In any human relationship, there are disagreements from time to time. And at work, and in the family, and in relationships between lovers, conflict situations occur. Many people experience them quite painfully. And absolutely in vain. You need to learn how to properly relate to such situations and know how to competently resolve the conflict.

Psychologists advise to treat positively - as an opportunity to clarify and even modify relationships.

Learning to resolve conflicts

In the event of a conflict, it is imperative to let the partner let off steam: try to listen to all his claims calmly and patiently, without interrupting or commenting. In this case, the internal tension will decrease both for you and for your opponent.

After the emotions are splashed out, you can offer to substantiate the claims. At the same time, it is necessary to monitor the situation so that the opposite side of the conflict does not again switch from a constructive discussion of problems to an emotional one. If this happens, you need to tactfully guide the debater to intellectual conclusions.

You can dampen your partner’s negative emotions by giving him a sincere compliment or by reminding him of something good and pleasant from a common past.

Respect for the opponent is a prerequisite for how to resolve the conflict correctly. It will impress even an extremely angry person. If, in such a situation, the partner is offended, personalized, it will definitely not be possible to resolve the conflict.

What to do if the opponent could not restrain himself and switched to shouting? Do not break into reciprocal abuse!

If you feel guilty about the conflict yourself, do not be afraid to apologize. Remember that only smart people can do this.

Some methods of behavior in a conflict situation

There are several proven tricks on how to resolve conflict.

Reception number 1. Try to imagine yourself as a commentator watching an argument. Look at the conflict as if from the outside, and above all - at yourself.

Mentally fence yourself off with an impenetrable cap or body armor - you will immediately feel that the barbs and unpleasant words of your opponent seem to break against the barrier you have set up, and no longer hurt so sharply.

Seeing from the position of a commentator what qualities you lack in a conflict, endow yourself with them in your imagination and continue the argument as if you have them.

If you do this regularly, the missing qualities will really appear.

Reception number 2. How to resolve the conflict between the disputants? This very simple technique often helps not only to relieve tension, but to avoid confrontation altogether. You just need to move away or move away from the enemy. The closer the conflicting parties are physically, the stronger the intensity of passions.

Reception number 3. Surprise your opponent at the moment of conflict with a non-standard phrase or joke. It's just a great way to resolve conflict. It’s hard to argue with a person who is set to joke!

Reception number 4. If it is absolutely clear that the interlocutor deliberately provokes a conflict, offends and simply does not give a chance to answer, in such a situation it is better to leave, saying that you do not want to continue the conversation in this tone. It's better to move it to tomorrow.

By taking a time out, you will calm down, get a break to find the right words. And the person who provoked the quarrel will lose his confidence during this time.

What Not to Do in a Conflict

Good self-control is the key to success

You need to learn how to restrain emotions and In a conflict with partners or clients, it is strictly prohibited:

• irritable tone and swearing;
• a clear demonstration of one's own superiority;
• criticism of the opponent;
• searching for negative intentions in his actions;
• disclaiming responsibility, blaming the partner for everything;
• ignoring the interests of the opponent;
• exaggeration of one's role in the common cause;
• pressure on pain points.

The best way to get out of a conflict is not to bring it up

Psychologists advise treating conflict as a positive factor. If at the very beginning of building relationships, noticing conflict points, not hushing them up, you can stop serious quarrels in the bud.

You need to try to "put out the fire" before it flares up. Therefore, the best way to resolve the conflict is not to bring it to it. Indeed, in life there are already a lot of difficulties, and nerve cells will still come in handy.

Often the cause of confrontation is the accumulation of unspoken negativity. A person is annoyed by something in the behavior of a colleague or simply infuriated by some habit of a loved one, but he does not know how to say this so as not to spoil the relationship. Therefore, he is patient and silent. The effect is just the opposite. The accumulated irritation sooner or later spills out in an uncontrolled form, which can lead to a serious conflict. Therefore, it is very important not to bring it to a “boiling point”, but to calmly and tactfully express your claims as soon as they arise.

When Not to Avoid Conflict

But there are times when it is not worth it, because it is she who will help solve the problem. You can consciously go into conflict if:

• you need to defuse the situation by finding out what is sore with a loved one;
• there is a need to break off relations;
• to yield to an opponent means for you to betray your ideals.

But we must remember that deliberately going into conflict, it is necessary to sort things out intelligently.

How to Resolve Conflict Properly

To get out of the conflict situation as quickly as possible and with the least losses, we offer the following sequence of actions.

1. First of all, the existence of conflict must be recognized. We must not allow a situation where people feel opposition and act according to their chosen tactics, but do not openly talk about it. It will not be possible to resolve such a conflict without a joint discussion of the parties.

2. Having recognized the conflict, it is necessary to agree on negotiations. They can be either face to face or with the participation of an intermediary who suits both parties.

3. Determine what exactly constitutes the subject of confrontation. As practice shows, the parties to the conflict often see the essence of the problem differently. Therefore, it is necessary to find common ground in understanding the dispute. Already at this stage, it is important to determine whether convergence of positions is possible.

4. Develop several options for solutions, taking into account all possible consequences.

5. After considering all options, settle on one that suits both parties. Record the decision in writing.

6. Implement the solution. If this is not done immediately, the conflict will only deepen, and it will be much more difficult to re-negotiate.

We hope that our advice will help you, if not avoid conflicts, then get out of them with dignity.

Conflict is always a tense situation for both sides. To maintain your mental health and not bring yourself to stress, it is recommended to adhere to certain rules in the dispute. You need to turn to the advice of psychologists on how to behave in a conflict situation.

Analysis of the situation

First you need to analyze what happened and understand what reasons could lead to such a development of events. In addition, you must realize the degree of danger that threatens you at the moment.

There is no need to think that what happened was provoked only by the need to prove the truth or by the circumstances prevailing at that very moment, since the problem could be much deeper. Your opponent could hold a grudge against you much earlier or accumulate his dissatisfaction for a long time, which led to swearing between you. Having understood the causes of the conflict, you can proceed to the next step.

Opponent analysis

When a conflict arises, you must clearly understand what kind of person you are dealing with.

1. If he is not confident in himself, then in such a situation he will try to hide as far and better as possible, while not denying his innocence and insisting on his principles.
2. A confident person will be able to rebuff you in a verbal duel, since she is not used to backing down, including from a showdown.
3. The most difficult situation can be considered a dispute with an overly stubborn and narrow-minded person who, by virtue of his position in society, is trying by all means to impose his position only because he considers himself "the master of life."
4. It is also necessary to beware of conflicts with people who have mental disorders or a low level of intelligence. The main reasons why you should not get involved with such individuals are the presence of aggressive behavior and the lack of a reasonable ending. In addition, there is a possibility that the conflict may escalate into a physical clash in which you may suffer because of undivided opinions.

What behavioral strategy to choose

If you have already identified which category your opponent belongs to, then it is recommended to proceed to the selection of a style of behavior and understand how to behave in a conflict situation.

Psychologists say that there are five main types of conflict behavior strategies. Why do you need to know these strategies? As a rule, a person usually uses one of them - it depends on his character and position in the team. However, it is possible that, under certain conditions, he may apply another strategy. Destroying dynamic stereotypes in this way means developing as a person.

Dodging a dispute

Applying this strategy can be considered appropriate if you do not have time to solve the problem. Clarification of the relationship should be postponed, as the situation should be more carefully analyzed. It is advised to use it for controversial issues with management. Choosing this style of behavior is reasonable when:

• you don't see the solution now)
• during the negotiation process, you begin to doubt your innocence)
• defending your point of view is more important for the interlocutor, and not for you)
• there is not enough time to resolve the conflict)
• it is better to agree with the opinion of the opponent)
• you do not consider the subject of disagreement quite serious)
• dispute may cause more complicated problems for you)
• there is a possibility of a deterioration in the situation due to the openness of the discussions.

Rivalry

This strategy involves openly defending one's position. It is applicable in situations where the solution of the problem is important for both parties to the conflict. The possibility of losing the dispute is not ruled out. The choice of this style of behavior should be determined by the following circumstances:

• high importance of solving the problem for you)
• you have no other choice)
• publicity of the discussion, when the opinion of others is not indifferent to you)
• you have great power or authority over a person and are confident in the outcome of the dispute)
• you represent the authority for the opponent)
• a quick solution is needed.

