The style of conflict behavior is called. Styles of conflict behavior

The whole variety of reactions and behaviors can be divided into 5 general groups.

The main styles of behavior in any conflict situation are associated with the common source of any conflict - the discrepancy between the views and interests of the two opposing sides. Accordingly, the style of behavior of a TO employee in each specific case will be determined by how much he wants to satisfy his interests, as well as by whether he is ready to infringe (or take into account) the interests of the other side.

The combination of these two indicators gives 4 main styles of response in conflict and 1 auxiliary.

Fig.1 Styles of behavior in a conflict situation.

If the employee's reaction is passive, then he will try to get out of the conflict situation, if active, he will take actions to resolve it. In the same way, he can seek a solution or avoid it, either acting alone or involving the opposite side.

Competition or Rivalry .

This style involves strict adherence to one's own interests without taking into account the interests of the opposing side. Rather, they are taken into account, but only as a weapon that can be used to achieve the goal. A person who chooses this style seeks to prove that he is right, regardless of whether this is so or not. To achieve the goal, he uses his strong-willed qualities, trying to suppress the will of his counterpart. Direct orders, shouts and aggressive behavior fit perfectly into this model. All means are good if they help to achieve what you want. The main thing is to achieve a result, but how it will be done and who will suffer in the process is not important.

This style is effective if a person has real power or if his personal and business qualities are superior to those of his opponent. It can also be used when a person knows for sure that his decision or approach is the most correct in a given situation, and he can show and prove it. The style is also applicable when decision-making time is limited and a person is able and ready to take responsibility. Finally, in a situation where a person has nothing to lose and no other choice but to defend his case by any means, this approach is also applicable.

Evasion or avoidance.

This style is opposite to the previous one in that here the person is already in the position of the “oppressed” side, when he does not try to defend his position, but simply “washes his hands”, avoiding the decision, and someone else takes it for him. Self-elimination from the situation can be expressed both in physical and psychological care (silence, reading papers, behavior like “What, is something going on?”).

But, in this, just as in the previous style, the main character does not enter into a real dialogue with the opposite side. This means that a genuine solution to the situation is impossible, since there is always a losing side. This means that a new conflict is “not far off”.

Avoidance, as a style of behavior in a conflict situation, can also be resorted to by customs officers. Preferring not to fan the fire, a person often psychologically withdraws from the situation. Yes, the conflict does not flare up at the same time, but it does not go out either, but continues to slowly smolder, fueled by mutual dissatisfaction on both sides. And, sometimes, one small spark is enough for it to flare up with renewed vigor.

But, nevertheless, there are situations in which such a style of behavior is justified. So, it can be used when the tension is too great, and it is clearly necessary to reduce the intensity of passions. When the outcome of the conflict is not very important for you, unlike the opposite side, then you can also leave the decision to her. This should be done when there is no physical or moral strength to engage in polemics, and it is clear that there is no way to defend one's opinion.

If a person is not ready to defend his position right now, and he needs time to “maneuver”, avoidance can also be applied. It should also be used in a situation where your position is obviously weaker than the position of the opposite side, endowed with greater power or authority. Finally, if further discussion only "raises" new grounds for aggravating the conflict, the style of avoidance should also be applied.

Adaptation.

This style implies that the employee, as in the previous one, does not defend his interests, but, unlike him, tries to find a common language with his opponent, adjusting to him. Here the employee no longer leaves the situation leaving the “rival” alone on the “battlefield”, but continues to act together with him, but only according to his rules.

The style, like the previous one, is applicable when you are not particularly “touched” by what happened, but for another it is much more important. Use it if it is much more important for you to maintain a relationship than to defend your position. When you feel that you have little chance of winning, and the decision of the opposite side is not so bad, you can also accept it. Finally, this style will help you give a useful lesson to your counterpart if you allow him to make a wrong decision and later understand his mistake.

Cooperation.

The most productive style of resolving any conflict, because it implies that both sides take an equally active part in the search for a solution, taking into account mutual interests. It is most effective when each side has its own special latent needs. For example, if there are 2 applicants for a higher position, then for one of them the possibility of increasing income may be more important, and for the other, prestige and authority are more important. Accordingly, solutions can be found when both parties get what they want without prejudice to the interests of the other side.

To successfully apply this style, some time must be spent searching for such hidden needs and developing a solution that satisfies all parties involved in the conflict. To do this, you must at least have the desire and ability to do it.

Accordingly, this style is applicable in situations where the decision is very important for both parties, and no one is ready to move away from it. If both parties are ready, able and willing to disclose their interests and present their respective arguments, as well as listen to the other side. If you have a close, trusting and interdependent relationship that is important to both parties. This style is also good when there is no ready-made solution, but there is a desire and good will to find it in a joint discussion.

Compromise.

This style is similar to cooperation, but differs from it in that the interests of both parties are not fully satisfied here, but only partially, through mutual concessions. There is no need to find out the deep motives and hidden interests of both sides, but you just need to come to some kind of reasonable decision, when one side cedes some of its interests in favor of the other, but at the same time retains more significant positions for it.

This style is best used when you do not have the time or desire to delve into the essence of the conflict, and the situation allows you to work out a quick and mutually beneficial solution. And also, if you are quite satisfied with this solution, as some intermediate, temporary option. In the opposite situation, when protracted conversations did not lead to anything, a compromise should also be made. Again, use it if the preservation of your relationship is more important than the complete satisfaction of your desires, and in addition, there is a threat of not getting even part of what you want, losing everything.

