Conflict is the oldest and most natural formrelationships. Even dinosaurs, alien to any social interaction, could tell a lot about it. After all, when one wants to eat, and the other does not want to be in a toothy jaw, there is an obvious conflict of interest. And what can we say about people! Conflicts accompany them from birth to old age. With friends and parents, with colleagues and loved ones, with yourself, after all. A person at every step risks becoming entangled in a conflict. The way out of the conflict is an art that helps to save not only friendly relations with others, but also your own nerves.
Conflict - the pros and cons
Conflict is a situation in which each of the partiespursues mutually exclusive goals. Or, if it is an internal dilemma, a person can not choose between equally attractive behaviors.
Everyone knows that quarrels and disputes are a thing of the utmostunpleasant. It is rare to find a person enjoying themselves, getting involved in a conflict. The way out of the conflict is a welcome option for the overwhelming majority. But if you think about it, even from an argument, you can learn useful lessons. In the course of a dispute, you can better know your partners, identify problems in the team and even effectively solve them. The tense situation often stimulates people, forces them to develop, to reveal their own potential, to seek innovative moves that allow optimizing interaction in the group.
Primary Situation Analysis
Of course, it is better to negotiate peacefully,friendly and respecting each other's interests. But this is not always possible. There are situations when conflict is inevitable. Exit from the conflict with the least losses in this case is the main task of each of the participants.
Before undertaking any activeaction, you need to stop and think. Stress is the inevitable companion of any quarrel, and he is a bad adviser. Therefore, you need to try to calm down, turn off emotions and analyze the current situation. Perhaps the ways out of the conflict will be found quickly enough, perhaps it will take a lot of effort to resolve the situation. But, one way or another, there will be some analytical work to be done. Any clash of interests is akin to a party in chess. The one who can soberly assess the situation and make the only correct decision wins.
Working with conflict information
To analyze the current situation,it is necessary to collect a maximum of information. First of all, it is necessary to determine what exactly is the subject of the dispute. Is this a material good or an idea? Is it possible to divide the desired at all or is competition really inevitable? Is it possible to eliminate the cause of the conflict or replace it with a less controversial object? It is possible that in the course of such an analysis it will become obvious that a dispute can be resolved right at the initial stage. It's enough just to make certain manipulations with the object that causes the conflict. Exit from the conflict in this case will be acceptable for all its participants. If two children quarrel because of the chocolate, then it's easier to break it in two, it's obvious. But the same principle applies in adult life. If the cause of the conflict is an attractive position, and both applicants are equally professional and competent - perhaps it is worth thinking about making changes to the staffing table. And let there be two deputy chiefs, with differentiation of official duties.
Studying the motivation of participants
Then you need to collect information about allparticipants in the dispute, find out who they are, what they want. Psychological features of personality, moral criteria, true goals and motives - all this is extremely important. What exactly can each of the participants do? Why? Do they have any hidden motives? What are the ways out of the conflict for each participant?
It is necessary to consider the influence of the social environment onthe situation. Approve or disapprove of the surrounding conflict participants, whether they support, or, on the contrary, interfere with the achievement of the goal. For example, if the cause for the conflict is an accident, and the witnesses are colleagues of one of the participants in the accident, the second driver can hardly count on objective testimony. And regardless of whether they love his opponent at work or, on the contrary, can not stand. Just in one case, witnesses will shield their colleague, and in the other, they will remember with pleasure the past grievances. To propose strategies for getting out of the conflict, without taking into account the influence of the social environment, is quite light-minded.
The influence on subjective factors
A very important factor is not onlyan objective component of conflicts, but also a subjective element. Yet this is a clash of human interests, and people are far from impartiality. Each of the participants in the conflict represents, as he looks from the outside, attributes to the opponent certain opinions and judgments, based only on his own ideas about him - this phenomenon is called "secondary reflection". The way out of the social conflict often rests on such deliberate prejudice of the parties. It's hard to persuade people not to quarrel who do not think well of each other. But it is almost impossible to reconcile those who are sure that the enemy hates them or despises them. Few people like sitting at the entrance gossip, although they do not do anything wrong. Just everyone is sure that the pensioners who have gathered in the circle just do that they condemn everyone passing by, suspecting him of the most black sins. And this is enough for the appearance of dislike, even if the grandmothers simply discuss the watched TV series. Such moments also need analysis, they need to be taken into account, exploring the conflict and ways out of it.
