Conflict reduction exercises. A set of training exercises aimed at resolving and preventing conflicts in the teaching staff Fast corporate role-playing game conflicts
Any conflict can be successfully resolved and, therefore, can end with the least loss for both the cause and the team. Of course, you can wait until it ends by itself. However, the modern leader cannot afford this. The ability to quickly and effectively resolve conflicts is valued by subordinates no less than the professionalism of the leader in other matters. The level of competence of the manager is often shown by whether he can take on the task of resolving conflicts or not.
Effective conflict management is actions that will result in ending the conflict. At the same time, as a result of such actions, new conflict situations should not arise.
One of the options for mastering the conflict at the level of a conflict situation is called subject strategy. What is the essence and logic of this strategy? It is expressed in a simple formula: "If you want to eliminate the conflict, eliminate its subject." Actions to resolve the conflict will be effective when they proceed from an objective psychological mechanism for the development of a conflict situation. The strategy of working with the subject of the conflict is built on this basis.
This strategy has two options. The first option is called “working with the subject before the conflict”, and the second option is called “working with the subject after the start of the conflict”. Briefly, they can be called the “before” option and the “after” option. What is the "before" option? This option is based on The best way to overcome conflict is to prevent it. Therefore, the option of working with the subject before the conflict (“before” option) can also be called "prevention option".
Let's consider this option in more detail, dwelling on those results and consequences that at first seem secondary and insignificant, but in fact can turn a tactical gain into a strategic defeat.
Option "work with the subject before the conflict"
Suppose you are forced to make some managerial decision necessary in the interests of the business. You consider it correct, effective and the only possible one. It is quite clear that your decision, as a result, will lead to the infringement of some interests of some members of the collective (group). In this sense, you should not have any illusions, because there are no decisions that do not infringe on interests. So you should not think about how to make everyone happy and everyone agrees with your decision, you should know exactly whether it will lead to conflict or not.
To determine whether your solution will lead to a conflict or not, you can use simple rule. If the affected interests exceed or are equal to the critical mass of the conflict, then it is inevitable, if not exceeded, then it will not happen.
Use the following instructions to calculate.
1. Calculate how many team members are 23.5%, then count how many team members are 38%, then 61.5% and finally 76%. Round your results down to the nearest integer.
2. Count the number of team members whose material interests can be directly infringed. They may be:
- a) less than 23.5% of all team members;
- b) 23.5% of all team members;
- c) more than 23.5% of all team members.
If you get answers (b) or (c), then conflict is inevitable. If you get response(s), then a conflict may or may not occur. In order to find out if it happens or not, do the following.
3. Count the number of team members whose personal interests can be directly infringed. They may be:
- a) less than 38% of all team members;
- b) 38% of all team members;
- c) more than 38% of all team members.
If you got answers (b) and (c), then conflict is inevitable. If you get response(s), then a conflict may or may not occur. In order to find out if it happens or not, do the following.
4. Count the number of team members whose social interests can be directly infringed. If the resulting number is equal to or greater than 61.5% of the total number of all team members, then conflict is inevitable. If less, then the conflict may or may not occur. Finally, do the same thing by counting the number of team members whose production interests can be directly infringed.
If they exceed or are equal to the critical mass (76%), then the conflict is inevitable, if not, then there will be no conflict in your team. You can safely carry out your decision in life.
If, based on your calculations, a conflict does occur, then your further options for action may be as follows.
- You may withdraw your decision in order to avoid conflict.
- You can change your decision in such a way that the infringement of interests does not exceed the "critical mass of the conflict." This is an option for a compromise.
- You can enforce your decision regardless of the inevitable conflict.
Which option to use in each case is up to you.
In the first case, when working with the subject, you have the opportunity to prevent conflict. On the other hand, you lose the initiative and, although the situation in the team as a whole remains calm, you will nevertheless find yourself in a position where the situation will control you, and not you will control it. You are required to make a decision. You refuse to make a decision. And then the following can happen: either someone else will take the initiative, or you still have to make this decision, but belatedly. In this case, you can lose strategically by preventing conflict.
Consider also this situation, when your solution, being formally correct, is not so effective and is not the only possible one. In that case, you'd be better off giving it up.