Conflict (lat. conflictus - collision) - a collision of oppositely directed goals, interests, positions, opinions, views. Any conflict is based on a situation that includes either conflicting positions of the parties on any issue, or opposite goals or means of achieving them in given circumstances, or a mismatch of interests and desires of opponents. Those. the conflict situation contains the subjects of a possible conflict and its object. However, in order for the conflict to develop, an incident is necessary when one of the parties begins to act, infringing on the interests of the other side. If the other side responds in kind, the conflict moves from potential to actual.
There are several types of conflict:
- by the number of participants
a) intrapersonal. It is generated by the subject's multidirectional aspirations (want and need; feeling and duty, etc.);
b) interpersonal. It occurs between two or more individuals when one of the opponents resorts to morally condemned methods of struggle, seeks to suppress a partner, discrediting or humiliating him in the eyes of others. Usually this causes resistance, interpersonal relationships are either violated, or they pass the “test” for strength;
c) personal-group. It arises in case of inconsistency of the individual's behavior with group norms and expectations;
d) intergroup. In this case, there may be a clash of stereotypes of behavior, norms, goals, values ​​of different groups;
- by content
a) constructive. In such a conflict, opponents do not go beyond business arguments and relationships, interpersonal relationships do not suffer in it, the problem is solved;
b) destructive. It leads to a break in interpersonal relations, the problem may not be solved, cultural methods of struggle are not always used;
- by the nature of the awareness of contradictions, problems
a) genuine - the problem really exists, it is recognized and has no simple solution;
b) false. There are no objective grounds for the conflict, it exists only as a result of an incorrect assessment of the situation;
c) hidden - it should happen, but it does not exist, because the real problem is not recognized by the participants;
d) displaced - there is a problem, it is recognized, but it only masks the actual situation. Behind the obvious problem lies another, more serious and deep one.
Whatever the conflict may be, there are five possible styles of behavior in a conflict situation. The style of behavior is determined by how much the parties strive to defend their own interests and how much they take into account the interests of the other side.
Graphically, this can be represented as follows:

Thus, the style of behavior in a particular conflict is determined by the extent to which you want to satisfy your own interests (acting passively or actively) and the interests of the other party (acting jointly or individually). Each style of behavior in certain conditions is justified and useful.
Let's consider each of them in detail.
1. Evasion. This style of behavior can be used when the problem is not so important to you, when you do not want to spend energy on solving it, or when you feel that you are wrong, you realize that the other person is right. All this is a good reason not to defend your own position. Although
some may consider the avoidance style to be an escape from problems and responsibilities, in fact, avoiding or postponing can be quite a constructive response to a conflict situation: after all, the conflict may resolve itself or it will be possible to deal with it when we are more ready for it. If the conflict is not resolved with this style of behavior, the problem is driven inside and it will be more difficult and more problematic to resolve it later.
2. Fixture. This style means that you act together with another person, sacrificing your interests in favor of another, yielding to him, pitying him, obeying him. Moreover, you participate in the situation and agree to do what the other wants - to follow his path to solving the problem. This style of behavior is acceptable when we understand that it is better to maintain good relations with someone than to defend our interests; when we realize that the truth is not on our side; when we have little interest in the result; when we realize that the result is much more important for another person than for us; when the conflicter has power and much in our life depends on him.
3. Compromise. With this style of behavior, you converge on the partial satisfaction of your desire and the partial fulfillment of the desire of another person. This style is most effective when you and your opponent want the same thing, but at the same time it's impossible for you. As a result of a successful compromise, a person can express his agreement with the words: “I can deal with this.” If other solutions to get out of the problem turned out to be ineffective, if you can be satisfied with a temporary solution, if you can somewhat change the goal set at the beginning - choose this style of behavior. Compromise allows you to save the relationship, you get at least something than nothing at all.
4. Competition. A person who chooses this style of behavior is not very interested in cooperation with other people and is capable of volitional decisions. This style can be effective when you have the power to insist on your solution and your approach to a given problem. However, this is probably not the style you want to use in a personal relationship, as it alienates, repels people. This style is acceptable if you have enough power or authority, if you feel that you have no other choice and nothing to lose, if you have to make an unpopular decision and have enough authority to choose this step. A feature of interpersonal relations when choosing this position is dominance and hostility.
5. Cooperation. This style encourages each participant to openly discuss their needs and concerns. Once both parties understand what the cause of the conflict is, then they have the opportunity to jointly look for new alternatives or work out acceptable compromises. If you have time and solving the problem is important enough for you, then this good way seeking a mutually beneficial result and meeting the interests of both parties. However, this requires some effort. The parties should be able to explain their desires, express their needs, listen to each other and then work out options for solving the problem. The absence of one of the elements makes this approach ineffective. Collaboration among other styles is the most difficult, but it allows you to work out the most satisfying solution for both parties in difficult and important conflict situations.

The vast majority of people do not seek conflicts and try to either avoid them or resolve them peacefully, generally preferring non-conflict behavior. However, for effective influence and behavior in conflict situations, it is useful to know the principles and rules applicable to resolving a wide range of conflicts. Summarizing various sources, we can identify the main styles of conflict behavior. In general, the choice of behavior style in conflicts is primarily influenced by the following four factors.

There is a direct relationship between the main strategies for dealing with conflicts and styles of conflict behavior, in which stable, typical features of the behavior of participants in the conflict are manifested. There are quite a variety of classifications of such styles. Summarizing various sources, we can identify the main styles of conflict behavior.

1. Power style (style of struggle or rivalry). The essence of this style is the desire to impose one's will and resolve the conflict with the help of force (power, administrative sanctions, economic pressure, etc.), regardless of the interests of the opponent. This style is usually used when:

• there is a clear advantage in strength, resources of influence and confidence in victory;
• achieving the goal is of high importance;
• compromises are difficult due to the specifics of the object: it cannot be divided (for example, the position of the president of the company).

Despite the apparent effectiveness of using the power style, it has significant drawbacks. After all, the power style, as a rule, does not eliminate the source of the conflict, but only forces the weaker one to temporarily submit. After some time, especially when the balance of power changes, the conflict may resume. In addition, submission imposed by force is often external, formal. The vanquished can offer hidden resistance, accumulate strength and wait for the right moment. The winner often relaxes, loses readiness to fight, loses resources of influence.

The power style is often used by leaders in relation to subordinates, because by their status they have power and superiority in resources of influence. In such cases, the weaknesses of the power style, noted above, usually appear, and in addition, it can cause frustration in subordinates, discourage them from any desire to show initiative and activity.