Cooperation

This style of behavior is characterized by a long process of resolving the situation that has arisen, the outcome of which should lead to the satisfaction of both parties. In this case, the participation of all disputants and strict consideration of their interests is necessary. This strategy can be used for:

• desire to stay on good terms with your opponent, as he is a close person, friend or colleague for you)
• equality of the parties)
• enough time to resolve the conflict)
• the need to find a mutually beneficial solution to the problem.

This is the most constructive way out of the conflict. It results in a new product, a new idea, a new team.

fixture

Often people are faced with situations where they just need to make concessions to their interlocutor. Psychologists call this behavior in conflicts adaptation. To prevent the dispute from becoming more serious, you should accept the opinion of the opponent, at least outwardly.

This strategy is best chosen when the issue is not fundamental to you. This may be a conflict with the leadership, in which it is simply vital to give in, unless, of course, you want to aggravate your situation. Using this approach, you will not only maintain a good relationship with the person, but you will also be able to buy a significant amount of time in taking a common position.

Compromise

Here you can defend your point of view on the problem, which is a positive thing. But you will also have to accept the opinion of the other side, albeit partially. Such a strategy avoids the serious development of the conflict and the adoption of a decision that satisfies not only you, but also your interlocutor.

It is advisable to use this method of behavior when both parties are equal disputants and put forward equally reasonable arguments in their favor. If changing your mind to suit your opponent's needs isn't such a big deal, then this method is perfect. The compromise obtained during the discussion will make it possible for you to get at least part of what you want, as well as to maintain friendly relations with your opponent.

The second stage of the dispute resolution

This stage involves the resolution of the 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 their own limits, which each side will have to accept. At this stage, you will have to very quickly restructure your judgments and maneuver the situation quite skillfully.

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

It is not necessary to immediately answer all the questions of the participant in the dispute - it is best to distract him from this by means of other questions that do not correspond to the given topic in any way. This will allow you to think more carefully about your style of behavior to resolve the conflict.

When the other side calms down a bit and stops arguing their position, you are advised to evaluate her opinion, but in such a way that she understands her significance too. Here you can suggest making some adjustments to the idea of ​​​​the interlocutor, which will help in solving the problem. Fulfillment of this requirement in any situation leaves the most negative opponent unarmed.

• Corporate culture

1 -1

Attention! To keep up to date with the latest updates, I recommend that you Subscribe to my Main YouTube Channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC78TufDQpkKUTgcrG8WqONQ , since all new materials I do now in video format. Also, quite recently, I opened for you my second channel entitled " World of Psychology ”, which publishes short videos on a variety of topics, covered through the prism of psychology, psychotherapy and clinical psychiatry.
Get to know my services(prices and rules of psychological online counseling) You can in the article "".

Communication. Communication strategies:

Compromise in business relations and compromise cooperation is the most difficult strategy for the competitive behavior of entrepreneurs and any other business to describe. This strategy is usually based on solidarity and potential, as well as the need for cooperation between two parties, participants in a business agreement or parties that compete with each other. Applying a compromise in business cooperation, you can easily reach the “peaceful straight line” and, without significant expenditures on effort and time, make competitors partners or resolve conflicts that have arisen in the business sphere. After all, the strategic goal setting of a compromise is considered to be finding and implementing decisions that would be to the liking of each of the two sides.

General concept of business relations
Under the general concept of "business relations" it is customary to consider any communication (negotiations), which, by its purposefulness, is aimed at obtaining or promoting business ideas or at fruitful results of partnership cooperation. Business relationships may include: certain negotiations or meetings, presentations, public speaking or telephone conversations with suppliers, customers, partners. It is only about those relationships that occur in the workplace. That is precisely why, in turn, this is a partnership that requires adjustment or the search for adequate ways to solve various production issues, and so on. So compromise in business relationships is the main core of successful deals and contracts, as well as an ideal way to achieve heights and good grades in your business. In a word, it is impossible to do without compromises!

The essence of business relationships and how they differ from other types of relationships?
The bottom line is that the very concept of business relations is explained by the fact that a business relationship, business communication is, first of all, an attitude that is aimed at obtaining a certain result.
So in such relationships, an acceptable and positive result is always put in the first place, for the sake of which, as they say, "all methods are good." In the first place in this relationship (cooperation) is the informational and mutually beneficial stages of forming the status of the company. In business relations, we are always talking about a case that carries concreteness and effectiveness. The purpose of such relations is their very essence and the relationship of both parties that cooperate with each other. By the way, it is worth noting the fact that in such a relationship you should not take the side of a “dry and callous person”, a strategist who always goes to his goal, it is also appropriate to show emotionality here, which noticeably raises motivation. After all, communication only about specific results can sometimes not bring results. That is why the essence of business ethics always includes the right regulation and the right compromise between the result and the relationship.

The main approach to business communication in general terms
When considering business relationships in general terms, we must first of all pay special attention to the strategy in which these relationships are built. In other words, goals and how we approach the expected result and in what way. If your business partner adheres to the strategy of the conqueror, and believes that there cannot be two winners at once and does not recognize ledges at all, this is where it will be appropriate to build a compromise in relations with this partner. So, if in the course of business negotiations you notice that your business partner is behaving exactly this way, offer him a constructive and mutually beneficial compromise.

Business compromise strategy
So, compromise is the most revered and frequently used specificity of solving a particular problem. In a compromise, each side demands what it needs and does so until one mutual basis for cooperation is found.
Most experts tend to believe that compromise is the leading way of influencing company leaders.
It is worth saying that when applying a strategic compromise, mismatch occurs much more constructively. And such a strategy can easily save both parties from conflict situations. But you should always remember that not everyone is ready to compromise in business relationships. That is why it is always necessary to adapt to your opponent to get a 100% result. The main conditions for a business compromise are naturalness and understanding. Having come to a mutual compromise, you can easily continue your cooperation without any echoes and inconsistencies, and get the fruits of this cooperation. Of course, in this strategy, as in all others, there is also a disadvantage, which is related to the fact that the goals may not be fully achieved due to the fact that something had to be sacrificed. And this is not always convenient, since in business it is very difficult to make a choice about what will have to be sacrificed and what exactly needs to be done first. Whatever you say, but in any case you want to achieve a better result, it is precisely for this reason that a compromise, only at first glance, may seem the most advantageous and correct solution.
But whatever it is, a compromise can quickly and relatively easily settle the situation. The most acceptable way to solve a problem when using a compromise is considered to be the settlement of secondary issues with its help. That is why resorting to a compromise in very important matters is still not worth it. After all, you can always try to bypass the "pitfalls" that arise in business relations, and choose a completely different and correct strategy, without sacrificing anything, and which will moderately take into account the interests of each of the parties. Remember that all compromises are good in moderation and therefore should not be abused! Good luck in your business and fewer reasons for compromise!

Interactive side of communication
A conditional term denoting the characteristics of the components of communication associated with the interaction of people, the direct organization of their joint activities. The goals of communication reflect the needs of joint activities of people. Communication should always involve some result - a change in the behavior and activities of other people. Here, communication acts as an interpersonal interaction, i.e. a set of connections and mutual influence of people, emerging in their joint activities. Interpersonal interaction is a sequence of people's reactions unfolded in time to each other's actions: the act of individual A, which changes the behavior of individual B, causes responses from the latter, which, in turn, affect the behavior of A.
The interactive side of communication considers the characteristics of those components of communication that are associated with the interaction of people, with the direct organization of their joint activities.
In social psychology, a special direction has developed, where the interactive side of communication is taken as the starting point of any socio-psychological analysis. This direction - symbolic interactionism - is associated with the name of G. Mead.
Finding out the social nature of the human "I", Mead came to the conclusion that the formation of "I" occurs in situations of communication, which are understood not as a set of people's reactions to each other's opinions, but as a joint activity. In the process of joint activity, a personality is formed, realizing oneself, and not just looking at other people as in a mirror, but acting together with them.

