Strategies for behavior in conflict - what methods exist

In everyday life, it is difficult to avoid conflict situations; they can appear at home or in the work team. Each person has his own character and temperament, some find it easier to make concessions, others will defend their point of view to the last. To avoid unpleasant situations and showdowns, you need to know how to behave with different people.

Two men at work

What is meant by a conflict situation?

A conflict situation is a lack of agreement between the parties, arising due to opposing values, interests, judgments and goals of the parties.

It is generally accepted that a conflict is necessarily accompanied by open opposition from its participants, quarrels, negative emotions, etc. But this is not always the case. The process of solving a problem and its outcome depend on the correctly chosen strategy of behavior.

Example. Consumer dispute

One day I bought a smartphone. The speaker turned out to be faulty. I demanded that the smartphone be returned and my money returned: 10,000 rubles .

If the seller complied with my request, then this would be normal cooperation within the framework of the consumer protection law.

However, the company took a evasive position: they immediately accepted the smartphone, but did not give me the money within the period established by law.

In this situation, I was forced to resort to suppression: I filed an application with the court demanding to return the money for the smartphone, as well as to pay a fine, penalty and compensation for moral damage - a total of 50,000 rubles .

The store refused to give in, and the company’s lawyer offered me a compromise: they would pay me 25,000 rubles for the smartphone and the inconvenience caused, and I would waive the rest of the demands. I immediately agreed, the court approved the settlement agreement on these terms and a couple of days later the seller transferred the money to me.

Examples of conflict resolution

To better understand how each strategy works, let's look at them using specific examples.

Compromise

This strategy involves resolving conflict situations through mutual concessions from both parties. Each participant in the conflict makes concessions, sacrificing some of his own interests in exchange for the concessions of the other, in order to ultimately come to a common solution that will suit both of them.

The compromise strategy is usually chosen in situations where there is a goal to reach an agreement in a conflict, but in such a way that each party wins at least something, when the conflicting parties recognize each other’s interests and values ​​and want the outcome of the conflict to be as objective as possible.

The use of compromise is justified if the parties to the conflict have mutually exclusive interests and are in equal conditions. Often this method is used as the last opportunity to resolve a controversial situation while preserving the relationship.

Example: A husband wants his wife to cook dinner every day. And my wife says that she gets tired after work, especially since she also has to wash the dishes. Then the spouses find a compromise solution: the wife cooks and the husband washes the dishes.

Cooperation

The cooperation strategy involves the longest and most detailed study of a controversial issue. Resolving a conflict situation is not the main goal here; the most important thing is to satisfy the interests of each participant in the dispute and develop a mutually beneficial long-term solution to the problem.

Cooperation will be justified and effective if the resolution of the conflict is equally important for all its participants, they are interested in maintaining good long-term relations with each other and are ready to clearly formulate the essence of their claims and interests, listen (the main thing is to hear) the opponent.

The cooperation strategy is ideal for resolving conflict situations with loved ones and relatives, as it involves long and repeated negotiations between the parties.

Collaboration often feels like compromise. The strategies are similar because they can only be used if both parties are interested in resolving the conflict and maintaining the relationship. The key difference between the strategies is that a compromise is achieved at a superficial level and the parties to the conflict are not necessarily in a long-term relationship, but cooperation involves a deeper study of the controversial issue; the conflicting parties, as a rule, are in close and long-term relationships, and therefore are interested in a long-term solution to the issue .

For example , a family with children came to relax at the seaside. On one of the days of rest, the husband and children wanted to spend time actively, so they suggested going to the water park. On the contrary, my wife planned to lie on the beach and sunbathe. Then the husband and wife discuss the current situation and decide to go to the water park with the whole family, because there are slides for active recreation and sun loungers to lie on. As a result, the issue was resolved, each participant in the conflict satisfied their interests.

Device

This model of exiting a conflict situation is most often formed in early childhood. You can identify it using the online test “How your parents raised you as a child.”

Adaptation is a way of smoothing out or resolving a conflict when one of its participants, sacrificing their interests and opinions, yields to another participant, accepting his version of solving the problem.