Selecting an Action Script
Having gathered all the necessary information andhaving analyzed it, it is necessary to make predictive variants of conflict resolution. What will happen at the most favorable coincidence of circumstances, that - in the worst case, how the situation will develop, if at all to stop any actions, let down, as they say, on brakes.
Only after analyzing all the components of the problem that has arisen, one can begin to work out a strategy for getting out of the conflict. In this case, the decision will be optimal.
Experts identify five main strategiesexit from a tense situation: avoidance, compromise, rivalry, cooperation and adjustment. Choosing between these options, you need to correlate the goals with the methods to achieve them. Hardly, having adopted a tough strategy, you can maintain a healthy atmosphere in the team or put the fugitive in place, choosing the path of compromise.
Of course, to reconcile colleagues in the office is not at all the samethe most that to look for ways out of interethnic conflicts. But the principle is the same: restore peace and tranquility, maximally respecting the interests of all stakeholders.
One of the toughest variants of the strategyis rivalry. When choosing such a scenario, one of the parties completely suppresses the other, imposing an image of actions. Of course, it can not be said that this is a productive and tolerant way. It is unlikely that it should be used too often, because with such a development of events one of the participants remains extremely disappointed and angry. Relations in the team, most likely, will be spoiled strongly and for a long time. Such methods of breaking out of the conflict are applicable only if the proposed solution is beneficial for the whole team, and not for individual stakeholders, and there is no time or opportunity to convince opponents. Although there are situations when exactly rivalry becomes the only acceptable way out of the situation. If hooligans are trying to take away from a passer-by, it's hardly worth bargaining and looking for compromises that satisfy both sides of the conflict.
Compromise, as the name suggests,provides for partial satisfaction of the interests of each party. Such a way out of the conflict presupposes the desire of the opponents to reach at least a temporary agreement, sacrificing some of their demands for this. Most often, they resort to compromise, if the possibilities of the parties are equal, and the cause of the collision is not of a fundamental nature. In this case, it is better to abandon a number of claims, rather than risk losing everything by losing the argument. The main shortcoming of such a strategy is that the achieved peace is rarely long-term. Too great is the temptation to try to win back those points that were previously sacrificed, when the balance of power changes in the right direction and one of the parties will get an advantage.
The way out of the conflict is not alwaysassume at least partial satisfaction of the interests of each party. In some cases, one of the participants simply refuses their claims, leaving the conflict. This strategy is called adaptation, or assignment. Of course, such a method of conflict resolution is not popular. Compulsions are resorted to compulsorily. Usually one of the parties realizes that she simply does not have enough strength to fight. Or comes to the conclusion that the goal in this case does not justify the means. Returning to the example of hooligans and passers-by: a concession is the situation when a person gives a purse to a robber, deciding not to risk his life for a few bills.
However, the reverse option is possible. Such pacifist ways of getting out of the conflict can be used by the participants who realized their own wrongness and recognized it. In this case, the rejection of unjustified claims requires courage and will power, since, in fact, is a public repentance.
Avoiding problem solving
If all kinds of way out of the conflict,providing for active actions, the result was not given, one of the parties could simply be withdrawn. This strategy is called avoiding a solution to a problem, or avoiding it. In this case, the conflict is not so much resolved as it simply ceases to exist, like a fire in which no one throws firewood. If confrontation has existed for a long time, and no promising ways to solve the problem have been found, avoidance can be recognized as one of the most effective strategies. Why waste time and resources on fruitless struggles, if they can be used more wisely? Not every goal is worth fighting for it endlessly.
The rules for getting out of the conflict are that the besta decision is a decision that best meets the interests of each of the parties. None of the strategies meet this requirement in the same way as cooperation. In this case, the parties not only make mutual concessions, they actively interact, creating alternative ways of solving the problem. Recognizing the obvious importance of resolving the conflict, its participants seek to jointly solve the difficulties that have arisen. As a result of using such a strategy, it is possible not only to successfully solve the existing problem, but also to lay the foundations for further fruitful cooperation.
Choosing in favor of one of the strategies followsremember that the same decision is made by the opponent. There is a high probability that while one side is leaning in favor of a compromise, the other categorically does not want to surrender. Therefore, strategies can be adjusted, if necessary, replaced by more appropriate situations. Carefully studying the conflict and ways out of it, you need to track the enemy's moves and analyze them before making an important decision.