Compromise in psychology. What is it, definition, examples, pros, cons

Often people fail to agree and come to a common denominator on a particular issue, which can give rise to the development of misunderstandings, conflicts and disagreements. Such behavior, when two or more people do not hear each other and continue to zealously defend their point of view, is destructive and, according to psychologists, extremely ineffective.

To maintain friendly, family and work relationships, it is much more effective when the parties do not quarrel, but strive to come to some kind of compromise - an agreement that will more or less suit all parties to the dispute. In some cases, this action requires the parties to give up their own ambitions and interests, which may be difficult for some people to do.

The concept of compromise in psychology

“Compromise” is literally translated from Latin as “they promise together.” Behind a compromise there is always a clash of interests, a conflict.

Psychologists call a compromise a settlement of a dispute in which the parties manage to come to a position that suits each of them, with a mutual renunciation of part of the demands made. As a result of resolving disagreements that have arisen during a conflict or dispute, the partners participating in the negotiations change their minds, and each of them accepts a new common position that suits both parties.

The purpose of a compromise is to find a certain common denominator during the dialogue that would suit the warring parties. Finding such common ground, or otherwise a compromise, is the most reasonable way to balance conflicting interests. The compromise approach is based on the principle of respect for other opposing opinions, which in a global sense is part of the democratic approach to managing society.

In psychology, finding a compromise is assessed positively, since when making a common decision, the parties manage to agree and not go into insoluble destructive conflicts, where no one hears each other and is not going to give in. Deriving some kind of solution that is suitable for everyone does not destroy relationships, does not emotionally exhaust the participants in the dispute and does not slow down their development.

Cooperation

Cooperation, like confrontation, is aimed at maximum realization by the parties to the conflict of their own interests.
But cooperation does not presuppose an individual, but a joint search for a solution that meets the aspirations of all conflicting parties. This is possible subject to timely and accurate diagnosis of the problem that gave rise to the conflict situation, an understanding of both external manifestations and hidden causes of the conflict, and the willingness of the parties to act together to achieve a common goal for all. This style is used by those who perceive conflict as a normal phenomenon of social life, as a need to solve a particular problem without causing damage to any party. In conflict situations, the possibility of cooperation appears in cases where:

• the problem that has caused disagreement seems important to the conflicting parties, each of which does not intend to shy away from its joint solution;
• the conflicting parties have approximately equal rank or do not pay attention to the difference in their positions at all;
• each party wishes to voluntarily and on an equal basis discuss controversial issues in order to ultimately come to full agreement on a mutually beneficial solution to a problem that is significant to all;
• the parties involved in the conflict act as partners and trust each other, taking into account the needs, concerns and preferences of opponents.

The benefits of cooperation are undeniable: each party receives maximum benefits with minimal losses. But this path to a positive outcome of the conflict is thorny in its own way. It requires time, patience, wisdom, friendly disposition, the ability to express and argue one’s position, carefully listening to opponents explaining their interests, developing alternatives and an agreed choice from them during negotiations of a mutually acceptable solution.

What is compromise in conflict and decision making?

A compromise in psychology is a decision for which the opposing parties should take some steps towards each other and understand what result will be mutually beneficial and will suit each of them.

Compromise in psychology

Finding such a common denominator requires the parties to the conflict to partially or completely renounce their ambitions and interests, which can be very difficult to do unilaterally. For this reason, compromise is only talked about if each party makes concessions and accepts mutually beneficial terms.

Today, most civilized people do not feel the need to resolve issues and defend their positions with their fists, showering their opponents with insults and curses. In the modern world, people understand that it is easier, faster and more effective to negotiate with each other than to quarrel, because you can always discuss all issues with the opposite side without physical violence.

A calm, compromise approach to decision-making and resolving disagreements helps to win both in small individual disputes and in more global issues at the state and global level. The practice of imposing, including physical, the will of one side on the other is extremely ineffective and leads to protracted conflicts and stagnation, both in interpersonal everyday relationships and within the framework of resolving state and interstate issues.

Formula for success

The search for a compromise will be successful only if the parties comply with two basic rules:

1. In the process of communication, opponents must not only carefully listen each other, but also get to the bottom of things stated. Without understanding the interlocutor, a person is unlikely to be able to adequately react to his statements and, accordingly, make the right decision.

   
   Failure to comply with this condition entails a lack of mutual understanding between the parties and, as a consequence, the impossibility of reaching an agreement.

2. Both parties must have the desire to reach an agreement on mutually beneficial terms. One of the main signs of compromise is concessions on the part of both opponents . If one opponent makes concessions, the situation cannot be called resolved.

Will the skill be useful in life and where?

Some people believe that making compromise decisions is a sign of weakness, but this is completely wrong. Compromises are necessary and very useful and demonstrate not the weakness of opponents, but the ability to listen and hear each other. In this case, the concept of mutual concessions to resolve a conflict situation demonstrates greater effectiveness than stubbornly defending a position and unwillingness to sacrifice ambitions and beliefs.

The ability to come to a common decision will be useful to an individual everywhere - in work, family, everyday and social life, as it will help him build harmonious relationships with the environment and not waste his energy resources on scandals and squabbles.

Ethnonational conflict

These are contradictions between countries and peoples. The causes of such conflicts include:

• territorial disputes;
• cultural, historical, economic and social divisions;
• competition in the division of labor;
• struggle for resources.

Ethnonational conflicts develop longer than others. They are characterized by a latent period (putting forward demands), a manifestation stage (sanctions, the beginning of actions), an active period (attacks, strikes) and, in fact, the result (consequences).

As a rule, such conflicts are resolved first by force, then by finding a compromise and cooperation. These are political issues, so I don’t want to get into this jungle in more detail. Let's talk about something more mundane and smaller-scale.

Advantages and disadvantages

A compromise in psychology is an agreement between people or a group of people, which they reach through mutual concessions.