K. Thomas and R. Killmenn wrote about the possibilities and typology of joint activities, highlighting the following five main styles of behavior in a conflict situation:
adaptation, compliance;
evasion;
competition, confrontation;
cooperation;
compromise

The classification was based on two independent parameters:
1. The degree of realization of one's own interests, the achievement of one's goals.
2. A measure that takes into account and implements the interests of the other side. If we represent this in graphical form, then we get the Thomas-Kilmenn grid (see diagram), which allows us to analyze a specific conflict and choose a rational form of behavior.

Let's take a closer look at these behaviors.
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, avoids a dispute. With this style, there is 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 complicated and the resolution of the conflict will require a lot of strength from its participants, or the individual does not have enough power to resolve the conflict in his favor.

Competition (confrontation) characterized by the active struggle of the individual for his interests, the use of all means available to him to achieve the goals of power, coercion, other means of 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: a tough position is assumed in relation to opponents and irreconcilable antagonism to other participants in the conflict in case of their resistance.

Adaptation (compliance). The actions of the individual are aimed at maintaining or restoring favorable relations with the opponent by smoothing out differences at the expense of their own interests. This approach is possible when the contribution of the individual is not too great or when the subject of disagreement is more significant for the opponent than for the individual. Such behavior in a 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 is active in the search for a solution that satisfies all participants in the interaction, but at the same time does not forget his own interests. An open exchange of views is expected, the interest of all participants in the conflict in developing a common solution. This form requires positive work and participation of all parties. If the opponents have time, and the solution of the problem is important for everyone, then with this approach, a comprehensive discussion of the issue, the disagreements that have arisen, and the development of a common solution with respect for the interests of all participants are possible.

With a 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 especially wins, but does not lose 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 search for a better solution, they are satisfied with an intermediate solution for a certain period of time.

With competition and cooperation confrontation is a necessary condition for a solution. Considering that the resolution of the conflict is supposed to eliminate the causes that gave rise to it, we can conclude that only the style of cooperation will help to fully realize this task. With evasion and adaptation, the resolution of the conflict is postponed, and the conflict itself passes into a latent form. A compromise can bring only a partial resolution of the conflict interaction, since there remains a fairly large zone of mutual concessions, and the causes have not been completely eliminated.
In some cases, it is believed that confrontation within reasonable, controlled limits is more productive in terms of conflict resolution than smoothing, avoiding, and even compromise, although not all experts adhere to this statement. At the same time, the question arises of the price of victory and what constitutes defeat for the other side. These are extremely complex 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.
The ideal strategy is the final resolution of the conflict, the essence of which is to find and eliminate its causes within the framework of voluntary cooperation between the parties. This strategy benefits everyone. First, it turns opponents into partners. Secondly, the problem is not driven deep, but ceases to exist at all. Thirdly, the benefits acquired by the parties exceed those that could be obtained with any other strategy. At the heart of this strategy lies the attitude to conflict as a normal phenomenon.
Source: Andreeva I.V., Social psychology

5 Conflict Strategies: Avoidance, Yielding, Competing, Compromising and Collaborating
Have you ever wondered why it is so difficult to negotiate with each other in a conflict situation? Why do “barriers” arise in communication, words and desires are perceived incorrectly, “do not reach” the interlocutor? Studies of communication problems and practical observations allow us to conditionally divide all methods and types of response in a conflict into five behavioral strategies: avoidance, concession, rivalry, compromise and cooperation.
American psychologists R. Blake and J. Mouton described a model of behavior in a conflict. According to this model, there are two independent parameters of people's behavior in conflict:
A) focus on achieving their own interests and goals and
B) orientation to the interests of another, taking into account his needs and desires.

The combination and severity of these two indicators gives 5 strategies for behavior in conflict

1. Avoidance (avoiding the solution of the situation)
The exit strategy is characterized by the desire to get away from the conflict. This behavior happens if the subject of the conflict is not significant. As a rule, this is a mutual concession, i.e. both parties are willing to avoid the dispute situation in order to save the relationship.

2. Concession
A person who adheres to this strategy, as in the previous case, seeks to get away from the conflict. But the reasons for "leaving" in this case are different. The person who adopts the concession strategy sacrifices personal interests in favor of the interests of the rival.
This may be due to the psychological characteristics of a person - the inability and unwillingness to engage in confrontation.
You can make concessions because of an inadequate assessment of the subject of the conflict - an underestimation of its value for yourself. In this case, the adopted strategy is self-deception and does not lead to conflict resolution.
And sometimes a concession may turn out to be only a tactical step towards achieving the main strategic goal - to give a little in order to win more.
With all the highlighted features of the concession strategy, it is important to keep in mind that it is justified in cases where the conditions for resolving the conflict are not ripe. And in this case, it leads to a temporary "truce" on the way to a constructive resolution of the conflict situation.

3. Rivalry (coercion)
The choice of coercion strategy ultimately comes down to a choice: either win or save the relationship. Each of the participants defends only their own interests, regardless of the interests of the other. With such a strategy, power, the force of law, authority, manipulation, etc. are actively used.
In this way, a conflict situation can be resolved if the subject of the dispute is really very important for one of the participants and for this it is worth taking a risk. However, in most cases, even if the issue is resolved, the losing side is still in a state of latent conflict and this will definitely manifest itself in another situation.

4. Compromise
With a compromise, none of the conflicting parties receives full satisfaction - everyone is forced to sacrifice their interests in some way. But the relationship seems to be saved!
The opinion that a compromise is the best solution to a conflict is quite common. However, in most cases, compromise cannot be seen as a way to resolve the conflict. This is just a step towards finding an acceptable solution to the problem.

5. Collaboration
The cooperation strategy is characterized by a high level of orientation both to one's own interests and to the interests of the opponent. This approach is based on meeting the interests of both parties and maintaining interpersonal relationships. A special place in the choice of this strategy is occupied by the subject of conflict. If the subject of the conflict is of vital importance to one or both parties, then cooperation is out of the question.
Cooperation is the most difficult, but also the most profitable way to resolve the conflict. Only in this case is there complete satisfaction of the parties and confidence that the conflict is really resolved, and not hidden for the time being in a far corner.

One way or another, each of the strategies bears fruit and can resolve the conflict situation. In complex negotiations, several approaches can alternate at once if the conflict includes a whole range of problems and issues.
The choice of strategy largely depends not only on the conditions, but also on the personal characteristics of the participants. This will be discussed in more detail in the next article.

Characteristics of the main strategies of behavior in conflict
1. Coercion (fight, rivalry)
The one who chooses this strategy of behavior, first of all, proceeds from the assessment of personal interests in the conflict as high, and the interests of his opponent as low. The choice of a coercive strategy ultimately comes down to a choice: either the interest of the struggle, or the relationship.
The choice in favor of the fight is distinguished by a style of behavior that is characteristic of the destructive model. With such a strategy, power, the force of law, connections, authority, etc. are actively used. It is expedient and effective in two cases. Firstly, when protecting the interests of the case from encroachments on them by a conflicting personality. For example, a conflict personality of an uncontrollable type often refuses to perform unattractive tasks, “shifts his work onto others, etc. And secondly, when the existence of an organization or team is threatened. In this case, there is a situation of "Who wins...". Especially often it arises in the conditions of reforming enterprises and institutions. Often, when reforming the organizational and staffing structure of an enterprise (institution), the alleged “infusion” of some departments into others is unreasonable. And in these cases, the person who defends the interests of such units must take a tough stance.

2. Care
The exit strategy is characterized by the desire to get away from the conflict. It is characterized by a low level of focus on personal interests and the interests of the opponent and is mutual. It is essentially a give and take.
When analyzing this strategy, it is important to consider two options for its manifestation:
1) when the subject of the conflict is not significant for any of the subjects and is adequately reflected in the images of the conflict situation;
2) when the subject of the dispute is significant for one or both parties, but is underestimated in the images of the conflict situation, that is, the subjects of conflict interaction perceive the subject of the conflict as insignificant.

In the first case, the conflict is exhausted by the exit strategy, and in the second case, it may have a relapse.
Interpersonal relationships when choosing this strategy do not undergo major changes.

