Strategies, tactics, models and styles of behavior in conflict

In real life, sometimes it is not so easy to establish the true cause of a conflict. And without this, it is impossible to find the optimal solution to pay it off. It is for such difficult cases that it is useful to know the styles of behavior in conflict that interlocutors can use. Depending on the circumstances, it is necessary to choose a certain strategy of action. You will learn what to do in this or that situation in the article.

Basic behavior patterns in conflict

The predictive style is characterized by the avoidance of unwanted conflicts. A person with such a model of behavior tries not to succumb to provocations. He will first analyze the dangerous areas and weigh the pros and cons. If conflict is the only way out of the situation, he will decide to start a dispute. With a predictive model, you think through all the options for your actions and calculate the possible actions of your interlocutor. This style of behavior in conflict is characterized by the absence of emotional reactions or their weak expression. The most preferable outcome is a compromise.

The corrective style can be characterized by a lag in assessing the situation. That is why reactions to disagreements arise immediately - immediately after the conflict begins. At the same time, a person with such a model of behavior does not believe that there is a problem, but behaves very emotionally and unrestrainedly. Actions are characterized by fussiness, especially at the beginning of the conflict.

The destructive style is characterized by the denial of the possibility of mutual concessions. Compromise is seen only as a sign of weakness. Therefore, such a way out of the situation is considered unacceptable. A person with such a model of behavior constantly emphasizes the fallacy of his opponent’s positions and his own rightness. In this case, the interlocutor is accused of malicious intent, selfish motives and personal interest. A controversial situation with this method of behavior will be perceived extremely emotionally by both parties.

These were the main styles of behavior in conflict. Within them, strategies can be distinguished.

Tactics

Each strategy corresponds to a specific set of tactics.

Rivalry:

• strict control over the actions and sources of information of the other party;
• systematic pressure (physical, psychological, moral);
• deception, flattery, manipulation, cunning, “set-ups”, provocations;
• refusal to make contact, to discuss anything (the person adheres to the position “I have my opinion and it’s wrong - there’s nothing to discuss”).

Evasion:

• demonstrative avoidance of discussion (“I was offended”, “don’t touch me”);
• refusal to use physical force;
• ignorance and mistrust, refusal to collect information and analyze facts;
• shifting responsibility;
• delaying decision making;
• denial of the conflict.

Compromise:

• bargaining and discussion of problems, active negotiations;
• deception and flattery (needed to convince an opponent that he has certain qualities).

There is an attitude towards equal sharing of benefits.

Device:

• agreement in everything, constant concessions;
• demonstrative reluctance to enter into confrontation;
• flattery, servility, indulgence.

Cooperation:

• collecting information about the opponent, problem, conflict;
• analysis of your resources and the capabilities of your opponent;
• selection and presentation of alternative solutions;
• open discussion identifying specific problems;
• listening and accepting the opponent’s position.

Cooperation

This is the most difficult behavior model, but at the same time the most effective of all. Its point is to find a solution that would satisfy the interests and needs of all parties to the conflict. To do this, everyone’s opinion is taken into account and all proposed options are listened to. The discussion takes place calmly, without negative emotions. Conversation uses evidence, arguments, and persuasion to achieve results. This style of behavior in resolving conflict is based on mutual respect and therefore contributes to the maintenance of strong and long-lasting relationships.

However, you need to be able to restrain your emotions, clearly explain your interests and listen to the other side. The absence of at least one factor makes this behavior model ineffective. In what situations is this style most appropriate?

• When compromise is not suitable, but a common solution is needed.
• If the main goal is joint work experience.
• There is an interdependent and long-term relationship with the conflicting party.
• It is necessary to exchange points of view and strengthen the personal involvement of opponents in the activity.

Compromise

This is a less constructive style of behavior in conflict. Compromise nevertheless occurs, especially when it is necessary to quickly relieve accumulated tension and resolve a dispute. The model resembles “collaboration”, but is carried out at a superficial level. Each side is inferior to the other in some way. Therefore, as a result of a compromise, the interests of opponents are partially satisfied. Reaching a common solution requires effective communication skills.

In what cases is compromise effective?

• When the interests of both parties cannot be fulfilled at the same time. For example, opponents are applying for one position.
• If it is more important to win something than to lose everything.
• The interlocutors have equal power and present equally convincing arguments. Then cooperation gives way to compromise.
• A temporary solution is needed because there is no time to find another one.