This strategy is used when:

· the outcome of the conflict is extremely important for the opponent, but at the same time the yielding side “loses almost nothing”;

· maintaining good relationships is more important than standing up for being right;

· the yielding party chooses an adaptation in order to ultimately achieve a resolution of the conflict in its favor in a roundabout way;

· during a dispute, the yielding party realizes that the opponent is truly right;

· the opponent has more power.

Adaptive behavior is justified if the conflict is not that significant, but the disagreements that arise can ruin the relationship. That is, making concessions or losing in a conflict will help maintain relationships with your opponent, which in a particular situation is much more important than defending your position.

If the conflict is serious and greatly violates personal boundaries or affects your life values, then the adaptation will be ineffective, because the opponent will decide that everything is in order and will violate the boundaries again next time. Such a situation may ultimately result in an even more serious conflict, since the dissatisfaction you have accumulated will sooner or later burst out, or will remain “with you” as passive aggression.

Example strategy : you have a rule that you don’t let anyone wear your clothes. A friend came to visit and accidentally spilled coffee on her T-shirt. You love your friend very much and, of course, you will help her out and, as an exception, let her wear your T-shirt.

Convenient woman, who is she?

Rivalry

A person who chooses a strategy of competition in a conflict situation is determined to defeat his opponent no matter what.

Typically, rivalry involves open conflict, when its participants try to prove to each other that they are right, resorting to pressure, raised voices, often insults, or even the use of physical force.

The reasons for this method of conflict resolution may be: protecting life and health, defending personal boundaries when they are violated, a constant desire for leadership in everything, bad manners, and self-centeredness.

Rivalry is unjustified when you are trying to prove that you are right, regardless of the situation and the importance of maintaining a good relationship with your opponent. In conflict situations with close relatives or friends, with children and spouses who are very significant to us, the strategy of competition will fail.

There are situations in life when competition is a necessary strategy of behavior. It should be used if the life and health (yours or those close to you) are in danger, your personal boundaries are severely violated, or your opponent, as they say, simply “does not understand in a good way.” The strategy is also justified in cases where it is necessary to protect someone from physical or moral violence, or unjustified rash acts.

Do you want to witness the conflict from a competitive position? You just need to go to a public place. Although, unfortunately, most often it is in clinics, shops and public catering places that such conflicts are unjustified, and indicate bad manners and emotional licentiousness of those in conflict.

An example of using a strategy : the neighbors listen to music loudly after 23-00, and you are getting ready for bed. In this situation, your neighbors are violating your personal boundaries, so the best thing to do is to go down to the floor below and remind you that night has fallen. Often this is enough. But sometimes the violators, nodding their heads, 10 minutes later again disturb the neighbors’ peace at night. In this case, it would be best to first warn, and if this does not help, call the police.

Avoidance

This strategy involves leaving, self-elimination, and removing oneself from a conflict situation.

Avoidance of conflict can be expressed both physically - leaving, running away, hanging up the phone, and emotionally - silence, ignoring the topic of conversation, trying to start a conversation on another topic.

Thus, a person does not try to adapt, come to a common decision, or go into open conflict. The reason for this behavior can be both self-doubt and lack of motivation, energy or time to clarify the situation.

If a conflict situation directly affects your interests, then avoidance is not an appropriate way to solve the problem. Yes, you will save your nerve cells and time, but then the conflict will remain unresolved and will only get worse, or it will be resolved, but without your participation, and therefore without taking into account your opinion.

The avoidance strategy is good in situations where the conflict does not directly affect your interests at the moment; whether it is resolved or not does not matter much to you.

The situation with neighbors is also suitable as an example Let’s say this is not the first time your neighbors have turned on music this late, and you know that after about an hour they usually turn it off. And just in the next hour you are not going to sleep, and the noise does not interfere with your business. The best option would be not to waste your strength and avoid a possible conflict.

Styles

In psychology, it is customary to distinguish 6 styles:

1. Affiliate. Characteristic of long-term relationships where both opponents know each other well and want to maintain mutual understanding and trust.
2. Pragmatic. Suitable for situations where the relationship with a person is not important. It is more important to push the conflict away from yourself.
3. Psychoprotective. The goal is to maintain internal harmony. It arises where the mutually exclusive interests of opponents are noticeable.
4. Dominant. One or both participants behave selfishly, aggressively, or violate social norms.
5. Contact. One person behaves as contactably as possible, trying to find out as much as possible about the opponent in order to then control him.
6. Self-affirming. One person is trying to “break” the other so that he himself gives up the confrontation.