3. Concession
A person who adheres to this strategy, as in the previous case, seeks to get away from the conflict. But the reasons for "leaving" in this case are different. The focus on personal interests is low here, and the assessment of the opponent's interests is high. In other words, the person who adopts the concession strategy sacrifices personal interests in favor of the interests of the rival.
The concession strategy has some similarities with the coercion strategy. This similarity lies in the choice between the value of the subject of the conflict and the value of interpersonal relationships. Unlike the strategy of struggle, in the strategy of concession, priority is given to interpersonal relationships.
When analyzing this strategy, some points should be taken into account:
1) Sometimes such a strategy reflects the tactics of a decisive struggle for victory. A concession here may turn out to be only a tactical step towards achieving the main strategic goal.
2) A concession can cause an inadequate assessment of the subject of the conflict (understatement of its value for oneself). In this case, the adopted strategy is self-deception and does not lead to conflict resolution.
3) This strategy can be dominant for a person due to his individual psychological characteristics. In particular, this is typical for a conformist personality, a conflict personality of a “conflict-free type. Because of this, the strategy of concession can give a constructive conflict a destructive direction.

With all the highlighted features of the concession strategy, it is important to keep in mind that it is justified in cases where the conditions for resolving the conflict are not ripe. And in this case, it leads to a temporary truce, is an important step towards a constructive resolution of the conflict situation.

4. Compromise
A compromise strategy of behavior is characterized by a balance of interests of the conflicting parties at the middle level. Otherwise, it can be called a strategy of mutual concession.
The strategy of compromise does not spoil interpersonal relationships. Moreover, it contributes to their positive development.
When analyzing this strategy, it is important to keep in mind a number of significant points.
1) Compromise should not be seen as a way to resolve the conflict. Giving in is often a step towards finding an acceptable solution to a problem.
2) Sometimes a compromise can exhaust a conflict situation. This occurs when the circumstances that caused the tension change. For example, two employees applied for the same position, which should be vacated in six months. But after three months it was cut. The subject of the conflict has disappeared.
3) Compromise can take active and passive forms. An active form of compromise can be manifested in the conclusion of clear agreements, the acceptance of some obligations, etc. A passive compromise is nothing more than a refusal to take any active steps to achieve certain mutual concessions in certain conditions. In other words, under specific conditions, a truce can be ensured by the passivity of the subjects of conflict interaction. In the previous example, the compromise between two employees was that neither of them took any direct or indirect active actions towards each other. Three months later, the position for which they applied was reduced, each remained in his own interests, and the absence of unnecessary "battles" made it possible to maintain normal relations between them.

Analyzing the compromise strategy, it should be borne in mind that the conditions for compromise can be imaginary when the subjects of conflict interaction have reached a compromise based on inadequate images of the conflict situation.
The concept of "compromise" is close in its content to the concept of "consensus". Their similarity lies in the fact that both compromise and consensus in their essence reflect the mutual concessions of the subjects of social interaction. Therefore, when analyzing and justifying a compromise strategy, it is important to rely on the rules and mechanisms for reaching consensus in social practice.

5. Cooperation
The cooperation strategy is characterized by a high level of focus on both one's own interests and the interests of the opponent. This strategy is built not only on the basis of a balance of interests, but also on the recognition of the value of interpersonal relationships.
Analyzing the strategy of cooperation in conflict interaction, one should take into account some circumstances:
1) A special place in the choice of this strategy is occupied by the subject of conflict. If the subject of the conflict is of vital importance for one or both subjects of conflict interaction, then cooperation is out of the question. In this case, only the choice of struggle, rivalry is possible. Cooperation is possible only when the complex subject of the conflict allows the maneuvering of the interests of the warring parties, ensuring their coexistence within the framework of the problem that has arisen and the development of events in a favorable direction.
2) The cooperation strategy includes all other strategies (withdrawal, concession, compromise, confrontation). At the same time, other strategies in the complex process of cooperation play a subordinate role, they are more psychological factors in the development of relationships between the subjects of the conflict. For example, confrontation can be used by one of the participants in the conflict as a demonstration of their principled position in an adequate situation.

Being one of the most complex strategies, the cooperation strategy reflects the desire of the warring parties to solve the problem by joint efforts.
In any conflict, each participant evaluates and correlates his own interests and the interests of the opponent, asking himself questions: what will I win, what will I lose, what is the significance of the subject of the dispute for the opponent. On the basis of such an analysis, he consciously chooses one or another strategy of behavior (withdrawal, coercion, compromise, concession or cooperation). Often the reflection of these interests occurs unconsciously, and then the behavior in conflict interaction is saturated with powerful emotional stress and is spontaneous.
A special place in the assessment of models and strategies of a person's behavior in a conflict is occupied by the value for her of interpersonal relations with the opposing side. If for one of the rivals interpersonal relations with another rival (friendship, love, partnership, etc.) are of no value, his behavior in the conflict will be characterized by destructive content or extreme positions in the strategy (coercion, struggle, rivalry). And vice versa, the value of interpersonal relations for the subject of conflict interaction, as a rule, is a significant reason for constructive behavior in conflict or the orientation of such behavior towards compromise, cooperation, withdrawal or concession.

Five Types of Conflict Personalities
Based on the results of research by domestic psychologists, five main types of conflict personalities can be distinguished. Consider their main features.

1) Demonstrative type (hysterical):
wants to be the center of attention;
likes to look good in the eyes of others;
his attitude towards people is determined by how they relate to him;
superficial conflicts are easily given to him, admiring his suffering and stamina is inherent;
adapts well to various situations;
rational behavior is weakly expressed, emotional behavior is evident;
planning its activities is carried out situationally and weakly implements it;
painstaking systematic work avoids;
does not avoid conflicts, feels good in a situation of conflict interaction;
often turns out to be a source of conflict, but does not consider himself as such.

2) Rigid type (paranoid):
suspicious;
has high self-esteem;
needs constant confirmation of its own importance;
often does not take into account changes in the situation and circumstances;
straightforward and inflexible;
with great difficulty accepts the point of view of others, does not really consider their opinion;
the expression of respect from others takes for granted;
the expression of hostility on the part of others is perceived as an insult;
uncritical in relation to their actions;
painfully touchy, heightened sensitive to imaginary or real injustice.

3) Uncontrollable type (Excitable, Epileptoid, Explosive, Impulsive):
impulsive, lacks self-control;
behavior is difficult to predict;
behaves defiantly, aggressively;
often in the heat of the moment violates generally accepted norms;
usually has a high level of claims;
not self-critical;
in many failures, troubles, he is inclined to blame others;
cannot competently plan their activities or consistently implement plans;
insufficiently developed ability to correlate their actions with goals and circumstances;
from past experience (even bitter) derives little benefit.

4) Ultra-precise type (Anancaste, Anxiety-Evasive):
scrupulous attitude to work;
makes high demands on himself;
makes high demands on others, and does it in such a way that the people with whom he works perceive it as nitpicking;
has increased anxiety;
overly sensitive to details;
tends to attach undue importance to the remarks of others;
sometimes abruptly breaks off relations with friends, acquaintances because it seems to him that he was offended;
suffers from himself, experiences his miscalculations, failures, sometimes paying for them even with diseases (insomnia, headaches, etc.);
restrained in external, especially emotional manifestations;
does not feel very well the real relationships in the group.

5) Conflict-free type (Conformal, Unstable):
unstable in assessments and opinions;
has a slight suggestibility;
internally inconsistent;
it is characterized by some inconsistency of behavior;
focuses on momentary success in situations;
does not see the prospect well enough;
depends on the opinions of others, especially leaders;
unnecessarily striving for compromise;
does not have sufficient willpower;
does not think deeply about the consequences of his actions and the causes of the actions of others.