The benefits of choosing compromises when resolving controversial situations are obvious, since such settlement of issues allows:

• maintain relationships;
• avoid mutual insults, reproaches, and the use of brute physical force;
• gain unique experience in negotiations;
• often completely resolve the dispute;
• find a solution that will be attractive to all parties.

Despite the advantages of peaceful, compromise settlement of disagreements, this approach still has some disadvantages.

These include:

• incomplete satisfaction from the result obtained;
• often the conflict can escalate again;
• the parties have to sacrifice their ambitions and principles, perhaps pride;
• not all people know how to negotiate and make informed decisions.

Digital library

Organizational management / Fundamentals of management / 10. CONFLICTS AND THEIR MANAGEMENT

Personnel management of an organization: Textbook / Ed. AND I. Kibanova. – M.: INFRA-M, 1997. – 512 p.

Conflicts arise in the process of interaction and communication between individuals, so they exist as long as a person exists. However, there is no generally accepted theory of conflicts that explains their nature, influence on the development of teams and society, although there are numerous studies on the emergence, functioning of conflicts, and their management.

Differences in people's views, discrepancies in perceptions and assessments of certain events quite often lead to a controversial situation. If, in addition, the created situation poses a threat to the achievement of the set goal by at least one of the participants in the interaction, then a conflict situation arises.

Thus, the conflict situation

- these are contradictory positions of the parties on any issue, the desire for opposite goals, the use of different means to achieve them, divergence of interests, desires, etc.

Quite often, a conflict situation is based on objective contradictions, but sometimes a little thing is enough: an unsuccessfully spoken word, an opinion, i.e. incident - and a conflict may begin.

Incident

(reason) - the intensification of the activities of one of the parties, which infringes (even unintentionally) on the interests of the other party.

To develop a contradiction into a conflict situation, it is necessary to:

• the significance of the situation for the participants in the conflict interaction;

• the presence of an obstacle that one of the opponents erects on the path to the achievement of goals by other participants (even if this is a subjective perception and not reality);

• exceeding personal or group tolerance for the obstacle that has arisen, at least on one of the parties.

In a conflict situation, possible participants in the future conflict already appear - subjects or opponents, as well as the subject of the dispute or the object of the conflict.

Subjects of the conflict

are participants in conflict interaction, which can be individuals, groups, or organizations.

Object of conflict

becomes what each of the conflicting parties claims, what causes their opposition, the subject of their dispute, the receipt of which by one of the participants completely or partially deprives the other side of the opportunity to achieve their goals.

A conflict situation is a state that is quite mobile, unstable, and can easily change when any of the constituent elements changes: the views of opponents, the object-opponent relationship, when the object of the conflict is replaced, the appearance of conditions that complicate or exclude the interaction of opponents, the refusal of one of the subjects from further interaction, etc. .

When subjects interact, the behavior of each of them is influenced by the formal, and sometimes informal, status of opponents, their rank

, i.e. the level of power they actually have.

A conflict situation is a condition for the emergence of conflict. For such a situation to develop into a conflict, into dynamics, an external influence, push or incident is necessary.

Conflict

- a struggle for values ​​and claims to a certain status, power, resources, in which the goals are to neutralize, damage or destroy an opponent.

This definition clearly and clearly indicates the goals of conflict interaction, possible actions in the event of resistance from the opponent, and the actions are listed in order of increasing strength.

Conflict

- a collision of opposing goals, interests, positions, opinions or views of two or more people.

In this definition, the emphasis is placed on the subject of the collision in the form of opposing goals and interests, and the issue of methods of influence remains unknown.

Somewhat later, the following representation of the conflict was proposed:

CONFLICT = CONFLICT SITUATION + INCIDENT

Thus, the signs of conflict can be formulated:

• the presence of a situation perceived by the participants as a conflict;

• indivisibility of the object of the conflict, i.e. the subject of the conflict cannot be divided fairly between the participants in the conflict interaction;

• the desire of the participants to continue conflict interaction to achieve their goals.

In order to more easily navigate the diversity of conflicts and be able to choose an adequate method of influence, diagnosis and management, we will classify them. In Fig. 10.1 presents a classification of conflicts depending on a number of factors: the method of their resolution, the nature of their occurrence, the consequences for the participants, the degree of severity, the number of participants.

Antagonistic

conflicts represent ways to resolve a contradiction in the form of destruction of the structures of all conflicting parties or refusal of all parties except one to participate in the conflict. This one side wins: the war until victory, the complete defeat of the enemy in the dispute.

Compromise

conflicts allow for several options for their resolution due to mutual changes in the goals of the parties to the conflict, terms, and conditions of interaction.

Social

conflicts represent the highest stage of development of contradictions in the system of relations between people, social groups, and institutions. They are characterized by the strengthening of opposing tendencies and interests of social communities, groups, and individuals. Such conflicts presuppose the presence of a significant gap in time between the objective causes that gave rise to these conflicts, the conflicts themselves and their consequences.

Features of organizational

conflicts is that they are a consequence of organizational regulation of an individual’s activities: the application of job descriptions, the introduction of formal organizational management structures, etc.

Emotional

or personal conflicts are characterized by the fact that dissatisfaction with the interests of an individual immediately leads to a clash with others. These conflicts, as a rule, are caused by feelings of envy, hostility, antipathy and are a quick reaction of the individual to infringement of his interests. There is a combination (replacement) of an obstacle to achieving goals and a personality that, in the opinion of the individual, prevents him from achieving this goal.

Rice. 10.1. Types of conflicts

A characteristic feature of vertical

and
horizontal
conflicts is the amount of power. Vertical - involve the distribution of power vertically from top to bottom, which determines different starting conditions for the participants in the conflict: boss - subordinate, higher organization - enterprise, small enterprise - founder. In horizontal conflicts, interaction is assumed between subjects who are equal in terms of the amount of available power or hierarchical level: managers of the same level, specialists among themselves, suppliers and consumers.

Open

conflicts are characterized by a clearly expressed clash between opponents: quarrels, disputes, military clashes. Interaction is regulated by norms that correspond to the situation and level of the parties to the conflict: international (in case of interstate clashes), legal, social, ethical.