Here, too, at first glance, everything is logical. You are forced to make some managerial decision necessary in the interests of the business. You consider it correct, effective and the only possible one in the current situation. You are counting on the support of a part of the team, but you have no illusions about the ideality of your decision. You know that there will be conflict as a result of this decision, and this is the only thing that keeps you from putting it into practice. Therefore, it seems quite logical if you change your decision in such a way that the interests that will be infringed become less than the critical mass of the conflict. In doing so, you will receive a number of indisputable advantages, namely:
- a) do not give up the decision at all, which means you will avoid the negative consequences arising from this, such as loss of initiative, delay, etc.;
- b) get the opportunity to choose one solution from several possible ones. There are always options for solutions, and change is potentially more conflict resolution to a potentially less conflicting one and provides an advantage, which is expressed in the fact that
- c) as a result, you will be able to prevent conflict.
However, in reality, your modified solution may be much less efficient than the original one. It will not lead to conflict, but for the interests of the case, the benefits from it may be minimal. The situation may not improve, and you will need one more, and maybe several management decisions, after that, changed. And again, the situation will control you, and not you will control it. After all, the total amount of your decisions after a while will still exceed the critical mass. So it may not be about conflict prevention, but about postponing it to a later date. And this is the only real result of your actions if, in an attempt to avoid conflict, you do not abandon a potentially conflicting solution, but try to change it.
As you can see, neither the rejection of a potentially conflicting solution, nor changing it even before the conflict appears, which means that the first option for working with the subject (“before” option) is not a panacea. In many cases, it may not lead to the prevention of conflict at all, but only to delay its onset.
The option “working with the subject before the conflict” does not always bring success. But the time you spend on counting the infringed interests will by no means be wasted. If the conflict cannot be prevented, then at least you will know for sure that it will definitely happen. You will know this before it happens. You will be ready for conflict, and it will not come as a surprise to you. If the conflict does occur, then you have at your disposal another option for working with the subject, namely “working with the subject after the conflict has begun”.
Option "work with the subject after the conflict"
It is possible to act according to this option only when the conflict has already begun, but has not yet reached the stage of the incident in its development. This option cannot be used either when there is no conflict yet, or when it is at the incident stage.
There are different ways to end a conflict that has begun. Some leaders do this using forceful methods, methods of pressure and threats. Of course, no one can forbid you in a strict form to demand from your subordinates to “stop the disgrace”. But the conflict, if it has already begun, develops according to its own objective laws, and pressure, the use of force will only spur it on, give it a new impetus, speed up events. In addition, by acting in this way, you will be drawn into the conflict as one of its participants, and all your actions will be perceived by other participants in the conflict in this way.
So it is better to act in accordance with the psychological mechanism of the development of the conflict and eliminate not it, but its cause. Your first task in this case is to detect the conflict situation, to recognize the conflict before it reveals itself as an incident. Once you find it, you can act.
How to act? At first glance, it seems logical and obvious that you can:
- a) change your decision to make it less conflicting, or
- b) reverse your decision, or
- c) do not cancel or change your decision and try to master the conflict using a different strategy.
What here, at first glance, seems attractive? First, it seems that here you have freedom of choice. Secondly, it seems that the first two options are more preferable, because, thirdly, the conflict can be ended. These are the apparent advantages, the virtues of this option of mastering the conflict - the "termination option".
But there are also disadvantages. Leaders are often afraid to reverse or change previously made decisions, because they believe that this may lead to a decline in their authority. What kind of leader is he who today made one decision, and tomorrow another, the opposite?
But that's only apparent flaw. It is the leader who is able to cancel or change the erroneous decision, the decision that led to the conflict, and do it in a timely manner, can count on the support of subordinates. It's not a sign of weakness, it's a sign of strength. Only a strong and confident leader can openly admit his decision is wrong and cancel or change it.
So, in an effort to end the conflict that arose as a result of some managerial decision, you can either change this decision or cancel it. So you choose not from three options for action, but from two. However, you do not have a choice between the two remaining options (either cancel the decision or change it). Reversing a decision is the same as changing it. Changing a decision is the same as canceling it. Why?
In order to change your decision, you must undo the old decision. Even if you don't do it on purpose, it will happen by itself. After all, a new solution to a problem, by the very fact of its birth, cancels the old one. For example, if you decide to set a 20% bonus to your employee's salary, and then change your decision to any other (reduce the bonus, increase the bonus, give someone else a bonus, etc.), then the old decision is automatically canceled , stops working. To change a decision means to cancel it.
On the other hand, to cancel a decision means to change it. Why? There is a problem in your team. You, trying to solve this problem, make a decision. It causes conflict. You, seeking to end the conflict, cancel this decision of yours. But the problem still needs to be solved, and the situation itself will force you to make some other decision. It may happen right away or it may happen after a while, but it will still happen. Therefore, to cancel the decision means to change it.
