K. Thomas's test questionnaire for behavior in a conflict situation. (Thomas Method)
K. Thomas's test allows you to identify your style of behavior in a conflict situation.
The Thomas questionnaire not only shows a typical reaction to a conflict, but also explains how effective and appropriate it is, and also provides information on other ways to resolve a conflict situation.
Using a special formula, you can calculate the outcome of the conflict.
K. Thomas's test questionnaire for behavior in a conflict situation. (Thomas Method):
Instructions:
In each pair, choose the judgment that most accurately describes your typical behavior in a conflict situation.
Incentive material (questions).
A / Sometimes I give others the opportunity to take responsibility for a decision controversial issue.
B / Rather than discussing where we disagree, I try to draw attention to what we both agree on.
B / I am trying to settle the matter taking into account all the interests of the other and my own.
A / I try to find a compromise solution.
B / Sometimes I sacrifice my own interests for the interests of another person.
A / settling controversial situation, I always try to find support from another.
A / I try to avoid getting into trouble for myself.
B / I'm trying to get my way.
A / I try to postpone the solution of a complex issue in order to finally resolve it over time.
B / I consider it possible to concede in something in order to achieve something different.
A / Usually I strive persistently to get my way.
B / First of all, I try to clearly define what all the interests and controversial issues involved are.
A / I think that it is not always worth worrying about any disagreements that arise.
B / I am making an effort to get my way.
A / I firmly strive to achieve my goal.
B / I'm trying to find a compromise solution.
B / I try to calm the other down and strive mainly to preserve our relationship.
B / I give the other person the opportunity to remain unconvinced about something, if he also meets me halfway.
B / I am trying to convince the other of the advantages of my position.
A / I tell the other my point of view and ask about his views.
B / I'm trying to show another the logic and advantage of my views.
A / I try to calm the other down and strive mainly to preserve our relationship.
B / I try to do whatever is necessary to avoid tension.
A / I try not to hurt the feelings of the other.
B / I am trying to convince another of the advantages of my position.
A / Usually I strive persistently to get my way.
B / I try to do my best to avoid unnecessary tension.
A / If this makes the other happy, I will give him the opportunity to insist on his own.
B / I will give the opportunity to the other in something to remain unconvinced, if he also meets me halfway.
A / First of all, I try to clearly define what all the interests and issues at stake are.
B / I try to postpone the decision of a difficult issue in order to finally resolve it over time.
A / I am trying to resolve our differences immediately.
B / I try to find the best combination of benefits and losses for both of us.
A / When negotiating, I try to be attentive to the wishes of the other.
B / I always tend to discuss the problem directly.
A / I am trying to find a position that is in the middle between mine and that which is defended by the other.
B / I defend my desires.
A / As a rule, I am concerned with satisfying the desires of each of us.
B / Sometimes I give others the opportunity to take over
responsibility for resolving the disputed issue.
A / If the position of the other seems to him very important, I will try to meet his wishes.
B / I try to convince the other of the need to come to a compromise.
A / I try to show another the logic and advantage of my views.
B / When negotiating, I try to be attentive to the wishes of the other.
A / I suggest the middle position.
B / I am almost always preoccupied with satisfying everyone's desires.
A / I often avoid taking positions that might cause controversy.
B / If this makes the other happy, I will give him the opportunity to insist on his own.
A / Usually I strive persistently to get my way.
B / When settling a disputable situation, I usually try to find support from another.
A / I suggest the middle position.
B / I think that it is not always worth worrying about any disagreements that arise.
A / I try not to hurt the feelings of the other.
B / I always take such a position on a controversial issue so that we can, together with another interested person, achieve success.
The key to Thomas's test is conflict behavior:
|
Rivalry (Competition) |
Cooperation |
Compromise |
Avoidance |
Adaptation |
|
Processing and interpretation of test results:
The number of points scored by the subjects on each scale gives an idea of the severity of his tendency to manifest appropriate forms of behavior in conflict situations.
To describe the types of behavior of people in conflict situations, K. Thomas used a two-dimensional model of conflict regulation. The fundamental dimensions in it are: 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 protection own interests.
Five ways to resolve conflicts.
According to these two methods of measurement, K. Thomas singled out following ways conflict management:
Rivalry (competition) or administrative type, as the desire to achieve the satisfaction of their interests to the detriment of others.
Adaptation (adaptation), meaning, as opposed to rivalry, the sacrifice of one's own interests for the interests of another.
Compromise or economic type.
Avoiding or traditional type, which is characterized by both the lack of desire for cooperation and the absence of a tendency to achieve their own goals.
Collaboration or corporate type, when the participants in the situation come to an alternative that fully satisfies the interests of both parties.
He believed that by avoiding conflict, neither side would succeed. With such forms of behavior as competition, adaptation and compromise, either one participant wins and the other loses, or both lose because they make compromise concessions. And only in a situation of cooperation, both parties benefit.
Other experts are convinced that optimal strategy in conflict it is considered such when all five tactics of behavior are applied, and each of them has a value in the range from 5 to 7 points. If your result differs from the optimal one, then some tactics are weakly expressed - have values below 5 points, others - strongly - above 7 points.
Formulas for predicting the outcome of a conflict situation: A) Competition + Problem solving + 1/2 Compromise B) Adaptation + Avoidance + 1/2 Compromise
if sum A> sum B, you have a chance to win a conflict situation
if sum B> sum A, your opponent has a chance to win the conflict.
K. Thomas identifies two directions of behavior in a conflict situation - cooperation, which is 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 their own interests. According to these two main dimensions, the following methods (strategies) of conflict resolution differ:
· Rivalry: the least effective, but the most frequently used method of behavior in conflicts, is expressed in the desire to achieve the satisfaction of their interests to the detriment of others. Person using style rivalries, is not interested in cooperation with others and achieves the goal, using his abilities to dominate, forcing them to accept the solution to the problem he needs.
· Fixture: means, as opposed to rivalry, sacrificing one's own interests for the sake of another. When using this style, there is participation in the situation and the consent to do what the other wants.
· Compromise: compromise as an agreement between the parties to the conflict, achieved through mutual concessions. When using style compromise both sides give in a little in their interests in order to satisfy them in the rest, often the main thing. This is done through bargaining and exchange, concessions. Unlike cooperation, compromise is reached on a more superficial level - one is inferior in something, the other too, as a result, it becomes possible to come to a common solution. In a compromise, there is no search for hidden interests, only what each says about his desires is considered. In this case, the causes of the conflict are not affected. We are not looking for their elimination, but finding a solution that satisfies the immediate interests of both parties.
· Evasion (avoidance): which is characterized by both the lack of desire for cooperation and the lack of a tendency to achieve their own goals. A person does not defend his rights, does not cooperate with anyone to work out a solution, or avoids resolving a conflict. To do this, they use avoiding the problem (leaving the room, changing the topic, etc.), ignoring it, shifting responsibility for the solution onto another, postponing the solution, etc.
