Several practical methods for quickly ending conflicts

The end of a conflict means any end or cessation of it. It can be the result of both mutual reconciliation of the parties, the achievement of a certain agreement between them, and the gradual fading of the confrontation or its escalation into another conflict. The main prerequisite for ending the conflict is the elimination of objective and weakening of the subjective causes that gave rise to the conflict situation.

Conflicts significantly affect the entire production and management process in an organization. Henry Ford famously said: “If you learned how to resolve conflicts, it would reduce the cost of a car more than 25 years of technical innovations.”

However, the conflict cannot always be resolved. Moreover, many conflicts do not need resolution, but competent management, since they can bring benefits.

Method of avoiding conflict

This is the most popular control method.
Its essence: the parties seek to avoid conflict by “leaving the scene” economically, physically or psychologically. The decision to use the method is made very quickly. The method is used when conflict is not needed, it does not fit the situation in the organization, or if the costs of a possible conflict would be very high. Other reasons for using this method include:

• the triviality of the problem underlying the conflict;
• pressure from more important circumstances;
• “cooling” of flared passions;
• collecting additional information and avoiding making an immediate decision;
• a situation where the subject of the conflict only indirectly affects the essence of the problem or points to other, deeper reasons;
• fear of the other side;
• unlucky timing of impending conflict.

Typical behavior when using this method is:

• the existence of a problem at all is denied in the hope that it will disappear by itself;
• the solution to the problem is delayed;
• prolonged procedures are used to suppress conflict;
• refer to existing bureaucratic and legal norms as the basis for resolving the conflict.

The method is not applicable in the following cases:

• the importance of the problem;
• the prospect of a long-term existence of the foundations of this conflict, since the method is effective only in fleeting conflicts;
• when loss of time in the long term leads to loss of initiative and high costs.

It is believed that the result of the conflict when using this method fits into the “win-loss” scheme.
A variation of the method of “avoiding conflict” is the method of inaction. Its essence: do not perform any actions at all. This method is justified in conditions of complete uncertainty, when it is impossible to calculate options for the development of events. The consequences of using this method are predictable and can be beneficial for the conflictant.

We publish an excerpt from the book of Doctor of Psychological Sciences, Professor Nikolai Nikolaevich Obozov “Psychology of Conflict”:

Let us try to give a general description of outcomes in conflict situations. How do conflicts occur and how do they end? The conflict is a conflict because the “accused” party does not agree with the conclusions of the initiator, with the expected outcomes of the tense situation. The “accused” party has its own idea of ​​the subject of the conflict, its own position on the degree of guilt and the possible outcome of the conflict. A conflict is a “clash” because the partner (accomplice) does not intend to “give up his position” so easily and quickly. Moreover, he sees the situation completely differently than the initiator. Sometimes the accused finds his own subject of conflict and replaces it with the one originally put forward by the initiator. In production, it may look like this: the foreman made a remark to the worker about a poorly cleaned workplace, and the worker replaces this subject of tension with another and says to the foreman: “Why did you poorly supply me with tools, you must do this regularly?!” This is the most fruitless course of the conflict.

Avoiding conflict

There are several typical outcomes in a conflict. The first outcome is avoidance of resolving the contradiction that has arisen, when one of the parties against whom the “accusation” is brought takes the topic in a different direction. In this outcome, the accused refers to lack of time, the inappropriateness, untimeliness of the dispute and “leave the battlefield.” He says that “it’s better to talk about this later, there’s no time now, and they can’t do it now,” etc.

This outcome of the conflict is simply postponing it. Explicitly or implicitly, the “accused” party avoids an open confrontation, allows the “enemy” to cool down and think over his claims. It is also assumed that the postponed conflict will somehow resolve itself. This tactic really gives the partner the opportunity to think, weigh the pros and cons, or forget his complaints, to “cool down” from the perhaps spontaneous dissatisfaction that has arisen. It provides an opportunity for the accused to evaluate the current state of affairs and find the best way out of the conflict.