2. Avoidance of conflict, avoidance of conflict situations or exit from the conflict. Conflict avoidance is considered preferable if:

• there is a lack of own resources necessary for conflict actions, and the superiority of the enemy;
• the significance of the problem is low and it is not worth wasting time and resources on confrontation;
• it is advisable to delay the time in order to gather strength and wait for a convenient situation, the right moment.

Often all three of these circumstances occur at the same time. However, even if they are present, it is not always possible to avoid conflict; very often one has to choose a style of behavior associated with unilateral concessions.

3. Adaptation (to the interests and requirements of the opponent). This style of conflict behavior implies the need to sacrifice one's interests in favor of the opponent, fulfill his requirements and abandon one's own goals. Consistent use of this style leads to the victory of one side. Adaptation style often has to be used by subordinates in conflicts with superiors, as well as lower-level managers in relation to senior managers. Accommodation is usually a forced style of conflict behavior. If it is accompanied by the realization of one's own wrongness in the dispute, then it does not have negative organizational consequences. If the adaptation is regarded as forced and internal disagreement with the winner remains, then it has approximately the same consequences for the losing side. Negative consequences, as in the power style. The difference lies only in the preservation of resources that are spent on fighting with the power style.

4. Compromise. The essence of this style of conflict behavior is partial (to a certain extent) concessions to the opponent in anticipation of similar actions on his part in the hope of avoiding an aggravation of the conflict, which is fraught with greater losses than individual concessions. Compromise is one of the most common styles of conflict behavior. Often a compromise makes it possible to quickly and relatively easily extinguish the conflict or prevent it. Compromise as a way to resolve conflicts has the following disadvantages:

• it can, especially at an early stage, block the clarification of the source of the conflict, prevent a deep analysis of the essence of the problem and the search for optimal ways to resolve it;
• it preserves relations of confrontation and mutual dissatisfaction, since it means forced concessions, unpleasant for each side. Because of this, opponents may retain a negative attitude towards each other, as well as the feeling that they lost or were deceived. If vital goals or values ​​were sacrificed in the compromise, then discontent can grow and eventually lead to the renewal and aggravation of the conflict.

5. Cooperation. This style of conflict behavior involves a joint solution to the problem, acceptable to all parties to the conflict. Cooperation means careful acquaintance with the position of the opposite side, clarification of the causes of the conflict, refusal to achieve one's own goals at the expense of the opponent's interests, search for mutually acceptable ways and solutions and their joint implementation. Collaboration is most correlated with an idealistic strategy for dealing with conflict. It is quite widespread in the practice of leadership.

6. Maintaining the status quo (peaceful coexistence). The essence of this style lies in the joint maintenance, conservation of the positions occupied in order to prevent the escalation of the conflict, which is unfavorable for both sides. The resolution of the dispute is postponed indefinitely. This style is used if the contradictions between the parties are deep enough, but allow for their relatively normal coexistence. At the same time, each of the participants is not sure of his victory and fears a destructive confrontation, and even defeat. In an organization, the style of peaceful coexistence is usually implemented in the form of an informal agreement, on the basis of which areas of action are divided or extreme forms of competition are not allowed, and often joint actions are envisaged in relation to a third party that encroaches on the existing order.

7. Formation of indifference. This style occupies, as it were, an intermediate position between cooperation and peaceful coexistence. Its essence is to jointly neutralize the emotional tension that has arisen around a controversial issue, and to work to clarify the limited significance of this issue for the participants in the conflict. After this kind of conflict-reducing action, under the influence of changing circumstances, many problems are gradually removed by themselves.

Behavior choice

According to a number of empirical studies, the search for compromises, as well as the avoidance of direct collisions, prevail in practice. In general, the choice of style of behavior in conflicts is primarily influenced by the following four factors:

1. the size of the bet that can be won or lost as a result of the conflict. If it is possible to get a big win or with minimal damage in case of failure, they more often choose a power style, wrestling;
2. resources that determine the possibility of rivalry and the probability of victory;
3. the presence of mutual, intersecting interests of the parties to the conflict. If there is a common interest in cooperation in non-conflict areas, the choice falls, as a rule, on “soft” styles of conflict behavior, and vice versa, in case of inconsistency of interests not directly involved in this conflict, tougher methods of struggle are used;
4. culture, traditions: a complex of relations between both the participants in the conflict and their environment.

Taking into account the effect of these factors, the orientation towards the forceful achievement of one's own goals and ignoring the interests of the opponent is formed approximately as follows. First, the size of the bet and the possible damage in case of defeat are determined. Then the line of behavior is adjusted taking into account one's own resources and the strength of opponents (the probability of victory is predicted). Further, the whole complex of interests in relation to the opponent is specified. The presence of coinciding interests encourages cooperation, their polar orientation enhances the desire for rivalry. The nature of the existing relations and the norms of behavior accepted in a given social environment either lead to cooperation or push to struggle.

Conflictological typology of employees

The vast majority of people do not seek conflicts and try to either avoid them or resolve them peacefully, generally preferring non-conflict behavior. According to various estimates, people who systematically initiate conflicts make up approximately 6-10% of all employees. The rest, i.e. the vast majority tend to avoid conflicts.

The causative agents, initiators of conflicts are heterogeneous in their personal qualities. Typically, an employee with a clearly conflicting aspiration is distinguished by the fact that:

• does not think about others, does not understand their needs and interests, cares only about satisfying their own needs;
• acts through;
• often manipulates facts;
• looking for weakness in the opponent's position;
• believes that retreat leads to loss of face;
• uses 'gagging' tactics;
• considers himself an expert;
• disguises his intentions (voice, mannerisms);
• believes that the gain in arguments is very important;
• refuses to discuss if it does not go in his favor.

The object of attacks of people striving for rivalry are often those who prefer to give in, to get away from conflict situations. These personality types:

• as a rule, lose in situations of struggle and disputes;
• express their point of view in an apologetic tone;
• believe that they will lose if they express disagreement with the opponent;
• worry when others do not understand their arguments;
• avoid talking about their disagreement in the eye;
• perceive differences of opinion very emotionally;
• believe that in conflict situations one should not “stick out”;
• are often tempted to yield to an opponent;
• believe that it is difficult for other people to survive a conflict situation;
• never act thoughtlessly, rashly.