Although it may seem strange, one important piece of advice is relevant here: be sympathetic to people whose typical features are described above. The conflict, which has become a property of the individual, is difficult to overcome through rational self-control and willpower. "Educational" influences on the part of the leader here are also rarely beneficial. Conflict is not the fault, but the misfortune of such people. Real help can be provided by a specialist - a practical psychologist.
Mikhail Goncharov

FOUR ROADS OUT OF CONFLICT
Can you learn to avoid conflict? - usually this question is of interest to people who lose in conflict situations, yield to pressure and are hard pressed by the psychological consequences of conflicts. But conflicts can be avoided in general, probably, if only to go to the mountains, settle in an ashram and meditate all day long. But in society, in a metropolis, the question should be put differently: in what situation and how is it optimal for me to resolve this conflict?
Thomas Kilman's well-known model describes four basic conflict resolution strategies.
1. Departure or flight
You give up your positions without a fight. I emphasize that no strategy is good or bad, each works in certain situations. If the robber has a gun to your head, then giving him the money is the best way to get out of the conflict, unless you are a martial arts expert.
2. Fight
As one business coach said: "tough negotiations are about who will eat whom and faster." In ancient times, they said the same thing: “Let the strongest win!” Evaluate your resources before choosing this conflict resolution method.
3. Compromise
Most negotiations (bargaining) follow a strategy of compromise. The boss raises the salary, but less than you asked. The seller lowers the price, but not as much as you would like. A good additional strategy for finding a compromise is to increase the overall "pie". Benefits, bonuses, additional services - all this helps to come to a compromise.
4. Collaboration
This strategy is often referred to as "win-win", meaning that each side achieves fully the goals they aspire to. Despite the hackneyedness, I will give a "bearded" example of this strategy, because so far I have not found a better one.
Husband and wife share an orange. Choosing an exit strategy, a wife (suppose) gives an orange to her beloved husband. The struggle strategy also ends with the victory of the husband due to physical superiority. The implementation of the compromise strategy is that the orange is simply cut in half. And following the win-win strategy, the husband and wife need to ... talk! Talk about why each of them needs this orange.
The fact is that in most cases positions clash and they are irreconcilable, and under them lie genuine interests, and they can be reconciled! But first you need to get to them!
So, in the process of negotiations, it turns out that the husband wants to eat an orange, that is, he needs its pulp. And the wife needs an orange peel for culinary experiments. And then a clear and simple solution opens up: the orange is peeled and everyone gets exactly what he wanted. Hooray!
It can be difficult to look for this strategy every time, but for building long-term relationships, for long-term cooperation, this strategy is usually the best.
Article author: Ilya Shabshin

Thomas's typology of conflict behavior is based on two styles of behavior: cooperation, associated with a person's attention to the interests of other people involved in the conflict, and assertiveness, which is characterized by an emphasis on protecting one's own interests.
According to these two main dimensions, K. Thomas identifies the following ways of conflict management:
a) confrontation (competition, rivalry) is expressed in the desire to achieve the satisfaction of one's interests to the detriment of the interests of another person;
b) compliance (adaptation), meaning, in contrast to rivalry, sacrificing one's own interests for the sake of the interests of another;
c) compromise, as an agreement between the parties to the conflict, reached through mutual concessions;
d) avoidance (withdrawal, ignoring), which is characterized by both the lack of desire for cooperation and the lack of a tendency to achieve one's own goals;
e) cooperation, when the participants in the situation come to an alternative that fully satisfies the interests of both parties.

K. Thomas believes that when avoiding conflict, none of the parties achieves success, in cases of confrontation, compliance and compromise, either one of the participants wins and the other loses, or they lose, as they make compromise concessions. And only in a situation of cooperation, both parties win.

Confrontation and cooperation are strong strategies. The opponent who implements them in his behavior defends the sacred human right to have life goals and consistently achieve them. True, in very different ways: without regard to the other or in cooperation, positive interaction with someone who is in the same conflict bundle.

Avoidance and yielding- weak strategies. They involve giving up one's own goals and needs. But for what? For the sake of another, to avoid all the ups and downs in relationships and self-esteem that interpersonal conflict brings with it. But the conflict calm is deceptive: promising peace, it brings with it the destruction of relationships.

After taking the Thomas-Killman test, look at your strategic chart. What types of conflict behavior are at its peaks? Strong or weak? Are there gaps in your schedule? What strategies of behavior do you currently not own or deliberately do not use?

A) This is a graph of a human diplomat. He tends to always look for a middle ground, habitually giving up some of his interests and goals. At what cost?

b) This is the schedule of the master of life: all or nothing. If I can, I'll take it. If the partner turns out to be stronger, I will yield.
But no compromise!

V)"Me or no one." Doesn't need comments.

G) The graph, one might say, reflects the style features of a professional psychologist-practitioner. The main strategic feature of behavior is cooperation. However, confrontation can be used for tactical purposes. Avoidance for those situations when the psychologist feels his inadequacy in solving the client's problems (search for another specialist). And compromises and compliance in practical work are dangerous even as a tactic.

Let's talk about the possibilities of each of the five strategies.
Avoidance effective in situations where the partner has objectively greater power and uses it in a conflict struggle. When dealing with a complex conflict personality, use every opportunity to avoid conflict: there is nothing shameful or humiliating in this. Avoidance also brings positive results as a temporary delay in the real resolution of the conflict: while there is little data on hand or there is no psychological confidence in one's position. Temporarily getting away from the problem in order to solve it definitively in the future is often the only true strategy.

Compliance it is natural in situations where the problem raised is not as important for the person as for his opponent, or the relationship with the opponent is an independent value, more significant than achieving the goal. This is a strategy that is unpredictable in its consequences. If giving up a goal didn’t cost a person much work, compliance can have a positive effect on his self-esteem and relationships with a partner. It is very important to feel that the other noticed and appreciated the victim. Otherwise, there remains a feeling of annoyance, resentment and, consequently, the ground for emotional conflict.

confrontation - a strategy for serious situations and vital problems, it is often effective in extreme situations. Confrontation is justified if the goal is extremely important, or if the person has real power and authority, is confident in his competence. If power and strength are not enough, you can get bogged down in a conflict situation, or even completely lose it. In addition, its use to solve problems in personal relationships is fraught with alienation.

Cooperation is not so much a strategy of behavior as a strategy of interaction. It is indispensable in close, long-term and valuable relationships for both partners, with equal status and psychological power. It allows partners to resolve the conflict without giving up their real goals. All good cooperation, except for one. It's a long story. It takes time to analyze the needs, interests and concerns of both parties, and then carefully discuss them, find the best way to combine them, develop a solution plan and ways to implement it, etc. Cooperation does not tolerate fuss and haste, but, requiring time, allows you to resolve conflicts completely. But if there is no time, you can resort to compromise as a "substitute" for cooperation.

Compromise, or quasi-cooperation, or bargaining for mutual concessions. It is effective in situations requiring a quick outcome. The “sharing” of needs may be necessary to maintain relations, especially in cases where it is really impossible to compensate for the interests of the parties. Compromise rarely brings true satisfaction with the outcome of the conflict process. Any variants of division - in half, equally, fraternally - are psychologically unfair. And this is understandable: the goal has not been fully achieved, some part has been thrown on the altar of a positive outcome of the conflict, but there is no one to evaluate the sacrifice, since the opponent also suffered (well, not exactly the same, less, of course, but still ...).

Strategies of behavior in the conflict of K. Thomas
Our losses in disputes are incalculable.
By refusing another request to an unlucky relative or childhood friend, you are certainly doing a good deed - teaching him to grow up. (Victor Khanin)
How much does it cost to be yourself?
Having hacked to death at a traffic light, two dashing drivers rushed along the road, demonstrating to each other the power of the engines and their own skills. Passing and oncoming cars shy away from the sides, their drivers twist their fingers at their temples ... And at the next intersection, both reckless drivers, bending over two piles of iron, which a second ago were “cool cars”, scratch their heads in puzzlement: “Well, aren’t we both fools ?

Our losses in disputes are incalculable. Why can't people agree? Why does a person’s logic stall in disputes and is he ready to lose everything just to prove his toughness? How can a person cope with what rises in him instead of reason? Why and on what we are bred?
Arms race: victory is nothing, war is everything

We meet characters who seem to have come out of a joke about two cowboys who, on a bet, ate cow cakes for free, at every turn. The process of arguing for them overshadows the result they want to achieve. In the collection of practicing lawyers specializing in business law, such copies occupy a special place. Psychologists can devote hours to describing these types of characters.