· Cooperation: when the participants in the situation come to an alternative that fully satisfies the interests of both parties. One who follows style cooperation, actively participates in resolving the conflict and defends his interests, but at the same time tries to cooperate with another person. This style is more time-consuming than others, as the needs, concerns and interests of both parties are first brought forward and then discussed. This is a good way to satisfy the interests of both parties, which requires understanding the causes of the conflict and jointly searching for new alternatives to resolve it. Among other styles, collaboration is the most difficult, but the most effective style in difficult and important conflict situations.
Rice. 1. Vectors of communication and methods of conflict resolution according to Thomas
Research: discussion allows people to decide to cooperate(Kerr & Kaufman-Gillilland, 1994).
A subtle experiment by Robyn Dawes (1980, 1984) illustrates this. Imagine that the experimenter offers you and each of the six unfamiliar participants in the experiment the following choice: you can keep the $ 6 or give it to others through the experimenter, knowing that he will double the amount and give each of the six participants $ 2. Nobody will know if you decided to give the money or keep it. Thus, if all seven cooperate and donate money, each receives $ 12. If you alone keep the money and the other six give back, you have $ 18. If you give and keep the rest, you will receive nothing. Collaboration is obviously mutually beneficial, but it requires dedication and risk. Doz found that if there was no discussion, about 30% of people give money, and if there was one - 80%.
Open, free, honest discussion also reduces distrust. Without discussion, those who expect others not to cooperate usually refuse to cooperate themselves (Messe & Sivacek, 1979; Pruitt & Kimmel, 1977). Someone who distrusts others is almost obliged to refuse to cooperate (to protect themselves from exploitation). Lack of cooperation, in turn, reinforces mistrust ("What can I do? In this world, man is a wolf to man"). In experiments, communication reduces distrust by allowing people to reach an agreement that ensures their mutual benefit. (see D. Myers Social Psychology, St. Petersburg: Peter, 1997. P.651)
Stages of conflict resolution in the style of cooperation:
1. Acknowledge the existence of a conflict those. admit the presence of opposing goals and methods of opponents, identify these participants themselves. In practice, these issues are not so easy to solve, it can be quite difficult to admit and declare out loud that you are in a state of conflict with an employee on some issue. Sometimes the conflict has existed for a long time, people suffer, but there is no open recognition of it, everyone chooses their own form of behavior and influence on the other, but there is no joint discussion and way out of the situation.
2. Determine the possibility of negotiations. After recognizing the existence of a conflict and the impossibility of resolving it on the fly, it is advisable to agree on the possibility of holding negotiations and to clarify which negotiations: with or without a mediator and who can be a mediator who equally suits both parties.
3. Agree on a negotiation procedure. Determine where, when and how negotiations will start, i.e. stipulate terms, place, negotiation procedure, start time of joint activities.
4. Identify the range of issues that make up the subject of the conflict. The main challenge is to define, in shared terms, what is the subject of conflict and what is not. Already at this stage, joint approaches to the problem are developed, the positions of the parties are identified, the points of greatest disagreement and points of possible convergence of positions are determined.
5. Develop options for solutions. Parties to working together offer several options decisions with the calculation of costs for each of them, taking into account the possible consequences.
6. Make an agreed decision. After considering a number possible options, with mutual discussion and provided that the parties come to an agreement, it is advisable to submit this common decision in writing: a communique, a resolution, a cooperation agreement, etc. In particularly difficult or critical cases, written documents are drawn up after each stage of negotiations.
7. To implement decision on practice. If the process of joint actions ends only with the adoption of a well-thought-out and coordinated decision, and then nothing happens and does not change, then this situation may become a detonator of other, stronger and more prolonged conflicts. The reasons that caused the first conflict did not disappear, but only intensified by unfulfilled promises. Re-negotiations will be much more difficult.
The personal questionnaire, developed by K. Thomas, is designed to study personal predisposition to conflict behavior, to identify certain styles of conflict resolution. The technique can be used as a guideline for the study of adaptive and communicative personality traits, style of interpersonal interaction.
In Russia, the test was adapted by N.V. Grishina.
The test can be used in group examinations (and then the stimulus material is read aloud) and individually (in this case, it is necessary to make 30 pairs of cards with statements written on them, and then invite the subject to choose one card from each pair, the one that seems to him closer to the truth in relation to his behavior). Time spent - no more than 15-20 minutes.
Theoretical basis
In his approach to the study of conflict phenomena, K. Thomas focused on changing the traditional attitude to conflicts. Pointing out that on early stages Their study widely used the term "conflict resolution", he emphasized that the term implies that the conflict can and must be resolved or eliminated. The goal of conflict resolution, therefore, was some ideal conflict-free state where people work in complete harmony. Recently, however, there has been a significant change in the attitude of specialists to this aspect of conflict research. It was caused, according to K. Thomas, at least two circumstances: the realization of the futility of efforts to completely eliminate conflicts, an increase in the number of studies indicating the positive functions of conflicts. Hence, according to the author, the emphasis should be shifted from the elimination of conflicts to the management of them.
In accordance with this, K. Thomas considers it necessary to focus on the following aspects of the study of conflicts: what forms of behavior in conflict situations are characteristic of people, which of them are more productive or destructive; how it is possible to stimulate productive behavior.
To describe the types of behavior of people in conflict situations, K. Thomas considers a two-dimensional model of conflict management to be applicable, the fundamental dimensions of which are 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 methods of conflict management:
- competition (competition) as the desire to achieve the satisfaction of their interests to the detriment of another;
- adaptation, meaning, as opposed to rivalry, the sacrifice of one's own interests for the sake of another;
- compromise
- avoidance, which is characterized by both the lack of desire for cooperation and the absence of a tendency to achieve their own goals;
- cooperation, when the participants in a situation come to an alternative that fully satisfies the interests of both parties.
K. Thomas believes that in avoiding conflict, neither side achieves success; in such forms of behavior as competition, adaptation and compromise, either one of the participants wins and the other loses, or both lose because they make compromise concessions. And only in a situation of cooperation, both parties benefit. In his Questionnaire on the identification of typical forms of behavior, K. Thomas describes each of the five listed possible options 12 judgments about the behavior of an individual in a conflict situation. In various combinations, they are grouped into 30 pairs, in each of which the respondent is asked to choose the judgment that is most typical for characterizing his behavior.
Procedure for
Instructions
"In each pair, choose the judgment that most accurately describes your typical behavior in a conflict situation."
Processing of results
For each answer that matches the key corresponding to the type of behavior in a conflict situation, one point is awarded.