But in most cases, “leaving” only transfers the conflict to the near future, when it can flare up again: after all, the subject of discontent has not been eliminated, the conflicting parties simply “postponed the party.” Therefore, this outcome is not very good; it leaves the problem for tomorrow. It should be remembered that a collision with the submitted object is not far off. Moreover, constantly postponing conflict resolution creates a “snowball” effect, which grows, accumulating grievances and ambiguities in relationships. For example, one of the employees remarked to another: “Aren’t you talking too loudly on the phone?” The answer is leaving: “You didn’t return me the drawings that I gave you last week, but I can’t work without them.” The conflict was not resolved because the second participant “left”, switched the conversation to another topic and even tried to blame the first. There was a kind of exchange of roles between the initiator and the accused.

An example from family life. Husband: “You over-salted the soup again, I asked you to taste it when you cook it.” Answer of the accused party: “And when will you clear the dishes from the table after yourself, because we have already agreed on this more than once.” The same unsuccessful option of leaving and each side puts forward its own subject of conflict, moreover, “counterattacking the enemy.” In a milder form of withdrawal, the accused says this, in response to “over-salted soup”: “For some reason, I’ve had a headache this morning - apparently I caught a cold somewhere; I’m sorry, but I’m going to go lie down.” The second option of avoiding the conflict is more successful, but it also does not solve the problem.

Leaving, as an option for the outcome of a conflict, is most typical of a “thinker,” who is not always immediately ready to resolve a difficult situation. He needs time to think through the reasons and ways to solve a conflict problem. Withdrawal is also often used by “practitioners”, adding an element of reciprocal accusation to the outcome of the conflict, when the position of the accused is replaced by the active position of the initiator. An active position is more characteristic of a “practitioner”, therefore it is most often chosen by him in all cases of interpersonal contradictions. Moreover, the “childish type of conflict”—mutual accusations “you’re a fool—that’s who you are”—is replaced by internal disagreement with the position of the other. That is why “escape” from conflict, which is outwardly unusual for an active, effective type, can manifest itself in a “practitioner”. The tactic of “escape” is quite often found in the “interlocutor”, which characterizes their main property “cooperation under any circumstances, and conflict only as a last resort.” The “interlocutor” understands the interaction situation better than others. He is also more pliable in relationships and communication and prefers avoiding conflict rather than confrontation, and especially coercion [3].

Smoothing out the conflict

The second outcome option is “smoothing,” when one of the parties either justifies itself or agrees with the claim, but “only for this minute.” Justifying oneself does not completely resolve the conflict and can even aggravate it, since the internal, mental contradiction is affirmed in its status “to be.” Agreeing with a contradictory opinion most likely presupposes partial or external agreement, which depends on the complexity and depth of the conflict that has arisen. This outcome of the conflict is expressed in the fact that the “accused” is currently simply trying to calm the partner down and relieve his emotional arousal. The “accused” states in streamlined words that there are no particular reasons for a quarrel; he thinks and is almost sure that he was misunderstood. This does not mean that he took note of the essence of the claims, or even somehow understood the subject of the conflict. Just “for now and now” he showed loyalty, demonstrated humility, agreement. It is possible that after some time his “maneuver” will be revealed and his partner will be indignant that he was “promised, but again the same thing...”.

It is also impossible to use the technique of smoothing as a general agreement between the accused and the initiator of the conflict. Most often, this form of behavior occurs if contradictions that arose as private dissatisfaction have turned into a generalized assessment of the relationship. For example, one of the spouses tells the other that the Ivanov spouses have difficulties in their relationships due to the patriarchal ideas of the husband. The day before, the narrator also discovered “patriarchal behavior” - he forbade his wife to go on a business trip. In the situation of the story, the wife remembered this and said: “What can we say about Ivanov, how did you behave yesterday?! You men are all the same, you are fair only in relation to others, but everyone behaves unambiguously - patriarchally, if it concerns him personally! The husband, feeling the complications of his own relationship, suddenly agrees with his wife: “I’m probably wrong and you really should go, since you have the right to dispose of your freedom as you see fit.”

The conflict seems to have been resolved, at least outwardly. But can there be an internal change in the husband’s way of thinking?! Next time, the partner will no longer want to accept the “smoothing” or “truce” tactics, but will demand more stringent guarantees and specific actions.

The tactic of smoothing over topics is bad because it can undermine the partner’s trust. After all, if after some time he discovers that his words had no effect, that the partner simply promised, but does not keep his word, then next time any assurance will be accepted with fear and distrust.