When hidden

In a conflict, there are no external aggressive actions between the conflicting parties, but indirect methods of influence are used. This occurs under the condition that one of the participants in the conflict interaction is afraid of the other, or he does not have sufficient power and strength for an open struggle.

Intrapersonal

Conflicts are a clash within a person of equal strength, but oppositely directed motives, needs, and interests. These are conflicts of choosing “the lesser of two evils.”

Intergroup
and
interpersonal conflicts represent a clash between individuals and a group or groups among themselves.

The division of conflicts into types is quite arbitrary; there is no rigid boundary between different types, and in practice conflicts arise: organizational vertical interpersonal; horizontal open intergroup, etc.

The conflicts considered can perform a variety of functions, both positive and negative. The main functions of conflicts are presented in table. 10.1.

The reasons that cause conflicts are as varied as the conflicts themselves. It is necessary to distinguish between objective reasons and their perception by individuals.

Table 10.1

Conflict functions

Positive	Negative
Relieving tension between conflicting parties	Large emotional and material costs of participating in the conflict
Obtaining new information about your opponent	Dismissal of employees, decrease in discipline, deterioration of the socio-psychological climate in the team
Uniting the organization's team when confronting an external enemy	The idea of ​​defeated groups as enemies
Stimulating change and development	Excessive involvement in the process of conflict interaction to the detriment of work
Removing the submissive syndrome in subordinates	After the conflict ends, there is a decrease in the degree of cooperation between some employees
Diagnosis of opponents' capabilities	Difficult restoration of business relations (“trail of conflict”)

Objective reasons can be fairly conventionally presented in the form of several large groups:

• limited resources to be distributed;

• differences in goals, values, methods of behavior, level of qualifications, education;

• interdependence of tasks, incorrect distribution of responsibilities;

• poor communications.

At the same time, objective reasons will only become causes of conflict when they make it impossible for an individual or group to realize their needs and affect personal and/or group interests. The individual’s reaction is largely determined by the social maturity of the individual, acceptable forms of behavior for him, and social norms and rules accepted in the team.

The choice of a method to overcome obstacles will, in turn, depend on the emotional stability of the individual, the available means of protecting one’s interests, the amount of available power and many other factors.

Psychological protection of the individual occurs unconsciously as a system of personality stabilization to protect the individual’s sphere of consciousness from negative psychological influences. As a result of the conflict, this system works involuntarily, against the will and desire of the person. The need for such protection arises when thoughts and feelings appear that pose a threat to self-esteem, the formed “I-image” of the individual, and the system of value orientations that reduce the individual’s self-esteem.

There are several ways or methods to determine the causes of conflict behavior. As an example, consider one of them - the cartography method

conflict. The essence of this method is a graphical display of the components of the conflict, a consistent analysis of the behavior of the participants in the conflict interaction, the formulation of the main problem, the needs and concerns of the participants, and ways to eliminate the causes that led to the conflict.

The work consists of several stages.

On the first

At this stage the problem is described in general terms. If, for example, we are talking about inconsistency in work, about the fact that someone does not “pull the strap” along with everyone else, then the problem can be displayed as “load distribution.” If the conflict arises from a lack of trust between an individual and a group, then the problem can be expressed as “communication.” At this stage, it is important to determine the very nature of the conflict, and for now it does not matter that this does not fully reflect the essence of the problem. More on this later. The problem should not be defined in the form of a binary choice of opposites “yes or no”; it is advisable to leave the possibility of finding new and original solutions.

On the second

stage, the main participants in the conflict are identified. You can include individuals or entire teams, departments, groups, or organizations on the list. To the extent that the people involved in a conflict have common needs in relation to a given conflict, they can be grouped together. A mixture of group and individual categories is also allowed.

Third

This stage involves listing the basic needs and concerns associated with this need of all the main participants in the conflict interaction. It is necessary to find out the motives of behavior behind the participants’ positions on this issue. People's actions and their attitudes are determined by their desires, needs, and motives that need to be established.

The graphical representation of needs and concerns (Figure 10.2) expands the possibilities and creates the conditions for a wider range of solutions possible after the entire mapping process is completed.

The term “fear” means concern, anxiety of an individual when it is impossible to realize some of his needs. In this case, you should not discuss with the parties to the conflict how justified their fears and concerns are until they are included in the map. The advantage of the cartography method is that it is possible to speak out during the process of drawing up a map and reflect irrational fears on it. Fears may include the following: failure and humiliation, fear of making a mistake, financial ruin, the possibility of rejection, loss of control over the situation, loneliness, the possibility of being criticized or judged, job loss, low wages, fear of being command that everything will have to start all over again. Using the concept of “fear”, it is possible to identify motives that are not mentioned out loud by the participants in the conflict.

Rice. 10.2. Map of the conflict

As a result of drawing up a map, the points of convergence of interests of the conflicting parties are clarified, the fears and concerns of each party are more clearly manifested, and possible ways out of the current situation are determined.

Many specialists involved in conflict resolution professionally believe that the process of conflict management depends on many factors, many of which are difficult to control. For example, personality views, motives and needs of individuals, groups. Established stereotypes, perceptions, prejudices, prejudices can sometimes nullify the efforts of those who develop solutions. Depending on the type of conflict, different services can search for solutions: the management of the organization, the personnel management service, the department of psychologist and sociologist, the trade union committee, the strike committee, the police, the court.

Conflict resolution

represents the elimination in whole or in part of the causes that gave rise to the conflict, or a change in the goals of the parties to the conflict.

Conflict Management

- this is a targeted impact on eliminating (minimizing) the causes that gave rise to the conflict, or on correcting the behavior of the participants in the conflict.

There are quite a lot of conflict management methods. Collectively, they can be presented in the form of several groups, each of which has its own area of ​​application:

· intrapersonal, i.e.

methods of influencing an individual;

· structural, i.e. methods for eliminating organizational conflicts;

· interpersonal methods or styles of behavior in conflict;

· negotiation;

· retaliatory aggressive actions, this group of methods is used in extreme cases, when the capabilities of all previous groups have been exhausted.