Key
| № | Rivalry | Cooperation | Compromise | Avoidance | Adaptation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | A | B | |||
| 2 | B | A | |||
| 3 | A | B | |||
| 4 | A | B | |||
| 5 | A | B | |||
| 6 | B | A | |||
| 7 | B | A | |||
| 8 | A | B | |||
| 9 | B | A | |||
| 10 | A | B | |||
| 11 | A | B | |||
| 12 | B | A | |||
| 13 | B | A | |||
| 14 | B | A | |||
| 15 | B | A | |||
| 16 | B | A | |||
| 17 | A | B | |||
| 18 | B | A | |||
| 19 | A | B | |||
| 20 | A | B | |||
| 21 | B | A | |||
| 22 | B | A | |||
| 23 | A | B | |||
| 24 | B | A | |||
| 25 | A | B | |||
| 26 | B | A | |||
| 27 | A | B | |||
| 28 | A | B | |||
| 29 | A | B | |||
| 30 | B | A |
Interpretation of results
The number of points scored by an individual on each scale gives an idea of the severity of his tendency to manifest appropriate forms of behavior in conflict situations. The dominant type is considered to be the type (types) who have typed maximum amount points.
- Rivalry: the least effective, but the most frequently used method of behavior in conflicts, is expressed in the desire to achieve the satisfaction of their interests to the detriment of others.
- Fixture: means, as opposed to rivalry, sacrificing one's own interests for the sake of another.
- Compromise: compromise as an agreement between the parties to the conflict, achieved through mutual concessions.
- Evasion (avoidance): which is characterized by both the lack of desire for cooperation, and the lack of a tendency to achieve their own goals
- Cooperation: when the participants in the situation come to an alternative that fully satisfies the interests of both parties.
In our country, the test was adapted by N.V. Grishina to study the personal predisposition to conflict behavior.
In his approach to the study of conflict phenomena, K. Thomas focused on changing the traditional attitude to conflicts. Pointing out that in the early stages of their study, the term "conflict resolution" was widely used, he emphasized that this term implies that the conflict can and should be resolved, or eliminated. The goal of conflict resolution, therefore, was some ideal conflict-free state where people work in complete harmony. Recently, however, there has been a significant change in the attitude of specialists to this aspect of conflict research.
It was caused, in the opinion of K. Thomas, at least two circumstances: the realization of the futility of efforts to completely eliminate conflicts and an increase in the number of studies indicating the positive functions of conflicts.
Hence, according to the author, the emphasis should be shifted from the elimination of conflicts to the management of them. In accordance with this, K. Thomas considers it necessary to focus on the following aspects of the study of conflicts: what forms of behavior in conflict situations are characteristic of people, which of them are more productive or destructive; how it is possible to stimulate productive behavior.
To describe the types of behavior of people in conflict situations, K. Thomas considers a two-dimensional model of conflict regulation acceptable, the fundamental dimensions of which are 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 2 main dimensions, K. Thomas identifies the following methods of conflict management:
1)competition (competition) as the desire to achieve the satisfaction of their interests to the detriment of another;
2) adaptation, meaning, as opposed to rivalry, sacrificing one's own interests for the sake of another;
3) compromise;
4) avoidance, which is characterized by both the lack of desire for cooperation and the absence of a tendency to achieve their own goals;
5) cooperation when the participants in the situation come to an alternative that fully satisfies the interests of both parties.
K. Thomas believes that in avoiding conflict, neither side succeeds in such forms of behavior as competition, adaptation and compromise, or one of the participants wins, and the other loses, or both lose, as they make compromise concessions ... And only in a situation of cooperation, both parties benefit.
In his questionnaire on identifying typical forms of behavior, K. Thomas describes each of the five listed possible options 12 judgments about the behavior of an individual in a conflict situation. In various combinations, they are grouped into 30 pairs, in each of which the respondent is asked to choose the judgment that is most typical for characterizing his behavior.
Questionnaire text
1. A. Sometimes I provide an opportunity for others to take responsibility for resolving a controversial issue.
B. Rather than discussing where we disagree, I try to draw attention to what we both disagree with.
2. A. I am trying to find a compromise solution.
B. I am trying to settle the matter taking into account the interests of the other and my own.
3. A. Usually I am persistently striving to get my way.
4. A. I try to find a compromise solution.
B. Sometimes I sacrifice my own interests for the interests of another person.
5. A. When settling a disputable situation, I always try to find support from another.
B. I try to do everything to avoid tension.
6. A. I try to avoid getting into trouble for myself.
B. I try to get my way.
7. A. I try to postpone the decision of the controversial issue in order to eventually resolve it finally.
B. I consider it possible to concede in something in order to achieve something else.
8. A. Usually I strive persistently to get my way.
B. First of all, I try to clearly define what all the interests and issues involved are.
9. A. I think that it is not always worth worrying about any disagreements that arise.
B. I am making an effort to get my way.
10. A. I am determined to achieve my goal.
B. I am trying to find a compromise solution.
11. A. First, I try to be clear about what each of the interests and issues involved are.
B. I try to reassure the other and, mainly, to preserve our relationship.
12. A. Often I avoid taking a position that can cause controversy.
13. A. I suggest a middle position.
B. I insist that it be done my way.
14. A. I communicate my point of view to another and ask about his views.
B. I am trying to show others the logic and advantages of my views.
15. A. I try to reassure the other and, above all, to preserve our relationship.
B. I try to do whatever is necessary to avoid tension.
16. A. I try not to hurt the feelings of the other.
B. I try to convince the other of the advantages of my position.
17. A. Usually I try hard to get my way.
B. I try to do my best to avoid unnecessary tension.
18. A. If it makes the other happy, I will give him the opportunity to insist on his own.
B. I give the opportunity to another in something to remain with his opinion, if he also meets me halfway.
19. A. First, I try to be clear about what each of the interests and issues at stake are.
B. I try to postpone the solution of the controversial issue in order to resolve it finally over time.
20. A. I try to immediately overcome our differences.
B. I try to find the best combination of benefits and losses for everyone.
21. A. When negotiating, I try to be considerate of the desires of the other.
B. I always tend to direct discussion of the problem.
22. A. I am trying to find a position that is midway between my position and the point of view of the other person.
B. I defend my desires.
23. A. I am concerned with satisfying everyone's desires.
B. Sometimes I present an opportunity for others to take responsibility for resolving a controversial issue.
24. A. If the position of the other seems to him very important, I will try to meet his wishes.
B. I try to convince the other to come to a compromise.
25. A. I am trying to prove to another the logic and advantages of my views.
B. When negotiating, I try to be considerate of the desires of the other.
26. A. I suggest a middle position.
B. I am almost always concerned with satisfying the desires of each of us.
27. A. I avoid taking a position that can cause controversy.
B. If it makes the other happy, I will give him the opportunity to insist on his own.
28. A. Usually I am persistently striving to get my way.
B. When settling a situation, I usually try to find support from another.
29. A. I suggest a middle position.
B. I think that it is not always worth worrying about any disagreements that arise.
30. A. I try not to hurt the feelings of the other.
B. I always take such a position on a controversial issue so that we, together with another interested person, can achieve success.