The outcome of “smoothing” is most often used by the “interlocutor”, since for him any, even the most “bad, unstable world”, is preferable to the most “beautiful victory”, rivalry. Of course, this does not mean that the “interlocutor” cannot use the technique of “coercion” in order to preserve the relationship. But he most often uses this pressure not to deepen contradictions, but to eliminate them. Meanwhile, most of all, this type of personality is characterized by “smoothing out” tension in relationships.

Smoothing is characterized by communicative behavior, for example, in a work environment. In response to a remark made by a co-worker about a loud conversation on the phone, they say: “Excuse me, please, but my caller has trouble hearing something and that’s why I shout so loudly into the phone. How imperfect modern devices are. And we really get so tired at work that any raising of our voices annoys us. I understand you well. We need to be more careful with each other. This morning on transport...”, etc., etc., until the colleague completely calms down. In this outcome, the “accused” tries to give the initiator the opportunity to emotionally discharge and speak out.

In the family and everyday sphere, this outcome occurs like this. The initiator accused his partner of not going to the store for groceries, but now sitting and watching TV. The accused smooths out the conflict with the following phrases: “Darling, you are certainly right, but the conflict that occurred at our work unsettled me. I still remember that while passing by the store, something stirred in my memory, but this incident at work was so unusual for all of us.” The husband tried to justify his forgetfulness with this explanation. And if his explanation was convincing, the initiator must accept the partner’s position, justifying this case as a special case. Of course, smoothing cannot save the situation indefinitely, but occasionally, and for more than one reason, it allows you to relieve tension in a relationship.

Compromise solution to the problem

The third type of outcome is compromise. This outcome means an open discussion of opinions and positions aimed at finding a solution that is most convenient and acceptable for both parties. In this case, partners put forward arguments in their own and others’ favor, do not use postponing decisions until another time, and do not unilaterally force one to one only possible option. The advantage of this outcome is the mutual equality of rights and obligations and the legalization (openness) of the claim. Compromise, subject to the rules of behavior in conflict, really relieves tension or helps to find the optimal solution. For example, in production, the foreman, the initiator of the conflict, demands that the worker do his job better. The worker, if he himself makes every effort and ability, demands from the master a more advanced tool, which is already in the warehouse and just needs to be taken. If the parties to the conflict behave correctly, a decision is made: the master takes out the necessary tool - the worker makes every effort to do the work better.

In a compromise option, the parties work out or arrive at a “middle solution,” as can be seen from the following example of a telephone conversation: “I will ask you to call me only during your lunch break if this is a non-urgent conversation.” This option suits both participants: personal conversations - after hours. An example from a family-marriage conflict. The wife asks her husband not to smoke in the apartment, as the smell of smoke irritates her. The husband considers himself entitled to “smoke in comfort,” and not on the stairs. Each party justifies its desire. Often, as a result of an “honest and equal” discussion, the most acceptable compromise solution for both is adopted. As in our example, the spouses can come to a final decision: the husband can smoke in the apartment, but in strictly designated places. Such a decision is fixed for a long time; it is a signed agreement, the violation of which is impossible, since each partner accepted it voluntarily [7].

Confrontation as the outcome of the conflict

The fourth option is confrontation. An unfavorable and unproductive outcome of the conflict, when none of the participants takes into account the position or opinion of the other. An example with a telephone conversation: “I don’t know how to speak differently and I’m not going to adapt to anyone!” At the same time, if the other side defends its point of view, the conflict reaches a dead end and the situation may become “explosive,” but for a different reason. The opposition of positions sooner or later, due to its unresolved nature, accumulates the negative potential of relations. The danger of confrontation is the possibility of turning to personal insults, which usually happens when all reasonable arguments have been used. The outcome of a confrontation usually occurs when one of the parties has accumulated enough minor grievances, “gathered its strength” and put forward strong arguments that the other side cannot remove. The only positive aspect of confrontation is that the extreme nature of the situation allows partners to better see each other’s strengths and, most importantly, weaknesses, and understand the needs and interests of the parties.