Conflict initiators

A detailed enough figurative classification of various active and passive initiators of conflicts is given by the English conflictologist Richard Bramson. He divides such people into the following five types: aggressive, "complainers", "indecisive", "anxious personalities", "know-it-alls".

1. Aggressive. They, in turn, are divided into three types: "tanks", "snipers" and "explosives":

• "Tanks" are the most pronounced type of aggressive personalities. They are characterized by self-confidence, a loud voice, inattention to others. They are absolutely confident in their competence and in the excellent knowledge of the interests and opinions of colleagues. "Tanks" especially do not like aggressive reactions from those with whom they communicate. Tanks are difficult, but you can get along. To do this, you need to look them straight in the eyes, call them by their first and last names, and when expressing disagreement, use such expressions as “in my opinion”, “in my opinion”, etc. more often. In order to achieve any success in a dispute with them, it is necessary to give them the opportunity to “let off steam”.
• "Snipers" operate differently, mostly on the sly. They are sarcastic, let go of all sorts of taunts and witticisms against people, and thereby sow mistrust among the members of the group, disorganize collective actions. The most effective weapon against "snipers" is a direct attack. In order to neutralize the "sniper", it is necessary to demand from him to explain in detail the remark or joke, and then by all means ask him to give a constructive proposal. Usually after that the "sniper" calms down and behaves more modestly. Putting the "snipers" in their place, it is important to avoid direct insults, to give them the opportunity to save their face. Otherwise, they explode or hide "with a stone in their bosom" until the opportunity.
• "Explosives" - people who are able to suddenly fill the room with screams, fall on opponents with abuse. They often lose their temper so artistically that they give the impression that they were really offended or that someone is “digging” under them. To neutralize the conflict potential of such people is quite simple: they must be allowed to throw out their accumulated emotions. In this case, after a while (five to ten minutes), they sharply soften, or even begin to apologize.

2. "Complainers" are typical provocateurs of conflicts. In anything, they tend to see personal insults and complain about this to all instances. Usually they describe their “troubles” so colorfully that listeners who do not know them often form an opinion in their favor. “Complainers” want to be given a lot of attention, to listen to them in a calm atmosphere and by all means while sitting. You can't agree with them or prove them wrong. It is better to ask them to summarize everything in their own words or in writing and make it clear that their experiences are noticed.

3. The "indecisive" ones themselves do not directly generate conflict, but create favorable ground for it and provoke others to conflict actions. There are two types of “indecisive”: “analysts” are reinsurers who are afraid to make the slightest mistake, and “good people” are people who never oppose for fear of making enemies. With their indecision, they irritate others, therefore, because of them, the labor rhythm is often disturbed. Being too circumspect, such workers are diligent. As a rule, they shun those who put pressure on them. Employees of this type need to clearly set the task, determine the deadline for its implementation, and also, especially the "good-natured people", indicate their obligations to suppress or prevent various kinds of unrest and organizational violations.

4. "Anxious personalities" ("irresponsible") - suspicious and suspicious people. They have a reactive, reciprocal, in their opinion, aggressiveness. Anxiety gives rise to them not avoiding the conflict, but aggression. Best of all, such people are affected by a friendly disposition towards them. You don't have to waste time talking to them. If they feel a warm attitude towards themselves, then their behavior will gradually normalize.

5. "Know-it-alls" ("erudite") - employees who are trying to give others the impression that they know everything, and at the same time they constantly climb into other people's business. They are divided into genuine and "fake" erudite. The judgments of the former in most cases are professionally justified, while the latter try to prove their professionalism only in words. "False" scholars are easy to put in their place, showing their unreasonable pretentiousness and professional failure. Genuine erudite people are valuable workers, but by their defiant behavior they often give rise to irritation and feelings of inferiority in those around them. If they bury themselves too much, then they can be stopped, "sobered up" with specific questions, a request to express their own constructive proposals. It should be borne in mind that "erudite" rarely admit their mistakes.

Dealing with each of the considered types of conflict initiators requires the manager to be able to accurately determine the type of employee and use the appropriate tactics of influence. Although actions to deal with conflicts depend to a large extent both on the types of conflicts and on specific situations in general, it is nevertheless useful for effective management to know the principles and rules that apply to resolving a wide range of conflicts.

Vasily Pavlovich Pygachev, Doctor of Philosophical Sciences, Professor, Head of the Department of Human Resource Management of the Faculty government controlled Moscow State University Lomonosov

• Corporate culture

Keywords:

1 -1

In 1964, American researchers Robert R. Blaket Jane S. Mouton drew attention to the relatively stable behavior of leaders and identified five main and three additional management styles, depending on the orientation of the leader or on achieving high results, caring for production, or caring for people. . Each style was accompanied by a description of the characteristic actions of the leader to prevent conflicts and resolve them. In 1972, Kenneth W. Thomas and Ralph X. Kilman, based on this scheme, developed a test for assessing the style of a person's behavior in a conflict situation. The classification is based on the analysis of the person's actions on two grounds: the persistence with which she seeks to realize her interests and the degree of her readiness to take into account the interests of the other side. On fig. 3.2 we see five main styles. The names of the styles are given by C. W. Thomas and R. X. Kilmenn, in brackets are the numeric designations of the styles by R. Blake and J. Mouton.

Let us dwell briefly on the features of each style. Rivalry (struggle) - a person is maximally focused on winning the conflict (9 is the maximum on the result-oriented scale) and minimally takes into account the needs of others (1 is the minimum on the scale of orientation on improving relations). The party to the conflict uses the style of rivalry, tries to impose its own version of resolving contentious issues on others. Own victory is seen as the defeat of the enemy. At the negotiations, the tactics of pressure and threats are used, attempts are made to question the competence of opponents, a weak point is built in their argumentation, as a rule, there is a tendency to peremptory statements, negative attitude to those who have a different opinion. Slogans: "The strong is always right"; "Winners are not judged."

Compliance (smoothing) - sacrificing the interests of the case to maintain and improve relationships with another person (1 on a result-oriented scale and 9 on a relationship-oriented scale).

