Conflict is the oldest and most natural form of relationship. Even dinosaurs, alien to any social interaction, could tell a lot about him. After all, when one wants to eat, and the other does not want to be in a toothy mouth, there is an obvious conflict of interest. And what can we say about people! Conflicts accompany them from birth to old age. With friends and parents, with colleagues and loved ones, with himself, in the end. A person at every step risks becoming embroiled in conflict. The way out of the conflict is an art that helps to preserve not only friendly relations with others, but also your own nerves.
Conflict - Pros and Cons
Conflict is a situation in which each of the parties pursues mutually exclusive goals. Or, when it comes to an internal dilemma, a person cannot make a choice between equally attractive behaviors.
Everyone knows that quarrels and disputes are an extremely unpleasant thing. It is rare to find a person who enjoys getting involved in a conflict. Overcoming the conflict is a welcome option for the vast majority. But if you think about it, even from a quarrel you can learn useful lessons. During the dispute, you can better know your partners, identify the problems in the team and even effectively solve them. The tense situation often stimulates people, forces them to develop, to reveal their own potential, to look for innovative moves to optimize interaction in the group.
Primary situation analysis
Of course, it is better to negotiate peacefully, kindly and respecting each other's interests. But this is not always possible. There are situations when conflict is inevitable. The way out of the conflict with the least losses in this case is the main task of each of the participants.
Before you take any action, you need to stop and think. Stress is the inevitable companion of any quarrel, and he is a poor adviser. Therefore, you need to try to calm down, turn off emotions and analyze the current situation. It may be possible to find a way out of the conflict quickly enough, it may take a lot of effort to resolve the situation. But, one way or another, some analytical work will have to be done. Any conflict of interest is akin to a chess game. The one who can soberly assess the situation and make the only right decision wins.
Work with conflict information
To analyze the current situation, you need to collect a maximum of information. First of all, it should be determined what exactly is the subject of controversy. Is it a material good or an idea? Is it possible to share what everyone wants or is competition really inevitable? Is it possible to eliminate the cause of the conflict or replace it with a less contentious object? It is possible that during such an analysis it will become obvious that the dispute can be resolved right at the initial stage. It is enough to simply carry out certain manipulations with the object causing the conflict. A way out of the conflict in this case will be acceptable to all its participants. If two children quarrel over a chocolate bar, then the easiest way to break it in two is obvious. But the same principle applies in adulthood. If the cause of the conflict is an attractive position, and both applicants are equally professional and competent, it might be worth thinking about making changes to the staffing table. And let there be two deputy chiefs, with differentiation of duties.
Studying the motivation of participants
Then you need to collect information about all parties to the dispute, find out who they are, what they want. The psychological characteristics of a person, moral criteria, true goals and motives - all this is extremely important. What exactly can each of the participants do? Why? Do their behavior have hidden motives? Which ways out of the conflict are preferable for each participant?
It is necessary to take into account the influence of the social environment on the situation. The participants in the conflict either approve or disapprove of whether they provide support, or, conversely, interfere with the achievement of the goal. For example, if a traffic accident is the cause of the conflict, and the witnesses are the colleagues of one of the participants in the accident, then the second driver can hardly count on objective testimony. Moreover, regardless of whether they love his opponent at work or, conversely, can not stand. Just in one case, the witnesses will shield the colleague, and in the other, they will be happy to recall past grievances. To propose strategies for overcoming the conflict, not taking into account the influence of the social environment, is rather frivolous.
The impact on the conflict of subjective factors
A very important factor is not only the objective component of conflicts, but also the subjective element. Yet this is a clash of human interests, and people are far from impartiality. Each of the participants in the conflict presents how it looks from the side, ascribes to the opponent certain opinions and judgments, based only on their own ideas about him - this phenomenon is called "secondary reflection". The ways out of a social conflict often rest against such a deliberate prejudice of the parties. It is difficult to persuade people to not quarrel who think badly of each other. But it’s almost impossible to reconcile those who are sure that the enemy hates or despises them. Few people like gossips sitting at the entrance, although they do nothing wrong. It’s just that everyone is sure that the pensioners who have gathered in the circle just do that they condemn everyone who passes by, suspecting him of the darkest sins. And this is enough to cause hostility, even if grandmothers just discuss the watched series. Such moments also need analysis, they must be taken into account when exploring the conflict and ways out of it.
