to make the necessary changes. However, they remain and cannot but influence the effectiveness of overall work. A conflict that has reached a strong state is usually accompanied by the development of stress among its participants. This in turn leads to decreased morale and cohesion. Tax codes, laws on the procedure for resolving collective labor conflicts at enterprises, on subsoil, on flora and fauna, on the continental shelf and its use, on maritime economic zones, etc.) are being destroyed. Laws that are not directly related to economics also contain rules of an economic nature (for example, liability in criminal law for theft or damage to property). Laws, with rare exceptions, are of a general regulatory nature, but private laws are also published (for example, the Federal Law of January 2, 2000 On subsoil plots, the right to use which can be granted on the terms of production sharing at the Vankor gas and oil field (in the Krasnoyarsk