Confrontation often occurs when you overestimate yourself and underestimate your opponent. “It seems like you’re saying obvious things, but he doesn’t understand why,” said one of the participants in the conflict. But, firstly, a thing can only be obvious to oneself. Secondly, understanding - misunderstanding is closely related to the motive to recognize a new position, thought. What if this position contradicts one’s own interests, habits, and customs? After all, understanding - misunderstanding, for some people, is also a sign of acceptance - rejection of the thoughts, customs, habits of another. Not just mentally, but as a real action. Thirdly, and most importantly, it is depriving another person of the right to have an opinion that is different from yours. When we find agreement, it surprises us little and alarms us. Disagreement, especially frequent and on most issues, causes hostility and misunderstanding that there may be a completely different point of view.

Overestimation of oneself and underestimation of others is associated with the personality quality of egocentrism. When one’s own self is placed on an unattainable pedestal, and the opinions of others are assessed as “the rustling of leaves in the neighboring garden.” So it turns out that what I said is of significant importance, and what the enemy said... is just empty babble. In this case, minimal disagreement is an attack not just on opinion, but personally on our dear self. In addition, emotional involvement in a dispute and conflict, the inability to turn everything into a joke and a game can lead to “obsession” with the issue under discussion.

We must not forget that in a dispute or conflict the truth will never be born. This commandment is one of the main ones and if someone remembers it, the confrontation may soften. Confrontation becomes acceptable when fundamental issues are defended: ecology, human health, moral and religious values ​​(don’t kill, don’t steal, don’t commit adultery, etc.). If confrontation reveals a diversity of points of view, it means that not everything is clear in your position. This makes you think, doubt, and therefore find new ways to solve seemingly insoluble issues. Here, of course, arbitrators (third parties), neutral territory, and rules of discussion are needed [7].

Coercion in conflict

The fifth option for the outcome of the conflict is the most unfavorable - coercion. This is a tactic of straightforwardly imposing the version of the outcome of the contradiction that suits the initiator of the conflict. For example, the head of a department, using his administrative right, prohibits talking on the phone about personal matters. He seems to be right, but is his right really so universal?! As a rule, a “practitioner” resorts to coercion, confident in his absolute influence and power over his partner. Of course, this option is possible in the relationship between an “interlocutor” and a “thinker” and will not work at all with the same type of personality, i.e. with a "practitioner". The accused “practitioner” most likely uses confrontation in this case and only as a last resort withdrawal, in order to “take revenge” another time. This outcome of the conflict, in a sense, really quickly and decisively eliminates the reasons for the discontent of the conflict initiator, but it is the most unfavorable for preserving the relationship. And if in extreme conditions, in official relations between military personnel, and to some extent in production, where relationships are regulated by a clear system of rights and obligations, it is partly justified, then this outcome becomes obsolete in the system of modern personal, family, and marital relations. A master who forces a worker to observe labor discipline actually acts not on his own behalf, but on behalf of the organization that authorized him to comply with the rules of labor discipline.

The outcome of coercion in family and marital relations receives a different assessment and response. The wife is unhappy that her husband does not clean up his things. At the moment of conflict, she can simply force him, under her supervision, to remove them. Moreover, the motivation for this coercion may be quite reasonable: “each of us is old enough and independent enough not to need a nanny.” This form of justification and coercion is quite acceptable and even necessary in parent-child relationships, but in marital and family relationships it can lead to a crisis.

The fact is that a partner to whom some behavior is imposed may feel deeply disadvantaged, insulted and humiliated. Behind his purely external humility lies resentment and a desire to “repay” his partner for his humiliation at the first convenient moment. Therefore, coercion as the outcome of a conflict gives rise to a chain of mutual “revenge” and “settling of scores.” Coercive tactics in conflict are very rarely used by the “interlocutor” and the “thinker.”

The various outcomes of conflicts considered: “withdrawal”, “smoothing”, “compromise”, “confrontation”, “coercion” have different effects on both the well-being and mood of the participants, and on the stability of their relationships. In this sense, the outcomes of “smoothing and compromise” are more favorable. “Smoothing” relieves the negative feelings of one or both participants, and “compromise” stimulates equal cooperation and, therefore, strengthens interpersonal relationships. “Leaving” as a passive outcome of the conflict can demonstrate the indifference of one of the partners. And if care is used by both partners, then we can talk about mutual indifference in the relationship. This option provides greater independence and is justified in friendly relationships. It’s another matter when group members are connected by joint activities and the actions of one are impossible without the simultaneous or sequential actions of another participant (team work on an assembly line, during installation work, during combined operator activities, in flight crews, in a sports team). Care, as the outcome of a conflict, manifests itself even more acutely in family, marital, kinship, and parental relationships. In joint production activities, a common goal, as well as the knowledge, skills and abilities of the participants, make it possible to compensate for contradictions and, even more so, to avoid them. In a shared personal life, the interconnectedness of the participants is subjectively more significant, so “leaving” has a detrimental effect on the stability of the relationship.