Choosing an action scenario
After collecting all the necessary information and analyzing it, you need to make predictive options for resolving the conflict. What will happen in the most favorable combination of circumstances, that - in the worst case, how the situation will develop, if any actions are stopped, let the brakes go, as they say.
Only by analyzing all the components of the problem that has arisen can we begin to develop a strategy for overcoming the conflict. In this case, the decision will be optimal.
Specialists identify five main strategies for overcoming a tense situation: avoidance, compromise, rivalry, cooperation, and adaptation. Choosing between these options, you need to correlate the goals with the methods for achieving them. It is unlikely that having adopted a tough strategy, you can maintain a healthy atmosphere in the team or put it in place of the insolent, choosing the path of compromise.
Of course, reconciling colleagues in the office is not at all the same as looking for ways out of interethnic conflicts. But the principle is the same: restore peace and tranquility, observing the interests of all interested parties as much as possible.
One of the toughest strategy options is rivalry. When choosing such a scenario, one of the parties completely suppresses the other, imposing a course of action. Of course, one cannot say that this is a productive and tolerant way. It is hardly worth using it too often, because with such a development of events one of the participants remains extremely disappointed and angry. Relations in the team are likely to be spoiled greatly and for a long time. Such methods of overcoming the conflict are applicable only if the proposed solution is beneficial for the whole team, and not for individual interested parties, and there is no time or opportunity to convince opponents. Although there are situations when exactly rivalry becomes the only acceptable way out of the situation. If bullies are trying to steal a wallet from a passerby, it is hardly worth bargaining and looking for compromises that satisfy both sides of the conflict.
The compromise, as the name implies, provides for the partial satisfaction of the interests of each of the parties. Such a way out of the conflict implies the desire of opponents to reach at least a temporary agreement, sacrificing some of their demands for this. Most often resort to a compromise if the parties have equal opportunities, and the cause of the collision is not fundamental. In this case, it is better to abandon a number of claims than to risk losing everything by losing the argument. The main disadvantage of such a strategy is that the peace achieved is rarely long-term. The temptation is already too great to try to regain those points that were previously sacrificed, when the balance of power changes in the right direction and one of the parties gets an advantage.
Ways to get out of the conflict do not always imply at least a partial satisfaction of the interests of each side. In some cases, one of the participants simply renounces his claims, leaving the conflict. This strategy is called adaptation, or concession. Of course, this method of conflict resolution cannot be called popular. They are forced to resort to concessions. Usually, one of the parties realizes that she simply does not have enough strength to fight. Or he concludes that the goal in this case does not justify the means. Returning to the example of hooligans and passers-by: a concession is a situation when a person gives a purse to a robber, deciding not to risk his life for a few bills.
However, the opposite is also possible. Such pacifist ways to get out of the conflict can be used by participants who have realized their own wrongness and acknowledged it. In this case, the rejection of unjustified claims requires courage and willpower, since, in essence, it is public repentance.
Avoiding Problem Solving
If all types of ways out of the conflict, involving active actions, have not produced a result, one of the parties can simply eliminate itself. Such a strategy is called avoiding the problem, or avoiding it. In this case, the conflict is not so much resolved as it simply ceases to exist, like a bonfire in which no one throws firewood. If the confrontation has existed for a long time, and no promising ways to solve the problem were found, avoidance can be recognized as one of the most effective strategies. Why waste time and resources on futile struggles if they can be used more wisely? Not every goal is worth fighting for it endlessly.
The rules for overcoming the conflict say that the best solution is the one that best suits the interests of each of the parties. None of the strategies meets this requirement like cooperation. In this case, the parties not only make mutual concessions, they actively interact, creating alternative ways to solve the problem. Recognizing the obvious importance of resolving the conflict, its participants strive together to eliminate the difficulties that have arisen. As a result of using such a strategy, it is possible not only to successfully solve the existing problem, but also to lay the foundations for further fruitful cooperation.
When deciding in favor of one of the strategies, it should be remembered that the opponent makes the same decision. It is highly probable that while one of the parties is inclined in favor of a compromise, the other categorically does not want to give up positions. Therefore, strategies can be adjusted, if necessary replaced by more appropriate situations. Carefully studying the conflict and ways out of it, you need to track the moves of the enemy and analyze them before making an important decision.