So the obvious, at first glance, freedom of choice is apparent. In other words, here you have only one option.
It may seem to the manager that by canceling his decision or changing it, he will achieve an end to the conflict caused by this decision. How about really? Not all causes of conflict can be eliminated. You can reverse the decision that caused the conflict, you can change the decision of your deputies. But after all, conflicts arise not only as a result of some managerial actions or decisions of the leader. They may arise as a result of events or circumstances that are beyond your control and over which you cannot influence. For example, if your team does not receive a salary for three months because there is no money in the bank, then you can hardly eliminate this reason. Although, if a conflict arises, the claims of the team in this case will be expressed specifically to you.
So it is not always possible to end the conflict by using the strategy of working with the subject in the “after” variant. It just seems to us that we can always end the conflict by eliminating the cause of its occurrence. However, you can really always end the conflict if it arose as a result of your actions, decisions, orders, orders, etc. Why? Because any leader, almost always, can reverse his decision that caused the conflict. Reverse your decision that violates the critical mass of the conflict and change it - then the conflict will stop. Then it is you who will stop it.
However, before acting, it is necessary to be aware of the possible long-term negative consequences of using the “after” option. The constant use of only this option of mastering the conflict, that is, the “after” option, may, after a while, lead to the fact that the team will no longer obey him, that all his orders will be ignored. Why might this happen? Because the Pareto principle works here.
The Pareto principle or, as it is called otherwise, the principle of distribution, is well known in management theory. It is expressed in a ratio of 2:8 (20% : 80%). This means that everything that happens in a collective (group) tends to be distributed in this proportion. It has been observed that we spend 80% of our working time doing 20% of the work, and we do the remaining 80% of the work in the remaining 20% of the time. Another example is that 20% of the team members do 80% of the work, and 80% of the team members do 20% of the work.
By changing the decision that caused the conflict, and having achieved your goal, you, with your new decision, seem to redistribute the load among team members. If this does not happen often, then this is quite acceptable, of course, within reasonable limits. But, if this is repeated over and over again, repeatedly for a long time, then your team, of course, will be free from conflicts, but after a while a situation will arise when the most efficient part of the team will refuse to support you. And if we take into account that the so-called "scandalists" in any case do not particularly support the leader, then overall result easy to imagine. It's just that both of them will stop supporting you. And this is a typical situation of confrontation between the team and the leader.
This situation is not inevitable. It is quite possible only if, in trying to master the conflict, you will always use only the strategy of working with the subject in both its variants, both in the “before” and in the “after” version. By preventing or stopping the conflict, you can pay for it by getting the situation that we have just described. It can become a distant negative consequence of your actions. And the reason for its occurrence will lie precisely in your actions, and not in the actions of the so-called "scandals". Here, only you are responsible for the current situation. On the other hand, only you can avoid this possible situation. How? You will be able to avoid it if in your actions to overcome conflicts you will not be limited only and exclusively by the strategy of working with the subject. So it shouldn't be completely abandoned. It is necessary and can be used. And so that you can do it accurately, use the instructions below.
Instruction "How to master the conflict, using the strategy of working with the subject"
Please strictly follow the procedure. Each subsequent action (step) cannot be done without going through all the previous steps.
Step 1. Determine if you can use this particular strategy in your case. Answer "yes" or "no" to two questions:
- Is it true that you do not yet have a conflict situation (it has recently begun)?
- Is it true that you can influence the subject of the conflict (cancel or change it)?
If you answered yes to both questions, then you can use this strategy. If you answered “no” to at least one question or both questions, then this strategy cannot be used.
Step 2. Determine the variant of the “working with the subject” strategy that you should use in your situation. To do this, choose one of the two answers to the following question:
Has there been conflict in your team?
- a) no, the conflict has not yet begun, but it seems to me that as a result of my decision or other managerial action, it may occur;
- b) it is already happening.
If your answer is "a", then you should only proceed with the "before" option (the conflict avoidance option). If your answer is “b”, then you can proceed with the “after” option (termination option).
The complete filter looks like this:
Calm, non-conflict nature, the ability to smooth out conflicts, calm an angry husband. Not a brawler, not a habalka, not harboring evil, not vindictive, not vile.
Let's start with calm, non-confrontational nature.
It is unlikely that anyone wants to live with a hysterical, brawler, grumpy woman, for whom conflict is a normal, and sometimes the only form of communication with others.