Answer form
|
Approval number | |||||||||||||||
|
Approval number | |||||||||||||||
Processing test results
Subjects' answers are graded according to the key.
Key for processing results
The number of points scored by an individual on each scale gives an idea of the severity of his tendency to manifest appropriate forms of behavior in conflict situations.
Severity levels of strategies
0 - 3 - low;
4 - 8 - medium;
9 - 12 - high.
Cooperation. Following this style, a person actively participates in resolving the conflict and defends his interests, while trying, however, to cooperate with another person. This style requires more time-consuming work than most other approaches to conflict, as the parties first "lay on the table" the needs, concerns and interests of each, and then discuss them. This style is especially effective when the parties have different hidden needs. In such cases, it can be difficult to identify the source of the dissatisfaction. At first it may seem that both want the same thing or have opposite goals for the distant future, which is a direct source of conflict. However, there are differences between external declarations or positions in a dispute and underlying interests or needs that are the true causes of a conflict situation.
Rivalry. A person using the style of rivalry is very active and prefers to go to the resolution of the conflict in his own way. He is not very interested in cooperation with other people, but he is capable of strong-willed decisions. According to the description of the dynamics of the process by K. Thomas and R. Kilmennom, this person usually tries first of all to satisfy his own interests to the detriment of the interests and claims of the opposite side, forcing her to accept his conditions for solving the problem. To achieve the goal, he uses his volitional qualities, and if his will is strong enough, then he succeeds.
Compromise. A person gives in a little in his interests in order to satisfy them in other positions, the other side does the same, that is, the parties agree on a partial satisfaction of the desires of each. They do this by exchanging concessions and bargaining to develop a compromise solution. Such actions may be somewhat reminiscent of a collaborative style, but compromise is reached at a more superficial level than collaboration. One person is inferior in something, the other is also inferior in something, and as a result, they can come to a common decision. They do not look for hidden needs and interests, as in the case of applying the style of cooperation, but limit themselves only to what they say to each other about their desires.
A device. Adaptive behavior of a person means that he sacrifices his own interests in favor of the other side, giving in to her and accepting her solution to the problem. K. Thomas and R. Kilmenn believe that this style is most effective when the outcome of the case is extremely important for the other party and not very significant to you, or when you sacrifice your own interests in favor of the other party.
Avoidance. This style is realized when a person does not defend his rights, does not cooperate with anyone to work out the best solution, evades, avoids resolving the conflict.
K. Thomas believes that in avoiding conflict, neither side achieves success; in such forms of behavior as competition, adaptation and compromise, one of the participants wins, and the other loses, or both lose, as they make compromise concessions. And only in a situation of cooperation, both parties benefit.
Assignments and guidelines TO BE CARRIED OUT
control works by discipline
Attention! To keep in touch latest updates I recommend you Subscribe to my Main YouTube Channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC78TufDQpkKUTgcrG8WqONQ , since all new materials I do now in the format of videos... Also, quite recently, I opened my own second channel entitled " World of Psychology
", Which publishes short videos on the most different topics illuminated through the prism of psychology, psychotherapy and clinical psychiatry.
Check out my services(prices and rules of psychological online counseling) You can in the article "".
Communication. Communication strategies:
Compromise in business relationship and compromise cooperation is the most difficult to describe strategy of competitive behavior of individuals in entrepreneurial and any other business. This strategy is usually based on solidarity and potential, as well as the need for cooperation between two parties, parties to a business agreement, or parties that are competing with each other. By applying a compromise in business cooperation, one can easily enter a "peaceful straight line" and without significant expenditures on time and effort to make competitors partners or to resolve conflicts that have arisen in the business area. After all, the strategic goal of a compromise is considered to be finding and implementing solutions that would be to the liking of each of the two parties.
General concept of business relationship
Under general concept"Business relations" is considered to be any communication (negotiations), which, in its purposefulness, is aimed at obtaining or promoting business ideas or at the fruitful results of partnership. Business relationships may include: specific negotiations or meetings, presentations, public performance or telephone conversations with suppliers, customers, partners. It is exclusively about those relationships that take place 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 at the core of successful deals and contracts, as well as the ideal way to achieve excellence and good ratings in your business. In short, you cannot do without compromises!
The essence of business relationships and how do they differ from other types of relationships?
The bottom line is that the very concept of a business relationship 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, the first place is always given to an acceptable and positive result, for the sake of which, as they say, "all methods are good." In the first place in this relation (cooperation) is placed informational and mutually beneficial steps in the formation of the company's status. In business relationships, always it comes about a case that carries concreteness and effectiveness. The purpose of such a relationship 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 it is not worth keeping the side of a “dry and callous person”, a strategist who always goes to his goal, here it is also appropriate to show emotionality, which noticeably raises motivation. After all, communication is only about concrete results sometimes it may not bring results. That is why the essence of business ethics always includes the right regulation and the right compromise between the bottom line and the relationship.
The main approach to business communication in general outline
When looking at the business relationship in general terms, we must first of all give Special attention the strategy under which these very relationships are built. In other words, goals and how we and by what road are approaching the expected result. If your business partner adheres to the strategy of a conqueror, and believes that there cannot be two winners at once and does not recognize the ledges at all, this is where it will be appropriate to build a compromise in relations with this partner. So if in the course business negotiations if you notice that your business partner is behaving this way, offer him a constructive and mutually beneficial compromise.
Business compromise strategy
So, compromise is the most revered and often used specifics of solving a particular problem. In the course of a compromise, each of the parties demands what it needs and does it until one mutual basis for cooperation is found.
Most experts tend to believe that it is the compromise that is the leading way of influencing company leaders.
It should be said that when a strategic compromise is applied, the mismatch occurs much more constructively. And such a strategy can easily save both sides 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 echo and undershoot, and get rewards from this cooperation. Of course, this strategy, like all others, has its own disadvantage, which is associated with 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 to sacrifice and what exactly needs to be done in the first place. Say what you don’t say, but in any case you want to achieve a greater result, it is for this reason that a compromise, only at first glance, may seem the most advantageous and correct decision.
But whatever it is, a compromise can quickly and relatively easily settle the situation. The most acceptable way of solving the problem when using a compromise is considered to be the settlement with the help of secondary issues. This is why the compromise is very important matters 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 trade-offs are good in moderation and therefore should not be overused! Good luck in your business and fewer reasons for compromises!
Interactive side of communication
A conventional term denoting the characteristics of communication components associated with the interaction of people, the direct organization of their joint activities. Communication goals reflect the needs of people working together. Communication should always involve some result - a change in the behavior and activities of other people. Here, communication acts as interpersonal interaction, i.e. a set of connections and mutual influence of people that develop in their joint activities. Interpersonal interaction is a sequence of people's responses to each other's actions deployed in time: the act of individual A, which changes the behavior of individual B, evokes responses from the latter, which, in turn, affect A.