Intrapersonal methods

consist in the ability to correctly organize one’s own behavior, express one’s point of view without causing a defensive reaction on the part of the other person. Some authors suggest using the “I-statement” method, i.e. a way of conveying to another person your attitude towards a certain subject, without accusations or demands, but in such a way that the other person changes his attitude.

This method helps a person maintain his position without turning another into his enemy. The “I statement” can be useful in any situation, but it is especially effective when a person is angry, irritated, or dissatisfied. It should be noted right away that the use of this approach requires skills and practice, but this can be justified in the future.

The “I-statement” is structured in such a way as to allow the individual to express his opinion about the current situation and express his wishes. It is especially useful when a person wants to convey something to another, but does not want him to perceive it negatively and go on the attack.

Event.

The current situation, taking into account the method used, requires a brief objective description without the use of subjective and emotionally charged expressions.

Individual's reaction.

Clearly expressing why you are annoyed by the behavior of others helps them understand you, and when you speak from “I” without attacking them, this reaction can encourage others to change their behavior. The reaction can be emotional: “I’m offended by you...”, “I will assume that you don’t understand me...”, “I decide to do everything myself...”.

Preferred outcome of the event.

When an individual expresses his wishes about the outcome of the conflict, it is advisable to offer several options. A correctly composed “I-statement”, in which the individual’s wishes are not limited to ensuring that the partner does only what is beneficial for him, implies the possibility of opening new decision options.

Structural methods –

These are methods of influencing primarily organizational conflicts that arise due to improper distribution of powers, labor organization, adopted incentive system, etc. Such methods include: clarifying job requirements, coordination and integration mechanisms, organization-wide goals, and the use of reward systems.

Clarification of job requirements

is one of the effective methods of conflict management and prevention. Each specialist must clearly understand what results are required of him, what his duties, responsibilities, limits of authority, and stages of work are. The method is implemented in the form of drawing up appropriate job descriptions (position descriptions), distributing rights and responsibilities across management levels.

Coordination Mechanisms

represent the use of structural units in an organization, which, if necessary, can intervene and resolve controversial issues between them.

Organizational goals.

This method involves developing or clarifying organizational goals so that the efforts of all employees are united and aimed at achieving them.

Reward system.

Stimulation can be used as a method of managing a conflict situation; with proper influence on people's behavior, conflicts can be avoided. It is important that the reward system does not reward unconstructive behavior by individuals or groups. For example, if you reward sales managers only for increasing sales volume, this may lead to a conflict with the target level of profit. The managers of these departments can increase sales by offering large discounts and, thereby, reducing the company's average profit level.

Interpersonal methods.

When creating a conflict situation or at the beginning of the unfolding of the conflict itself, its participants need to choose the form and style of their further behavior so that this has the least impact on their interests.

K. Thomas

and
R. Kilmenn
identified the following five main styles of behavior in a conflict situation:

• adaptation, compliance;

• evasion;

• confrontation;

• cooperation;

• compromise.

The classification is based on two independent parameters:

1) the degree of realization of one’s own interests, achievement of one’s goals,

2) level of cooperation, taking into account the interests of the other party.

If we present this in graphical form, we get the Thomas-Kilmann grid, which allows us to analyze a specific conflict and choose a rational form of behavior (Fig. 10.3). Each person can use all of these behaviors to some degree, but there is usually a priority form. Let's take a closer look at these behavioral styles.

Rice. 10.3. Forms of behavior in conflict

Evasion (avoidance, withdrawal).

This form of behavior is chosen when an individual does not want to defend his rights, cooperate to develop a solution, refrains from expressing his position, and avoids arguing. This style suggests a tendency to avoid responsibility for decisions. This behavior is possible if the outcome of the conflict is not particularly important for the individual, or if the situation is too complex and resolving the conflict will require a lot of effort from its participants, or the individual does not have enough power to resolve the conflict in his favor.

Confrontation, competition is characterized

the active struggle of an individual for his interests, the use of all means available to him to achieve his goals: power, coercion, other means of putting pressure on opponents, using the dependence of other participants on him. The situation is perceived by the individual as extremely significant for him, as a matter of victory or defeat, which implies a tough position towards opponents and irreconcilable antagonism towards other participants in the conflict in case of their resistance.

Compliance, adaptation.

The actions of an individual are aimed at maintaining or restoring favorable relations with an opponent by smoothing out disagreements at the expense of their own interests. This approach is possible when the individual’s contribution is not too great or when the subject of disagreement is more significant for the opponent than for the individual. This behavior in conflict is used if the situation is not particularly significant, if it is more important to maintain good relations with the opponent than to defend one’s own interests, if the individual has little chance of winning, little power.

Cooperation

means that the individual actively participates in finding a solution that satisfies all participants in the interaction, but without forgetting his own interests. An open exchange of views and the interest of all parties to the conflict in developing a common solution are assumed. This form requires time-consuming work and the participation of all parties. If opponents have time, and solving the problem is important for everyone, then with this approach it is possible to comprehensively discuss the issue, the disagreements that have arisen and develop a common solution while respecting the interests of all participants.

In compromise

the actions of the participants are aimed at finding a solution through mutual concessions, at developing an intermediate solution that suits both parties, in which no one really gains, but no one loses either. This style of behavior is applicable provided that the opponents have the same power, have mutually exclusive interests, they do not have a large reserve of time to find a better solution, and they are satisfied with an intermediate solution for a certain period of time.

Avoidance and compliance styles

do not involve the active use of confrontation in resolving conflicts.
In confrontation and cooperation, confrontation
Considering that resolving a conflict involves eliminating the causes that gave rise to it, we can conclude that only the style of cooperation fully realizes this task.
With avoidance and compliance,
the resolution of the conflict is postponed, and the conflict itself is transferred to a hidden form.
Compromise can

In some cases, it is believed that confrontation within reasonable, controlled limits is more productive in terms of conflict resolution than smoothing, avoidance, and even compromise, although not all experts adhere to this statement. At the same time, the question arises about the cost of victory and what constitutes defeat for the other side. These are extremely difficult issues in conflict management, since it is important that defeat does not become the basis for the formation of new conflicts and does not lead to an expansion of the zone of conflict interaction.