The first 3 styles relate to constructive conflict resolution, the last 3 to destructive ones.

How to choose a strategy?

Of the five strategies listed above, it is impossible to single out one that will be the only correct one.

The choice of behavior strategy in a conflict depends on several factors.

1. The essence of the conflict . When a conflict arises, you need to ask yourself the question: is this situation . Is it really so important that I need to get into an argument or try to negotiate? Which behavior in a particular situation will be more effective? If it turns out that clarifying a controversial issue does not affect your interests, the best course of action would be to avoid the conflict.

2. Interest of the parties . If you understand that it is important for you to clarify the situation and an evasion strategy will not work, you need to understand how interested your opponent is in resolving the conflict. If this is just as important for him, you can start negotiations, that is, choose a strategy of cooperation or compromise.

3. The significance of the relationship with the opponent. When choosing a strategy for behavior in a conflict, you need to understand how important it is to maintain further good relations with your opponent. If maintaining the relationship is important, then, depending on the situation, you can choose cooperation, compromise or accommodation. If it is vitally important to defend your rightness, regardless of further relationships, then competition will be the most suitable strategy.

4. Own psychological attitude . There are situations when it is necessary to resolve a conflict situation, but there is neither moral strength nor desire to do so. In this case, the best option would be evasion or adaptation. This way, you will give yourself time to rest and recover so that later you can return to resolving the conflict with renewed vigor.

How to survive a crisis in a close relationship.

Cooperation

The subject of the conflict seeks to resolve the situation in such a way as to fully satisfy his needs and the opponent. That is, find a solution that will benefit everyone. Such tactics tend to analyze the subject of the conflict, calculate the resources of the participants in order to find a common benefit, and carefully listen to the position of the interlocutor. This strategy has practically the same advantages - it promotes the development of trust and long-term interpersonal relationships, and the adoption of mutually beneficial decisions. But not in all conflicts it is possible to fully satisfy the basic desires of each participant, in which case the principle of cooperation will only complicate the situation.

Conflict situations with loved ones

Family and friends are the closest people, relationships with whom play an important role in our lives. Therefore, when disagreements arise, it is important to maintain good relationships with these people. Rivalry in such conflicts will be inappropriate. The most correct decision would be to compromise or start negotiations and satisfy the interests of all parties.

In some situations, it is better to remain silent, avoid a showdown (often the problem resolves itself), or choose an accommodation when the outcome of the conflict is extremely important for a loved one.

An environmental quarrel or how to resolve a conflict peacefully.

Video

Coffee capsules Nescafe Dolce Gusto Cappuccino, 8 servings (16 capsules)

435 ₽ More details

Coffee capsule Nescafe Dolce Gusto Cafe O Le Coffee with milk, 3 packs of 16 capsules each

1305 ₽ More details

Wireless Barcode Scanners

Conflict situations at work

During the work process, colleagues often have misunderstandings both on work-related issues and as a result of personal disagreements.

Employee - employee

In conflict situations with colleagues of your rank, any of five strategies will be suitable, depending on the situation. But still, rivalry is best used as a last resort. If disagreements relate to work issues, it would be wiser to negotiate with your opponent to come to a compromise solution. It is important to express your point of view, since you and your opponent are on equal terms. Evasion and adaptation in most matters will not be justified.

To avoid conflicts related to personal relationships, it is important to remember that during working hours you need to primarily focus on fulfilling your duties, leaving personal communication for a while after work. Of course, personal communication is necessary, and it will be present in any case. But gossip and conversations on too personal topics should not be supported.

Tactics

Each strategy corresponds to a specific set of tactics.

Rivalry:

• strict control over the actions and sources of information of the other party;
• systematic pressure (physical, psychological, moral);
• deception, flattery, manipulation, cunning, “set-ups”, provocations;
• refusal to make contact, to discuss anything (the person adheres to the position “I have my opinion and it’s wrong - there’s nothing to discuss”).

Evasion:

• demonstrative avoidance of discussion (“I was offended”, “don’t touch me”);
• refusal to use physical force;
• ignorance and mistrust, refusal to collect information and analyze facts;
• shifting responsibility;
• delaying decision making;
• denial of the conflict.