How to reveal it? It is clear that while there is an acute phase of “love” between you (hormonal intoxication or a demo version), a woman will not show you her scandalousness, but will carefully hide it. Therefore, watch how a woman communicates with others: relatives, colleagues, friends. That is, with people for whom there are no sharp positive feelings. Does she scream, is she bold, does she make sharp jokes? Or does he speak calmly, with a smile, softly and kindly?
How does she react to minor conflict situations(pushed into public transport, stepped on the foot, said something negative in the queue, etc.). A calm, non-conflict person simply will not pay attention to such trifles. He will think “Well, you are a fool (k)” and will go on without saying a word. Or make it all a joke (even better). The brawler will immediately get involved in a conflict, start yelling, cursing, and sometimes fighting. Brawls involving women in transport or in lines are not at all uncommon. You can safely project the behavior of a woman onto yourself: this is how she will behave with you at the slightest conflict, when the hormonal frenzy or the demo mode ends.
Watch how she communicates with the attendants (or servants, if any). Are sellers rude to waiters, taxi drivers, maids in hotels? Often women try to demonstrate their power in this way, to show "I'm taller than you." We understand that this is nothing more than lack of culture and cheap show-offs. And ill-bred women do not know this. And thus they give themselves away with their heads.
Especially pay attention to how a woman reacts to your comments, reasonable demands, and to those moments when you indicate your rules. Adequate woman takes it calmly. Takes note of comments and requirements and follows them. If something is not clear, she calmly asks what she should do in a given situation. The brawler does not tolerate any comments. Even if she is in a state of “love” (hormonal intoxication or a demo version), then a “breakdown of the dielectric” is quite possible, as a result of which a tub of slop will pour out on you. Yes, remarks and demands often force women to take off the mask of a loving kind person and show their true, scandalous and conflicting face.
See how a woman communicates in in social networks. It often happens that in real world people behave calmly, respectably, because they are afraid of condemnation, an aggressive response. At the same time, the same people on the Internet communicate rudely, with scandals, obscenities. Being in the illusion of anonymity and security, the brawlers take off their peace-loving masks and behave in a natural way. So compare how she talks to you and how she behaves in the comments. Note that smarter people, even on social media, behave differently depending on where they post or comment. On their page, they are cultured girls. But as soon as they move to some neutral groups, a stream of obscenities, dirt, and insults begins. This is especially evident in women's forums, publics. On her page, she is modest and faithful, a candidate for an ideal wife. And on the forums he boasts of a bunch of sexual partners, depraved behavior, manipulating men and other things like that. Or brawls with men in men's groups. On his own page, he posts texts about the right wife, and in public he scoffs at the “sluts” who have been faithful to one man all their lives and insults the “goats” who want a faithful, obedient wife and a healthy family. In a word, she behaves like a cheeky girl, and not like a decent wife. The same applies to communication with girlfriends (in front of whom there is also no need to put on the mask of a decent woman). Sometimes I met such that on a woman’s page everything is “like in a theater”, but as soon as you go to the pages of her close friends, you find obscene comments from this very woman. Greasy memories under some club pictures, swearing at former partners, dirty discussion of current ones. They don’t even go to PM - they discuss it in the comments, they are not ashamed. Therefore, it is better to compare the behavior of a woman in different places on the Internet.
We remember that not only an attack (scandal and screaming) can be a form of conflict, but also a backlash - a deaf silence, resentment, tears, departures, disappearances, ignore. Both of these forms are equally bad for relationships. It is impossible to live with a lady who is constantly in a state of silent resentment.
Watch how the parents and other close relatives of the woman communicate with each other. If a scandal or a protracted, tense conflict (sawing) is the norm in a woman’s family, then it is likely that a woman will behave the same way with you, taking patterns of family behavior from her mother. If the mother saws the father, then the daughter is most likely a "chainsaw" too. Or another option, the opposite.
I knew one woman whose family scandals were the norm. My mother didn't know how to talk at all. She raised any question in the form of yelling and swearing. For example, if she complained that the plinth fell off, she did not calmly say to her husband "Sing, the plinth fell off." She immediately started yelling: “Do you have eyes in your ass, or what?! Can’t you see that the plinth has fallen off? !!" And so constantly, literally on every issue. Many times a day. So her daughter, my friend, whom I started talking about, had a character that people say about "a dusty bag from around the corner, knocked down." She was completely immersed in herself, as if renounced from the world. Which, however, is understandable: living in such a family, either you go to a psychiatric hospital, or you step back from reality and plunge into your own world. The bad thing is that she practically did not leave this world and no constructive dialogue was possible. Any comments, rules just hung in silence.