Negotiation

represent a broad aspect of communication, covering many areas of an individual’s activity. As a method of conflict resolution, negotiations are a set of tactics aimed at finding mutually acceptable solutions for conflicting parties.

In order for negotiations to become possible, certain conditions must be met:

• the existence of interdependence of the parties involved in the conflict;

• absence of significant differences in the capabilities (strength) of the subjects of the conflict;

• correspondence of the stage of development of the conflict to the possibilities of negotiations;

• participation in negotiations between parties who can actually make decisions in the current situation.

Each conflict goes through several stages in its development (Table 10.2). At some of them, negotiations may not be accepted, since it is too early, and at others it will be too late to start them, and then only aggressive retaliatory actions are possible.

It is believed that it is advisable to negotiate only with those forces that have power in the current situation and can influence the outcome of the event. There are several groups whose interests are affected in the conflict:

primary

groups - their personal interests are affected, they themselves participate in the conflict, but the possibility of successful negotiations does not always depend on these groups;

secondary

groups - their interests are affected, but these forces do not strive to openly demonstrate their interest, their actions are hidden until a certain time. There may also be third forces that are also interested in the conflict, but even more hidden. An example of the existence of multiple forces behind the external manifestation of one conflict is the “Yugoslav crisis”.

Table 10.2

Possibility of negotiations depending on the stage of development of the conflict

Stages of conflict development	Negotiation opportunities
Tension disagreement	It’s too early to hold negotiations; not all components of the conflict have yet been determined
Rivalry, hostility	Negotiations are rational
Aggressiveness	Negotiations with a third party
Violence, warfare	Negotiations are impossible; aggressive retaliatory actions are advisable

Properly organized negotiations go through several stages:

• preparation for the start of negotiations (before the opening of negotiations);

• preliminary choice of position (initial statements of participants about their position in these negotiations);

• search for a mutually acceptable solution (psychological struggle, establishing the real position of opponents);

• completion (exit from a crisis or negotiation impasse).

By the fourth stage, a significant number of different proposals and options already exist, but agreement on them has not yet been reached. A few final concessions from both sides could save the day. But here it is important for the conflicting parties to clearly remember which concessions do not affect the achievement of their main goal (Table 10.3), and which ones nullify all previous work.

Table 10.3

Possible goals and results of participation in negotiations

Statement of goals	Possible results
Reflect our interests to the maximum extent	Our most desired results
Take our interests into account	Acceptable results
Our interests are practically not taken into account	Unacceptable results
They infringe on our interests	Completely unacceptable results

General recommendations for solution

conflict situation can be reduced to the following.

1) Recognize the existence of a conflict

those. recognize the existence of opposing goals and methods among opponents, and identify these participants themselves.

2) Determine the possibility of negotiations.

After recognizing the existence of a conflict and the impossibility of resolving it “on the spot,” it is advisable to agree on the possibility of holding negotiations and clarify what kind of negotiations: with or without a mediator and who can be a mediator that is equally satisfactory for both parties.

3) Agree on the negotiation procedure.

Determine where, when and how negotiations will begin, i.e. stipulate the timing, place, procedure for conducting negotiations, and the start time of joint activities.

4) Identify the range of issues that constitute the subject of the conflict.

The main problem is to define in shared terms what is in conflict and what is not.

5) Develop solutions.

The parties, when working together, offer several solution options with cost calculations for each of them, taking into account the possible consequences.

6) Make an agreed decision.

After considering a number of possible options, during mutual discussion and provided that the parties come to an agreement, it is advisable to present this general decision in writing: communiqué, resolution, cooperation agreement, etc. In particularly complex or responsible cases, written documents are drawn up after each stage negotiations

1) Implement the decision made in practice.

If the process of joint action ends only with the adoption of a well-developed and agreed upon decision, and then nothing happens or changes, then this situation can be the detonator of other, stronger and longer-lasting conflicts. The reasons that caused the first conflict have not disappeared, but have only been strengthened by unfulfilled promises. Repeated negotiations will be much more difficult.

Kinds

Compromise is the ability of opposing parties to meet each other halfway and find a satisfactory solution somewhere in the middle.

In psychology, there are 2 types of compromise:

• positive - it is also called voluntary;
• negative – or otherwise forced.

Positive compromise

A voluntary or positive compromise is concluded by the parties without the intervention of third parties. As an example, we can cite a situation when 2 people who have not seen each other for a long time want to meet and, agreeing on a certain date, find out that at that time one of the parties is planning to go to a concert, tickets for which were purchased in advance, and the other party cannot come to the meeting on another day.

In this case, the parties can, after discussing the situation, agree to see each other at the concert itself, after it, or even postpone the meeting for a more favorable time, while no one will put pressure on each other and the opponents will jointly make a decision that satisfies them as much as possible.

Negative compromise

A negative compromise is considered forced, since in this case one of the parties puts pressure on the other when making a decision. In this case, the agreement becomes more like an ultimatum, since usually one opponent tries to influence the other dishonestly, putting pressure on pity, vulnerabilities, and fears.

An example would be a situation where a husband forces his overweight wife to lose excess weight, threatening to leave her and divorce her. If in this situation a frightened woman goes along with it and begins to exhaust herself with diets, pills and excessive physical activity, then such a compromise has a negative impact on her health and is unlikely to help maintain truly harmonious family relationships.

When the conflict is considered intractable and unmanageable

A conflict is considered intractable when:

• participants perceive it as a struggle;
• participants consider the interests of the parties to be mutually exclusive;
• the participants initially have different values ​​or interpretations of the conflict, which is what causes disagreements;
• The parties are social institutions (for example, family and school).

