Many conflicts can be resolved even at the stage of their objective occurrence through constant and in-depth analysis of the entire system of connections of people in a given group or team, forecasting the conflict-generating impact of all changes made, and careful consideration by the interested parties of their steps and words.

If you find yourself in a conflict, it is better to follow the path of constructive resolution. Conditions for constructive conflict resolution include:

• 1) termination of conflict interaction;
• 2) searching for common ground in the interests of opponents;
• 3) reducing the intensity of negative emotions;
• 4) identifying and admitting one’s own mistakes;
• 5) objective discussion of the problem;
• 6) taking into account each other’s statuses (positions);
• 7) selection of the optimal resolution strategy.

Rice. 20.

To analyze and search for ways out of a conflict situation, we can apply the following algorithm (Fig. 20).

• 1. Assess 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  • – the object of the conflict (material, social or ideal; divisible or indivisible; can it be withdrawn or replaced; what is its accessibility for each of the parties);
  • – opponent (general data about him, his psychological characteristics; goals, interests, position; legal and moral foundations of his demands; previous actions in the conflict, mistakes made; in what ways interests coincide and in what ways they do not, 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 reasons and immediate cause that led to 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.).
• 2. Forecast of conflict resolution options:
  • – the most favorable development of events;
  • – the least favorable development of events;
  • – the most realistic development of events;
  • – an option for resolving a contradiction when active actions in a conflict cease.
• 3. Measures to implement the planned plan are carried out in accordance with the chosen method of resolving the conflict. If necessary, it is done correction of a previously planned plan(return to the discussion; putting forward alternatives and new arguments; appealing to third parties; discussing additional concessions).
• 4. Monitoring the effectiveness of one’s own actions involves critically answering the following questions to oneself:
  • – why am I doing this;
  • – what I want to achieve;
  • – which makes it difficult to implement the planned plan;
  • – are my actions fair?
  • – what actions need to be taken to eliminate obstacles to conflict resolution?
• 5. After the conflict is over, it is advisable to:
  • – analyze the mistakes of your own behavior;
  • – summarize the acquired knowledge and experience in solving the problem;
  • – try to normalize relations with a recent opponent;
  • – relieve discomfort (if it arises) in relationships with others;
  • – minimize the negative consequences of the conflict in one’s own state, activity and behavior.

The choice of conflict resolution strategy is of great importance. The most effective are compromise and cooperation.

Compromise consists in the desire of opponents to end the conflict with partial concessions. It is characterized by the renunciation of some of the previously put forward demands, the willingness to recognize the claims of the other party as partially justified and to forgive. Compromise is effective in the following cases:

• – the opponent’s understanding that he and the opponent have equal opportunities;
• – presence of mutually exclusive interests;
• – satisfaction with the temporary solution;
• – threats to lose everything.

Today, compromise is the most commonly used strategy for ending conflicts. To achieve this, it can be recommended open conversation technique, which is as follows:

• – declare that the conflict is unprofitable for both parties to the conflict;
• - propose to end the conflict;
• – admit your mistakes that have already been made in the conflict (they probably exist, and admitting them costs you almost nothing);
• – make concessions to your opponent, where possible, on what is not the main thing for you in the conflict. In any conflict you can find a few little things in which it is not worth giving up. You can give in on serious, but not fundamental things;
• – express wishes about concessions required on the part of the opponent (they, as a rule, relate to your main interests in the conflict);
• – calmly, without negative emotions, discuss mutual concessions, and, if necessary, adjust them;
• – if we managed to reach an agreement, then somehow record that the conflict has been resolved.

Cooperation is considered 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. It is 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. It is advisable to carry out the method of cooperation according to the method "principled negotiations". It boils down to this:

• – separating people from the problem: separate the relationship with your opponent from the problem; put yourself in his place; do not act on your fears; show your willingness to deal with the problem; be firm on the problem and soft on the people;
• – attention to interests, not positions: ask "why?" and "why not?"; record basic interests and many of them; look for common interests; explain the vitality and importance of your interests; recognize your opponent's interests as part of the problem;
• – offering mutually beneficial options: Don't look for a single answer to a problem; separate the search for options from their evaluation; expand the range of options for solving the problem; seek mutual benefit; find out what the other side prefers;
• – use of objective criteria: be open to the other side's arguments; do not give in to pressure, but only to principle; For each part of the problem, use objective and fair criteria.