If in the family, on the contrary, all issues are resolved calmly and thoroughly, then this is a good sign.
Ability to smooth out conflicts and calm an angry husband is also very important. This is how nature created us, that a man is adapted for battle, and a woman for a family hearth, where a man after this battle returns to rest and lick his wounds. Often problems outside the home are serious, and therefore the husband may well come home angry. It is for this that the skill of a woman is required to extinguish conflicts and calm a man. Women have unusually well developed emotional intelligence and speech, and therefore she has many ways to calm an angry husband in reserve. However, for women inexperienced in this matter, I conducted two webinars: “How to put out conflicts and a man’s temper” and “How to put up with a man.” Look for both on the channel "To be a woman. To be with a man".
If a woman does not know how to extinguish conflicts, this is bad. It is doubly bad if she inflames them even more, poking fun at the worries and problems of a man, reproaching him:
The husband was reprimanded, and the wife scolded him and called him a fool.
Due to the crisis, my husband’s income in business fell, and his wife gave a lecture on the topic “Why do all normal men earn decent money, but I have to live with a loser ?!”
The husband noticed that there were dusty window sills in the house and made a remark to his wife. She, instead of taking a rag and wiping it, and henceforth avoiding mistakes, began to swear.
How to identify this feature? It's as simple as that: watch how she treats you when you're angry. Does he try to calm you down, somehow smooth the tension?
As in the previous paragraph, it is very important here how a woman reacts to your comments. Calm or conflict? I remind you that silence, resentment, ignore - this is also a variant of the conflict. Even if your remark is unfair, a normal woman will first calm the man, and only then, to a calm person, will she say that the remark is unfair. A stupid woman will immediately rush into battle against an angry man - with a predictable result in the form of an unfolded scandal with all its consequences.
Here, too, I advise you to look at the family where the woman came from. Does the mother smooth over the father's anger, or, on the contrary, add fuel to the fire?
Not a hack. In one fairy tale, a scandalous heroine was punished by a sorceress in such a way that when she began to swear, disgusting toads jumped out of her mouth instead of words. In order not to fall into such a woman, pay attention to her vocabulary and behavior in conflict. How does she react to conflicts? Starts cursing like a shoemaker, waving his arms and rushing into a fight? Or calmly and judiciously trying to solve it?
Not harboring evil, not vindictive, not vile. Living with a vile, vindictive woman is a disaster. And here the risk is not only to get an unnecessary conflict. Here the danger is already physical: starting from the fact that they will set a combat reindeer on you with a pipe or a knife and ending with a false denunciation of rape. In a less traumatic, but also fierce version: breaking windows, smearing doors with feces, puncturing car tires or scratching. All this was told to me (boasted!) by ladies aged 20 to 70 (!!!) years old! The latter was just breaking the windows of her ex-husband and smearing the door with feces. So we see that any age is submissive to a vile, evil character.
How to identify? Very difficult. Personally, I avoid secretive, silent people. You never know what's on their minds. Even an ordinary brawler, who with a single impulse dumps all the garbage accumulated in her on you, is much better than a silent and vindictive person. In my book Man and Woman: War or Peace? I described this type of women in the chapter "Muddy". She can hate you fiercely and be silent at the same time. And strike not in the form of verbal discontent, but in the form of a set-up, a mean trick. Therefore, I try to deal only with those people who directly say what they do not like, and resolve conflicts as they come and in an adequate form. And they do not accumulate them to the state of bestial hatred for you, in order to later cause physical harm to you, your freedom, your property.
It happens that women themselves boast about how they deftly took revenge on their previous man. Sometimes this can be fished out of them in the process of communication. It is clear that it is better not to have anything to do with such people at all.
You can ask about a woman from mutual acquaintances, colleagues. They may know something about such tricks of the lady.
Pay attention to the little things: is a woman capable of meanness and revenge on trifles. Pay attention to how a woman behaves during a conflict: decides everything on the spot or harbors evil. Does she tend to harm other people on the sly: friends, colleagues?
Here are two stories about how men had relationships with scandalous women (the texts are in the author's edition).
First story:
I was kind and gentle with my BZ. He helped her as far as possible, both financially and realistically (any business), but she does not respect everything.