“Confrontation” and “coercion” have equally bad effects on the emotional state and the stability of relationships. And if in an official organization “coercion” can partially justify itself, just as in raising children, then in all other respects such an outcome is hardly acceptable. “Confrontation” can be considered as a special and possible case only when at work or in personal life the problem “to be or not to be” has reached its extreme significance. Participants must be prepared for a complete transformation of the relationship, even to the point of breaking it up. In personal life, confrontation will sooner or later lead to the severance of marital, family and friendly relationships.

K. THOMAS test {adapted by N.V. Grishina) To describe the types of behavior of people in conflicts, K. Thomas considers applicable a two-dimensional model of conflict regulation, the fundamental ones of which are cooperation associated with a person’s attention to the interests of other people involved in the situation, and assertiveness, which is characterized by an emphasis on one's own interests.

According to these two main dimensions, K. Thomas identifies five ways of conflict management , designated in accordance with two fundamental dimensions (cooperation and assertiveness):

Competition (competition) is the desire to achieve one’s interests to the detriment of another.

Accommodation is sacrificing one's own interests for the sake of another.

Compromise is an agreement based on mutual concessions; proposing an option that resolves the contradiction that has arisen.

Avoidance - lack of desire for cooperation and lack of tendency to achieve one's own goals.

Cooperation - participants in the situation come to an alternative that fully satisfies the interests of both parties.

INSTRUCTIONS

Here are a number of statements that will help you determine some of the characteristics of your behavior. There are no “right” or “wrong” answers here. People are different, and everyone can express their opinion.

There are two options A and B, from which you must choose the one that is more consistent with your views, your opinion about yourself. On the answer form, put a clear cross corresponding to the statement number and one of options A and B. You must answer as quickly as possible.

1. A. Sometimes I imagine the opportunity for others to take responsibility for resolving a controversial issue. Q. Rather than discussing what we disagree on, I try to draw attention to what we both agree with.

2. A. I'm trying to find a compromise solution. Q. I try to settle the matter taking into account all the interests of the other and my own.

3. A. I usually persistently strive to achieve my goal. Q. I try to reassure the other and, mainly, preserve our relationship.

4. A. I'm trying to find a compromise solution. Q. Sometimes I sacrifice my own interests for the sake of the interests of another person.

5. A. When resolving a controversial situation, I always try to find support from another. Q. I try my best to avoid unnecessary tension.

6. A. I'm trying to avoid trouble for myself. Q. I try to achieve my goal.

7. A. I try to postpone the resolution of a controversial issue so that over time I can finally resolve it. Q. I believe it is possible to give in on something in order to achieve something else.

8. A. I usually persistently strive to achieve my goal. Q. The first thing I try to do is clearly define what all the interests involved are.

9. A. I think that you should not always worry about any disagreements that arise. Q. I make efforts to achieve my goal.

10. A. I am determined to achieve my goal. Q. I'm trying to find a compromise solution.

11. A. First of all, I try to clearly define what all the controversial issues involved are. Q. I try to reassure the other and, mainly, preserve our relationship.

12. A. I often avoid taking positions that might cause controversy. Q. I give the other person the opportunity to remain unconvinced in some way if he also agrees to meet me halfway.

13. A. I propose a middle position. Q. I insist that it be done my way.

14. A. I tell the other my point of view and ask about his views. Q. I am trying to show another the logic and advantages of my views.

15. A. I try to calm the other down and, with my eyes, preserve our relationship. Q. I try to do things to avoid tension.

16 . A. I try not to hurt the other person's feelings. Q. I am trying to convince someone else of the benefits of my position. 17 . A. I usually persistently try to achieve my goal. Q. I try my best to avoid unnecessary tension.