Vladimir Sivkov, president of the Business Consulting law firm, knows dozens of stories when a client tries to prove his case by any means and does not make any reasonable compromises with the opposite side:

- Often in the heat of a dispute, the lion's share of what a person has is burned. There are cases when yesterday's business partners, grabbing in a fight, lost their own relationships, and the respect of others, and, ultimately, the business itself. Reasonable arguments, attempts to assess the dispute from an economic point of view, persuasion to go to the world - nothing works when such a person has already bitten the bit and went on principle.

To go on principle means to declare the impossibility of a compromise. There are many such stubborn people among us. Psychologist and business coach Viktor Khanin from Yekaterinburg also says that often in a heated dispute, unnoticed by the debaters themselves, there is a “shift of motives”: the subject of the dispute fades into the background, instead of it, the very fact of defeating the opponent becomes more important.

American psychologist Kenneth W. Thomas many years ago formulated the models of human behavior that they choose at one time or another moment of communication. There are only five of them, and Thomas often teased colleagues and listeners of his lectures: name the sixth. No one could: any life situation fit into the principle of "five strategies".

The first is the avoidance of an argument, avoidance of it, or formal contact. At the same time, the interlocutor can nod, assent, but at the same time, one should not harbor illusions: in the depths of his soul he drives his own. The second is suppression. A person tries to win at the expense of someone else's loss. Accordingly, the third model is a concession. Under someone's pressure, a person prefers to give up so as not to run into. The fourth is a compromise, when victory and defeat are divided in half: everyone wins something, but also sacrifices something. Finally, the fifth is cooperation, when yesterday's opponents find a common "platform" by joint efforts, unite around it and thereby strengthen their positions.

The last model, Victor Khanin emphasizes, is ideal for business, the business world suggests just such a model of behavior. But based on the experience of business training, the psychologist draws a sad conclusion: 80% of the representatives of our business community have not even tried either the compromise model or the cooperation model.

In any situation, people most often resort to a strategy of suppression. And if for some reason the suppression does not work, they draw the only conclusion: they need to resort to more sophisticated methods, to increase the pressure. When you talk to them about cooperation, they perceive it as a call for concession. In litigation, this is expressed quite clearly. Such people need to win the court, first of all, then, in order to strengthen their self-esteem. Having lost the first instance, you have to go to the second: “Well, we'll show him! We will see what the appeal will say and how he will jump with us "...

Developmental psychologists say that the logic of rivalry in school, adolescence is even good. Having been ill with the strategy of suppression and concessions in children's fights and high-profile disputes, a person gets smarter over the years and tries to develop a more flexible line of behavior in relations with others.

But it happens that the method of suppression gives results for many years, and a person, believing in the effectiveness of such behavior, takes it into adulthood. Such people obviously consider their opponent a sucker and try to breed him. At the same time, deep down, they are most afraid of only one thing - to turn out to be (or seem to others) that sucker. This is the psychological core of the criminal, mafia lifestyle.

If the logic of suppression has entered the blood and flesh of a person, if he does not accept other models of behavior, then we have a typical psychopath, says the science of psychology. However, none of these patients does not turn to a psychotherapist about this. Psychopathic behavior these people are not aware of as their problem. They think it's the problem of others. Often this is what happens.

Well, what if two such “psychopaths” got together in a dispute? Well, expect an arms race and military conflicts of varying degrees of locality. Surrounding, indeed, will not seem a little - ask at least Georgians with Ossetians ...

Husband and wife - one Satan
Mass mythology - from Russian fairy tales to Hollywood films - has created strong ideas about marriage as a union of two loving hearts based on the principles of love, trust, mutual respect and, of course, sexual attraction. The final scene of any romantic film is the kiss of lovers against the backdrop of sunset. The last phrase of any fairy tale is “a merry feast and for the wedding” or the abstract “lived happily ever after”.

Meanwhile, after the wedding, the most interesting thing begins - the struggle of illusions with reality. The picture of the world becomes more complex, the primitive picture of paradise with a nice person crumbles into a thousand household fragments. What yesterday seemed sweet and insignificant, today turns into cruel disappointments.

Psychologist Eric Berne, author of the famous book Games People Play (“Games that people play”), convincingly spoke about how difficult and painful it is to part with illusions. After all, this often means admitting one's own mistakes and delusions. Therefore, most often people look for the root of existing problems in a partner.

“And I gave the best years to this man!” - exclaims Thumbelina, making sure that in search of an elf she once again ran into some Beetle or Mole. “I did everything for this ungrateful fool, and she sat on a swallow and flew away!” - the Mole yells indignantly, with legitimate pride examining the stocks of grain that were created by his painstaking work.

Well, often these reserves as a result of divorce proceedings are pretty thin. "Take everything from this bastard!" - from love to hate for any Thumbelina - one step. “Yes, she went ... to that garbage heap where I picked her up!” - Mole is offended to the core and gives lawyers ten times more than his wife demands.

Vladimir Sivkov says that divorce proceedings in these cases become a real war - to the last teaspoon. From decent, wealthy and well-mannered people, sometimes it comes out that after five minutes of talking with them you want to wash your hands with soap and bleach. Moreover, professional lawyers, as a rule, are approached by such spouses who have something to share besides their grandmother's sideboard and grandfather's Moskvich. We all know that then such a process becomes not only a source of good earnings for lawyers, but also the topic of the front pages of yellow newspapers.

Family psychologists confirm that most often complaints about problems in family life begin with a discussion of who has invested more in marriage. The man talks about his battles for material well-being, the woman - about her worries "about the house, about the family", and that "everyone rides it." It is extremely rare to find a marriage in which people are aware of the voluntariness and adequacy of the contribution of another person. More often than not, they divide, subtract, and count. Who is bigger? Who is less? They again forget about the strategy of partnership, when you can add and multiply, escaping into a strategy of suppression: to make your life easier by making concessions to the other. What kind of love and mutual trust is there ...

Psychologist Viktor Khanin says that "trust" is nothing more than one of the most powerful tricks of the repression strategy. Question: “What, you don’t trust me?” - designed to force the opponent to take a back seat. Yes, at first glance, the manifestation of healthy skepticism looks almost like an insult. Meanwhile, according to Khanin, the concept of "trust" has absolutely nothing to do with family life. Partnership, including in family relationships, is the ability to negotiate. About "concepts", about the degree of labor costs of each and the division of dividends.

In this sense, the institution of the marriage contract, which takes root so poorly in our soil, is an unconditional blessing. Moreover, the contract itself may not be concluded: Viktor Khanin believes that even a discussion of such a possibility by a couple intending to marry is a good sign. This suggests that people are aware that not only moon kisses await them, and they are already ready to fight together with potential difficulties.

On the contrary, avoiding this topic - including under the pretext of “You don’t trust me ?!” - should make you wary. Why is the partner afraid to discuss what will have to be discussed sooner or later? Perhaps a more detailed clarification of the details will inevitably lead to the fact that there will be no wedding at all ...

Dear brothers and sisters!
At the household level, each of us is well aware of the concept of investment. We give birth to a child, feed him, take out his pot, wash clothes and wash dishes, buy toys for him, scold him for deuces and suffer without sleep when he wanders somewhere at night looking. All this is not only parental love, but also the expectation that in old age they will bring us the notorious glass of water. When everyone does not carry water, but the devil knows what, bitter resentment arises. Here it is, the very risk that businessmen constantly worry about: they invested in the hope of making a profit, but for various reasons it did not happen. And we all educate and shame our grown child, secretly realizing that “the train has already left”, but we continue to cause and build up a deaf rejection of the other side.

The protracted conflict between fathers and children is a classic of the genre. These smart writers can make up stories about spiritual values ​​and the struggle between the old and the new. From the point of view of psychology, such conflicts are most often based on resentment at unjustified investments, on the one hand, and irritation from inflated, speculative profit expectations, on the other.

Psychoanalysis and jurisprudence also make good money on less intimate family relationships. From the outside, the relationship between brothers and sisters may seem idyllic, but if we remove from people the “later layers” in the form of upbringing, morality and decency, we will find the same biblical story of Cain and Abel - enmity for parental love and its manifestations: toys, sweets and new clothes. In this enmity, the rivals are ready to literally kill each other. The option with Abel today “rolls” less and less, but litigation between relatives is a common thing. Dividing the inheritance - all these toys and sweets - they wage war for the material manifestations of parental love.