Ignoring

This style of behavior of people in conflict is characterized by a conscious or unconscious avoidance of sorting out the relationship. A person who has chosen this strategy tries not to get into unpleasant situations. If they arise, he simply avoids discussing decisions that are fraught with disagreement. The most common is unconscious ignoring, which is a defense mechanism of the psyche.

Some people use this model quite deliberately, and this is a justified move. Ignoring is not always an evasion of responsibility or an escape from a problem. This deferment may be an appropriate solution for certain situations.

• If the problem that has arisen is not important for the party, and there is no point in defending your rights.
• There is no time and energy to find the optimal solution. You can return to the conflict later, or it will resolve itself.
• The opponent has great power, or the other interlocutor feels that he is in the wrong.
• If there is a possibility that dangerous details will be revealed during the discussion, after which the disagreement will only intensify.
• Other styles of behavior in conflict turned out to be ineffective.
• Relationships are short-lived or unpromising; there is no need to maintain them.
• The interlocutor is a conflict person (rude, complainant, etc.). Sometimes it is better not to have a dialogue with such people.

Rivalry

This strategy is typical for most people, in which the interlocutor tries to pull the blanket to his side. Only their own interests are valued, other people's needs are not taken into account, and opinions and arguments are simply ignored. The competing party is trying to force people to accept their point of view in every possible way.

Position and power can even be used for coercion in this style of behavior. Participants in the conflict representing the opponent are often not satisfied with the solution, and they may sabotage it or abandon the relationship. Therefore, competition is ineffective and rarely fruitful. Moreover, the decision made in most cases turns out to be incorrect, since other people’s opinions are not taken into account. When is competition effective in conflict?

• When there is authority and sufficient power, and the proposed solution seems obvious and the most correct.
• There is no other choice and nothing to lose.
• If the interlocutors (often subordinates) prefer an authoritarian style of communication.

Styles

In psychology, it is customary to distinguish 6 styles:

1. Affiliate. Characteristic of long-term relationships where both opponents know each other well and want to maintain mutual understanding and trust.
2. Pragmatic. Suitable for situations where the relationship with a person is not important. It is more important to push the conflict away from yourself.
3. Psychoprotective. The goal is to maintain internal harmony. It arises where the mutually exclusive interests of opponents are noticeable.
4. Dominant. One or both participants behave selfishly, aggressively, or violate social norms.
5. Contact. One person behaves as contactably as possible, trying to find out as much as possible about the opponent in order to then control him.
6. Self-affirming. One person is trying to “break” the other so that he himself gives up the confrontation.

The first 3 styles relate to constructive conflict resolution, the last 3 to destructive ones.

Device

This strategy is characterized by giving up the fight and changing one’s own position. The situation is smoothed out by the compliance of the opponent, who believes that it is better to preserve the relationship than to quarrel and achieve what is right. With this style of behavior of the parties, the conflict is forgotten, but sooner or later it will make itself felt. There is no need to give up your interests. You can return to discussing the problem after some time and try to find a solution in a more favorable environment.

In what situations is it better to make concessions?

• When the needs of another person seem more important, and his feelings about this are very strong.
• The subject of disagreement is not significant.
• If the priority is to maintain good relationships rather than defend your opinion.
• There is a feeling that there is not enough chance to convince the interlocutor that you are right.

Passive-aggressive

During passive-aggressive interactions, aggression is often expressed indirectly through cunning and control. If you feel powerless, angry, or hurt, you may respond in a sarcastic or extremely dark manner. You may also react to conflict as a person who is usually called two-faced. After all, you can simply tell a person that everything is fine, but at the same time continue to act maliciously behind his back, spreading rumors or harming him in other ways. Anyone who is forced to deal with your passive-aggressive behavior will likely feel hurt, embarrassed, and resentful.

Types of people in conflicts

The style of behavior in conflict situations can be viewed from a slightly different angle. Psychologists also identify types of “difficult” people that you may encounter in a controversial situation.

"Steam boiler". These are unceremonious and very rude people who are afraid of losing authority and believe that everyone should agree with them. If it is not so important to win the argument, then it is better to concede. Otherwise, you first need to wait for the person to let off steam, and only then stand up for what’s right.