The interactive side of communication examines the characteristics of those communication components 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 trend - 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 communication situations, 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 basic 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 their own interests, achievement of their goals.
2. The measure in which the interests of the other party are taken into account and realized. 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 behavior is chosen when the individual does not want to defend his rights, cooperate to work out a solution, refrains from expressing his position, and avoids an argument. This style assumes 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 difficult and the resolution of the conflict will require a lot of effort from its participants, or the individual does not have enough power to resolve the conflict in his favor.
Competition (confrontation) characterized by the active struggle of the individual for his interests, the use of all means available to him to achieve the set goals of power, coercion, other means of pressure on opponents, the use of 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 towards opponents and irreconcilable antagonism towards other participants in the conflict in case of their resistance are assumed.
Accommodation (compliance)... An individual's actions are aimed at maintaining or restoring favorable relations with an opponent by smoothing out differences at the expense of their own interests. This approach is possible when the individual's contribution is not too great or when the subject of disagreement is more significant for the opponent than for the individual. This behavior in a conflict is used if the situation is not particularly significant, if it is more important to preserve good relationship with an opponent than to defend their own interests, if the individual has little chance of winning, little power.
Cooperation means that the individual is active in search of a solution that satisfies all participants in the interaction, but does not forget his own interests. An open exchange of views is assumed, the interest of all parties to the conflict in the development of general solution... This form requires positive work and the 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, respecting 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 opponents have the same power, have mutually exclusive interests, they do not have a lot of time to find the best solution, they are satisfied with an intermediate solution for certain period time.
With competition and cooperation confrontation is necessary condition working out a solution. Considering that when resolving a conflict, it is supposed to eliminate the causes that gave rise to it, we can conclude: 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 turns into a latent form. A compromise can bring only a partial resolution of the conflict interaction, since a sufficiently large zone of mutual concessions remains, and the reasons 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, avoidance and even compromise, although not all experts adhere to this statement. At the same time, the question arises about the cost of victory and what constitutes defeat for the other side. It is extremely difficult questions 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 the 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 of the parties. This strategy is beneficial to everyone. First, it turns opponents into partners. Secondly, the problem is not driven into the depths, but ceases to exist altogether. Third, the benefits acquired by the parties exceed those that could have been obtained with any other strategy. This strategy is based on an attitude towards conflict as a normal phenomenon.
Source: Andreeva I.V., Social psychology
5 strategies for behavior in conflict: avoidance, concession, competition, compromise and cooperation
Have you ever wondered why it is so difficult to come to an agreement with each other in a conflict situation? Why are there “barriers” in communication, words and desires are perceived incorrectly, “do not reach” the interlocutor? Research into communication problems and practical observations make it possible 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. Moughton described a model of behavior in a conflict. According to this model, there are two independent parameters of the behavior of people in conflict:
A) focus on achieving their own interests and goals and
B) orientation to the interests of another, to take into account his needs and desires.
The combination and the strength of the severity of these two indicators gives 5 strategies of behavior in conflict
| Orientation to your interests | MAX |
Rivalry |
Cooperation |
|
| Average | Compromise | |||
| MIN |
Avoidance |
Concession |
||
| MIN | average | MAX | ||
| Orientation to the interests of another person | ||||
1. Avoidance (avoiding solving the situation)
The exit strategy is characterized by the desire to escape from 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 a dispute in order to maintain a relationship.
2. Assignment
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 opponent.
This could be due to psychological characteristics a person - the inability and unwillingness to enter into confrontation.
Concessions can be made because of an inadequate assessment of the subject of the conflict - an underestimation of its value for oneself. In this case, the adopted strategy is self-deception and does not lead to a resolution of the conflict.
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 singled out 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 path of a constructive resolution of the conflict situation.
3. Rivalry (coercion)
Choosing a coercive strategy ultimately comes down to choosing: either winning or maintaining the relationship. Each of the participants defends only his own interests, regardless of the interests of the other. With such a strategy, power, the power 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 certainly manifest itself in another situation.
4. Compromise
With a compromise, none of the conflicting parties is fully satisfied - everyone is forced to give up their interests in some way. But the relationship seems to be preserved!
The opinion that a compromise is the best solution conflict is quite common. However, in most cases, compromise cannot be viewed as a way to resolve a conflict. This is just a stage on the path of search acceptable solution Problems.
5. Cooperation
The cooperation strategy is characterized by a high level of orientation towards both one's own interests and the interests of a rival. This approach is based on meeting the interests of both parties and preserving interpersonal relationships... The subject of the conflict occupies a special place in the choice of this strategy. 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 there is complete satisfaction of the parties and confidence that the conflict is really resolved, and not hidden for the time being in a distant corner.
One way or another, each of the strategies bears fruit and can solve a 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 a 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 (struggle, 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 struggle is distinguished by the style of behavior that is characteristic of the destructive model. With such a strategy, power, the power of law, connections, authority, etc. are actively used. It is expedient and effective in two cases. First, when protecting the interests of the case from encroachments on them by the conflicting personality. For example, a conflicted personality of an uncontrollable type often refuses to perform unattractive tasks, “dumps his work on others, etc. And secondly, when the existence of an organization or a team is threatened. In this case, the situation “Who will win…” develops. Especially often it occurs in the context of the reform of enterprises and institutions. Often, when reforming the organizational and staff structure of an enterprise (institution), the alleged "infusion" of some divisions into others is unreasonable. And in these cases, the person defending the interests of such units must take a tough stance.
2. Care
The exit strategy is characterized by the desire to escape from conflict. It is characterized by low level focus on the personal interests and interests of the opponent and is mutual. This is essentially a mutual concession.
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 essential for one or both parties, but is underestimated in the images of the conflict situation, that is, the subjects of the 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.
When choosing this strategy, interpersonal relationships do not undergo major changes.
3. Assignment
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 opponent.
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 relations. In contrast to the strategy of struggle, in the strategy of concession, priority is given to interpersonal relations.
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 (underestimation of its value for oneself). In this case, the adopted strategy is self-deception and does not lead to a resolution of the conflict.
3)
This strategy can be dominant for a person due to his individual psychological characteristics. In particular, this is characteristic of a conformist personality, a conflict-free personality of the “conflict-free type. Because of this, a concession strategy can impart a destructive focus to a constructive conflict.
With all the singled out 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 milestone on the way of 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 compromise strategy 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 essential points.