Compromise:

• bargaining and discussion of problems, active negotiations;
• deception and flattery (needed to convince an opponent that he has certain qualities).

There is an attitude towards equal sharing of benefits.

Device:

• agreement in everything, constant concessions;
• demonstrative reluctance to enter into confrontation;
• flattery, servility, indulgence.

Cooperation:

• collecting information about the opponent, problem, conflict;
• analysis of your resources and the capabilities of your opponent;
• selection and presentation of alternative solutions;
• open discussion identifying specific problems;
• listening and accepting the opponent’s position.

Avoidance

This strategy can be compared to the “strategy” of an ostrich: head in the sand - and there are no problems, no conflicts, no need to solve them. For such a “strategist,” by and large, neither his own nor the interests of others are important.

The avoidant avoids contact with the opponent, does not perceive any information coming from him, denies the existence of the conflict, hesitates in making decisions, and is afraid to make a retaliatory move.

However, such behavior can be considered rational if the cause of the conflict is insignificant or there is no intention to continue relations with the opposite party. But if you are planning further contact with your opponent, then avoiding solving the problem is an unproductive step. You cannot settle a dispute by avoiding direct discussion and avoiding responsibility. This will only aggravate the situation and lead to a rift in the future.

Conflict Prevention

Have you heard about management battles? The author of the format describes the most interesting strategies, the best practices of ancient sages and seasoned tops. But he begins not with this, but with the metaphor of the meeting of two lions.

Lions often wander into the territories of other prides to check whether the moment has come to attack the old, wounded or weak. Any battle will be a loss for both: even the winner will be too weak by the time a new aggressor arrives. That's why they growl, show off, and demonstrate strength without getting into a fight. The best victory is a fight that didn't happen. This way you will save both strength and territory. Have you ever tried to prevent conflicts? How did you do it?

The second stage of resolving the controversial issue

This stage involves resolving a conflict situation. This must be done in accordance with the style of behavior you have chosen. In this case, you and your opponent will need to set your own limits, which each party will have to accept. At this stage, you will have to very quickly rebuild your judgment and maneuver the situation quite skillfully.

There are a number of rules that are recommended to be followed during the discussion:

1. Don't close yourself off from your interlocutor. The “hands on chest” pose is inappropriate here.
2. There is no need to look closely at your opponent, as this can lead to aggression on his part.
3. In no case do not answer in the same tone if it is harsh, since subsequently you will not be able to hear the interlocutor, and he will not be able to hear you.
4. You cannot immediately give a negative assessment to the opinion of the other side.
5. Don't interrupt. Make it clear in every possible way that you are listening and understanding what is being said to you, and be lenient with your opponent.
6. Accept the person for who they are and do not take profanity or other profane language coming out of their mouth personally. This will avoid personality clashes.
7. Exercise constant control over your actions, emotions, speech and facial expressions. If you behave calmly, passions can subside significantly.
8. It is recommended to show your opponent your feelings about his position, rather than immediately presenting him with an assessment of his opinion. This behavior will lead to more reasoned and detailed answers from the interlocutor. You absolutely need to clearly understand what the other party to the conflict means.
9. Do not use filler words in your speech; use only clear verbal expressions for your interlocutor, which he can easily understand. Do not under any circumstances show your intellectual advantage over him.
10. It is necessary to periodically distract the other side from the dispute, even for a short time. These methods can be considered the need to make an important call, a request to the interlocutor to move him to another place in the room, as well as anything else that you consider appropriate in such a situation.

Calmness and balance are your allies

Among other things, you should wait a little time with your response to your opponent’s opinion. All his demands or phrases should be ignored, and periodic pauses should be made in the conversation.

It is not at all necessary to immediately answer all the questions of the disputant - it is best to distract him from this through other questions that do not correspond to the given topic. This will allow you to more carefully consider the style of your behavior to resolve conflict.

When the other side calms down a little and stops arguing its position, you are advised to evaluate its opinion, but in such a way that it understands its importance too. Here you can suggest making some adjustments to the interlocutor’s idea, which will help in solving the problem. Fulfilling this requirement in any situation leaves the most negatively minded opponent unarmed.