"Explosive Child" Such people are not evil by nature, but are extremely emotional. They can be compared to babies who are in a bad mood. The best solution would be to let someone shout out, and then calm the interlocutor and move on to finding a solution.

"Complainers." They complain about realistic or imaginary circumstances. It is better to listen to such people first, and then repeat the essence in his own words, thus showing your interest. After this, you can deal with the conflict. If your opponent still continues to complain, then the optimal solution is to adopt a strategy of ignoring.

"Non-conflict." Such people always give in to please others. But words may differ from deeds. Therefore, the emphasis should be placed not on agreement with the decision, but on the fact that the opponent will keep his promise.

"The silent ones." Usually these are extremely secretive people who are difficult to bring into dialogue. If avoiding the problem is not an option, then you need to try to overcome your opponent’s isolation. To do this, you need to reveal the essence of the conflict by asking only open questions. You may even have to be a little persistent to keep the conversation going.

Typology and styles of conflict behavior

The vast majority of people do not seek conflicts and try to either avoid them or resolve them peacefully. However, for effective influence and behavior in conflict situations, it is useful to know the principles and rules applicable to resolving a wide range of conflicts. Summarizing various sources, we can identify the main styles of conflict behavior.

There is a direct connection between the basic strategies for dealing with conflicts and styles of conflict behavior, in which stable, typical behavioral traits of conflict participants are manifested. There are quite a variety of classifications of such styles. Summarizing various sources, we can identify the main styles of conflict behavior.

1. Power style (style of fighting or competition). The essence of this style is the desire to impose one’s will and resolve the conflict using force (power, administrative sanctions, economic pressure, etc.), regardless of the interests of the opponent. This style is usually used when:

• there is a clear advantage in strength, resources of influence and confidence in victory;
• achieving the goal is of high importance;
• compromises are difficult due to the specifics of the object: it cannot be divided (for example, the position of the president of a company).

Despite the apparent effectiveness of using the power style, it has significant drawbacks. After all, the forceful style, as a rule, does not eliminate the source of conflict, but only forces the weaker to temporarily submit. After some time, especially if the balance of forces changes, the conflict may resume. In addition, subordination imposed by force is often external, formal. The defeated can offer hidden resistance, accumulate strength and wait for an opportune moment. The winner often relaxes, loses his readiness to fight, and loses his resources of influence.

The forceful style is often used by managers in relation to subordinates, since by their status they have power and superiority in influence resources. In such cases, the weaknesses of the power style noted above usually appear, and in addition, it can cause frustration in subordinates and discourage them from any desire to show initiative and activity.

2. Avoidance of conflict, avoidance of conflict situations or exit from conflict. Avoidance of conflict is considered preferable if:

• there is a lack of one’s own resources necessary for conflict actions, and the superiority of the enemy;
• the significance of the problem is low and it is not worth wasting time and resources on confrontation;
• It is advisable to delay time in order to gather strength and wait for a convenient situation, the right moment.

Often all three of these circumstances occur simultaneously. However, even if they are present, it is not always possible to avoid the conflict; very often you have to choose a style of behavior associated with unilateral concessions.

3. Adaptation (to the interests and requirements of the opponent). This style of conflict behavior involves the need to sacrifice one’s interests in favor of the opponent, fulfill his demands and abandon one’s own goals. Consistent use of this style leads to victory for one side. The adaptation style often has to be used by subordinates in conflicts with superiors, as well as by lower-level managers in relation to senior managers.

Accommodation is usually a forced style of conflict behavior. If it is accompanied by an awareness of one’s own wrongness in the dispute, then it does not have negative organizational consequences. If the adaptation is viewed as forced and internal disagreement with the winner remains, then it has approximately the same negative consequences for the losing side as with a forceful style. The only difference is in preserving the resources that are spent on fighting in a forceful style.

4. Compromise. The essence of this style of conflict behavior is partial (to a certain extent) concessions to the opponent in anticipation of similar actions on his part in the hope of avoiding an aggravation of the conflict, which is fraught with greater losses than individual concessions. Compromise is one of the most common styles of conflict behavior. Often, a compromise allows you to quickly and relatively easily resolve a conflict or prevent it.