I talked to her about this. He warned me not to talk to me in such a tone, not to be rude. But all in vain, all conversations and persuasions worked for 3-5 days, then all over again. Whether I was too soft, or she is like that, I can’t understand.
I caught myself thinking that I did not feel like a man with her. In the sense that I'm somehow insecure with her. In my life I am harsh in my statements about other people, but with her I tried to restrain myself so as not to say something superfluous or hurt. Not infrequently, there was an irresistible desire to say “are you crazy, madam?”, But he was silent simply because he was afraid of resentment and parting.
Generally strange. It seemed to me that a woman should somehow inspire, cheer up for “deeds”, like a kind of banner or banner, but in reality it turned out that not only did I struggle with my “innate” insecurity, but also her pressure on me was like kind of test. I felt constantly tested for lice. A permanent attempt to invert dominance. And it stressed me out. I thought: "Is it really impossible to just live quietly together and give each other happiness? Why do I constantly have to prove to her that I'm a MAN and that I won't bend?" In a word, tired.
The last straw was that at one event where I helped her, she again began to speak in an imperative tone and criticize what I was doing. Although I did it because she needed it. I spent my time, my day off, to help her prepare for the event, but instead of thanks I received humiliation. That's how I felt her reproaches - like humiliation. This humiliated me both in my own eyes and in the eyes of the people who were there. A little later, I left without waiting for the end of the event. It was on Saturday. Today, on Monday, I found out that she was tired of "it". She does not like that I am offended by the words spoken by her.
Second story:
I am 37. She is 29. Single mother. The child is 6 years old. We met three years ago. The first year, she herself sought me out. Then, when I began to have feelings for her, scandals and quarrels began. Several times she left and returned. They lived together for about six months. A year ago, she went back to her mother. Didn't like not paying attention. Year of guest relations.
In April, he proposed to her as best he could. Haven't received any reply as of yet.
This summer we went on vacation to St. Petersburg - I, she, my child from my first marriage, her child. The difference in children is 4 years. Mine is older.
Fights arose between the boys, but this is normal communication, because after five minutes they were friends again as if nothing had happened. However, it offended her very much that mine is older, does not make concessions to her little son stronger. If the three of us with the boys, then everything is fine. If she appears, then immediately quarrels, scandals, both among the boys and with us.
Last week, via SMS, I finally received answers from her (it took a whole day for her lengthy answers to become specific), she will not live with me, she will not move from her mother to me.
Last Saturday, I gave her the phone number of the speech therapist she needs for her child. Instead of gratitude, she dumped a lot of dirt on me that I cheated on her during the three years of our relationship. I asked her to trust her friends less, because she was my choice and I didn’t run after other skirts. The mud has intensified. Up to the point that I apparently even slept with this teacher - a speech therapist. I stopped talking to her.
To be continued. Already released parts can be searched,
The second variant of the outcome is "smoothing", when one of the parties either justifies itself or agrees with the claim, but "only for this minute". Self-justification does not completely solve the conflict and can even aggravate it, since the internal, mental contradiction is affirmed in its status of "to be". Agreeing with a conflicting opinion certainly implies partial or external agreement, depending on the complexity and depth of the conflict that has arisen. This outcome of the conflict is expressed in the fact that the "accused" at the moment is simply trying to calm the partner, remove his emotional arousal. The “accused” in streamlined terms declares that there is no particular reason for a quarrel, he thinks and is almost sure that he was misunderstood. This does not mean that he took note of the essence of the claims, even somehow realized the subject of the conflict. Just "for now and now" he showed loyalty, demonstrated humility, consent. It is possible that after some time his “maneuver” will be revealed and the partner will be indignant that he was “promised, but again the same thing ...”
It is also impossible to use the technique of smoothing as a generalized consent of the accused with the initiator of the conflict. Most often, this form of behavior occurs if the contradictions that arose as private discontent have turned into a generalized assessment of relations. For example, one of the spouses tells the other that the Ivanov spouses have difficulties in relationships due to the patriarchal nature of the husband's ideas. The day before, the narrator also discovered "patriarchal behavior" - he forbade his wife to go on a business trip. In the situation of the story, the wife remembered this and said: “What can I say about Ivanov, how did you behave yourself yesterday ?! You men are all the same, fair only in relation to others, but everyone behaves unambiguously - patriarchally, if it concerns him personally! The husband, feeling the complication of his own relationship, suddenly agrees with his wife: “I’m probably wrong and you really should go, since you have the right to dispose of your
her freedom as you see fit. "The conflict seems to be resolved, at least purely outwardly. But can there be an internal change in the husband's way of thinking?! strict guarantees and concrete actions.