A conflict is considered unmanageable when:

• the parties are determined to maintain the conflict;
• constructive interaction is impossible due to the emotional intensity or characteristics of the participants;
• the conflict that has arisen is part of the subjects’ broad rejection of each other.

What is an unfavorable compromise?

Compromise in psychology is a way of culturally resolving problems between different representatives of society. Often a compromise will develop into a relationship resembling an ultimatum, when one of the parties completely suppresses the will of the other party. However, in this case, a compromise cannot be mutually beneficial, since its achievement does not imply a simultaneous renunciation of the own interests of each of the warring parties.

In real life, there are many factors that force a person to make an unequal compromise and act contrary to his desires and life principles.

People around

Most often, it is difficult to reach a compromise with close people around them, who, having information about a person’s life, know how and with what they can put pressure on him in order to achieve what he wants. This kind of compromise is often found in couples where one of the partners is a despot, narcissist or abuser and is good at manipulating his other half.

Also, with unfavorable compromises, it is possible for people to use their higher position, both in family and in social life, which is often observed in conflicts between fathers and children, subordinates and superiors, when the party occupying a higher position or being of an older age puts pressure on opponent with his authority.

For example, a young man finishing school wants to study to become a teacher, but his relatives do not like his choice, and they try in every possible way to influence him, saying that they have more experience and know better where they can earn more.

As a result, with their authority they suppress the will of the young man, and he goes to enroll where his more experienced relatives want. In this situation, the interests of the youngest person, who does not like his future profession, are not taken into account, but he is forced to make concessions, since he depends on his parents and does not want to upset them.

Complexes

The presence of complexes in a person leads to the development of excessive sacrifice and sharply increases his chances of finding himself in unfavorable situations when resolving disputes and conflicts. Lack of parental love in childhood (especially maternal love), lack of care and warmth, as well as difficulties in adolescence, lead to the fact that a person may develop various complexes, self-doubt and feelings of guilt.

Such individuals are often unable to defend their interests, because they feel useless and undeserving of happiness. When they find themselves in a conflict situation, it is easier for them to accept all unfavorable conditions than to remain guilty and, as it seems to them, abandoned by everyone.

Majority influence

Under pressure from the collective, people often have to make unfavorable concessions for fear of being rejected and becoming what is called a “black sheep.” The situation can often be aggravated by the presence of complexes in an individual, and in this situation he will never go against the opinion of the majority, even if he does not like it and forces him to neglect his own high moral principles.

For example, in organizations a situation often arises when the rest of the team speaks arrogantly to a new employee and tries in every possible way to show him where his place is. Such “introductory” tactics may not be to the liking of everyone, but because of the fear of being in the same place as this new employee, the person will not say anything about it and will not in any way demonstrate his possible sympathy for the newcomer, but will imitate the majority.

Evasion (escape)

Evasion (withdrawal) as a style of behavior in conflicts is characterized by a clear lack of desire on the part of those involved in a conflict situation to cooperate with anyone and make active efforts to realize their own interests, as well as to meet opponents halfway;
the desire to get out of the conflict field, to escape the conflict. This style of behavior is usually chosen in cases where:

• the problem that caused the conflict does not seem significant to the subject of the conflict, the subject of disagreement, in his opinion, is petty, based on differences in taste, and does not deserve the waste of time and effort;
• an opportunity is discovered to achieve one’s own goals in a different, non-conflict way;
• the clash occurs between subjects who are equal or close in strength (rank), consciously avoiding complications in their relationships;
• the participant in the conflict feels that he is wrong or has an opponent with a person of higher rank and assertive volitional energy;
• it is necessary to postpone an acute clash in order to gain time, analyze the current situation in more detail, gather strength, and enlist the support of supporters;
• It is advisable to avoid further contacts with a person with a difficult mental state or an extremely tendentious, overly biased opponent who is deliberately looking for reasons to aggravate relations.

Avoidance can be completely justified in conditions of interpersonal conflict that arises for reasons of a subjective, emotional nature.
This style is most often used by realists by nature. People of this type, as a rule, soberly assess the advantages and weaknesses of the positions of the conflicting parties. Even when touched to the quick, they are wary of recklessly getting involved in a “fight”, they are in no hurry to accept calls to escalate the clash, realizing that often the only means of winning in an interpersonal dispute is to avoid participating in it. It is a different matter 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 reasons that gave rise to it do not disappear by themselves, but become even more aggravated.

How is compromise different from consensus?

Compromise is often confused with consensus, but the two concepts are somewhat different. Translated from Latin, consensus means “unanimity” and refers to a method of resolving conflict situations and disputes in which the parties do not have fundamental objections on key issues.

A typical example of consensus is a situation when a family chooses where to go on vacation, to the sea, to the mountains or on an excursion tour, but no one fundamentally insists on any of the positions and after a joint discussion everyone agrees to go to the sea.

If one family member (or several) definitely wants to go on an excursion, and the other (others) to the sea, then the parties can reach a compromise by agreeing to combine both activities.

Thus, we speak of consensus when a decision is made as a result of unanimous agreement and the parties do not have fundamentally different views on a particular issue. If the opponents have made a number of mutually beneficial concessions, then we are talking about concluding a compromise.

Conflict Prevention

Prevention is always more effective than elimination. Therefore, they offer several methods to reduce the tension of the situation:

1. Consent, or common cause. If it is obvious that, for example, a conflict is brewing between children, then they need to be united in something that satisfies the interests of both. Being passionate, they will find other common topics and learn to collaborate.
2. Development of empathy, the ability to empathize.
3. Forming a respectful attitude and understanding of the value of each individual.
4. Relying on your opponent's strengths. It's important to highlight the differences, but in a positive way. “I know how to present material creatively; you can arrange it in a structured way.”
5. Relieving psychological stress with the help of “strokes” (holidays, presentations, joint recreation).

You need to undergo trainings yourself or the organizers conduct trainings, events, courses on the general development and strengthening of interpersonal relationships, improving communication skills.

Is compromise in leader psychology a strength or a weakness?