conclusions

• 1. Interaction – interaction of people in the process of communication, organization of joint activities.
• 2. Conflict can be considered as a special form of interaction and is defined as the presence of opposing tendencies among the subjects of interaction, manifested in their actions.
• 3. The psychological structure of a conflict can be described using two important concepts: a conflict situation and an incident. A conflict situation is the objective basis of a conflict, which records the emergence of a real contradiction in the interests and needs of the parties. An incident is a situation of interaction that allows its participants to realize the presence of an objective contradiction in their interests and goals.
• 4. All conflicts associated with the process of teaching and upbringing are pedagogical. They can be considered in the positive sense of the normativity of this phenomenon, which not only creates problems, but is also a source of development of the educational process itself.
• 5. The choice of conflict resolution strategy is of great importance. The most effective are compromise and cooperation. A compromise consists in the desire of opponents to end the conflict with partial concessions. Cooperation is considered 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.

Conflict resolution factors

The following factors play an important role in constructive conflict resolution:

Adequacy of conflict reflection;

Openness and efficiency of communication between conflicting parties;

Creating a climate of mutual trust and cooperation;

Determining the essence of the conflict.

Adequate perception of conflict

Very often, in a situation of conflict, we incorrectly perceive our own actions, intentions and positions, as well as the actions, intentions and points of view of our opponent. Typical perceptual distortions include:

1. “Illusions of one’s own nobility.” In a conflict situation, we often believe that we are the victim of attacks from an evil enemy whose moral principles are very questionable. It seems to us that truth and justice are entirely on our side and testify in our favor. In most conflicts, each of the opponents is confident in his rightness and desire for a fair resolution of the conflict, convinced that only the enemy does not want this. As a result, suspicion often stems naturally from existing prejudice.

2. “Looking for the straw in another’s eye.” Each of the opponents sees the shortcomings and errors of the other, but is not aware of the same shortcomings in himself. As a rule, each of the conflicting parties tends not to notice the meaning of their own actions in relation to the opponent, but reacts with indignation to his actions.

3. “Double ethics.” Even when opponents realize that they are performing the same actions in relation to each other, each of them still perceives their own actions as acceptable and legal, and the opponent’s actions as dishonest and impermissible.

4. “Everything is clear.” Very often, each partner oversimplifies the conflict situation, and in such a way that it confirms the general idea that his strengths are good and correct, and his partner’s actions, on the contrary, are bad and inadequate.

These and similar misconceptions, inherent in each of us in a conflict situation, as a rule, aggravate the conflict and prevent a constructive way out of the problem situation. If the perceptual distortion in conflict is excessive, there is a real danger of becoming trapped by one's own bias. As a result, this can lead to the so-called self-confirming assumption: assuming that the partner is extremely hostile, you begin to defend against him, going on the offensive. Seeing this, the partner experiences hostility towards us, and our preliminary assumption, although it was incorrect, is immediately confirmed. Knowing about such ideas in a conflict situation, try to more carefully analyze your feelings in specific cases.

Open and effective communication between conflicting parties

Communication is the main condition for constructive conflict resolution. However, unfortunately, in a conflict situation, communication usually deteriorates. Opponents mainly try to hurt each other, while they themselves take a defensive position, hiding any information about themselves. Meanwhile, communication can only help resolve the conflict when both parties are looking for a way to achieve mutual understanding. One of the methods of political struggle is to isolate the opponent.

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

100 RUR bonus for first order

Select the type of work Diploma work Course work Abstract Master's thesis Practice report Article Report Review Test work Monograph Problem solving Business plan Answers to questions Creative work Essay Drawing Essays Translation Presentations Typing Other Increasing the uniqueness of the text Master's thesis Laboratory work On-line help

Find out the price

Any social conflict has a rather complex internal structure. It is advisable to analyze the content and characteristics of the course of a social conflict in three main stages: the pre-conflict stage, the conflict itself and the conflict resolution stage.