Smoothing tactics are bad because they can undermine the partner's trust. After all, if after a while he discovers that his words had no effect, that the partner simply promised, but does not keep his word, then the next time any assurance will be accepted with fear and distrust.
The outcome of “smoothing” is most often used by the “interlocutor”, since any, even the most “bad, unstable world”, is preferable to him than the most “beautiful victory”, rivalry. Of course, this does not mean that the "interlocutor" cannot use the technique of "coercion" in order to maintain the relationship. But with him this pressure is most often used not to deepen contradictions, but to eliminate them. Meanwhile, most of all, this type of personality is characterized by the “smoothing” of tension in relationships.
Smoothing is characterized by communicative behavior, for example, in a production environment. In response to a remark made by a colleague about a loud conversation on the phone, he says: “I'm sorry, but my subscriber can't hear something and that's why I scream so loudly into the phone. How imperfect are modern machines? Yes, and we really get so tired at work that any increase in voice annoys us. I understand you well. We need to be more careful with each other. Here in the morning on transport ... ”, etc., etc., up to the complete calm of a colleague. With this outcome, the “accused” tries to give the initiator an opportunity to emotionally discharge, to speak out.
In the family and household sphere, such an outcome proceeds as follows. The initiator accused the partner of not going to the grocery store, but now he is sitting and watching TV. The defendant smooths out the conflict with such phrases: “Darling, you are certainly right, but the conflict that occurred at our place of work unsettled me. I still remember that walking past the store, something stirred in my memory, but this incident at work was so unusual for all of us. ". The husband tried to justify his forgetfulness with such an explanation. And if his explanation was convincing, the initiator must accept the partner's position, justifying this case as a special one. Of course, smoothing cannot endlessly save the situation, but occasionally and on more than one occasion, it allows you to relieve tension in relationships.
Psychology conflict
3. outcomes conflict situations .
Conflicts are born everywhere: at home, at work, on the street. Knowing how to resolve conflicts and how to deal with them and get out of conflict in good mood will help you raise the quality of your life, at the same time your nerves will be in order. When conflict arises, remember that there are always two involved. Regardless of the number of participants, both sides are to blame.
Conflicts are born everywhere: at home, at work, on the street. Knowledge, how to resolve conflicts and how to deal with them and get out of the conflict in a good mood will help you improve the quality of your life, and at the same time your nerves will be in order.
When conflict arises
If there is a conflict, you need to remember that there are always two involved. And regardless of the number of participants, both sides are to blame. Even if it seems to you that the other side is completely wrong, you will have to believe that the one who subconsciously desires this is always drawn into the conflict.
So, if you still failed to make sure that an ordinary dispute does not escalate into a conflict, then let's Let's try to resolve the conflict:
1. Take the first step
The more stubborn is the one who is more stubborn. Quarrels, screams, negative emotions - all this destroys you and your interlocutor, all the more it destroys on a physical level, destroying nervous system not to mention psychological level. If a person screams, it is always only out of fear. This cannot be stopped unless one of the parties takes the first step. Do it you. In no case will this mean that you are weaker or have given in. On the contrary, it will show how strong you are and strive for self-control. A strong person cannot be pissed off, there is nothing to hook him on, because he is confident in himself. But this confidence, it is not born out of nothing, it can be learned and developed just in such situations, in practice.
2. Stop blaming
When you're trying to smooth over a conflict, don't get personal. Even if you decide to reconcile, even if you lower your tone, but still continue to communicate in a negative way, the conflict will not resolve it. First of all, focus on good qualities your partner/spouse/interlocutor. Tell him about it, it always instantly resets the negative. But remember that this should not be flattery, but sincere thoughts about the other person. Surely you have a couple of thoughts on what you like the interlocutor. Share it and stop accusing a person of all mortal sins. The best tactic is as follows: lowering the tone - wanting to get out of the conflict and publicly announcing this - a compliment to the opponent (it turns out that he is not so bad) - explaining his feelings.
You must understand the difference between explaining your feelings and making claims. The latter are always spoken in a negative way with notes of accusations against the other. When you share your feelings, you are trying to explain to the other what he cannot understand. But in a state of non-conflict, you will be heard. When a conflict occurs, everyone hears only himself, and when people go to meet each other, they express a desire to understand the other.