18. A. If it makes the other person happy, I will give him the opportunity to insist on his own. Q. I give the opportunity to another to remain unconvinced in some way if he also meets me halfway.

19. A. The first thing I try to do is to clearly define what all the issues and interests involved are. Q. I try to postpone the resolution of a controversial issue in order to resolve it finally over time.

20. A. I am trying to overcome our differences immediately. Q. I try to find the best combination of benefits and losses for both parties.

21. A. When negotiating, I try to be attentive to the wishes of the other. Q. I always tend to directly discuss problems and solve them together.

22. A. I try to find a position that is in the middle between my position and the other person's point of view. Q. I stand up for my desires.

23. A. As a rule, I am concerned with satisfying the desires of each of us. Q. Sometimes I let others take responsibility for resolving a controversial issue.

24. A. If the position of another seems very important to me, I will try to meet his wishes. Q. I try to persuade the other person to reach a compromise.

25. A. I am trying to show the other the logic and advantages of my views. Q. I propose a middle position.

26. A. I propose a middle position. Q. I am almost always concerned with satisfying the desires of each of us.

27. A. I often avoid taking a position that might cause controversy. B. If it makes the other person happy, I will give him the opportunity to have his way.

28. A. I usually persistently strive to achieve my goal. Q. When dealing with a situation, I usually try to find support from the other person.

29. A. I propose a middle position. Q. I think that you should not always worry about any disagreements that arise.

30. A. I try not to hurt the other person's feelings. Q. I always take a position on a controversial issue so that we, together with the other person, can achieve success.

Answer form

Processing the results obtained

After the test taker fills out the answer sheet, it can be deciphered using the key. In the key, each answer A or B gives an idea of ​​​​the quantitative expression: competition, cooperation, compromise, avoidance and accommodation.

Method of concessions and accommodations

The conflictant makes concessions by reducing his own claims. This method is used in cases where:

• the conflictant discovers that he is wrong and when it is more useful for him to listen to the proposals of the opposite side, i.e. show your prudence;
• the subject of the conflict is more important for one side (i.e. when it is more important to satisfy the requests of the other side in the name of future cooperation);
• strategic potential is being formed and accumulated for future controversial situations;
• there is a clear superiority of one of the parties;
• stability is most important.

The most likely result of using this method is “lose-win”.

Way out of a conflict situation

In order to determine the correct way out of a conflict situation, it is necessary to understand the type of conflict, the reasons why it arose, the features and specifics of its course.

For example, when resolving an intrapersonal conflict, its direction should be determined: goal-oriented (when there is disagreement on achieving a goal) or role-oriented (when there is disagreement on the distribution of responsibilities).

There may be incompatibility between the goals set for different people. And it is possible that there are different requirements for people solving opposite or identical problems.

Then people cannot find common ground and achieve unity of action, which leads to prolongation of the matter, development and aggravation of the conflict.

Intrapersonal conflict can be resolved using methods such as searching for compromises, reorienting values, redistributing tasks, or removing one of the conflicting parties.

Resolution of interpersonal conflicts is possible within the situation and by influence from outside. For example, when the parties to the conflict independently negotiate and come to a constructive solution, or they involve a third party to resolve the conflict, who dots the i’s and invites the conflicting parties to choose tactics for further behavior.

Group conflicts are always resolved more difficult and longer than those described above. Conflict of the “person/group” type should be assessed according to the degree of role expectations, internal personal and group attitudes.

When resolving such conflicts, the person who entered into the dispute either admits that he was wrong and eliminates the shortcomings, or leaves the conflict field (resigns, moves, changes educational institution).

Group/group conflict has multiple causes and forms of manifestation. Rallies, strikes, and collective protests take place here. Conflicts of this type are resolved by negotiations with the further conclusion of agreements, agreements of intent, or aggravated in the absence of compromise.

Of course, there is no single algorithm for resolving conflicts. It all depends on the specific situation and the specific parties to the dispute. In any case, the conflict can have different stages: if the way out of it suits everyone, it ends. If not, then with varying success it can continue its development, flaring up more strongly from time to time.

Smoothing method

Used in organizations focused on collective methods of interaction, as well as in countries of traditional collectivism.
Effective in cases of insignificant divergences of interests and conditions characteristic of typical and habitual patterns of behavior of people in a team. The method is based on emphasizing common interests, when differences are downplayed and commonalities are emphasized: “We are one friendly team, and we should not rock the boat.”