"Compliant" tries to look pleasant, kind, compassionate, ready to help in the eyes of others. He is afraid of disapproval, of the possibility of being rejected. Showing signs of respect and approval to others, the "compliant" expects the same attitude towards himself. As a rule, he does everything to eliminate the very possibility of criticism, to prevent the aggravation of conflicts, by appealing to the need for solidarity. Slogans: "We are all one happy team, and we shouldn't rock the boat"; "Peace at any cost"; "Let there be buckwheat, so as not to argue."

Evasion (fencing off) - passive behavior in a conflict situation, consists in ignoring the problem or postponing one's intervention until "better times" (1 on the result orientation scale and also 1 on the relationship orientation scale). This is the desire to avoid acute situations and not discuss issues that are the subject of controversy. The tactics of presence without signs of active intervention, maintaining neutrality and not disclosing one's views and attitudes to the problem. The parties are given the opportunity to make their own choice and be responsible for their own choice. Slogans: "Do not wake famously while it is quiet"; "Don't touch until it breaks"; "My hut is on the edge."

Compromise (understanding) - the search for a balance of mutual concessions and acquisitions (5 on a result-oriented scale and 5 on a relationship-oriented scale). In an effort to find a common language, the parties agree to partially satisfy their needs in order to maintain relations and get at least something. At the same time, contradictions are obscured and the commonality of interests is emphasized. Sometimes compromise is last chance make a certain decision. Slogans: "So as not to expose yourself and not deprive you"; "Better a small fish than a big cockroach."

Collaboration (collaboration) - orientation towards the most complete satisfaction of the interests of all participants in the conflict situation (9 - maximum on the result-oriented scale and also 9 on the scale of orientation on improving relations). The interests of the other side are recognized as part of the problem. Contradictions are frankly discussed together with the other side, a solution to the controversial problem is persistently sought. Hidden interests are revealed, reserves and resources are sought to satisfy them. Slogans: "One mind is good, but two is better"; "Every adventure is a road to wisdom."

Each of the styles has a scope where its use is justified (Table 3.1).

Table 3.1. Situations and circumstances in which it is appropriate or inappropriate to apply a certain style of behavior in conflict

Behavior style	Nature of action and consequences of applying
Rivalry	Pressure on the other side to impose your option. The victory of one side is the defeat of the other.		When the losing party has the possibility of revenge, when it is advisable to learn more about her interests, when you are interested in establishing a permanent relationship.
Compliance	The problem is hushed up. Appearance and harmony are created. You are making concessions. The other side wins.		When a question is important to you and requires a decision. Concessions will not be appreciated or interpreted as a sign of weakness.
Evasion	The problem is ignored or indifference is shown. Responsibility for the decision is transferred to the other side. The other side wins.	If you do not have the right information, when there is too much tension in the relationship, it is dangerous solve the problem in this moment should buy time.	When the question is important to you, when over time the situation is likely to complication, the emergence of additional problems.
Compromise	Each side makes concessions on certain issues. Nobody wins.	The parties are resources to exchange concessions. The victory of one of the parties is undesirable. You need a quick solution, you can get a short-term benefit. In order not to lose everything, you agree to get at least something.	The parties have doubts about the implementation of agreements by the other side, a compromise is impossible (unrealistic). Trying to please everyone makes its implementation questionable.
Cooperation	The abilities and value systems of all participants are recognized. Interests are discussed. The agreement is assessed as beneficial in the current situation.	Parties time to find the best solution, want the qualifications and authority to find "added value.	Lack of time, one of the parties is not set up to cooperate or does not have sufficient authority.

There are certain relationships between the styles of behavior in a conflict situation and the main life positions of individuals. A person who is a supporter of the position "I feel good - you feel good" is mainly focused on cooperation in conflict. Other possible relationships are presented in Table. 3.2.

Table 3.2. Possible Relationships between Life Positions and Behavioral Styles in a Conflict Situation

In 1980, T. Gladwin and I. Walter demonstrated that managers' persistence and propensity to take into account the interests of others depend on four factors:

· "Bet size", which can be won or lost;

Relative strength, that is, the ability of one side to influence the other;

The presence of interrelated interests;

The nature of the relationship between the parties.

A significant influence on the degree of perseverance had "the size of the bet." In second place is the consideration of the relative strength of the enemy. The interconnectedness of interests could be both in common for the parties, and in the opposite direction, which influenced the propensity for cooperative or competitive behavior. The event on the first three factors, the style of behavior, a certain modifying influence had the nature of the relationship that developed between the parties.

Main questions:

1. Human behavior in a difficult situation.

2. Basic strategies of behavior in conflict.

Human behavior in difficult situations.

Any interaction provides for a certain style of behavior, i.e. actions, both on your part and on the part of the other person. Depending on how the data actions will correspond to each other - the whole situation as a whole will depend: the presence of a conflict or its absence, the exit to an open conflict and the behavior in this conflict of each of the parties to the interaction.

In other words, the choice of interaction model can be based on your interest and the degree of importance for you to realize this interest.

For example, your behavior and its intensity will probably be different in a situation where your fate is being decided (you need to choose a place of study or work, or even a country of residence) and when you need to refresh yourself in a cafe.

If your fate is being decided, you most likely will not, firstly, act reactively, momentarily, without carefully considering your decision. Secondly, you will be more persistent in achieving your goal and realizing your interest. Thirdly, a fundamental point appears here (it always appears in situations important to us) - you will focus on your basic values ​​and principles and will not allow yourself, let alone others, to violate them.

If your fate is not decided and the moment of contradiction itself is rather superficial for your interests (that is, it doesn’t concern them much), then your attitude to the situation will be simpler and easier, it will be easier for you to find a common point of contact with your partner and not aggravate the moment. While the fundamental, fundamental points in disagreements contribute rather to confrontation, but not to compliance.

However, the choice of behavior model depends on your priorities. If it is more important for you to prove to your friend that Mu-mu is better than Subway, and it doesn’t matter to you what country you live in, your behavior will be in line with your interests, i.e. compliance in the place of residence, but confrontation in defending one's opinion regarding the cafe.