Viktor Khanin says that in disputes between relatives, including in the struggle for an inheritance, people, just like in disputes between a wife and a husband, begin to find out who cared more about the deceased, visited him more often, gave gifts, washed the apartment and endured "duck". Applicable and the theory of "five models of behavior." And again, as in the cases described above, most people operate within the framework of only two strategies - pressure and concession. True, there is one feature. “Close people are the most convenient object for manipulation,” says Khanin. - After all, unlike a stranger, we know their pros and cons, weaknesses and “pain points” much better.

By the way, about psychoanalysis. Best of all, the conflict of struggle for parental love was demonstrated by the students of its creator, Sigmund Freud. Being outstanding psychologists and great smarts, they still did not escape the temptation to quarrel with each other about whose method of psychoanalysis is “more correct”. After the death of the “founding father” of psychoanalysis, the “children” entered into a fierce battle for his legacy ...

The victory of the forces of reason over the forces of good
Relations between relatives are not always rosy. But, gathering as a big family, we hug and shed drunken tears: “It's great that we all got drunk here today!” Refuse a relative's request? How can you even think of such a thing! After all, we are a family, we must help each other!

The same can be said about childhood friends. Petka, with whom you sat at the same desk for five years, but whom you have not seen for seven years, may turn up and ask for help. It is quite reasonable, from his point of view: what else do you need friends for, if not to help each other out?

We have grown. Many of us have gone into business and politics. We are known by thousands, the fates of hundreds depend on our decisions, we are respected by dozens of people. We are experienced, purposeful, and in control of all aspects of our lives. But the shadows of the past still haunt us.

Everyone who has made it to the people today has in his biography at least one call from a cousin's nephew who is going to "start his own business" and asks for a loan. As an option - a sincere request from an aunt whose unlucky son cannot find a job in any way - “so, can you help, Serezhenka, in a kindred way”? How many times, swearing quietly and realizing that the nephew would never return the money, and they would have to blush for the aunt’s son, did they still take out their wallet and call their business partners with a request to get “their little man” to work? Wasted thereby nerves, time, money and other resources. After all, otherwise they won’t understand, they will call him an “evil person”, they will glorify him in front of all relatives ...

The division into “good” and “evil”, life and struggle on the side of the “forces of good”, a sincere desire not to multiply evil in this world are fetishes hammered into our heads from early childhood, petrified in our minds to the hardness of a diamond. Not a single person, if he is not a carrier of a severe pathology, will consciously and purposefully do evil.

At the same time, we know that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. "Good" is another powerful tool for manipulating others. Being kind is very costly and harmful both for the one who asks to do a good deed and for the one who does it.

Viktor Khanin:
- When a child runs to his father in tears and tells that he was beaten by children on the street, the father often goes into the yard and pulls the ears of hooligans. From the point of view of the child, his father did good - he punished the offenders. From the point of view of the father himself, he also behaved like a “good father”, stood up for the child. But in reality, he exacerbated his son's problems by preventing him from learning to deal with his problems on his own. In the future, dependence on the protection of adults will live in such a “child”, even when he turns 30 years old.

Getting rid of children's fears and addictions is not possible immediately and not for everyone. On the one hand, when asking for help from an “adult”, an established friend or relative, a person plays the role of a child seeking protection. On the other hand, no one wants to be "bad", and in fact the refusal of a request is regarded as evil. Even seasoned businessmen who fall into the trap of choosing between "good" and "evil" are easily led. They see no other way out than to appear “kind” to their own detriment.

If we talk about the economic component of the relationship between a child and an adult, then the child in this sense is a very dependent being, a dependent. The child does not produce anything that could have weight and price in the "adult" market. He is forced to be "good" by giving in to their demands. He must adapt to their decisions, to anticipate what kind of adult reaction his behavior will cause. Entering the adult world, he acquires a profession, learns to do something that allows him to increase his self-esteem. What he produces is in demand, and he no longer needs to constantly adapt to what others think of him.

"Have you changed your mind?!" - a relative begins to put pressure, realizing that he will not see money like last year's snow. Yes, I changed it, but what's wrong with that - the circumstances have changed. “You have become completely different,” the aunt says reproachfully, after listening to the refusal to bother for her son. Of course, he did, and your son would not hurt it either.
By refusing another request to an unlucky relative or childhood friend, you are certainly doing a good deed - teaching him to grow up. It's a matter of small. Get rid of petrified fetishes and understand that a good deed is not always what others expect from you. You should grow up yourself and give this opportunity to others.
The material was prepared by Galina Kitaeva.

Once in a conflict situation, a person chooses, often unconsciously,one of five behavioral strategies:avoidance or withdrawal; fixture; rivalry or competition; compromise; cooperation.

The choice is often made on the basis of past experience. But the experience of conflict resolution in childhood is not always suitable for new situations.

If as a child you had to scream or stomp your feet in order for your parents to listen to your opinion, then this is hardly suitable when arguing with colleagues. And when you were scolded, did you resentfully go to your room or enter into a heated argument?

When meeting with an irritated, aggressive patient, a stereotype may work. When you are in a conflict situation, in order to effectively solve the problem, you must consciously choose a strategy of behavior. In doing so, of course, one should consider one's own style, the strategy of others involved in the conflict, and the nature of the conflict itself.

Avoidance - this is behavior in a conflict situation, which is expressed by self-elimination, ignoring or actual denial of the conflict.

Forms of leaving can be different: you are silent, turning off the discussion of the issue, defiantly withdrawing from the negotiations, or resentfully leaving with a complete rejection of further friendly and business relations with the conflicting party, caustically releasing remarks about the opposition

Nents behind "their back".

The reason for choosing this strategy may be: lack of confidence in yourself and your abilities, fear of losing; uncertainty of one's own position on this conflict issue; the desire to buy additional time for serious preparations for participation in the conflict; lack of authority, time.

If you have chosen avoidance as your behavioral strategy, then you will save time and nerve cells 11, but you may lose your influence on the course of events in the future. The conflict will either be resolved without taking into account your interests, or it will not be resolved and will grow And deepen.

However, in a situation that does not directly affect your interests, leaving may be useful. It is likely that if you try to ignore the conflict, do not express your attitude towards it, then the problem will be solved by itself. If not, you can do it later when you're ready for it.

fixture - this is behavior manifested in a change in actions and attitudes under real or imagined pressure from the opposite side, compliance with the opinions of others to the detriment of one's own interests.

It looks like this. You pretend that everything is in order, even if something hurts you very much, you prefer to put up with what is happening so as not to spoil the relationship: at first you silently agree, and then you hatch a revenge plan or try to find workarounds to achieve your goal.

The adaptation strategy is resorted to if the conflict situation does not affect vital values; maintaining relationships is more significant than defending one's interests; the realization that the correctness is on the side of the opponent; there are more important interests at the moment; the other has more power; believe that the other person can learn a useful lesson from this situation; can achieve the goal in a roundabout way.

Accommodating conflict can be a smart tactic if arguing over minor disagreements can ruin a relationship. There are cases when conflicts are resolved by themselves due to the fact that people continue to maintain friendly relations. But in a situation of serious conflict, the adaptation strategy interferes with the resolution of the contentious issue, as it does not resolve the situation and does not allow the partner to know the real reason for your dissatisfaction.

This style is best used when you feel that by giving in a little, you are losing little. If you think that you are inferior in something important for yourself and feel dissatisfied in this regard, then the adaptation strategy is unacceptable in this case. It is also not suitable if you see that the other person will not appreciate what you have done and is not going to give up something in turn.

The accommodating strategy is somewhat similar to withdrawal in that it can be used to delay and resolve a problem. The main difference is that you act together with the other person, participate in the situation and agree to do what the other wants.

When you choose an avoidance strategy, you are not doing anything to serve the interests of the other person. You just push the problem away from yourself, move away from it.

rivalry or competition - is distinguished by a strong personal involvement in the struggle, the activation of all your potential opportunities while ignoring the interests of the opponent.

The basic principle of this strategy is: "For me to win, you must lose."

Rivalry is manifested by the fact that you or your partner strive to prove your case at all costs, resort to pressure on the opponent, try to convince him, shout down, use physical force, demand unconditional consent and obedience.