The likely result of this method assumes the presence of two options for interaction: “win-lose”, “win-win”.

Quick Solution Method

Its essence: a decision on the subject and problem is made in the shortest possible time, almost instantly. This method is used:

• with a time limit for making a decision;
• when one of the parties to the conflict changes its position under the influence of the arguments of the other or in connection with the receipt of new “objective” information;
• when both parties want to participate in the search for more acceptable agreements;
• when there is no obvious (dangerous) aggravation of the conflict situation and therefore there is no need for careful development of solutions.

The most likely result of applying the method is the formation of a “win-win” model, but this will require mutual consent of the parties.

Bypass or avoidance ↑

Bypassing open conflicts is advisable to use in situations where successfully overcoming a conflict is impossible.

For example, if it is necessary to change an objective conflict situation - to improve the structure of a certain institution or organization, to redistribute job responsibilities, material or labor resources, when there is no possibility for this.

When implementing bypass technology, the tactics for overcoming the conflict involve specific measures and means:

• isolation, “separation” and setting boundaries for the parties - when the participants in the confrontation (one or more) are actually fenced off, they no longer have the need for communicative contact (for example, transferring one of the employees to another structural unit);
• limitation of opportunities - when one or more participants in the discord are reduced in the power that is necessary to achieve their own goals (for example, when the head of a structural unit is transferred to a lower position due to abuse of official position);
• introduction of censures (fines and sanctions of various kinds) - when, as a result of the imposition of administrative penalties, real or probable, the parties are forced to break off a quarrel (for example, in the event of a conflict between two officials, they may be positively influenced by the warnings of the head of an institution or organization to reprimand both for tactless and uncivil behavior);
• change in energy flows - when the energy of participants in disagreements is radically redirected in a different direction, for example, to accomplish common tasks or to defeat external “opponents” (you can instruct the parties to the confrontation to prepare a reasoned refutation of the critical comments of colleagues from other structural divisions on the implementation of a certain task);
• squeezing out - when conflicts are hushed up, denied or neglected by authoritative and influential individuals who form a common opinion in the work group, or by the participants in the disagreement themselves, in the hope that difficult events will disappear by themselves over time;
• coexistence is a quiet mutual refusal of the participants in a quarrel to constantly fuel hostility, when the parties realize the priority of common goals and interests or treat each other condescendingly.

Not happy with picky management? Read about how to avoid conflict with your boss. Read on to learn more about the features and measures to prevent conflicts at work.

What is moral conflict? Find out here.

The use of such a method of resolving a conflict situation as leaving is a direct way to achieve a positive result. In this case, the opposing sides achieve optimal conditions for interaction. The relative parity of relationships is maintained, and the emotional load on the situation is less evident.

Force method

Its essence is the desire of one side to impose its decision on the other. This method is used:

• when quick, decisive action is needed (in emergency situations);
• in case of introducing unpopular decisions (disciplinary restrictions, salary reduction);
• in circumstances vital to the organization;
• when one of the parties obviously has more resources to resolve the conflict.

Possible behavior patterns when using this method are:

• imposing “win-lose” strategies;
• use of competition;
• use of power resources;
• demand for submission.

An important factor that influences the effectiveness of ending a conflict is the participation of a third party in its resolution, or mediation.

Examples of avoidance strategies in real life

The effectiveness of such behavior can be quite high, and certainly, every person has used an avoidance strategy at least once in his life. For example, if you quarreled with another customer in a store because you did not divide the goods, it is easier for you to realize that you can buy the exact same thing in another store and at a better price.

When you encounter an aggressive person on public transport, no matter how much he is wrong, the best strategy in this case is to leave.

If your immediate boss comes into conflict with you and starts speaking in a raised voice, then avoiding the conflict will help you maintain your position or at least give you time to find ways to influence him, or even another job.

Or a person gets into an argument with you who is trying to prove that M.Yu. Lermontov is much more talented than A.S. Pushkin. In terms of intellectual discussion, this is a good topic, but if a conflict arises on this basis, it is better to use the conflict avoidance strategy. After all, this dispute will not help establish the truth, since everyone has their own preferences in literature, cinema, and art.