The nature of conflict actions is determined by their focus on goals of different scale. tactical action leads to effects in specific situations, strategy associated with the desire to resolve (or exacerbate) the contradiction, actualized in a particular interaction.

It is possible to identify the main strategies and their components various ways human response to difficult situations.

An active strategy for responding to a difficult situation is considered as an active form of adaptation of the subject to a difficult situation, an active transformation of the environment. However, this activity can be of a different nature:

· Constructive– increasing the level of search activity, expanding the range options solving the problem, mobilizing forces to solve the problem - in general, increasing the effectiveness of communication activities.

· destructive- disorganization of activity, spontaneous and impulsive searches for a way out, destructive actions in relation to another or oneself, deterioration in functioning, etc., nervous outbursts, hysterical reactions.

A passive strategy of behavior, activity and communication in a difficult situation can also be implemented in two forms:

· fixture- is considered as a refusal to defend interests and goals, lowering the levels of claims, concession to circumstances, reducing the efficiency of activities to a level that corresponds to changed conditions, etc.

· Avoiding the situation- is realized in such behavioral manifestations as avoidance of interaction, refusal to complete a task, withdrawal into fantasies, use of alcohol, drugs.

Such a category as psychological stability is associated with the problem of a person's behavior in a difficult situation. Psychological stability is a characteristic of a person, consisting in maintaining the optimal functioning of the psyche in conditions of frustrating and stressful effects. difficult situations. This property of the personality, which is formed simultaneously with its development and depends on:

type nervous system person;

The human experience vocational training;

· Skills and abilities of behavior and activity;

· The level of development of the main cognitive structures of the personality.

Behavior of a psychologically stable and unstable personality in a difficult situation.

Basic strategies of behavior in conflict.

The most common representation, discussed as a strategy of behavior in conflict, is the model of K. Thomas, according to which conflict behavior is built on the basis of 2 main criteria during interaction:

The selection of these behavioral styles occurs on the basis of 2 criteria:

Accounting for your own interests

Consideration of the interests of other people

indicated along the horizontal axis degree of perseverance (assertiveness) in satisfying one's own interests, presented as the importance of results;

along the vertical axis - degree of compliance (cooperation) in meeting the interests of other partners, presented as the importance of relationships.

Respectively:

1) Cooperation (I + YOU +) 4) Adaptation (I - You +)

2) Rivalry (I+YOU-) 5) Avoidance (I-YOU-)

3) Compromise (I ± YOU ±)

Thus,

v minimal (zero) interest on both axes at the point of intersection forms a strategy avoidance(care);

v maximum along the horizontal axis forms rivalry;

v vertical - fixture;

v the combination of maximum interest on both axes provides cooperation;

v middle position corresponds to compromise.

According to this model, the following interpretation of behavioral strategies can be given:

avoidance (withdrawal)- this is a reaction to the conflict, expressed in ignoring the conflict or conscious avoidance of a difficult, hopeless situation.

rivalry (fight)- the desire for dominance and, ultimately, to eliminate one of the parties to the conflict;

fixture- concessions to the opposite side in achieving its interests, up to their full satisfaction and renunciation of their interests;

cooperation- the desire to integrate the interests of all participants in the conflict. The content of the interests of each of the parties includes the satisfaction of the basic interests of the other party;

compromise- mutual concessions; agreement to partially satisfy one's own interests in exchange for achieving the partial interests of the other party.

However, not all of the forms of behavior in a conflict situation presented in the Thomas model can be discussed as strategies . So,

avoidance, accommodation and compromise (mutual concessions), obviously are not planned and do not contain targets related to the contradiction itself. They are immediate responses to behavior. another. This allows them to be classified as tactics behavior in conflict, since they contribute not so much to resolution as to resolution A niyu, i.e. agree A nii with opinion and interest another. It is possible to consider these forms of behavior as reactive in relation to the fact of the conflict as a whole, momentary tactics, and not as strategies of the participants implemented to resolve contradictions. We consider it important to emphasize that if there is no subject in the conflict that puts goals conflict resolution, it is impossible to discuss the issue of strategic behavior in principle.

You can also see from the figure that if your reaction is passive then you will try to get out of the conflict situation, if active take action to resolve it. In the same way, you can seek a solution or avoid it, either by acting alone or by involving the opposite side.

Let's take a closer look at each of the presented methods for resolving a conflict situation and determine where and when it is best to apply it.

Rivalry (competition)

This style suggests strict adherence to one's own interests without taking into account the interests of the opposing side. Rather, they are taken into account, but only as a weapon that can be used to achieve the goal. The person who chooses this style seeks to prove that he is right, whether it is so or not. To achieve the goal, he uses his strong-willed qualities, trying to suppress the will of his counterpart. Direct orders, shouting and aggressive behavior fit perfectly into this model. All means are good if they help to achieve what you want.

Here the main thing is to achieve the result, and then how it will be done and who will suffer at the same time - the tenth thing.

This style is effective if a person has real power or if his personal and business qualities are superior to those of his opponent. You can also apply it when you know for sure that your decision or approach is the most correct in a given situation, and you can show and prove it. It also applies when there is limited time to make decisions and you are able and willing to take responsibility. Finally, in a situation where you have nothing to lose, and there is no other choice but to defend your case by any means, this approach is also applicable.

Application area

· Emergency: when a vital decision needs to be made immediately.

· Implementing unpopular measures: cutting costs, setting rules, maintaining discipline.

· Self-righteousness on key issues.

· When you need to protect yourself from people using non-competitive behavior.

AVOIDANCE (EVOIDANCE, CARE)

Style most passive, usually reduced to non-recognition of the presence of an external conflict . The tactics of a subject with this style of behavior is to reduce the significance of the events that caused the conflict. It can manifest itself in the ability to slip away, get out of a conflict situation. This style is not capable of resolving the contradiction underlying the conflict, since sometimes a person does not recognize these contradictions as real at all. Style can be characteristic of people with low self-esteem and insufficiently developed social intelligence. Avoidance can also generate increased internal conflicts.