Compromise as a way to resolve conflicts has the following disadvantages:

• it can, especially at an early stage, block the identification of the source of the conflict, prevent a deep analysis of the essence of the problem and the search for optimal ways to resolve it;
• it preserves relations of confrontation and mutual dissatisfaction, since it means forced concessions that are unpleasant for each side. Because of this, opponents may maintain a negative attitude towards each other, as well as a feeling that they have lost or been deceived. If vital goals or values ​​are sacrificed in the compromise, discontent may grow and eventually lead to renewed and intensified conflict.

5. Collaboration. This style of conflict behavior involves a joint solution to the problem that is acceptable to all parties to the conflict. Cooperation means carefully familiarizing yourself with the position of the opposite side, finding out the causes of the conflict, refusing to achieve one’s own goals at the expense of the opponent’s interests, searching for mutually acceptable ways and solutions and their joint implementation. Cooperation is most correlated with an idealistic strategy for dealing with conflict. It is quite widespread in management practice.

More on the blog: Prodigal Son. Christian parable

6. Maintaining the status quo (peaceful coexistence). The essence of this style is to jointly maintain and preserve their positions in order to prevent the conflict from growing, which would be unfavorable for both sides. The resolution of the dispute is postponed indefinitely. This style is used if the conflict is deep enough, but allows for relatively normal coexistence of the parties. At the same time, each of the participants is not confident in their victory and fears a destructive confrontation, or even defeat.

In an organization, the style of peaceful coexistence is usually implemented in the form of an informal agreement, on the basis of which spheres of action are divided or the inadmissibility of extreme forms of rivalry is stipulated, and often joint actions are provided for in relation to a third party that encroaches on the existing order.

7. Formation of indifference. This style occupies an intermediate position between cooperation and peaceful coexistence. Its essence is to jointly neutralize the emotional intensity that has arisen around a controversial issue, and to work to explain the limited significance of this issue for the parties to the conflict. After such actions that reduce the severity of the conflict, many problems gradually disappear on their own.

Conflict: choosing a behavior style

According to a number of empirical studies, in practice, the search for compromises, as well as avoidance of direct confrontations, predominate. In general, the choice of behavior style in conflicts is influenced primarily by the following four factors:

• the amount of bet that can be won or lost as a result of the conflict. If there is an opportunity to get a big win or with minimal damage in case of failure, they often choose a forceful style, wrestling;
• resources that determine the possibility of competition and the likelihood of victory;
• the presence of mutual, overlapping interests among the parties to the conflict. If there is a common interest in cooperation in non-conflict areas, the choice falls, as a rule, on “soft” styles of conflict behavior;
• culture, traditions: a complex of relations between both the participants in the conflict and their environment.

Taking into account the effect of these factors, the focus on achieving one’s own goals by force and ignoring the interests of the opponent is formed something like this. First, the size of the bet and possible damage in case of defeat are determined. Then the line of behavior is adjusted taking into account one’s own resources and the strength of opponents (the probability of victory is predicted). Next, the entire range of interests in relation to the opponent is clarified.

The presence of coinciding interests encourages cooperation; their polar orientation increases the desire for competition. The nature of the existing relationships and the norms of behavior accepted in a given social environment either lead to cooperation or push to fight.

Conflict: typology of participants

The vast majority of people do not strive for conflicts and try to either avoid them or resolve them peacefully, generally preferring non-conflict behavior. The causative agents and initiators of conflicts are heterogeneous in their personal qualities. Typically, an employee with a clearly conflicting aspiration is distinguished by the fact that:

• does not think about others, does not understand their needs and interests, cares only about satisfying his own needs;
• acts ahead;
• often falsifies facts;
• looks for a weak point in the opponent’s position;
• believes that retreat leads to loss of face;
• uses gag tactics;
• considers himself an expert;
• disguises his intentions (voice, manners);
• believes that winning arguments is very important;
• refuses a discussion if it does not go in his favor.

The targets of attacks from competitive people are often those who prefer to give in and avoid conflict situations. These personality types:

• as a rule, they lose the conflict;
• express their point of view in an apologetic tone;
• believe that they will lose if they disagree with their opponent;
• worry when others do not understand their arguments;
• avoid talking about their disagreement in person;
• perceive differences of opinion very emotionally;
• believe that in conflict situations one should not stick one’s neck out;
• often find themselves faced with the temptation to give in to their opponent;
• believe that it is difficult for other people to survive conflict;
• never act thoughtlessly or rashly.