1)
Compromise cannot be viewed as a way to resolve a conflict. Mutual concession 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. Active form a 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 of any active action to achieve certain mutual concessions in certain conditions. In other words, in specific conditions, a truce can be ensured by the passivity of the subjects of conflict interaction. In the previous example, the compromise between the two employees was that neither of them took any direct or indirect active actions in relation to each other. Three months later, the position for which they applied was reduced, each remained with his own interests, and the absence of unnecessary "battles" allowed maintaining normal relations between them.
Analyzing the strategy of compromise, it should be borne in mind that the conditions of a compromise can be imaginary when the subjects of the 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 mutual concessions of the subjects 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 both on one's own interests and the interests of a rival. 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)
The subject of the conflict occupies a special place in the choice of this strategy. 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 if the complex subject of the conflict allows the interests of the opposing sides to maneuver, ensuring their coexistence within the framework of the problem 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 parties to the conflict as a demonstration of his principled position in an adequate situation.
As one of the most complex strategies, the cooperation strategy reflects the desire of the opposing sides to jointly resolve the problem.
In any conflict, each participant evaluates and correlates his interests and the interests of the opponent, asking himself the questions: what will I win, what will I lose, what is the meaning of the subject of the dispute for the opponent. On the basis of this 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 the conflict interaction is saturated with powerful emotional tension 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 distinguished by destructive content or extreme positions in strategy (coercion, struggle, rivalry). Conversely, the value of interpersonal relations for the subject of conflict interaction, as a rule, is an essential reason for constructive behavior in conflict or the orientation of such behavior towards compromise, cooperation, withdrawal or concession.
Five types of conflicting personalities
Based on the results of research by domestic psychologists, five main types of conflicting personalities can be distinguished. Let's consider their main features.
1) Demonstrative type (hysterical):
wants to be in the spotlight;
likes to look good in the eyes of others;
his attitude towards people is determined by how they treat him;
superficial conflicts are easy for him, admiration for his sufferings and endurance is inherent;
adapts well to various situations;
rational behavior is poorly expressed, emotional behavior is evident;
planning its activities is carried out situationally and poorly implements it;
avoids painstaking systematic work;
does not get away from conflicts, in a situation of conflict interaction he feels rather well;
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 significance;
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;
Takes expressions of respect from others for granted;
the expression of hostility from others is perceived as an insult;
is not very critical in relation to his actions;
painfully touchy, hypersensitive to imaginary or actual 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 high level claims;
not self-critical;
he is inclined to blame others for many failures and troubles;
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 one) derives little benefit.
4) Ultra-precise type (Anankastny, Anxious-Dodging):
is scrupulous about work;
makes increased demands on himself;
makes increased demands on others, and does it in such a way that the people with whom he works perceive it as nit-picking;
has increased anxiety;
overly sensitive to detail;
tends to attach too much importance to the comments of others;
sometimes he abruptly breaks off relations with friends, acquaintances because it seems to him that he has been offended;
suffers from himself, experiences his own mistakes, failures, sometimes paying for them even with diseases (insomnia, headaches, etc.);
restrained in external, especially emotional manifestations;
does not feel very well real relationships in the group.
5) Conflict-free type (Conformal, Unstable):
unstable in assessments and opinions;
has an easy suggestibility;
internally contradictory;
it is characterized by some inconsistency of behavior;
focuses on momentary success in situations;
does not see the perspective well enough;
depends on the opinions of others, especially leaders;
excessively seeking compromise;
does not have sufficient willpower;
does not think deeply about the consequences of his actions and the reasons for the actions of others.
While this may sound strange, it is appropriate here to give one important advice: Be sympathetic to people who are typical of those described above. Conflict, which has become a personality trait, is difficult to overcome through rational self-control and efforts of will. "Educational" influences on the part of the leader are also rarely useful here. Conflict is not the fault, but the misfortune of such people. A real help can be provided by a specialist - a practical psychologist.
Mikhail Goncharov
FOUR ROADS FROM CONFLICT
"Can you learn to avoid conflicts?" - usually this question is of interest to people who lose in conflict situations, succumb to pressure and are very worried psychological consequences conflicts. But conflicts can be avoided altogether, probably, if only to go to the mountains, settle in an ashram and meditate all day. And in society, in a megalopolis, the question needs to be posed differently: in what situation and how is it optimal for me to resolve this conflict?
Thomas Kilman's famous model describes four basic conflict resolution strategies.
1. Leaving or flight
You give up your position without a fight. Let me emphasize that no strategy is good or bad, each one works in certain situations. If the robber has a gun to your head, then give him the money - The best way get out of the conflict, unless you are an expert in the field of martial arts.
2. Fight
As one business coach put it, "Tough negotiation is who eats whom faster." In ancient times they said the same thing: "Let the strongest win!" Assess your resources before choosing this conflict resolution method.
3. Compromise
Most negotiations (bargaining) follow a compromise strategy. The boss raises the salary, but less than you asked for. The seller lowers the price, but not as much as you would like. A good complementary strategy for finding compromises is to increase the overall pie. Benefits, bonuses, additional services - all this helps to come to a compromise.
4. Cooperation
This strategy is often called "win-win", meaning that each side fully achieves the goals it was striving for. Despite the hackneyedness, I will give a "bearded" example of this strategy, since I have not yet met a better one.
Husband and wife share an orange. Choosing an exit strategy, the wife (let's say) gives the orange to her beloved husband. The strategy of struggle also ends with the victory of the husband due to physical superiority. The trade-off strategy is to simply cut the orange in half. And following the "win-win" strategy, husband and wife need to ... talk! Talk about why each of them needs this orange.
The fact is that in most cases, positions collide and they are irreconcilable, and beneath them lie genuine interests, and they can be reconciled! But first you need to get to them!
So, in the course of negotiations, it turns out that the husband wants to eat the orange, that is, he needs its pulp. And my wife needs 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 promising relationships, for long-term cooperation, this strategy is usually the best one.
Article author: Ilya Shabshin
At the heart of the typology conflicting behavior K. Thomas 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 their own interests.
According to these two main dimensions, K. Thomas identifies the following methods of conflict management:
a) confrontation (competition, rivalry) is expressed in the desire to achieve the satisfaction of their interests to the detriment of the interests of another person;
b) compliance (adaptation), which means, as opposed to rivalry, sacrificing one's own interests for the interests of another;
c) a compromise, as an agreement between the parties to the conflict, achieved through mutual concessions;
d) avoidance (leaving, ignoring), which is characterized by both the lack of desire for cooperation and the absence of a tendency to achieve their own goals;
e) cooperation, when the participants in a situation come to an alternative that fully satisfies the interests of both parties.
K. Thomas believes that when avoiding a conflict, neither side achieves success, in cases of confrontation, compliance and compromise, either one of the participants wins, and the other loses, or loses, as they make compromise concessions. And only in a situation of cooperation, both parties benefit.
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 pursue them. True, in very different ways: without looking back at the other, or in cooperation, positive interaction with someone who is in the same conflict link.