This style is the opposite of the previous one in that there is already you are in the position of the "oppressed" side, When do not try to defend your position, but simply "wash your hands", moving away from the decision, and someone else makes it for you. Self-elimination from the situation can be expressed both in physical and psychological care (silence, reading papers, behavior like “What, is something going on?”).

But, as you noticed, in this, just like in the previous style, you do not enter into a real dialogue with the opposite side. This means that a genuine solution to the situation is impossible, since there is always a losing side. This means that a new conflict is “not far off”.

Avoidance, as a habitual style of behavior in a conflict situation, is often resorted to by men in communication with their wife. Preferring "not to fan the fire", they often psychologically leave the situation, sometimes without even hearing the words that are addressed to them. Yes, the conflict does not flare up at the same time, but it does not go out either, but continues to slowly smolder, fueled by mutual dissatisfaction on both sides. And, sometimes, one small spark is enough for it to flare up with renewed vigor.

But, nevertheless, there are situations in which such a style of behavior is justified.

So, it can be used when the tension is too great, and it is clearly necessary to reduce the intensity of passions. When the outcome of the conflict is not very important for you, unlike the opposite side, then you can also leave the decision to her. Do this when you do not have the physical or mental strength to enter into a debate, and you know that you will not be able to defend your opinion, but will only exhaust yourself.

If you are not ready to defend your position right now and you need time to “maneuver”, avoidance can also be applied. Use it in a situation where your position is obviously weaker than the position of the opposite side, endowed with more power or authority. Finally, if further discussion only "raises" new reasons for aggravating the conflict, also use the style of avoidance.

Application area:

· The problem is minor or is part of a larger problem, and more important issues need to be addressed.

When there is no chance to satisfy your interests: there is not enough strength or you are upset by something that you cannot change.

· When the "price" of participation in the conflict may exceed the benefits of resolving it.

When it is necessary to let people "cool down", reduce the voltage to acceptable level, collect your thoughts.

· When gathering new information may outweigh the benefits of solving the problem immediately, or others may be able to solve the problem more effectively.

When a collision occurs between equal or close in strength (rank) subjects, consciously avoiding complications in their relationship.

Example: A person can simply change the topic of conversation, completely ignoring the contradictions. (avoiding the conversation).

Example 2: A person is able to leave not only the conversation, but also leave the organization, the family, leave the country, i.e. leave the battlefield (or controversy).

Example 3: A person can leave not only verbally, not only physically (as in the previous examples), but also emotionally, mentally (extreme) - turn off, become utterly passive, lose subjectivity (will), become a thing that sees nothing, hears nothing. The tactic (rarely realized) is to become as transparent and invisible as possible so that no one touches it. The most alienated person from life and from what is happening, not having his own opinion and forgetting that he can have one. I agree with everything, as long as they leave him alone, in his passivity.

Behavioral style - evasion- manifests itself tactics when deprived of awareness and is a reaction to external stimuli. When the subject assesses the situation, weighs all the pros and cons, and consciously chooses this style, then he can be considered strategy.

Avoidance is justified in conditions of interpersonal conflict arising for reasons of a subjective, emotional order. This style is most often used by realists by nature. People of such a warehouse, as a rule, soberly assess the advantages and weaknesses of the positions of the conflicting parties. Even when hurt to the quick, they are wary of recklessly getting involved in a "fight", they are in no hurry to accept the challenge to aggravate the conflict, realizing that often the only way to win in an interpersonal dispute is to avoid participating in it. Another thing is if the conflict arose on an objective basis. In such a situation, evasion and neutrality may be ineffective Since the controversial problem retains its significance, the causes that gave rise to it do not disappear by themselves, but are even more aggravated.

EVOIDING STRATEGY May be effective with subjective causes of conflict(emotional, psychological) - this style is characterized by wisdom, prudence.

But is destructive in case of objective causes of conflict(when there is a real problem, ignoring which affects many people) - this style is characterized by stupidity, cowardice.

DEVICE

Style oriented to save social relations (mostly women).

Adaptation as a strategy of passive behavior characterized by the tendency of the parties to the conflict to soften, smooth the conflict situation, maintain or restore harmony in relationships through compliance, trust, readiness for reconciliation. Unlike evasion, this strategy involves taking into account the interests of opponents to a greater extent and do not avoid joint action with them. The subject is aware of the presence of an external conflict and tries to adapt to it with the help of various tactics.

Contradiction that caused the conflict removed with concessions by an individual with an accommodation style. If external conflict develops without a time deficit, then this style can be quite effective. However, the too frequent use of this style, regardless of the content of the situation, deprives its bearer of initiative and the ability to take active social actions, which sooner or later leads to an increase in the tension of internal conflicts and all the ensuing consequences.

This style implies that you do not defend your interests, but try to find a common language with your opponent, adjusting to him. Here you do not leave the situation, leaving the “rival” alone on the “battlefield”, but continue to act together with him, but only by his rules.

It also, like the style of avoidance, is applicable when you are not particularly “touched” by what happened, but for another it is much more important. Use it if it is much more important for you to maintain a relationship than to defend your position. (It is worth considering what is better: to be always right, but lonely or not so right, but happy). When you feel that you have little chance of winning, and the decision of the opposite side is not so bad, you can also accept it. Finally, this style will help you give a useful lesson to your counterpart if you allow him to make a wrong decision and later understand his mistake.

Application area

You understand that you are wrong, and continued rivalry can only hurt, and you want to consider The best decision showing prudence.

· When the problem is much more important to the other person than to you (goodwill gesture to maintain cooperation). It is important to maintain harmony and prevent a split.

· You want to get a credit of trust that will help you in the future.

Short: unilateral concession on the part of the individual, an agreement despite an internal contradiction.

Example: The bank requires you to dress in office style. Do you like sporty clothing, but for the sake of wages or other privileges from working in a bank. You are ready to sacrifice your interests - dress in a sporty style, and expose yourself in an office style.

Specificity: only external "agree A nie" without internal agreement E nia; no real acceptance.