Many believe that concessions and relaxations when resolving conflict situations indicate a manifestation of weakness and a strong person, a leader, will never take such steps when resolving disputes and conflicts. However, this opinion is erroneous, since a rude demonstration of force and reluctance to negotiate does not indicate strength, but the stupidity and inflexibility of an individual or some social group.

Making uncompromising decisions is characteristic of non-democratic management styles - authoritarianism, totalitarianism, for which it is generally not typical to consider a different position as having a right to exist.

However, if you look at the dynamics of the development of democratic countries in Europe and authoritarian regimes (North Korea, some former USSR countries), you can clearly see which of them have gone further in their development, and which, suppressing dissent and not wanting to seek compromises with society and the opposition, have been for many years is in stagnation.

The same analogy can be drawn at the everyday level. If a tyrant man does not take into account the needs and interests of his wife and children, but at the same time defends and imposes his opinion on all vital issues, then this ultimately leads to the collapse of the family and indicates not the strength of the individual, but a tendency to despotism.

On the other hand, the ability to make compromise decisions does not mean at all that a person must follow his opponent’s lead in everything and agree with everything. The task of a strong and self-confident leader when resolving issues and resolving conflicts is to convince the opponent that he is right and gain authority, thanks to which the opposing side will listen to the arguments presented. It is also equally important for a leader to be able to hear other people’s arguments and take them into account.

Structure of the conflict

The structure of the conflict includes two elements:

1. A conflict situation as a set of causes and conditions for the development of a conflict (a contradiction between the needs and interests of subjects).
2. An incident as actions (conflict triggers) of one of the parties aimed at achieving goals. “How could he, well, that was the last straw! War means war!

A conflict situation, in turn, is based on the characteristics of the object (real or fictional), the goals and motives of the subjects (parties), their characteristics and vision of the situation.

The subjects and the object themselves are also included in the structure of the conflict. In addition, sometimes minor persons are involved, which can have an ambiguous impact:

• incite for the sake of one's own interests (provocateur);
• resolve disagreements (mediator);
• support one or both sides (ally, support group);
• plan and manage the conflict (organizer, “puppeteer”);
• to be accidentally involved (victim).

Compromise as a method of conflict resolution

Psychologists argue that any conflicts should not remain unresolved, since such incompleteness negatively affects interpersonal relationships. They call compromise one of the most effective ways to resolve them. With this conflict resolution strategy, the parties make mutual concessions, while none of them wins, but there are also no losers, since each of the opponents was forced to sacrifice something in order to come to a common agreement.

This method of resolving conflict situations allows you to maintain existing relationships and resolve differences that have arisen. When starting negotiations and trying to reach a compromise, the parties, as a rule, do this voluntarily and do not perceive the opposite party as a rival or adversary, which helps to find the most acceptable solution for each party.

Confrontation

Confrontation in its focus is aimed at, acting actively and independently, achieving one’s own interests, regardless of the other parties directly involved in the conflict, or even to the detriment of them. Those who use this style of behavior seek to impose their solution to the problem on others, rely only on their own strength, and do not accept joint actions. At the same time, elements of maximalism, strong-willed pressure, and the desire to force the opponent to accept the point of view he disputes, by any means, including force pressure, administrative sanctions, intimidation, blackmail, etc., are manifested, to gain the upper hand over him at any cost, to win. in conflict. As a rule, confrontation is chosen in situations where:

• the problem is of vital importance for the participant in the conflict, who believes that he has sufficient power to quickly resolve it in his favor;
• the conflicting party occupies a very advantageous, essentially win-win position for itself and has the opportunity to use it to achieve its own goal;
• the subject of the conflict is confident that his proposed solution to the problem in this situation, and at the same time, having a higher rank, insists on making this decision, is currently deprived of another choice and practically does not risk losing anything, acting decisively in defense of his interests and dooming opponents to lose.

We must not forget, however, that any pressure, in whatever form it occurs, can result in an explosion of unbridled emotions, the destruction of respectful and trusting relationships, and an excessively negative reaction from those who find themselves defeated and will not give up trying to achieve revenge. Therefore, this style is of little use in most interpersonal conflicts; it is not the best option for maintaining a healthy moral and psychological atmosphere in the team, or creating conditions that allow employees to get along with each other.

Compromise in family relationships

In family life, conflict situations are inevitable. People who really care about maintaining a relationship should learn to set priorities correctly and make concessions to each other, because the ability to find a compromise is the basis of a happy marriage.

Often, one of the partners may act selfishly and force the other half to sacrifice their interests for their own benefit. In this case, the victim will still accumulate resentment, which sooner or later will find its expression.

In marriage and everyday family life, situations regularly arise when the points of view of the wife and husband do not coincide. This may concern raising children, spending money, choosing a vacation spot, or buying new furniture for your home.

If each partner behaves self-centeredly and demonstrates rejection of the other’s opinions, then such a marriage is unlikely to be strong and can last long. We can say that compromise is the basis of family life, otherwise the life of one under the orders of the other will not be happy and it is unlikely that he will want to see himself in such unequal relationships for a long time.

Reasons and functions

How to motivate yourself - set a goal and do everything to achieve it

The cause of an aggravation of a conflict situation can be anything that affects the interests of an individual or group or limits activities.

Main causes of conflicts:

• a distorted idea of ​​oneself, the current situation, other subjects;
• different characters and temperaments;
• discrimination on various grounds;
• a battle for place or benefits when they are limited.

The functions determine the dynamics of the conflict and its impact on the external environment and psychological climate. There are constructive and destructive conflicts.

Constructive performs the following functions:

• defusing a tense situation;
• informational and connecting (the emergence of new information about subjects);
• team building;
• prioritization;
• stimulation for further development;
• open expression of thoughts;
• relationship diagnostics.

Destructive performs negative functions:

• decreased performance;
• deterioration of relationships;
• emotional burnout;
• underestimating the importance of the opponent;
• emotional craving for further struggle.

How to find a compromise?