The reasons why a person chooses this strategy can be very different: the need to protect their interests: life, family, well-being, image, etc.; desire to establish priority in the team; desire for leadership; distrust of people in general, including opponents; egocentrism, inability to look at the problem from a different point of view; a critical situation that requires an immediate solution.

This strategy is justified if you take control in order to protect people from violence or reckless actions. This can be effective when you have some power and know that your decision in this situation is the most correct and you have the opportunity to insist on it.

When you use this approach, your popularity may drop, but you will gain followers if you get positive results quickly. However, this strategy rarely brings long-term results - the losing side may not support a decision made against its will.

Compromise is the resolution of a conflict situation through mutual concessions. Each side lowers the level of its claims. Both opponents from the very beginning are looking for a fair outcome of the conflict situation. The reasons for choosing a compromise solution are usually: the desire for at least a partial win; recognition of the values ​​and interests of other people, as well as their own, the desire to be objective; when the negotiations are deadlocked and compromise is the only way out.

The choice of a compromise strategy can be useful in a situation where both parties have the same power and mutually exclusive interests. Compromise is sometimes the last opportunity to come to some kind of solution that will allow you to save the relationship and get at least something.

This approach implies that each participant has achieved something. But if a compromise was reached without a thorough analysis of other possible solutions or on insufficiently equal terms, it will not be the most optimal outcome of the negotiations. Neither side will stick to a solution that does not meet its needs.

Cooperation - This is a strategy of behavior in which the first place is not the solution of a specific conflict situation, but the satisfaction of the interests of all its participants.

The cooperation strategy will be most effective if: the solution of the problem is very important for both parties, and no one wants to completely move away from it; conflicting parties have a long and interdependent relationship; there is time to work on the problem; the parties are able to state the essence of their interests and listen to each other; the parties to the conflict have equal power or want to ignore the difference in position in order to seek a solution to the problem on an equal footing.

The purpose of cooperation is to develop a long-term mutually beneficial solution. Sometimes cooperation outwardly resembles compromise or accommodation. This happens when, as a result of a discussion, you change your initial position and partially or completely concede to your partner. This happens not because he turned out to be stronger than you or more right, but because you found another, more optimal solution for your problems.

Cooperation does not always lead to success, but if you start resolving a conflict situation in this way, you will most likely achieve more.

You can win in conflict and lose in everything. How does it happen? It seems that he brought arguments and proved everything to his interlocutor, but in the end he lost more. Why ask you? But because for every conflict, like a lock, there is a key - a strategy that suits him best.

To understand what to build on, you must first analyze the situation. Immediately you need to ask the question, what is this conflict fraught with for me? Sometimes it's not far from a hospital bed. It is better to immediately think about what will happen if you win and what will happen if you lose. To do this, you need to think about what caused the conflict and what is its purpose. Oddly enough, causes and goals often diverge. For example, if you accidentally stepped on a person’s foot, it may seem to you that he convinces you of your carelessness, but he just had a bad day and he is so emotionally relieved.

Not everyone argues to find that very great truth, it can be just resentment, jealousy, a bad day, dislike for you, maybe they just want to humiliate you, or is the small visible reason for the dispute just the last drop that broke through the dam for the flow of discontent? Here you just need to ask the question: "Does the behavior correspond to the apparent reason?".

And don’t forget, self-confident people are verbose and not afraid of conflicts and are unlikely to retreat in fear of your eloquence, insecure people avoid conflicts in every possible way, but if necessary, hide their weaknesses under principles, and it’s generally useless to argue with unbalanced people, they don’t argue arguments, but emotions, their emotions are always closer to the word.

And now to business. There are five strategies for conflict resolution. None of them is bad, as long as it is appropriate. Yes, yes, the question is precisely expediency, cooperation and compromise are not always good and compliance is not always a sign of weakness, and struggle is strength. It is worth simply honestly and thoughtfully answering yourself a few questions in order to make the best possible choice.

Strategy #1 - Rivalry

1. Do you have more opportunities (authority, power, etc.) than your opponent?

2. Is the situation urgent and you need an immediate solution?

3. Do you have something to lose?

4. Is the outcome of a dispute more important than a damaged relationship?

5. Are you sure that you are 100% right and if you give in, many will suffer?

Such a strategy is indispensable in an extreme situation, when there is no time for arguments.

Strategy #2 - Ignoring or Avoiding Conflict

1. The reason for the conflict is insignificant for you, but does it play a big role for your opponent?

2. Advocacy is unprincipled and there is simply no time for it?

3. Perhaps now it is better to wait and give yourself time to think everything over?

4. Is the stability of relations at the moment more important than the causes of the conflict?

5. Can the conflict lead to indelible consequences or, roughly speaking, is the game not worth the candle?

6. It is not possible to resolve the conflict?

Typically, such a measure is recommended as an intermediate measure, to resolve conflicts with management, this gives time to search for arguments in their favor. The best option is when there is neither the strength nor the energy to solve the problem, or if it is more than insignificant for you.

Strategy #3 - Collaboration

1. Is the issue too important for both parties?

2. Do you have a close, close, dependent and long-term relationship that you want to keep? (therefore, it is the best suited for family conflicts)

3. Do you have time to work on the problem?

4. Your status and the status of your opponent are approximately equal?

Cooperation is solved in the most productive and longest way to solve the problem, but ideally everyone should "win" (look at the donkeys, they agreed and helped each other instead of getting in the way and not moving).

With such a solution to the conflict, opponents become allies with a common goal - finding a solution.

WITH strategy #4 - Compromise

1. Do you and your opponent have convincing arguments?

2. Need to make an urgent decision and don't have time to collaborate?

3. Cooperation failed because interests are opposed?

4. Are you okay with a compromise as a temporary solution?

5. Do you prefer to gain at least something than to lose everything in the event of a breakup?
6. Can you sacrifice part of your interests for mutual benefit and preservation of the relationship?

In general, when you compromise, you and your opponent lose and gain something at the same time.

Strategy #5 - Adapt

1. Is the problem unprincipled?

2. Is a good relationship with the other party too important?

3. Need to buy time?

4. Did you realize that you are wrong?

5. Is it enough for you to know that you are right, and in this case it is not a problem to yield?

Usually in this way they try to smooth out a contradiction or an overly tense situation. In any case, it will look like an agreement with the opponent, i.e. You voluntarily give up your positions and fight. And why not if the problem is insignificant, and the opponent is very important.

When resolving a conflict situation, the following rules of behavior and response to a conflicting person should be taken into account:

1. You cannot immediately deny an opinion that does not coincide with yours, accept the tone set by the provocateur, otherwise you risk hearing only yourself in raised tones, tantamount to talking to the wall.

2. You need to be friendly, pay attention to words, empathize. No need to pretend that you know in advance what they want to say to you - this is even more annoying. It will be good if you repeat the words of the interlocutor in your own way and ask if you understood correctly. Then the opponent will understand that he has been heard and you are ready to understand his point of view.

3. As soon as a person runs out, you need to let him know that his position is interesting, that I would very much like to accept it, but if you still do not agree with it, then you should continue later, that here, there are some nuances that can interfere, which needs to be clarified. But in no case do not say directly: "You are wrong." Let a man save face and he will listen to you!

4. Do not get personal, do not take swearing and insults, take this behavior simply as a characteristic of a person who is now unbalanced and crossing the line. A call to the rules of decency or an attempt to shame, put in place - will not solve the problem, but will give rise to a new one. It is better to return to this issue later.

5. Remember about tones, speech, facial expressions, gestures. Do not look directly into the eyes - this is an animal reaction that, at the subconscious level, provokes aggression. Avoid closed postures, such as folding your arms over your chest.

7. At the very beginning, I wrote that it is necessary to analyze the conflict, if it seems that there is no time for this, you can temporarily skip the remarks "past your ears", ask a question off topic. It is relevant to offer to change seats, move away, in order to distract an overly annoyed opponent, you can ask to make a call.

8 . Show interest, do not evaluate the opinion of the interlocutor, it is enough to say how it makes you feel. If you hear a reproach, accusation, remark, it is always better to clarify with a leading question: is the phrase understood correctly, instead of immediately jumping into battle or being offended.