Adaptation is applicable in any type of conflict. But, perhaps, this strategy of behavior is most suitable for organizational conflicts, in particular along the hierarchical vertical: subordinate - superior, subordinate - boss, etc. In such situations, it is extremely necessary to cherish the maintenance of mutual understanding, friendly disposition and atmosphere of business cooperation, not to give scope for passionate controversy, expression of anger and even more threats, to be constantly ready to give up one's own preferences if they are capable of damaging the interests and rights of the opponent.

COOPERATION

Style directed to resolve the contradictions underlying the conflict. Characterized by the fact that the subject of the conflict Focused on problem solving, not social relationships and maybe in connection with this sacrifice your values ​​(not principles!) for the sake of achieving common goals.

Cooperation, as well as rivalry, is aimed at the maximum realization by the participants of the conflict of their own interests. But, unlike the competitive style, cooperation involves not individual, but joint search for a solution that meets the aspirations of all conflicting parties. This is possible under the condition of timely and accurate diagnosis of the problem that gave rise to the conflict situation, understanding of both external manifestations and hidden causes of the conflict, the readiness of the parties to act together to achieve a common goal for all.

A person with such a leading style of conflict resolution is able to take the risk of lowering his self-esteem in an acute life situation. As a rule, this style is present in informal leaders who are able to regulate and control the behavior of not only other people, but also their own. This is possible due to the fact that in the system of motivations the dominant position is occupied by the motive of achieving the goal with good development social volitional control.

COOPERATION- the most productive style of solving any conflict, because it implies that both sides take an equally active part in the search for a solution, taking into account mutual interests. It is most effective when each side has its own special latent needs.

For example, if there are 2 applicants for a higher position, then for one of them the possibility of increasing income may be more important, and for the other, prestige and authority are more important. Accordingly, solutions can be found when both parties get what they want without prejudice to the interests of the other side.

All it takes is a willingness to devote a little more time to the needs of the other side.

To successfully apply this style, some time must be spent searching for such hidden needs and developing a solution that satisfies all parties involved in the conflict. To do this, you must at least have the desire and ability to do it.

Accordingly, this style is applicable in situations where the decision is very important for both parties, and no one is ready to move away from it. If both parties are ready, able and willing to disclose their interests and present their respective arguments, as well as listen to the other side. If you have a close, trusting and interdependent relationship that is important to both parties. This style is also good when there is no ready-made solution, but there is a desire and good will to find it in a joint discussion.

Application area

· The need to find a unifying solution, and the interests of both parties are too important.

· When the goal is to gain knowledge and understand the views of others.

Do you want to find systems approach to a solution, with people with different views on the problem.

· You want to achieve the fulfillment of obligations, taking into account the interests of the other party in a joint decision.

When you need to deal with hostility that interferes with building relationships.

The benefits of cooperation are undeniable: Each side gets maximum benefit with minimum loss. But this way of moving towards a positive outcome of the conflict is thorny in its own way. It requires time and patience, wisdom and friendly disposition, the ability to express and argue one's position, attentive listening to opponents explaining their interests, development of alternatives and an agreed choice of them in the course of negotiations of a mutually acceptable solution. The reward for common efforts is a constructive, satisfactory result for everyone, a jointly found optimal way out of the conflict, as well as the strengthening of partnerships.

COMPROMISE

The style of behavior is cautious, rational thinking people, focused on maintaining stable social relations to the detriment of a common goal and objectives. People with this style tend to reconcile the conflicting interests of different partners with their own. The contradiction that caused the conflict is not resolved, but disguised and temporarily driven inside by using partial concessions and sacrifices on the part of each participant in the conflict. The tactics of this style is the gradual convergence of interests and their reduction to a common balance of forces and needs, which is possible only if the other participants are ready to make concessions. Compromise requires a person to have a clear understanding of the situation and the ability to follow the development of events, which requires a well-developed intellect and adequate high self-esteem.

This style is like collaboration, but different from it that the interests of both parties are not fully satisfied here, but only partially, by mutual concessions. There is no need (or desire, or understanding) to find out the deep motives and hidden interests of both parties, but you just need to come to some reasonable decision when one side sacrifices part of its interests in favor of the other, but at the same time retains more significant ones for itself. her position. As a rule, these are ultimatums that a party accepts in order to keep what they have and not lose.

This style is best used when you do not have the time or desire to delve into the essence of the conflict, and the situation allows you to work out a quick and mutually beneficial solution. And also, if you are quite satisfied with this solution, as some intermediate, temporary option. In the opposite situation, when protracted conversations did not lead to anything, a compromise should also be made. Again, use it if the preservation of your relationship is more important than the complete satisfaction of your desires, and in addition, there is a threat of not getting even part of what you want, losing everything.

Application area

· Goals are moderately important, but not worth the possible worsening of relations if a more assertive way of achieving them is used.

· When opponents with similar capabilities are strongly committed to mutually exclusive goals and a difficult issue needs to be temporarily settled.

· It is necessary to find an acceptable solution in the face of time constraints.

· As a fallback when neither cooperation nor rivalry has worked.

Compromise occupies a middle place in the grid of conflict behavior strategies. It means the disposition of the participant (participants) of the conflict to resolve the disagreement on the basis of mutual concessions, achieving partial satisfaction of their interests. This style equally involves active and passive actions, the application of individual and collective efforts. The strategy of compromise is preferable because it usually blocks the path to ill will, allows, albeit in part, to satisfy the claims of each of the parties involved in the conflict.

Thus, we see that there are no "good" and "bad" lines of behavior and interaction with the other side. Rather eat relevant And not relevant specific situation chosen behavior styles.

In this regard, for productive interaction, it is necessary to clearly understand all aspects of the current situation, but above all, one's own goals and interests, as well as their importance and value. It is important to set your own priorities so that you know how to act in situations with minimal losses.

When a person sets priorities and realizes his real interests, he makes much less irreparable mistakes, without harming himself or other people.

The key to productive cooperation lies in 4 basic postulates:

1 - Respect for the rights of everyone;

2 - Taking into account the interests of everyone;

3 - Motivation of everyone;

4 - Social Utility.