Conflict: classification of initiators

An extensive, rather figurative classification of various active and passive initiators of conflicts is given by English conflictologist Richard Bramson. He divides this kind of people into the following five types: aggressive, “complainers,” “indecisive,” “anxious individuals,” and “know-it-alls.”

1. Aggressive. They, in turn, are divided into three types: “tanks”, “snipers” and “explosives”:

“ Tanks ” are the most clearly expressed type of aggressive personalities. They are characterized by self-confidence, a loud voice, and inattention to others. They are absolutely confident in their competence and in their excellent knowledge of the interests and opinions of their colleagues. “Tanks” especially do not like aggressive reactions from those with whom they communicate. It’s difficult with “tanks,” but you can get along. To do this, you need to look them straight in the eyes, call them by name and surname, and when expressing disagreement, often use expressions such as “in my opinion,” “in my opinion,” etc. In order to achieve any success in an argument with them, you need to give them the opportunity to “let off steam.”

Also on the blog: Why truly thrifty people strive to earn more, and not make a bullet out of...

“ Snipers ” act differently, mostly on the sly. They are sarcastic, make all sorts of barbs and witticisms at people, and thereby sow distrust between group members and disorganize collective actions. The most effective weapon against "snipers" is a direct attack. In order to neutralize the “sniper,” you must demand that he explain in detail the remark or witticism, and then be sure to ask him to give a constructive proposal. Usually after this the “sniper” becomes quiet and behaves more modestly. When putting “snipers” in their place, it is important to avoid direct insults and give them the opportunity to save face. Otherwise, they explode or hide “with a stone in their bosom” until the opportunity arises.

“ Blasters ” are people who are capable of suddenly filling a room with screams and attacking opponents with abuse. They often lose their temper so artistically that they create the impression that they have really been seriously offended or that someone is undermining them. It is quite simple to neutralize the conflict potential of such people: they need to be allowed to throw out accumulated emotions. In this case, after some time (five to ten minutes) they sharply soften, or even begin to apologize.

2. “Complainers” are typical provocateurs of conflicts. They tend to see personal insults in anything and complain about this to all authorities. They usually describe their “troubles” so colorfully that listeners who don’t know them often form an opinion in their favor. “Complainers” want to be given a lot of attention, to be listened to in a calm environment and certainly while sitting down. You cannot agree with them or prove them wrong. It is better to ask them to summarize everything in their own words or in writing and let them know that their feelings are noticed.

3. “Indecisive” people themselves do not directly give rise to conflict, but create favorable soil for it and provoke others to conflict actions. There are two types of “indecisive”: “analysts” are reinsurers who are afraid to make the slightest mistake, and “good-natured” people are people who never speak out for fear of making enemies. With their indecisiveness, they irritate those around them, so their work rhythm is often disrupted because of them.

Being too cautious, such workers are diligent. As a rule, they avoid those who put pressure on them. Workers of this type need to clearly set the task, determine the deadline for its completion, and also, especially the “goodies,” indicate their responsibilities to suppress or prevent various types of unrest and organizational violations.

4. “Anxious individuals” (“irresponsible”) - people who are suspicious and suspicious. They have reactive, responsive, in their opinion, aggressiveness. Anxiety does not give rise to avoidance of conflict, but to aggression. The best effect on such people is a friendly disposition towards them. You don't need to waste time talking to them. If they feel warmly treated, then their behavior gradually normalizes.

5. “Know-it-alls” (“erudites”) - employees who try to create the impression among others that they know everything, and at the same time constantly mind their own business. They are divided into genuine and “fake” scholars. The judgments of the former in most cases are professionally substantiated, while the latter only try to prove their professionalism in words.

It’s easy to put “fake” scholars in their place, showing their unreasonable pretentiousness and professional incompetence. Genuine scholars are valuable workers, but with their defiant behavior they often create irritation and a feeling of inferiority in those around them. If they get too carried away, then they can be stopped, “sobered up” with specific questions, asking them to make their own constructive suggestions. It should be borne in mind that “erudites” rarely admit their mistakes.

Dealing with each of the considered types of conflict initiators requires the manager to be able to accurately determine the type of employee and use appropriate influence tactics.

Author: Vasily Pavlovich Pugachev, Doctor of Philosophy, Professor, Head of the Department of Personnel Management, Faculty of Public Administration, Moscow State University. Lomonosov.

Source

Read us in a convenient Telegram | Facebook | Instagram | Tags