Compromise in psychology is an effective agreement between opposing parties, which is reached by them on a voluntary basis as a result of concessions from each of them.

In order to find a compromise it is necessary:

• enter into an open dialogue with the opposing side;
• listen carefully to your opponent;
• each party should behave respectfully and calmly (sarcasm, shouting, and swearing are unacceptable);
• put yourself in your partner’s place and advise him to do the same;
• express and defend your point of view in acceptable ways;
• be honest and open.

The result of such negotiations should be the finding of a common solution that would be more satisfactory to all parties to the conflict.

Forms of ending the conflict

The conflict can be resolved, settled, extinguished, eliminated or transformed into another conflict.

Permission

It occurs under the condition that the participants are committed to completely solving the problem and eliminating opposition. It takes place in several stages:

1. Identification of conflicting parties.
2. Identifying the personal characteristics, motives, goals and interests of each of them.
3. Identifying the true cause.
4. Determining the intentions of the parties and their understanding of the situation.
5. Collection of opinions of persons not directly involved in the conflict, but interested in its successful resolution.
6. Choosing the optimal strategy for resolving the conflict. When choosing, it is important to take into account the nature of the reason, the characteristics of the participants, and the focus on improving relationships.

Settlement

It assumes the involvement of an independent third party in the process of ending the conflict. At the same time, it is important for him to be as impartial as possible. As a result of the settlement, it is possible to increase the trust of the parties, establish direct contact between them, organize a joint calm discussion, and act in the interests of resolving the conflict. The process also occurs in several stages:

1. Finding out the causes, not the causes, of the conflict.
2. Determining the authority of the third party.
3. Finding out the motives of the conflicting parties (why they are in conflict).

Attenuation

It involves the transition of an open conflict to a hidden one, that is, it is the cessation of opposition, but the preservation of tension. The conflict may fade due to:

• exhaustion of the parties;
• loss of motive, significance of the object;
• abstraction of the parties (other problems arose, the conflict faded into the background).

Elimination

It involves eliminating a conflict situation (conditions, social situation predisposing to conflict) and an incident (actions of opponents). For example, an employee may be transferred to another workshop.

Transformation

In the process of interaction, the motives and interests of the parties change, which gives rise to a new object of conflict. Sometimes transformation appears against the backdrop of an incompletely resolved conflict.

What's wrong with compromise?

Opponents of compromise believe that this solution does not lead to the settlement of disputes and the result “neither you nor me” is something average and, in fact, does not satisfy either side. They believe that compromise is a special case of a “lose-lose” situation in which neither party ends up getting what they wanted. In this situation, the conflict itself is resolved or extinguished, but the parties do not feel joy from the agreements reached.

It also often happens that the agreements reached are not of equal value due to the fact that one of the parties makes more concessions and the other makes less. The result is a veiled version of a “win-lose” compromise, which is not a fair and just decision in relation to one of the opponents.

At the same time, it is almost impossible to find a compromise option in which both parties would remain in an advantageous position, without the need to make concessions. That is why a compromise, in which opponents sacrifice something to maintain peace and achieve common goals, is still a more acceptable option for resolving disputes.

Stages of conflict

There are 4 stages of conflict development:

1. The formation of a conflict situation, that is, a potential conflict (not always realized by the subjects themselves).
2. Awareness of contradiction. Moreover, it can be adequate (real vision of the situation), inadequate (distorted vision of the situation), unclear (tension is obvious, but the reason is not clear), false (“made a mountain out of a molehill”).
3. Choosing conflict behavior tactics. The goal is to block the intentions and achievements of the opposite side.
4. Conflict resolution. Occurs due to a change in the situation or the attitude of the parties to it. Partial (external signs of conflict have been eliminated, but the parties still have internal motivations for confrontation) and complete (external and internal elimination of conflict behavior and motivations) resolution is possible.

When should you not compromise?

There are many situations when you should not make concessions and compromise:

If:	Explanation	Example
You have to sacrifice your moral principles	Do not go against your own ethical and moral principles	You cannot forgive your husband’s infidelity, even if he swears his love and tries to bribe you with gifts and money.
There is manipulation	When good deeds hide selfish intentions	A person should not trust work colleagues who obsessively treat him to something tasty and try in every possible way to gain trust in order to shift some of the responsibilities onto him.
A person is used unilaterally	You cannot allow yourself to be taken advantage of by your kindness and responsiveness.	A friend leaves her baby when she needs to go away, but refuses to do the same when the other party needs it.
Something intuitively warns against an error	When your inner instinct tells you that you shouldn’t compromise, it’s better to listen to it	You should not employ unreliable relatives to work under your responsibility if you have a feeling that they might let you down, even if your relatives really ask for them and promise to thank you.

Compromise is a civilized way of resolving disagreements that arise at different levels - family, work, state. In psychology, this method of resolving problem situations is considered the most effective and acceptable, since it does not lead the warring parties to hostility and open confrontation, but helps to smooth out rough edges and avoid the development of a destructive conflict.

By making concessions to each other, the parties, even if they have to sacrifice something, in any case receive more than if they begin to quarrel with the intention of suppressing the will of the opponent and achieving their goal in full.

Organizational conflicts

Conflicts between participants in one or more organizations can be caused by external and internal factors. External ones include:

• unstable socio-economic situation in the country or unfavorable conditions;
• changes in laws, payments, allowances, benefits;
• changes in the legal capabilities of workers.

Internal factors include:

• destructive leadership style;
• silence, unwillingness to fulfill duties, violation of workers' rights;
• active activity of informal leaders;
• changing the production process without taking into account the interests of workers.

Signs of conflict in an organization include:

• official or unofficial facts of personal humiliation;
• sudden change of responsibilities (often without taking into account the interests of the employee);
• hackwork, evasion of orders from superiors;
• insults;
• division into informal groups;
• formalism;
• depression of individual workers;
• negative feedback from employees.

It is solved by choosing a third party to manage the conflict and eliminate its causes, especially if they are normative in nature. An approximate course of resolving such a conflict will be presented below.