Avoidance and Compliance- weak strategies. They imply a rejection of their own goals and needs. But for what? For the sake of another, to avoid all the twists and turns in relationships and self-esteem that it brings with it interpersonal conflict... But the calm calm is deceiving: promising peace, it brings with it the destruction of relations.
After passing the Thomas-Killman test, look at your strategic chart. What types of conflicting behavior are at its peak? Strong or weak? Are there gaps in your schedule? What strategies of behavior are you in this moment do not own or knowingly use?
a) This is the 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 for myself. If the partner turns out to be stronger, I will give in.
But no compromises!
v)"Me or anyone." Doesn't need any comments.
G) The graph, one might say, reflects the stylistic 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 (looking for another specialist). And compromise and compliance in practical work are dangerous even as a tactic.
Let's talk about the possibilities of each of the five strategies.
Avoidance
effectively in situations where the partner has an objectively greater power and uses it in the conflict struggle. In dealing with a difficult conflicted personality use every opportunity to avoid conflict: there is nothing shameful or demeaning about it. Avoidance also brings positive results as a temporary delay in the present resolution of the conflict: while there is little data on hand or there is no psychological confidence in one's position. To get away from the problem temporarily in order to finally solve it in the future is often the only correct strategy.
Compliance It is natural in situations where the problem raised is not as important for a person as for his opponent, or relations with an opponent are an independent value, more important than achieving a goal. This is a strategy that is unpredictable in its consequences. If giving up the goal did not cost a person hard work, compliance can positively affect his self-esteem and relationship with a partner. It is very important to feel that the other has noticed and appreciated the victim. Otherwise, there is a feeling of annoyance, resentment and, therefore, the basis for emotional conflict.
Confrontation - strategy for serious situations and vital important issues, it is often effective in extreme situations. The confrontation is justified if the goal is extremely important, or if the person has real strength and power, is confident in his competence. If power and strength are not enough, you can really get bogged down in a conflict situation, or even lose it altogether. In addition, its use for solving 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. Everyone is fine with cooperation, except for one thing. it long story... It takes time to analyze the needs, interests and concerns of both parties, and then carefully discuss them, find the best option combining them, develop a solution plan and ways to implement it, etc. Cooperation does not tolerate fuss and rush, but it takes time 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. “Sharing” needs is sometimes necessary to preserve relations, especially in cases where it is really impossible to compensate for the interests of the parties. Compromise rarely brings true satisfaction as a result of a conflict process. Any options for the division - in half, equally, in a brotherly way - are psychologically unfair. And this is understandable: the goal is not fully achieved, some part is 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 quite the same, less, naturally, but still ...).
Strategies of behavior in the conflict K. Thomas
Our losses in disputes are incalculable.
By refusing an unlucky relative or childhood friend of another request, you are certainly doing a good deed - teach him to grow up. (Victor Khanin)
“How much does it cost to be yourself?
Having hacked to death at a traffic light, two dashing chauffeurs rushed along the road, demonstrating to each other the power of the engines and their own skills. Passing and oncoming cars scurry around, their drivers twist their fingers at their temples ... And at the next intersection, both reckless drivers, bending over two piles of iron that a second ago were "cool cars", scratching their heads in puzzlement: "Well, are we both fools ? "
Our losses in disputes are incalculable. Why can't people agree? Why in disputes in a person logic stalls and he is ready to lose everything, just to prove his coolness? How can a person cope with what rises in him instead of reason? Why and what are we bred on?
Arms race: victory is nothing, war is everything
We meet characters that seem to have come out of an anecdote about two cowboys who ate cow cakes for free on a dare. 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.
President of the law firm "Business Consulting" Vladimir Sivkov knows dozens of stories when a client tries to prove his case by any means, and does not make any reasonable compromises with the opposing side:
- Often, in the heat of an argument, the lion's share of what a person has burns out. There are cases when yesterday's business partners, having gotten into a fight, lost both their own relationships, and the respect of others, and, ultimately, the business itself. Reasonable arguments, attempts to evaluate the dispute from an economic point of view, persuasion to go to the world - nothing works when such a person has already bit the bit and went to principle.
To adhere to the principle means to declare the impossibility of a compromise. There are a lot of such stubborn people among us. Psychologist and business coach Viktor Khanin from Yekaterinburg also says that often in a heated dispute, unnoticed by the disputants themselves, there is a "shift of motives": the subject of the dispute fades into the background, instead of it the fact of victory over the opponent becomes more important.
American psychologist Kenneth W. Thomas many years ago formulated models of human behavior that they choose at one time or another of communication. There are only five of them, and Thomas often teased colleagues and listeners of his lectures: name the sixth. Nobody could: any life situation fit into the principle of "five strategies".
The first is avoiding an argument, avoiding it, or formal contact. At the same time, the interlocutor can nod, assent, but at the same time, one should not harbor illusions: deep down he drives his own. The second is suppression. A person is trying to win at the expense of someone else's loss. Accordingly, the third model is concession. Under pressure from someone, a person prefers to give up so as not to run up. The fourth is a compromise, when victory and defeat are divided in half: everyone wins something, but sacrifices something. Finally, the fifth is cooperation, when yesterday's opponents find, through joint efforts, a common "platform", unite around it and thereby strengthen their positions.
The last model, Viktor Khanin emphasizes, is ideal for business, the business world presupposes just such a model of behavior. But from the experience of business trainings, the psychologist draws a sad conclusion: 80% of our business community representatives have not even tried a compromise model or a cooperation model.
- In any situation, people most often resort to suppression strategies. And if suppression for some reason does not work, they draw the only conclusion: it is necessary to resort to more sophisticated methods, to increase the pressure. When you talk to them about cooperation, they take it as a call for concessions. This is expressed quite clearly in litigation. Such people need to win the court, first of all, in order to strengthen their self-esteem. Having lost the first instance, you have to go to the second: “Well, we'll show him some more! We will see what the appeal says and how he jumps with us ”...
Developmental psychologists say that the logic of rivalry in school, adolescence- it's even good. Having been ill with the strategy of suppression and concessions in children's fights and loud arguments, a person grows 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 a result for many years, and a person, having believed in the effectiveness of such behavior, takes it into adult life... Such people knowingly consider their opponent a sucker and try to breed him. At the same time, in the depths of their souls, they are most afraid of only one thing - to be themselves (or to seem different) that very 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 are faced with a typical psychopath, says the science of psychology. However, none of these patients turns to a psychotherapist about this. These people do not recognize psychopathic behavior as their problem. It seems to them that these are the problems of others. This is often the case.
Well, what if two such "psychopaths" collided in an argument? Well, wait for an arms race and military conflicts of varying degrees of localization. The surrounding, really, will not seem a little - ask at least the Georgians with the Ossetians ...
Husband and wife are 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 a kiss of lovers against the backdrop of a sunset. Last phrase any fairy tale - "a merry feast for a wedding" or an abstract "lived happily ever after."