1. Pre-conflict stage. No social conflict arises instantly. Emotional stress, irritation and anger usually accumulate over some time, so the Pre-conflict stage sometimes drags on so much that the root cause of the conflict is forgotten. The pre-conflict stage is the period during which the conflicting parties evaluate their resources before deciding to take aggressive actions or retreat. Such resources include material assets with which you can influence an opponent, information, power, connections, prestige, etc. At the same time, there is a consolidation of the forces of the warring parties, a search for supporters and the formation of groups participating in the conflict. Initially, each of the conflicting parties is looking for ways to achieve goals, avoid frustration without influencing the opponent. When all attempts to achieve the desired result are in vain, the individual or social group determines the object that interferes with the achievement of goals, the degree of its “guilt,” the strength and possibilities of counteraction. This moment in the pre-conflict stage is called identification. In other words, it is a search for those who interfere with the satisfaction of needs and against whom aggressive social action should be taken. The pre-conflict stage is also characterized by the formation of a strategy or even several strategies by each of the conflicting parties.

2 . The conflict itself. This stage is characterized, first of all, by the presence of an incident, i.e. social actions aimed at changing the behavior of rivals. This is an active, active part of the conflict. Thus, the entire conflict consists of a conflict situation that forms at the pre-conflict stage and an incident. The actions that constitute an incident can vary. But it is important for us to divide them into two groups, each of which is based on specific human behavior. The first group includes the actions of rivals in a conflict that are open in nature. This could be verbal debate, economic sanctions, physical pressure, political struggle, sports competition, etc. Such actions, as a rule, are easily identified as conflicting, aggressive, hostile. Since an open “exchange of blows” is clearly visible from the outside during the conflict, sympathizers and simply observers can be drawn into it. Observing the most common street incident, you can see that those around you rarely remain indifferent: they are indignant, sympathize with one side and can easily be drawn into active actions. Thus, active overt actions usually expand the scope of the conflict, they are clear and predictable.

3 . Conflict resolution. An external sign of conflict resolution can be the end of the incident. It is completion, not temporary cessation. This means that conflictual interaction between the conflicting parties ceases. Elimination, termination of the incident is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for resolving the conflict. Often, having stopped active conflict interaction, people continue to experience a frustrating state and look for its cause. And then the conflict that had died out flares up again. Resolution of the social conflict is possible only when the conflict situation changes. This change can take many forms. But the most effective change in a conflict situation, allowing to extinguish the conflict, is considered to be the elimination of the cause of the conflict. Indeed, in a rational conflict, eliminating the cause inevitably leads to its resolution. However, in cases of high emotional tension, eliminating the cause of the conflict usually does not affect the actions of its participants in any way, or it does, but very weakly. Therefore, for an emotional conflict, the most important moment in changing the conflict situation should be considered a change in the opponents’ attitudes towards each other. An emotional conflict is completely resolved only when the opponents stop seeing each other as an enemy. It is also possible to resolve a social conflict by changing the demands of one of the parties: the opponent makes concessions and changes the goals of his behavior in the conflict. For example, seeing the futility of the struggle, one of the rivals yields to the other, or both make concessions at the same time. Social conflict can also be resolved as a result of the depletion of the resources of the parties or the intervention of a third force that creates an overwhelming advantage for one of the parties, and, finally, as a result of the complete elimination of the rival. In all these cases, a change in the conflict situation certainly occurs.

Conditions for successful conflict resolution

In modern conflictology, the following conditions for conflict resolution are formulated.

1) Timely and accurate diagnosis of the causes of the conflict. This involves identifying objective contradictions, interests, goals and delineating the “business zone” of a conflict situation. A model for exiting a conflict situation is created.

2) Mutual interest in overcoming contradictions based on mutual recognition of the interests of each party.

3) Joint search for a compromise, i.e. ways to overcome the conflict. Constructive dialogue between the warring parties is of decisive importance.

The post-conflict stage involves the elimination of contradictions of conflicting interests, goals, attitudes, and the elimination of socio-psychological tension in society. Post-conflict syndrome, when relations worsen, may be the beginning of repeated conflicts at a different level with other participants.

Modern conflictology in democratic countries identifies the main priorities for conflict resolution. A feature of a democratic society is the recognition of the admissibility of conflicts and the multiplicity of divergent interests.

In R. Dahrendorf's conflict theory, successful conflict management requires the presence of value prerequisites, the level of organization of the parties, and equality of opportunity for both parties to the conflict.

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.

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 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.

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. 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.