3. Sorry
It happens that you were heard, understood, accepted, asked for forgiveness for a mistake. And you felt inner relief that you got out of the conflict. But take one more step for conflict resolution- Ask for forgiveness. It doesn’t matter who was initially to blame, you took part in a quarrel, which means that in any case you spoiled the other’s nerves. Sorry about that. You will get rid of a large negative load and put a bullet in the problem, and the relationship will only benefit from this. If it so happened that it was you who was the culprit of the conflict and decided to apologize, and the other did not respond with an apology in response, then do not worry about it. They just aren't ready yet.
Remember that all our problems are due to our own fears and self-doubt, which, by the way, can be easily overcome, and not because everyone around is evil.
When you find yourself embroiled in a conflict, it is very difficult to control yourself. Emotions can run high, especially if you've never learned to manage them. But ask yourself the question: what is more important to me - to prove my case or to maintain a relationship? There is no need to pretend to be a victim and smooth out the problem by infringing on one's rights, but there is no need to infringe on the rights of another. Get out of the conflict with dignity, understanding for yourself something new from resolved conflict. After all, that's what conflicts are for.
Uncertain, confident and aggressive responses.
Purpose of the exercise: formation of adequate reactions in various situations;
The exercise takes 40-50 minutes.
Each participant is invited to demonstrate in a given situation uncertain, confident and aggressive types of responses.
The following situations can be suggested:
A friend is talking to you and you want to leave.
Your friend arranged for you to meet a stranger without warning you.
People sitting behind you in a movie theater disturb you by talking loudly.
Your neighbor distracts you from an interesting presentation by asking stupid, in your opinion, questions.
The teacher says your hairstyle doesn't match appearance student.
A friend asks you to lend him some of your expensive thing, and you consider him a person who is not neat, not entirely responsible.
Only one situation is used for each participant. You can act out these situations in pairs.
Discussion:
The group should discuss each participant's response.
Was this exercise difficult?
Have you had similar situations? How did you behave?
Role-playing game "Smoothing conflicts".
Purpose of the exercise: development of skills and abilities to smooth out conflicts.
The facilitator talks about the importance of such skills as the ability to quickly and effectively smooth out conflicts; announces that now it is worth trying to find out the main methods of conflict resolution empirically.
Participants are divided into threes. For 5 minutes, each trio comes up with a scenario in which two participants represent the conflicting parties (for example, quarreling spouses), and the third plays a peacemaker.
Discussion:
What conflict resolution techniques have been demonstrated?
What, in your opinion, interesting finds did the participants use during the game?
How should those participants who failed to smooth out the conflict should behave?
"Behavior in Conflict".
Purpose of the exercise: to form a concept about the types of behavior in conflict; learn to choose adequate styles of behavior in conflict in the behavioral system of interpersonal interaction.
The facilitator divides all participants into five groups, in each group its representative is selected, to whom the facilitator gives one of five cards with the name of a certain style of behavior in conflict with the corresponding motto:
Style "Competition":"For me to win, you have to lose."
Fixture style:"For you to win, I must lose."
Style "Compromise":"For each of us to win something, each of us must lose something."
Style "Cooperation":"For me to win, you have to win too."
Avoidance style:"I don't care if you win or lose, but I know I'm not taking part in this."
Each group discusses and prepares a skit in which the proposed type of behavior in the conflict is demonstrated.
Discussion:
How did this type of behavior in conflict affect emotional condition, on the feelings of its participants?
Could other behaviors in this situation have been more helpful to the participants?
What makes people choose one or another style of behavior in conflict?
What style is the most constructive for human relationships?
"Decent answer."
Purpose of the exercise: developing the skill of a constructive way out of conflict situations.
All participants sit in a circle. Everyone receives a card from the host, which contains some remark about the appearance or behavior of one of the participants.
All participants take turns pronouncing the phrase written on the card, looking into the eyes of the neighbor on the right, whose task is to adequately respond to this “attack”. Then the responding participant turns to his neighbor on the right and reads out the phrase from his card. When everyone completes the task, that is, they visit both as an “attacker” and as a “victim”, the exercise ends and a discussion takes place.
Discussion:
Was the task easy to complete?
Have you taken to heart an unflattering remark about yourself?
As a rule, listeners say that they were not moved by rude statements, because they did not perceive them as directed specifically against themselves. Then everyone offers various options for a constructive search, which will help in real life conditions to perceive negative information from communication partners in the same way.
2. You never help anyone.
3. When I meet you, I want to cross the street.
4. You don't know how to dress well.
5. You are not allowed to have any business relationship.