Meanwhile, after the wedding, the most interesting thing begins - the struggle between illusions and 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 seemed sweet and inconsequential yesterday turns into cruel disappointments today.
Psychologist Eric Berne, author famous book Games People Play, convincingly talked about how hard and painful it is to part with illusions. After all, this often means admitting your own mistakes and delusions. Therefore, most often people look for the root existing problems in a partner.
“And to this person I gave best years! " - Thumbelina exclaims, making sure that in search of an elf she once again ran into some Beetle or Mole. "I did everything for this ungrateful fool, but she sat down on a swallow and flew away!" - the Mole screams indignantly, with legitimate pride inspecting the grain reserves that were created by his painstaking work.
Well, often these stocks lose weight as a result of divorce proceedings. "Take everything away from this bastard!" - from love to hate for any Thumbelina - one step. "Yes, she went ... to the garbage dump where I picked her up!" - The mole is insulted to the core and gives the 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 comes out such that after five minutes of communication 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 apart from 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: most often complaints about problems in family life begin with a discussion of who has invested the most in the marriage. A man talks about his battles for material well-being, a woman - about her worries "about home, about family", and that "everyone drives her." It is extremely rare to find a marriage in which people are aware of the voluntariness and adequacy of the other person's contribution. More often than not, they divide, subtract, and count. Who is bigger? Who is smaller? They again forget about the strategy of partnership, when you can add and multiply, escaping into a strategy of suppression: to make their life easier at the expense of the other's concessions. What kind of love and mutual trust are there ...
Psychologist Viktor Khanin says that "trust" is nothing more than one of the most powerful tricks of the suppression strategy. Question: "Don't you trust me?" - is designed to make the opponent hesitate. 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, - this 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 badly on our soil, is an unconditional blessing. Moreover, the contract itself may not be concluded: Viktor Khanin believes that even the discussion of such an opportunity by a couple intending to get married - good sign... This suggests that people are aware that not only kisses in the moonlight await them ahead, and are already ready to jointly fight potential difficulties.
On the contrary, avoiding this topic - including under the pretext "You don't trust me ?!" - should make you alert. Why is a partner afraid to discuss what will have to be discussed sooner or later? Perhaps a more thorough clarification of the details will inevitably lead to the fact that there will be no wedding either ...
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 dishes, buy toys for him, scold him for deuces and suffer without sleep when he is somewhere hanging out at night looking. All this is not only parental love, but also the expectation that the notorious glass of water will bring us in old age. When everyone does not carry water, but God knows what they are doing, bitter grievances arise. Here it is, the very risk that businessmen are constantly concerned 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-up child, secretly realizing that "the train has already left", but we continue to cause and increase the deaf rejection of the other side.
The protracted conflict between fathers and children is a classic of the genre. These clever writers can wind 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 overestimated, speculative profit expectations, on the other.
Psychoanalysis and jurisprudence also make good money on less intimate relationships. From the outside, the relationship between brothers and sisters may seem like an idyll, but if we remove from people the "later layers" in the form of upbringing, morality and decency, we find all the same biblical story Cain and Abel - enmity for parental love and its manifestations: toys, sweets and new clothes. In this feud, 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. Sharing the inheritance - all these toys and sweets - they are waging a war for material manifestations of parental love.
Viktor Khanin says that in disputes between relatives, including in the struggle for 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 took out "Duck". The theory of "five patterns of behavior" is also applicable. Again, as in the cases described above, most people operate with only two strategies - pressure and concession. However, there is one peculiarity. “Close people are the most convenient objects for manipulation,” says Khanin. - Indeed, unlike a stranger, we know much better their pros and cons, weaknesses and pain points.
By the way, about psychoanalysis. The conflict of struggle for parental love was best demonstrated by the students of its creator, Sigmund Freud. Even though they were outstanding psychologists and great clever girls, they did not abandon the temptation to quarrel with each other over whose method of psychoanalysis was "more correct." After the death of the "founding father" of psychoanalysis, the "children" entered into a fierce battle for his inheritance ...
The victory of the forces of reason over the forces of good
Relationships between relatives are not always rosy. But, getting together as a big family, we hug and shed drunken tears: "It's great that we all got drunk here today!" Deny a relative's request? How can you think of such a thing, never at all! After all, we are a family, we must help each other!
The same can be said for childhood friends. Petka, with whom you sat at the same desk for five years, but whom you have not seen for seven years, may show up and ask for help. Quite justifiably, from his point of view: what else are friends needed for if not helping each other out?
We have grown. Many of us have gone into business and politics. Thousands of us know, the fate of hundreds depends on our decisions, dozens of people respect us. We are experienced, purposeful, and in control of all aspects of our life. But the shadows of the past still hang over us.
Everyone who has become a popular person today has at least one call from his nephew in his biography. cousin, 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 - “can you help me, Serezhenka, in a related way”? How many times, quietly swearing and realizing that the nephew would never return the money, and for the aunt's son would have to blush, they still took out their wallet and called their business partners with a request to find a job for “their little man”? Thus, they wasted nerves, time, money and other resources. After all, otherwise - they will not understand, they will call “ an evil person", Will be honored 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 - fetishes, hammered into our heads from early childhood, petrified in consciousness to the hardness of a diamond. Not a single person, if he is not a carrier of severe pathology, will consciously and purposefully do evil.
At the same time, it is known 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 as for the one who asks to do kind deed, and for the one who commits it.
Victor Khanin:
- When a child comes running to his father in tears and tells that he was beaten by children in the street, the father often goes into the yard and ruffles the ears of the hooligans. From the child's point of view, his father did a good thing - 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 fact, he aggravated his son's problems, preventing him from learning how 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.
Getting rid of children's fears and addictions does not work immediately and not for everyone. On the one hand, when seeking help from an "adult", an accomplished friend or relative, a person is playing a child seeking protection. On the other hand, no one wants to be “bad,” and refusal of a request is regarded as evil. Even seasoned businessmen who fall into the trap of choosing between "good" and "evil" are easily carried on. They see no other way out but to seem "kind" to the detriment of themselves.
If we talk about the economic component of the relationship between a child and an adult, then a child in this sense is a very dependent being, a dependent. The child does not produce anything that has weight and value in the "adult" market. He is forced to be "good", yielding to their demands. He must adapt to their decisions, anticipate what reaction of adults his behavior will cause. Having entered 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 ?!" - the relative begins to press, realizing that he will not see money like last year's snow. Yes, I did, but what's wrong with that - the circumstances have also changed. “You have become completely different,” the aunt says reproachfully, after hearing the refusal to plead for her son. Of course, he did, and it would not hurt your son either.
By refusing an unlucky relative or childhood friend of another request, you are certainly doing a good deed - teach him to grow up. There is little to do. 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.
